28–409 PDF 

Calendar No. 504 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 109–274 

ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2007 

JUNE 29, 2006.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 5427] 

The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the bill 

(H.R. 5427) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other 

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

an amendment to the title, and recommends that the bill as 

amended do pass. 

Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2007 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $31,238,000,000 

Amount of 2006 appropriations ............................... 1 37,299,714,000 

Amount of 2007 budget estimate ............................ 29,980,227,000 

Amount of House allowance .................................... 30,526,000,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2006 appropriations .......................................... ¥6,061,714,000 

2007 budget estimate ........................................ ∂1,257,773,000 

House allowance ................................................ ∂712,000,000 1 Includes Emergency Appropriations of $6,600,473,000. 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

Title I: 

Department of Defense—Civil: Department of the Army: 

Corps of Engineers—Civil: 

General Investigations ....................................................................... 24 

Construction, General ........................................................................ 44 

Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries ........................... 64 

Operation and Maintenance, General .............................................. 67 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .......................................... 89 

Regulatory Program ........................................................................... 89 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ......................... 90 

General Expenses ............................................................................... 91 

General Provisions—Corps of Engineers—Civil .............................. 94 

Title II: 

Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project Completion Account .............................................. 97 

Bureau of Reclamation: 

Water and Related Resources ........................................................... 97 

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

California Bay-Delta Restoration ...................................................... 110 

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

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

Title III: 

Department of Energy: 

Energy Supply and Conservation ............................................................ 114 

Office of Electricity Delivery Energy Reliability ............................. 122 

Nuclear Energy Programs ................................................................. 123 

Environment, Safety, and Health ..................................................... 128 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ....................................... 129 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ........................................ 131 

Elk Hills School Lands Fund ............................................................ 132 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve ............................................................. 132 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve .............................................. 132 

Energy Information Administration ................................................. 132 

Non-defense Environmental Cleanup ...................................................... 133 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund .. 133 

Science ........................................................................................................ 134 

High Energy Physics .......................................................................... 135 

Nuclear Physics .................................................................................. 138 

Biological and Environmental Research .......................................... 138 

Basic Energy Sciences ....................................................................... 140 

Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund .................................................................. 143 

Departmental Administration .................................................................. 144 

Office of Inspector General ....................................................................... 145 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons Activities ...................................................................... 145 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................. 157 

Naval Reactors ............................................................................ 160 

Office of the Administrator ........................................................ 161 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities: 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ...................................................... 162 

Other Defense Activities .................................................................... 167 
Page

3 

Title III—Continued 

Department of Energy—Continued 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities—Continued 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ...................................................... 168 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ....................................................................................... 168 

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ....................................................................................... 169 

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, 

Western Area Power Administration ..................................... 169 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and Expenses .. 170 

General Provisions—Department of Energy ........................................... 195 

Title IV: 

Independent Agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission .......................................................... 197 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ................................................. 198 

Delta Regional Authority .......................................................................... 198 

Denali Commission ................................................................................... 198 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............................................................. 198 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................ 199 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board .................................................. 200 

Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the Inspector General ................. 200 

Title V: General Provisions ..................................................................................... 201 

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

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

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

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

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 203 

Budgetary Impact Statement ................................................................................. 212 
(4) 

PURPOSE 

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

year 2007 beginning October 1, 2006, and ending September 30, 

2007, 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 2007 budget estimates for the bill total 

$31,238,000,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The recommendation of the Committee totals $31,238,000,000. This is 

$1,257,773,000 above the budget estimates and $6,061,714,000 

under the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year. 

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held 

four sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2007 appropriation 

bill. Witnesses included officials and representatives of the Federal 

agencies under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

The subcommittee received numerous statements and letters 

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

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

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

2007 therefore, have been developed after careful consideration of 

available data. 

VOTES IN THE COMMITTEE

By a vote of 28 to 0 the Committee on June 29, 2006, recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the Senate. 
(5) 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

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 
6 

—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. 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET OVERVIEW

The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Corps of Engineers is composed of $4,733,000,000 in new budgetary authority. The Committee recommends a total of $5,139,430,000 for the 

Corps of Engineers, a decrease of $189,740,000 from fiscal year 

2006 enacted levels (adjusted for emergency spending of 

$6,600,473,000). The Committee recommendation is $406,430,000 

above the request. The Committee recommendation provides for a 

robust planning program as well as providing increases to the construction and operation and maintenance accounts. Unfortunately, 

even with this increase the Committee recommendation falls short 

of what is actually needed to provide efficient levels of funding for 

all on-going work. 

The budget request was again prepared using performance based 

budgeting. The budget for the construction account allocates funds 

based on the following seven performance-based guidelines, redirecting funds to high-performing projects and limiting new construction starts. In summary, the guidelines dictate that: 

—All ongoing, specifically authorized construction projects, including projects funded in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account, are assigned based upon their primary purpose 

to one of the main mission areas of the Corps (flood and storm 

damage reduction; commercial navigation; aquatic ecosystem 

restoration [AER]) or to hydropower. Projects, except AER 

projects, are ranked by their remaining benefits divided by 

their remaining costs [RBRC], calculated at a 7 percent discount rate. AER projects will be ranked by the extent to which 

they cost effectively contribute to the restoration of a nationally or regionally significant aquatic ecosystem that has become degraded as a result of a civil works project, or to a restoration effort for which the Corps is otherwise uniquely wellsuited (e.g., because the solution requires complex alterations 

to the hydrology and hydraulics of a river system). 

—Each project with an RBRC of 3.0 or greater and each AER 

project that cost-effectively contributes to the restoration of a 

nationally or regionally significant aquatic ecosystem that has 
7 

become degraded as a result of a civil works project, or to a 

restoration effort for which the Corps is uniquely well-suited, 

that can be completed in the budget year, received, the balance 

of funding needed to complete construction and related administrative activities. 

—The projects with the highest RBRCs or the most cost effective 

AER projects received not less than 80 percent of the maximum level of funding that the Corps can spend efficiently in 

each fiscal year. 

—All ongoing flood and storm damage reduction, commercial 

navigation, and hydropower construction projects that have 

RBRCs below 3.0, except those projects that are funded in the 

budget to address significant risk to human safety, and all ongoing AER projects that do not cost-effectively contribute to the 

restoration of a nationally or regionally significant aquatic ecosystem that has become degraded as a result of a civil works 

project, and do not address a problem for which the Corps is 

otherwise uniquely well-suited, and are less than 50 percent 

complete will be considered for deferral. Where a project considered for deferral was previously budgeted, the budget includes funding to cover the cost of terminating or completing 

each ongoing contract, whichever is less. Any savings from 

project suspensions will be used to accelerate the projects with 

the highest returns. 

—New construction projects and resumptions to ongoing construction projects on which the Corps has not performed any 

physical work under a construction contract during the past 3 

consecutive fiscal years, must be ranked in the top 20 percent 

of the ongoing construction projects in its mission area to be 

considered. 

—Flood and storm damage reduction projects that are funded in 

the budget to address significant risk to human safety, which 

will receive at least the funding needed to pay contractor earnings and related costs. All other ongoing construction projects 

will receive not more than the amount needed to meet earnings 

permitted under ongoing multi-year contracts and related 

costs. Dam safety assurance, seepage control, and static instability correction projects received the maximum level of construction funding that the Corps can spend efficiently. Construction projects received the amount needed to ensure that 

they comply with treaties and with biological opinions pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, and meet authorized mitigation requirements. 

—10 percent of the funding available for construction may be allocated to ongoing construction projects regardless of the guidelines above but not to start up or resume any project. 

The Budget proposes that the administration and the Congress 

apply these guidelines to the Corps construction account and to the 

construction activities in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account. 

The Committee has watched with interest over the last 3 years 

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

Unfortunately, the Committee does not see improvement in the 

budgeting of the Nation’s Civil Works infrastructure program. In 
8 

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 budget ignores infrastructure 

maintenance requirements that are costing this country business, 

investment, jobs, income, and tax receipts. The current method of 

performance based budgeting utilized in this budget preparation 

leads the Nation to turn away infrastructure investments that return two and even three times their cost. 

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, 

their priority projects are then inserted within these targets and 

the remaining funds are available for the remaining needs that 

meet the criteria for lower priority projects. The problem with 

budgeting in this manner is evident in the construction account for 

fiscal year 2007. Ten priority projects consume more than 40 percent of the requested dollars in this account. That means that some 

75 projects have to split the remaining construction dollars. 

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

administration for construction; this year there are only about 85. 

However, Congress funded more than 300 projects in fiscal year 

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

Budgetary criteria established for the fiscal year 2007 budget required that eight projects that were budgeted in fiscal year 2006 

could not be budgeted in fiscal year 2007. These projects were 

scheduled for termination or suspension. These termination/suspension projects are in addition to the more than 30 projects that were 

budgeted in fiscal year 2005, that were recommended for termination or suspension in the fiscal year 2006 budget based on that 

year’s budget criteria. In other words projects aren’t being completed by these budget proposals, they are being terminated or suspended. It has been up to Congress to provide funding for these 

projects. 

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 these projects 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 com-
9 

manders 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 this type of budgeting was that it allowed 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 10–12 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. 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. 

Funding only the ‘‘highest potential return’’ projects to the detriment of many other projects that provide a future vision or address far-reaching problems while not yet showing any BCR data, 

is ‘‘penny wise and pound foolish.’’ These projects add value and 

importance and have a place in the problem solving needs of the 

overall Nation’s water infrastructure. While this budget process 

may have led to a very focused performance-based set of final 

projects to study, design and construct, the metrics used led to a 

very skewed set of results with a few strong regional winners and 

many losers. The RBRC ratios provide a ‘‘snapshot’’ view of a 

project. It tells one nothing of the overall value of one project to 

another. Projects in rural areas with fewer beneficiaries will never 

compete effectively. Does that mean that homes, property and lives 

in these less urbanized areas are worth less? It would certainly appear so from the budget criteria. 

The Congress will likely consider the passage of a water resources development bill this year. In this bill the benefit to cost 

ratio necessary for a project to be authorized for construction is 1.0 

to 1. The criteria mentioned above requires remaining benefits to 

remaining costs to be 3.0 to 1 for budgeting with very specific exceptions. 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 de-
10 

ferrals 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. Rather it hides the serious underfunding 

that is contained in the budget. 

The Committee believes that an integrated watershed approach, 

much like the current Mississippi River and Tributaries Project 

[MR&T] would be a better model than the aggregated watershed 

approach proposed in the budget. The MR&T system-wide approach was developed after the devastating 1927 Mississippi River 

flood. The project not only integrates all of the operations and 

maintenance of the various completed components, it also integrates studies of new water resource problems and needs and ongoing and new construction activities into a single project. Budgeting for the various components is seamlessly integrated from the 

six District offices and overseen by a single Division office. The 

multitude of project components are comprehensively planned, constructed, and maintained for flood damage reduction, navigation 

and environmental protection/restoration throughout the entire 

mainline Mississippi River Valley. 

The Committee is puzzled by the initiatives 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 under-
11 

taken when they 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. By retaining the ESA compliance measures as a separate line item in the construction category, 

it is much more transparent as to how much is being spent 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 rehabilitations could involve more than a simple rehabbing of the project. 

Operational improvements were considered as a part of the rehab. 

As such, the rehab 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. To 

help fund these rehabs, legislation allowed half the costs of the 

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. This only 

skirts the new start issue. As the inventory of maintenance projects 

ages, more rehabs will be required to maintain the current level of 

service. Only providing additional funding can solve that problem. 

The Committee is disappointed that the administration has included another ‘‘new’’ beach policy. This is only a slight tweak to 

last year’s proposed policy 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 
12 

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– 

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. 

The Committee notes the costs that have been required to recover from the 2005 hurricane season. Had many of these flood 

damage reduction projects been completed, damages would have 

likely been much less severe. The drain on the economy for rebuilding as well as the impact to our citizen’s lives has been unprecedented in modern times. The Committee also notes the unscheduled outages on our Nation’s inland waterway system due to failures of critical equipment. These failures at locks and dams have 

caused serious business disruptions, loss of income and loss of tax 

revenues. Unplanned outages are increasing and unit availability 

of hydropower plants is decreasing requiring replacement of this 

renewable power source with electricity from non-renewable 

sources. Had more funding been provided for maintenance of these 

aging facilities, most of these outages would have been avoided. 

The Committee has also noted the reduced service at our Nation’s multipurpose projects, antiquated recreation facilities, and 

shuttered recreation facilities. While the Committee agrees that 

there are more pressing needs than recreation at Federal projects, 

the Federal Government did provide these facilities and they provide substantial positive regional and national economic as well as 

non-economic benefits. Upkeep of these facilities should not be ignored. Additional user fees—which seems to be the preferred budget mechanism to address this issue—will never provide sufficient 

income to rehabilitate all of these facilities. 

The Committee believes that this is no way to run a robust national infrastructure program. Last year the Committee recommended that the Corps include additional criteria into the 

project prioritization process. It commends the administration for 

having incorporated additional criteria into the fiscal year 2007 

budget. However, the mix of projects is substantially unchanged. 

The Committee does not believe that this prioritization method can 

be salvaged into a useable system and believes the Corps needs to 

scrap its strict adherence to the high RBRCR ‘‘business line’’ budget model. The Committee has seen no evidence that it has improved the budget process. 

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 rehabilitating aging infrastructure, the Nation is not only falling behind our competition 

around the world, but is jeopardizing our future economic growth. 
13 

Budget Justifications 

The Committee is concerned about the manner that budget justifications were prepared for the fiscal year 2007 budget. In the 

past, the Corps provided justification sheets for each project and 

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

fiscal year 2007, a single book of justification sheets was provided 

by business lines. The Committee finds this manner of displaying 

the budget virtually useless 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 

2007 was a giant step backwards. Further, the Committee notes 

that budget justifications were not delivered to the Committee until 

nearly a month after the President’s budget was released. This is 

totally unacceptable, especially in light of the fact that every other 

agency that the Committee oversees managed to present their 

budget justifications on the day that the President’s budget was released. For fiscal year 2008, 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. Further the Committee directs that budget justifications shall be delivered to the Committee no later than the day the President’s budget 

is released. 

Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force Report on Hurricane Katrina 

The Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers created an Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force [IPET] to 

perform an evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana 

hurricane protection system during Hurricane Katrina. This team 

consists of more than 150 government, academic, and private sector 

scientists and engineers who dedicated themselves solely to this 

task for the last 8 months. The draft final report is posted on the 

worldwide web at https://ipet.wes.army.mil. Volume VIII, Risk and 

Reliability is currently under independent technical review and 

should be posted in August 2006. The final report should be posted 

in September 2006. The American Society of Civil Engineers is performing an external peer review of the findings and their draft report will be available in July 2006. This report is not intended as 

a final expression of the findings or conclusions of the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers, nor has it been adopted by the 

Corps as such. Rather, this is a preliminary report summarizing 

data and interim results compiled to date. As a preliminary report, 

this document and the information contained therein are subject to 

revisions and changes as additional information is obtained. 

IPET also is conducting a risk and reliability assessment of the 

entire system to aid in understanding the levels of protection that 

will exist for the future. This methodology will support the Louisiana Comprehensive Protection and Restoration Study due for 

submittal to congress in December 2007. 

There was no evidence of government or contractor negligence or 

malfeasance. The team determined that the system generally was 

built as designed, and design approaches were consistent with local 
14 

engineering practice. However, several factors significantly impacted the system’s performance. Sections of the system were built 

below specified design elevations due to errors made in the vertical 

datum that left decision makers without an accurate understanding of the level of protection. The original design developed 

through use of the Standard Project Hurricane in 1965 and used 

in the late 1980s was not representative of the hurricane hazard 

at the time of the design. The hurricane protection was designed 

and developed in a piecemeal fashion, resulting in inconsistent levels of protection. 

Much has been made by the media of the strength of Hurricane 

Katrina. The Saffer-Simpson Hurricane rating scale is presented 

below. It should be noted that more than one variable defines hurricane strength. 

Type Category 

Pressure Winds Storm Surge 

Feet Millibars Inches Knots MPH 

Tropical Depression ..... TD ........... .......................... ............................. over 34 ........ over 39 ........

Tropical Storm ............. TS ........... .......................... ............................. 34–63 .......... 39–73 ..........

Hurricane ..................... 1 ............. Over 980 .......... over 28.94 ........... 64–82 .......... 74–95 .......... 4–5 

Hurricane ..................... 2 ............. 965–980 .......... 28.5 28.93 .......... 83–95 .......... 96–110 ........ 6–8 

Hurricane ..................... 3 ............. 945–965 .......... 27.91–28.49 ........ 96–112 ........ 111–130 ...... 9–12 

Hurricane ..................... 4 ............. 920–945 .......... 27.17–27.90 ........ 113–134 ...... 131–155 ...... 13–18 

Hurricane ..................... 5 ............. less than 920 .. less than 27.17 .. over 134 ...... over 155 ...... over 18 

Hurricane Katrina was one of the strongest storms to impact the 

coast of the United States during the last 100 years. At landfall, 

sustained winds were 127 mph (a strong Category 3 hurricane, and 

the minimum central pressure was the third lowest on record (920 

mb). Only a couple of hours before landfall at Buras, Louisiana, a 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Buoy located about 50 miles 

east of the mouth of the Mississippi River reported wave heights 

of over 55 feet in the Gulf. At landfall, hurricane wind gusts were 

being experienced more than 125 miles from the center of the 

storm. 

Though wind damage was significant, the legacy of Hurricane 

Katrina will be the horrific storm surge which accompanied the 

storm, appearing to have exceeded 25 feet in some locations in Mississippi where it utterly obliterated entire communities. Even 

though weakening before landfall, several factors contributed to the 

extreme storm surge: (a) the massive size of the storm, (b) the 

strength of the system (Category 5) just prior to landfall, (c) the 

920 mb central pressure at landfall, and (d) the shallow offshore 

waters. The storm generated water levels that for much of the system significantly exceeded the design criteria, particularly in the 

St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes. 

Of the 50 major breaches experienced by the hurricane protection 

system, all but four were due to overtopping and erosion. Those 

four breaches, all in the outfall canals and one in the Inner Harbor 

Navigation Canal, and all involving I-walls, occurred before water 

levels reached the top of the floodwalls. All were caused by foundation failures induced by the formation of a gap along the canal side 

of the floodwall. The combination of factors that led to this failure 

mode was not anticipated to occur at these locations by the levee 

and floodwall designers. The most serious direct impact was the 
15 

high number of deaths. While a large number of people were able 

to evacuate, the groups least likely to be able to so on their own, 

the poor, elderly, and disabled, were hardest hit. Direct property 

losses were over $20,000,000,000; approximately 78 percent are attributed to residential losses. 

The findings indicate projects need resilience, an ability to withstand forces and conditions beyond those intended or estimated in 

design without catastrophic failure. This includes recognizing risk 

always exists and flood reduction projects need appropriate emergency preparedness and response. The planning and design of flood 

damage reduction projects should be based on a system-wide performance to manage a piecemeal development of a project. A riskbased planning and design approach would provide a more viable 

capability to inform decisions on complex infrastructure where it is 

described in consistent terms to include uncertainty. Lastly, continued investment in effort and resources is needed to update design 

criteria and planning capabilities to keep pace with fast changing 

technology. 

The Committee recognizes that this disaster recovery is an unprecedented undertaking, and the Committee commends the Corps 

for the astonishing amount of progress made since the hurricanes 

struck the area. However, the Committee has noted that sponsors 

and stakeholders in southeast Louisiana are very concerned about 

the seeming lack of a cogent, comprehensive, consistent plan for 

the execution of work funded in the region and the lack of consistent communications and coordination with their elected leaders 

in the area. The Committee has noted the fact that different information comes from different places within the Corps, doesn’t seem 

coordinated, and seems to change almost daily—providing a confusing environment for resolving these difficult issues. The Committee directs the Corps to restructure its disaster recovery missions to report to the Chief so that consistent information is provided to State and Federal agencies, the public and the Congress. 

The Committee has been briefed on the interim Louisiana Coastal Restoration and Protection Plan and looks forward to the final 

recommendations for the next steps in improving coastal storm defenses. 

Based on the briefing, the Committee emphasizes that the Chief 

has been directed to conduct an analysis and design, not a traditional study, developing and presenting a full range of protection 

measures exclusive of normal policy considerations. The Committee 

expects information based on the Corps’ expertise in a timely manner and unfiltered by policy goals of the administration. Furthermore, the Committee emphasizes that the Chief may submit reports on component areas of the larger protection program for authorization as soon as practicable and urges the Chief to utilize 

this discretion. 

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 man-
16 

agement 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. As far back as 

1922, Congress recognized the need for flexibility in management 

and execution and provided the Corps with legislation that allowed 

the use of continuing contracts for specifically authorized projects. 

Congress recognized that by providing this flexibility it was relinquishing some measure of control over future appropriations; however, Congress believed that that was an acceptable trade-off for 

the efficient use of limited funds. 

In a 1977 decision, the Comptroller General confirmed that the 

authority found in the 1922 law constituted an exception to the 

Anti-Deficiency Act. Accordingly, the Corps has had the discretion 

to use continuing contracts to execute any of its specifically authorized water resources projects since at least 1977. In the late 1990s, 

the administration proposed that all Corps construction projects be 

fully funded, rather than be incrementally funded as had been the 

norm. Congress rejected this proposal in section 101 of the Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1999, Public Law 

105–245. 

Further, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Public 

Law 106–53 contained a provision (section 206) relating to continuing contracts. Among other things, this legislation required the 

Corps to award a continuing contract for virtually all water resources projects. This position was confirmed by the Corps of Engineers Chief Legal Counsel in 2005. 

An often misunderstood and closely related issue to continuing 

contracts is reprogramming of project funds. Reprogramming is a 

legitimate management technique that maximizes utilization of 

constrained resources. Reprogramming is generally defined as reallocation of funding from one program, project, or activity to another within an appropriation, to promote efficient, effective use of 

available funding, for optimum progress under changing conditions. 

The history of reprogramming goes back to at least the 1950s 

when the Comptroller General ruled that the Department of the 

Army has almost unlimited legal authority to transfer appropriated 

funds between projects. In the ensuing 50 years after the Comptroller General’s decision, policy concerning reprogramming was incrementally developed. 

The Congress allowed reprogrammings for many reasons. Congress has traditionally viewed water resource projects as investments in our national economy. As such, once a project was started 

by the Congress, the Congress intended for the project to be completed. Congress recognized that the Corps, being much closer to 

the actual work of project implementation, was better situated to 

determine the proper funding levels for projects in a given work 

year, and that this may involve moving funds around in order to 

maintain the most efficient use of funding. 

A corollary to this efficient use of funds was that the Corps was 

to ensure that funds which had been reprogrammed away from a 

project were made available when they were needed by that 

project. It was not considered appropriate to request donated funds 

as part of a budget request or as a capability statement as these 
17 

funds had already been appropriated once. Movement of these 

funds was supposed to be transparent and seamless in order to execute a program as efficiently as possible. 

This system worked for many years. However, in the late 1990s 

through the early 2000s, a combination of events occurred that 

stretched the system to its breaking point. Congress noticed in the 

mid to late 1990s that project execution by the Corps had slipped 

dramatically. It was not uncommon to see execution rates of 60– 

65 percent for construction projects during that period. The Appropriations Committee expressed concern about lagging execution to 

the Corps and the large carryover balances in the Civil Works Program. Upon hearing Congress’ concerns about project execution, 

the Corps set about to determine how to fix this problem. 

The congressional authorizers reacting to administration proposals for fully funding projects enacted legislation modifying the 

Corps’ traditional selective use of continuing contracts by ensuring 

that virtually all contracts had to be continuing contracts. In an effort to address Congress’ concern about project execution, the Corps 

response was to aim for full execution of annual appropriations. 

The required use of continuing contracts for virtually all work 

made this significantly easier. The Corps geared up to fully execute 

their annual program and spend down their carryover balances. 

Other events were also taking place during this same period that 

did not attract the notice of the Corps or the Congress as much as 

perhaps it should have. Annual budgets were becoming tighter. 

The desire for new projects intensified due to back-to-back Water 

Resources Development Acts. To accommodate these twin issues, 

savings and slippage rates for all Corps accounts were increased. 

Savings and slippage [S&S] is a budgetary term that recognizes 

that nothing ever goes completely as planned. As Corps budgets 

are initiated some 22 months before they are presented to Congress 

a myriad of changes occur between this initial budget submission 

and when funds are actually appropriated. Projects speed up and 

slow down for a number of reasons. Hazardous wastes or a cultural 

resources site is discovered in the project right-of-way; a local sponsor may not have his cost share in-place; additional alternatives 

may need to be examined in a study; studies or even projects are 

terminated. All of these things lead to uncertainties which impact 

Corps budgets. 

When viewed in the historical context of annual Corps spending 

rates, reasonable percentages of S&S made sense as a way to accommodate all projects needs, even if funding was insufficient, especially when combined with large carryovers of funds from year 

to year. Around 2001–2002 Corps program execution had substantially improved such that they were executing nearly 100 percent 

of their annual program and had spent down their carryover balances. However, annual budgets were constrained, the pressure to 

add projects continued and S&S rates continued to climb. 

The cumulative effect adding additional projects and raising S&S 

rates resulted in considerably more active projects than the annual 

appropriation could fund at optimal levels. This contributed to the 

inability to fulfill reprogramming commitments as the Corps spent 

down carryover. Around 2003, the effects of these events combined 

to force the Corps to adopt a ‘‘just-in-time’’ reprogramming policy. 
18 

The problem was funding had gotten so tight, the Corps began to 

have trouble meeting their reprogramming commitments. Just in 

time started meaning, hopefully, within the same year funds were 

needed. 

Members of Congress whose projects had donated surplus funding were understandably upset when these funds could not be returned to these projects when they were needed. This situation continued through 2004. In 2005, Congress recognized that reprogramming issues were a problem that had to be addressed. Two things 

were done in fiscal year 2005 to address these problems. One was 

to lower the S&S rates to more historic levels and Congress undertook a comprehensive review and revision on reprogramming. However, the Corps did not put any reins on their efforts to execute 100 

percent of their annual program. Funding shortages continued. 

This resulted in the reforms enacted in the fiscal year 2006 Energy 

and Water Act. 

This act significantly altered the focus and management of the 

Corps Civil Works program. Major changes to both continuing contract authority and reprogramming guidance were enacted. Virtually all reprogramming guidance up until then had been in the 

report that accompanied the bill, rather than in the bill text, giving 

the Corps flexibility when it was needed. 

Two other pieces of legislation in the act severely restricted the 

Corps’ ability to award continuing contracts. This continuing contract legislation forces the Corps to construct projects within arbitrary funding limits. This creates inefficiencies that waste resources. Corps’ contracts will have to be broken up into uneconomical pieces. Multiple contracts will be required instead of a single contrct, thus increasing costs. Contractors’ costs will increase as 

multiple mobilizations and demobilizations occur where one may 

have sufficed in the past. This will show up in higher bids. Probably the most devastating impact to the Corps is that starting and 

stopping funding streams makes the Corps an unreliable partner. 

If the Corps is seen as unreliable, contractor costs will increase 

based on risk and uncertainty, increasing project costs. Instead of 

inefficiently starting and stopping project funding each year depending on different criteria, we need to go back to the traditional 

congressional philosophy of finishing what we start. 

Another major change is that the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army was given a much greater role in daily execution of the program than had ever been. Execution decisions that 

were traditionally exercised by the Chief of Engineers in previous 

years now must be coordinated through another bureaucracy. The 

Chief has to seek permission to utilize continuing contracts or for 

reprogramming actions that require congressional notification. All 

of these decisions are filtered through OMB for ‘‘administration policy compliance’’ reviews. This is both time consuming and costly. 

The Committee believes changes are necessary in both the continuing contracts and reprogramming guidance from fiscal year 

2006 if the Corps is going to be able to continue to deliver the 

projects and services that the country and the Congress expects of 

them. The reprogramming guidance that was enacted in fiscal year 

2006 is much too restrictive. Under the current law, the Committee 

has had to approve reprogramming actions for as little as $12,000. 
19 

In a $5,000,000,000 program this is unreasonable. Further, in 

order for a reprogramming to get to the Committee for approval, 

it must be approved at the Corps District level, Division level, 

Headquarters level, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army 

level and the Office of Management and Budget level. Further, the 

affected congressional Members of both the donating and the receiving project can object to the reprogramming starting the process anew. It is no wonder that reprogramming actions have come 

to a virtual standstill this fiscal year resulting in project delays, 

contract terminations, large carryover balances and general uncertainties throughout the Civil Works program. 

Reprogramming 

Reprogramming of civil works project funds has a long history in 

the Corps as noted above. A unique system of definitions and terminology for moving project funds was promulgated. For years, this 

guidance worked well. However, in the last few years, these definitions and terminology have become problematic. The Committee 

recognizes that this is largely due to the Corps attempt to comply 

with congressional desires to expend funding, in the fiscal year appropriated, as efficiently and effectively as possible in an era when 

funding was constrained, but the desire to fund more projects was 

not. 

Reprogramming guidance was substantially altered in Public 

Law 109–103 to address the issues of definitions and terminology. 

The Committee believes this directive went too far and has virtually made the reprogramming of funds impossible. As evidence of 

this, the Committee notes that the administration has proposed 

funding projects in the Operations and Maintenance account in watershed regions as opposed to the traditional method of budgeting 

by individual projects. While there may be legitimate reasons for 

budgeting in this manner, the only one offered to the Committee 

by administration officials was that this method would circumvent 

the reprogramming directive currently in law. When the administration develops an entirely new budget strategy to circumvent legislative direction, the Committee believes that the legislative direction needs modification. 

The Committee is concerned that the issues currently associated 

with civil works reprogramming were initiated by prior Committee 

comments concerning the level of carryover in the budget from one 

year to the next. At the time that was noted, carryover amounts 

were in the range of $800,000,000 annually. The Corps was successful in lowering that carryover to about $300,000,000 by fiscal 

year 2005. With the changes made in fiscal year 2006, the civil 

works carryover balance is estimated to be nearly $1,500,000,000. 

While the Committee believes that a certain level of carryover is 

unavoidable and desirable, nearly one-fifth of the annual program 

is not acceptable. Changes must be made by Congress and the 

Corps to efficiently and effectively utilize annual appropriations 

and reduce the carryover balance to more reasonable levels. With 

the exceptionally large carryover balances, the Committee has continued to include small percentages of savings and slippage on all 

accounts to maximize resources. 
20 

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 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 Civil Works Program Integration 

Division’s mission is to develop the Civil Works Budget and to support the Division and Districts, in resolution of project issues pending in Headquarters as well as to monitor and assess program execution. Further, they provide procedures and guidance for program 

and project management functions. The Committee believes that 

the chief of this office would be ideally suited for this delegated authority. 

Reprogramming Guidance 

The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to develop specific 

execution guidance to control and manage the reprogramming of 

funds, which is consistent with law and prudent fiscal policy, and 

to carry out the Civil Works program efficiently. New legislative 

language is provided for reprogramming actions in fiscal year 2007. 

The Committee expects the Chief to maximize the use of the annual funding provided by the Congress. The Committee understands that this may create ‘‘paybacks’’ in future years and cautions that the reprogramming actions recommended should be necessary to advance projects or studies and that the funds from donating projects are truly surplus for the needs in the current year 

and the budget year as there will be no way to budget for return 

of these funds until the following budget year. 

The Committee is convinced that separate and unique reprogramming guidance is necessary for the various appropriations 

accounts of the Corps due to the very differing activities funded by 

these accounts. The Committee recognizes that General Investigations, Construction, General and Operations and Maintenance are 

managed very differently within the Corps. The General Investigations account is generally the poorest fiscal performing account due 

to the myriad of unknowns in the planning process. These range 
21 

from forecasting local sponsor abilities to provide their mandatory 

share of funding in a timely manner and on schedule, to unknowns 

discovered during implementation of the planning process. The 

projects funded in the Operations and Maintenance account are 

generally the easiest to forecast as these are planned expenditures 

for typically known issues or routine services. Where this becomes 

a problem in Operations and Maintenance is when unanticipated 

and unfunded failures occur, which must be dealt with on an emergency basis. For these reasons the Committee has provided different thresholds for approval of reprogrammings. 

A reprogramming is defined as either the change in purpose, or 

the movement of funds into or out of a program, project or activity 

funded by one of the civil works appropriation accounts of the 

Army Corps of Engineers. A reprogramming action may not be 

used to initiate a program, project or activity. Multiple 

reprogrammings into or out of projects is discouraged; however, the 

Committee recognizes that there may be cases, particularly in the 

Construction, General and Operations and Maintenance accounts 

where multiple transactions may be appropriate. Each of these 

transactions shall count toward the reprogramming thresholds. 

They shall not be viewed individually nor should the Corps use 

multiple transactions from multiple projects in order to stay below 

the established threshold reporting requirements. The Corps shall 

provide a quarterly report to the House and Senate Appropriations 

Committees reporting all reprogramming actions in the previous 

quarter. Approval of both House and Senate Appropriations Committees is required in advance for reprogramming actions that exceed the thresholds described below. 

General Investigations.—Reprogramming a cumulative total of 50 percent or $1,000,000, whichever is less, is permitted for each 

study, program or activity in this account. However, in no case 

should a reprogramming action under this account for less than 

$25,000 be submitted to the Committees for approval. The Committee does not object to reprogramming up to $50,000 to any continuing study or program that did not receive an appropriation in 

the current year. 

Construction, General.—Reprogramming a cumulative total of 50 

percent or $3,000,000, whichever is less, is permitted for each 

study, program or activity in this account. However, in no case 

should a reprogramming action under this account for less than 

$50,000 be submitted to the Committees for approval. 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 emergencies. 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, reprogramming 

a cumulative total of 50 percent or $5,000,000, whichever is less, 

is permitted for each study, program or activity in this account. 

However, in no case should a reprogramming action under this account for less than $75,000 be submitted to the Committees for approval. The Committee does not object to reprogramming of up to 
22 

$500,000 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. 

Construction Contracting 

The Committee believes that the Corps needs flexibility in the 

types of contracting methods used for construction of water resource projects. Currently, three main types of contracts are used. 

Lump sum contracts, fully funded continuing contracts and partially funded continuing contracts. Between August 17, 1999 and 

November 15, 2006, the Corps relied almost entirely on partially 

funded continuing contracts, as required by law. Public Law 109– 

103 challenged this reliance on partially funded continuing contracts and changed the requirement to use continuing contracts 

and made it optional. Another provision of Public Law 109–103 

made the use of partially funded continuing contracts difficult. The 

unfortunate result has become an almost total reliance on fully 

funded contracts. The Committee believes that a balance of contracting mechanisms is necessary in order to prosecute the Corps’ 

work. The Committee expects the Corps to avail themselves of the 

ability to use partially funded continuing contracts where this is 

the best use of funding and use other contracting vehicles where 

appropriate. 

The Committee is aware that there are numerous other types of 

contracting mechanisms that are in use by the Federal Government, but may not be available to the Corps due to statutory limitations. The Committee directs the Chief of Engineers to submit a 

report, by September 30, 2006, to the Senate Appropriations Committee with his views on current contracting mechanisms available 

to him and his recommendations as to other contracting mechanisms that would be beneficial in executing the Corps’ mission. 

The House Report (109–275) that accompanies Public Law 109– 

103 gives the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works approval for use of continuing contracts. This puts the Assistant Secretary’s office squarely in the day-to-day operations of the Corps. 

The Committee does not believe that this office has the staff or expertise to make these types of operational decisions nor does the 

Committee think that it is appropriate. District Commanders are 

the appropriate officials to determine contracting mechanisms as 

they are closest to the work being performed. Elevating these decisions to Division offices or higher only promotes delays and inefficiencies. 

Executive Direction and Management 

The Committee continues to believe that the Chief of Engineers 

should be responsible for the overall management and execution of 

the Civil Works Program of the Corps of Engineers. Day to day 

operational management and execution of the program are inher-
23 

ent functions of his subordinates, but he is ultimately responsible. 

The Committee is encouraged that the Chief has managed to reassert some measure of control over the program. The Committee 

hopes that the Chief will continue along this path. 

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. Anything 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 time frames and notifications were imposed on these reviews. This is shown in the table 

below. 

Project Date to OMB Date review completed Date to Congress 

J.T. Myers/Greenup L&Ds KY, OH, IN ................................. 23 Aug 01 ............. 3 May 05 ............... 4 Jan 06 

Stillaguamish River, WA .................................................... 18 Apr 02 .............. 28 Nov 05 .............. 16 Dec 05 

Duwamish-Green Rivers, WA ............................................. 9 May 02 ............... 21 Nov 05 .............. 16 Dec 05 

Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, CA ........................... 17 Aug 04 ............. 1 Nov 05 ................ 16 Nov 05 

Turkey Creek, KS & MO ..................................................... 28 Oct 04 .............. 14 Oct 05 .............. 12 Dec 05 

Hamilton Airfield, Bel Marin, CA ....................................... 4 Feb 05 ................ 20 Apr 05 .............. 3 May 05 

Silver Strand, CA ............................................................... 17 Feb 05 .............. 22 Apr 05 .............. 6 May 05 

Southwest Valley, NM ........................................................ 18 Apr 05 .............. 14 Jun 05 .............. 1 Jul 05 

Centralia, WA ..................................................................... 2 May 05 ............... 15 Jun 05 .............. 1 Jul 05 

Jacksonville Harbor, FL ...................................................... 26 May 05 ............. 22 Jul 05 ............... 3 Aug 05 

Indian River Lagoon, FL .................................................... 22 Jun 05 .............. 17 Oct 05 .............. 1 Feb 06 

Denver Co. Reach, South Platte R, CO ............................. 5 Jul 05 ................. 2 Sep 05 ................ 13 Oct 05 

Louisiana Coastal Area, LA ............................................... 1 Sep 05 ................ 1 Nov 05 ................ 18 Nov 05 

Dare County Beaches, NC ................................................. 1 Nov 05 ................ 6 Jan 06 ................ 27 Jan 06 

Chickamauga L&D, TN ...................................................... 16 Jun 04 .............. 11 Jan 06 .............. 24 Jan 06 

Miami Harbor, FL ............................................................... 23 Feb 06 .............. 24 Apr 06 .............. 5 May 06 

Rilito River, Pima County, AZ ........................................... 1 Mar 06 ............... 1 May 06 ............... 16 May 06

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. 
24 

Project Date to OMB Status 

Delaware Coastline, Port Mahon, DE .............................................. 7 Jun 99 & 8 Jan 02 ........ Pending 

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

Breckinridge, MN ............................................................................. 10 Jul 04 ........................... Pending 

Park River at Grafton, ND ............................................................... 27 May 04 ......................... Pending 

Jackson Hole, Snake River, WY ....................................................... 4 Mar 02 ........................... Active Review 

Dallas Floodway Extension, TX ........................................................ 18 Aug 04 ......................... Pending 

Whitewater River Basin, CA ............................................................ 9 May 02 ........................... Pending 

Ohio River Restoration, OH ............................................................. 4 Mar 02 ........................... Returned to ASA(CW) 

Port Sutton, FL ................................................................................ 27 Sep 03 ......................... Pending 

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

Deep Creek Bridge, VA .................................................................... 27 Aug 03 ......................... Active Review 

Matagorda Bay Re-Route, TX .......................................................... 8 Sep 03 ........................... Pending 

Morganza to the Gulf, LA ................................................................ 8 May 04 ........................... Pending 

Smith Island, MD ............................................................................ 22 Oct 02 .......................... Pending 

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

Tanque Verde, AZ ............................................................................ 2 Jun 04 ............................ Pending 

Riverside Oxbow, TX ........................................................................ 30 Jul 04 & 26 May 05 .... Pending 

Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX .................................................... 16 Sep 04 ......................... Pending 

GIWW, High Island to Brazo, T ........................................................ 8 Oct 04 ............................ Pending 

American River Watershed, Long-Term Study, CA .......................... 8 Oct 04 ............................ Pending 

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

South River, Raritan River Basin, NJ .............................................. 5 Nov 04 ........................... Pending 

False Pass, AK ................................................................................. 3 Dec 04 ........................... Pending 

Puget Sound, WA ............................................................................. 2 May 05 ........................... Returned to ASA(CW) 1

Missouri and Middle Mississippi River ........................................... 30 Aug 05 ......................... Returned to ASA(CW) 1

Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study ...................................... 2 Feb 06 ............................ Withdrawn 2

Rilito River, Pima County, AZ ......................................................... 1 Mar 06 ........................... Approved 

East Baton Rouge, LA ..................................................................... 16 Mar 06 ......................... Pending 

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

1 Programmatic Document (no Chief’s Report). 

2 Chief’s Rpt withdrawn pending economic revaluation. 

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, 2006. The 

Committee directs that reviews of all of these documents should be 

completed no later than December 31, 2007. 

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. 1 $162,360,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 94,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 128,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 168,517,000 

1 Excludes emergency appropriations of $40,600,000. 

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. Two studies, Louisiana Coastal Area 

and the National Flood Project Inventory, consume 48 percent of 

the administration’s GI request. This budget seems to be saying 
25 

that the Nation should concentrate scarce resources on completing 

construction of projects underway as rapidly as possible. 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 

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. 

Planning is a very specialized discipline within the Corps. The 

Committee recognizes that the Corps has been hemorrhaging talent 

in this area for years and has been unable to hire replacements 

due to budget constraints. Once this planning capability is lost, the 

Corps will be unable to rebuild it rapidly, if ever. This will greatly 

impact their relevance to water resource development. 

The Committee notes that much of the public discourse over 

Corps of Engineers projects has revolved around the formulation of 

water resource projects. One possible reason is the loss of the professional talent in this specialized era. Another possible reason is 

that the the policies that the Corps uses for determining investment decisions were developed more than 20 years ago. The Corps 

is one of the few Federal agencies that can project returns on investment to the national economy from the projects and programs 

that they undertake. However, the Committee recognizes that the 

world economy has changed dramatically in the intervening years 

since this guidance was developed. 

The administration’s economic theory of estimating ‘‘national economic development benefits’’ and not counting the effects of regional benefits assumes that if an investment decision is not made 

in a particular State or region, the industry will simply move to another, more efficient location and or mode of transportation, elsewhere in the United States. Current polices do not take into account the amount of private investment that follows these Federal 

investments. Water compelled rates for alternate modes of transportation are ignored in benefit to cost calculations. 

The current theory in the administration’s policies holds that the 

country will eventually get the benefits, just somewhere else within 

the country. The preponderance of evidence over the last 5–7 years 

leads the Committee to believe that this economic theory has 

changed. When American businesses become inefficient now, the 

investment, the industry and the jobs move overseas—away from 

the United States. 

Unfortunately the opportunities for investments are being ignored by the administration and, to some extent, by the Congress. 

The Committee believes that water resources investments provide 

positive returns to the economy and that they should be given the 

same consideration as funding for any other homeland or national 

security investment within the national budget. The Committee be-
26 

lieves that the administration should substantially overhaul guidance for development of water resources projects to maximize the 

investment decisions available to the administration to improve the 

Nation’s competitiveness. 

The Committee has provided for a robust and balanced planning 

program for fiscal year 2007. The Committee has included a limited 

number of new study starts as well as provided completion funds 

for a number of studies. 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. 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 cursory 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 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 designs are prepared while the project recommended to 

Congress is authorized 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. 

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 2008 planning budget be presented to the Committee in this fashion. 

The budget request, the House allowance and the recommended 

Committee allowance are shown on the following table: 
27 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate 

House allowance 

Committee recommendation 

Investigations Planning RECON FEAS PED 

ALASKA 

ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK .................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 ..................ATAKA HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 200 .................. ..................BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE DEEPENING, AK ............................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 400 ..................DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR, AK .......................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 400 HAINES HARBOR, AK .............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 350 HOMER HARBOR MODIFICATION, AK ...................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION, AK ......................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 400 ..................KLAWOK HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 90 210 ..................KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, AK ................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 350 ..................LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 600 ..................MCGRATH, AK ........................................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................MEKORYUK HARBOR, AK ........................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK ........................................................................................................................................................................... 300 .................. 300 .................. 300 ..................WHITTIER BREAKWATER, AK .................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 ..................

ARIZONA 

PIMA COUNTY (TRES RIOS DEL NORTE), AZ ......................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 250 .................. .................. ..................RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ ......................................................................................................................................................... .................. 300 .................. .................. .................. 300 RIO SALADO OESTE, SALT RIVER, AZ .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 250 .................. 250 ..................VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER RESTORATION, AZ ............................................................................................................................. .................. 200 200 .................. .................. 200 

ARKANSAS 

HOT SPRINGS CREEK, AR ...................................................................................................................................................................... 200 .................. 200 .................. 200 ..................LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESOURCE ASSESMENT, AR, IL, KY IA, MS, MO, & TN ............................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. ..................MAY BRANCH, FORTS SMITH, AR .......................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ..................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 400 .................. .................. 200 RED RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, SW ARKANSAS, AR ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 400 WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR & MO ................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO NEWPORT, AR ........................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 125 
28 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate 

House allowance 

Committee recommendation 

Investigations Planning RECON FEAS PED 

CALIFORNIA 

ARROYO SECO WATERSHED ................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. 400 ..................BALLONA CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA .................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 450 ..................BIG BEAR LAKE, SANTA ANNA RIVER, CA ............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 850 .................. .................. ..................BOLINAS LAGOON, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 597 ..................CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER PLAN, CA ............................................................................................................................ 300 .................. 300 .................. 300 ..................CARPINTERIA SHORELINE STUDY, CA .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................CITY OF INGLEWOOD, CA ....................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 175 .................. 175 ..................CITY OF NORWALK, CA .......................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA ................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 550 .................. .................. ..................COAST OF CA, SOUTH COAST REGION (LA COUNTY), CA ...................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................CORNFIELDS, CA .................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 500 .................. .................. ..................CORTE MADERA CREEK WATERSHED, CA .............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................COYOTE CREEK, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100 .................. ..................DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA .................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 600 .................. .................. ..................ESTUDILLO CANAL, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................... 600 .................. 600 .................. 600 ..................GRAYSONS AND MURDERS CREEK, CA ................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 200 .................. 200 ..................HAMILTON CITY, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 600 HUMBOLT BAY LONG TERM SHOAL MGMT, CA ...................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................IMPERIAL BEACH, SILVER STRAND SHORELINE, CA .............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 167 LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA ................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................LLAGAS CREEK, CA ................................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 250 .................. .................. 250 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA .................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. 300 ..................LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CORNFIELDS, CA .................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................LOS ANGELES RIVER RESTORATION, CA ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERCOURSE IMPROVEMENT, HEADWORKS CA ................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 562 ..................MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA ........................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 608 ..................MATILIJA DAM, CA .................................................................................................................................................................................. .................. 400 500 .................. .................. 1,000 MIDDLE CREEK, CA ................................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 MORRO BAY ESTUARY, CA .................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 275 NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA ...................................................................................................................................... .................. 300 300 .................. .................. 300 OCEAN BEACH, SAN FRANCISCO, CA .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 500 .................. 300 ..................
29 

PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE, CA ..................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 750 .................. .................. 750 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAMP, CA .............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................RUSSIAN RIVER RESTORATION, CA ........................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN, DELTA ISLANDS & LEEVES, CA ............................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 2,000 ..................SAN BERNARDINO LAKES AND STREAMS, CA ........................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 1,000 .................. .................. ..................SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CA ............................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 300 .................. 329 ..................SAN DIEGO SAMP, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................SAN FRANSIQUITO CREEK, CA ............................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 225 .................. 225 ..................SAN JACINTO RIVER RESTORATION, CA ................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 1,000 .................. .................. ..................SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, WEST STANISLAUS, CA ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................SANTA ANA RIVER & TRIBURARIES, BIG BEAR LAKE, CA ..................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................SANTA ROSA CREEK, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 300 .................. 300 ..................SEVEN OAKS & PRADO DAMS WATER CONS., CA ................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 1,500 .................. .................. ..................SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE, CA ...................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHORELINE, CA ............................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 ..................SUN VALLEY WATERSHED, CA ............................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. 200 ..................SUTTER COUNTY, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................. 339 .................. 400 .................. 339 ..................TAHOE BASIN, CA & NV ......................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA ............................................................................................................................................................. 319 .................. 319 .................. 319 ..................WESTMINISTER, EAST GARDEN GROVE, CA ........................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, ORESTIMBA CREEK, CA ............................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 400 ..................WILSON AND OAK GLEN CREEKS, CA .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 800 .................. .................. ..................

COLORADO 

CACHE LA POUDRE, CO ......................................................................................................................................................................... 304 .................. .................. .................. 304 ..................CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK & BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS, CO ........................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 400 ..................FOUNTAIN CREEK & TRIBUTARIES, CO .................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 449 ..................SOUTH BOULDER CREEK, CO ................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 100 .................. ..................

DELAWARE 

BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL IN THE DELAWARE ESTUARY, DE ........................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 125 .................. ..................DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, DE, NJ, NY, PA ................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 175 ..................

FLORIDA 

BREVARD COUNTY, FL ........................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 315 .................. .................. ..................EGMONT KEY, FL .................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 350 .................. .................. ..................FLAGLER BEACH, FL .............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................LAKE WORTH INLET FEASIBILITY STUDY ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................MILE POINT, FL ...................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................ST JOHNS COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION, FL ......................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................
30 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate 

House allowance 

Committee recommendation 

Investigations Planning RECON FEAS PED 

WALTON COUNTY, FL ............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 553 

GEORGIA 

AUGUSTA, GA ......................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 55 .................. .................. ..................LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA ................................................................................................................................... 200 .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................OATES CREEK, AUGUSTA, GA ................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 750 .................. .................. ..................SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA ..................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 1,750 .................. .................. 500 

GUAM 

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

HAWAII 

ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI ..................................................................................................................................................................... 300 .................. 300 .................. 300 ..................BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, OAHU, HI ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 39 ..................KAHUKU, HI ............................................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 203 ..................KAHULUI WEST HARBOR EXPANSION, HI ............................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100 .................. ..................KAWAIHAE HARBOR, HI .......................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 311 ..................LAUPAHOEHOE HARBOR, HI ................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 MOANALUA STREAM FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, HI ........................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100 .................. ..................NAWILIWILI HARBOR MODIFICATION, KAUAI, HI ..................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 125 ..................WAIALUA-KAIAKA WATERSHED RESTORATION STUDY, HI ....................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 200 .................. ..................WAILUPE STREAM, OAHU, HI ................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 350 

IDAHO 

BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID ........................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 44 286 ..................

ILLINOIS 

DES PLAINES RIVER (PHASE II), IL ........................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 500 .................. 1,000 ..................ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL ............................................................................................................................................... 400 .................. 400 .................. 750 ..................KEITH CREEK, IL .................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 300 .................. .................. ..................PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 SOUTHEAST ILLINOIS SHORELINE, IL ..................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................
31 

SOUTH FORK, SOUTH BRANCH, CHICAGO RIVER, IL ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 750 ..................UPPER MISS & ILLINOIS NAV IMPORVEMENT, IL, IA, MN, MO, WI ........................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 20,000 UPPER MISSISSIPPI COMP PLAN, IL, IA, MO, MN, WI ........................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 500 .................. 784 ..................

INDIANA 

INDIANA HARBOR, IN ............................................................................................................................................................................. 300 .................. 750 .................. 300 ..................

IOWA 

CEDAR RAPIDS, IA (CEDAR RAPIDS TIME CHECK AREA) ...................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................CHARITON RIVER COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, IA ...................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100 .................. ..................DAVENPORT , IA ..................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 173 DES MOINES & RACCOON RIVERS, IA ................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 

KANSAS 

BRUSH CREEK BASIN , KS & MO .......................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................MARION RESERVOIR WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, KS ....................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................TOPEKA, KS ............................................................................................................................................................................................ .................. 100 200 .................. 100 ..................UPPER ARKANSAS RIVER, KS ................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 100 .................. ..................UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS .................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 225 ..................WALNUT AND WHITEWATER RIVER WATERSHEDS, KS ........................................................................................................................... 80 .................. 200 .................. 80 ..................

KENTUCKY 

METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, SOUTHWEST, KY ....................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................NORTHERN KENTUCKY, KY ..................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 300 .................. .................. ..................WILLIAMSTOWN, KY ................................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 500 .................. .................. ..................

LOUISIANA 

AMITE RIVER & TRIBUTARIES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA .............................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................AMITE RIVER & TRIBUTARIES, BAYOU MANCHAC, LA ........................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 350 ..................ATCHAFALAYA RIVER & BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF & BLACK, LA ............................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 650 ..................BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA ...................................................................................................................................................................... .................. 1,500 1,500 .................. .................. 1,500 BOSSIER PARISH, LA ............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................CALCASIEU LOCK, LA ............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 400 .................. 400 ..................CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA ................................................................................................................................................................. 247 .................. 500 .................. 125 ..................CALCASIEU RIVER PASS SHIP CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT, LA ................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 500 .................. 350 ..................CROSS LAKE, LA .................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 300 .................. 150 ..................LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYST REST, LA (SCIENCE & TEC ......................................................................................................... 5,000 .................. 5,000 .................. .................. ..................LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA ................................................................................................................... 20,000 .................. 20,000 .................. 15,000 ..................PORT OF IBERIA, LA .............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 SOUTHWEST COASTAL LOUSIANA HURRICANE PROTECTION, LA ........................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................
32 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate 

House allowance 

Committee recommendation 

Investigations Planning RECON FEAS PED 

ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA .............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................WEST PEARL NAVIGATION, LA & MS ...................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100 .................. ..................WEST SHORE LAKE PONCHARTRAIN, LA ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 

MAINE 

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

MARYLAND 

ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD AND DC .............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 400 .................. 200 ..................BALTIMORE METRO WTR RES—PATAPSCO & BACK RIVERS, MD ......................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 600 ..................CHES BAY SHORELINE—SEMI BUDG, MODEL ....................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 350 ..................CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD ..................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 150 .................. ..................CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, MARYLAND COASTAL MANAGEMENT, MD ............................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................CHESAPEAKE BAY WERLANDS, MD (BLACKWATER REFUGE) ................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 100 325 ..................EASTERN SHORE, MID CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND, MD ......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE RELLOCATION, MD & WV ........................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 80 100 ..................MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER GREATER SENECA/MUDDY BRANCH, MD ..................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................MIDDLE POTOMAC WATERSHED STUDY, MD .......................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 50 .................. ..................

MASSACHUSETTS 

BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA .......................................................................................................................................... 300 .................. 300 .................. 300 ..................

MICHIGAN 

DETROIT RIVER GREENWAY, MI ............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 250 .................. 500 ..................DETROIT RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, MI .................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 50 50 ..................GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA ............................................................................................................... 300 .................. 2,034 .................. 300 ..................GREAT LAKE REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS (RAP) & SEDIMENT REMEDIATION, MI, NY, OH, PA, IN, EL, WI, & MN .................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................

MINNESOTA 

BLUE EARTH RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MN, SD, IA, ND ......................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 60 ..................MARSH LAKE DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MINNESOTA (MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN, MN & SD) ................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 125 ..................
33 

ROSEAU RIVER, MN ............................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 326 WILD RICE RIVER, RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN ................................................................................................................... 300 .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................

MISSOURI 

JORDAN CREEK, SPRINGFIELD, MO ........................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 600 .................. .................. ..................HIGH SCHOOL BRANCH—NEOSHO, MO ................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 175 .................. .................. ..................KANSAS CITYS, MO & KS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 500 .................. 750 .................. 500 250 LITTLE BLUE RIVER BASIN, JACKSON COUNTY, MO .............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 100 .................. ..................MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION, MILE 340 TO 400, MO & KS ............................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 300 .................. ..................MISSOURI LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 & R460–471, MO & KS .......................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 27 350 SPRINGFIELD, MO .................................................................................................................................................................................. 250 .................. 250 .................. 310 ..................ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO ....................................................................................................................................................... .................. 243 350 .................. .................. 519 ST LOUIS MISSISSIPPI RIVERFRONT, MO & IL ....................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 158 WEARS CREEK, JEFFERSON CITY, MO ................................................................................................................................................... 150 .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

MONTANA 

YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT ................................................................................................................................................... 200 .................. 250 .................. 1,000 ..................

NEBRASKA 

LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE ....................................................................................................................................... 130 .................. 175 .................. 175 ..................

NEVADA 

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING, NV & CA ................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 725 ..................TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV ........................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,500 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

CONNECTICUT RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH, CT, MA & VT ............................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH & MA .............................................................................................................................. 200 .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................PORTSMOUTH HARBOR & PISCATAQUA RIVER, NH ............................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................

NEW JERSEY 

HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, HUDSON-RATITAN, NJ ........................................................................................................................... 200 .................. 500 .................. .................. ..................HIGHLANDS, RARITAN BAY & SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................HUDSON RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWS, NJ ................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................HUDSON RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ ..................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 ..................LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, HUDSON-RARITAN EST., NJ ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 1,000 .................. .................. ..................LOWER SADDLE RIVER, BERGEN COUNTY, NJ ....................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 250 .................. .................. 100 NEW JERSEY, INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY ENV. RESTORATION, NJ ........................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 67 ..................NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY INLE ..................................................................................................... 200 .................. 200 .................. 304 ..................
34 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate 

House allowance 

Committee recommendation 

Investigations Planning RECON FEAS PED 

NEW JERSEY SHORELINE ALT NOURISHMENT, NJ .................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 400 .................. 200 ..................PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ ............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 PECKMAN RIVER BASIN, NJ ................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 325 ..................RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ ..................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 125 ..................RARITAN BAY & SAND HOOK BAY, UNION BEACH, NJ .......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 125 RARITAN BAY & SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................RARITAN BAY & SANDY HOOK BAY, KEYPORT, NJ ................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................RARITAN BAY & SANDY HOOK BAY, LEONARDO, NJ .............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 125 SHREWSBURY RIVER & TRIBUTARIES, NJ ............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ ........................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................

NEW MEXICO 

EAST MESA, LAS CRUCES, NM .............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 413 ..................ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE & TRIBUTARIES, NM ......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................MIDDLE RIO GRANDE BOSQUE, NM ....................................................................................................................................................... 200 .................. 300 .................. 300 ..................NAVAJO NATION, FLOOD PLAIN DELINEATION, NM, AZ & UT ................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO & TX ........................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................SANTA FE, NM ........................................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................SOUTHWEST VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NM ............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 225 .................. .................. 180 

NEW YORK 

BRONX RIVER BASIN ............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 400 .................. .................. ..................CRESCENT BEACH, SOUTH SIDE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY ..................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, NY ................................................................................................................................. 100 .................. 200 .................. 250 ..................FLUSHING BAY & CREEK, NY ................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 125 HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS CANAL, NY ........................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, NY & NJ ................................................................................................................................................ 400 .................. 600 .................. 400 ..................JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK & PLUM BEACH, NY ................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY ................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 175 ..................MONTAUK POINT, NY .............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ONONDAGA LAKE, NY ............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 750 .................. .................. ..................OSWEGO RIVER BASIN, NY .................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................
35 

SAW MILL RIVER BASIN, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NY .......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. 200 

NORTH CAROLINA 

BOUGE BANKS, NC ................................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 48 ..................CURRITUCK SOUND, NC ......................................................................................................................................................................... 150 .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC ....................................................................................................................................................................... 150 .................. 150 .................. 150 ..................SURF CITY & NORTH TOPSAIL, NC ........................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 100 .................. 200 ..................

OHIO 

CUYAHOGA RIVER BULKHEAD STUDY, OH ............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 421 ..................MAHONING RIVER, OH, ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING PROJECT ............................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 OHIO RIVERFRONT, CINCINNATI, OH ...................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 WESTERN LAKE ERIE, OH ...................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 300 .................. .................. ..................WHEELING CREEK, OH WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION ........................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 400 ..................WOLF CREEK WATERSHED, OH .............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 200 .................. ..................

OKALHOMA 

GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER BASIN, OK, KS, MO & AR .............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................GRAND LAKE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, OK ........................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................OOLOGAH LAKE WATERSHED, OK & KS ................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................SE OKLAHOMA STUDY, OK ..................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................SPAVINAW CREEK WATERSHED, OK & AR ............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK .................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 50 ..................WISTER LAKE WATERSHED, OK .............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 119 ..................

OREGON 

AMAZON CREEK, OR .............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR & WA ......................................................................................................... 100 .................. 200 .................. 100 ..................WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR & WA ....................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 650 ..................WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR ........................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 436 ..................

PENNSYLVANIA 

CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED, PA, DE, & MD ..................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, PA .................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 175 ..................DELAWARE RIVER DEEPENING DREDGED MATERIAL UTILIZATION, PA, DE, NJ ..................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. ..................SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN, WISSAHICKON CREEK BASIN, PA ................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 1,300 .................. 2,500 ..................
36 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate 

House allowance 

Committee recommendation 

Investigations Planning RECON FEAS PED 

RHODE ISLAND 

RHODE ISLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, RI ......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................

SOUTH CAROLINA 

EDISTO ISLAND, SC ................................................................................................................................................................................ 100 .................. 200 .................. 100 ..................PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC ............................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 109 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

WATERTOWN & VICINITY, SD ................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 450 CANYON LAKE DAM, RAPID CITY, SD .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100 .................. ..................JAMES RIVER, SD ................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 602 ..................

TENNESSEE 

MILL CREEK WATERSHED, DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN ............................................................................................................................... 150 .................. 150 .................. 150 ..................NASHVILLE RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, DAVISON COUNTY, TN .......................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 600 .................. ..................TENNESSEE-CUMBERLAND RIVERS SYSTEM STUDY, TN ....................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 200 .................. ..................

TEXAS 

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL, TX ....................................................................................................................... 500 .................. 500 .................. 500 ..................BUFFALO BAYOU, TX .............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................BUFFALO BAYOU & TRIBS, WHITE OAK BAYOU, TX ............................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................CEDAR BAYOU, TX ................................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 647 CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 114 FREEPORT HARBOR, TX ......................................................................................................................................................................... 500 .................. 500 .................. 500 ..................GIWW, VICINITY OF PORT ISABEL, TX .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................GREENS BAYOU, TX ............................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX .............................................................................................................................. 300 .................. 650 .................. .................. ..................LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX .................................................................................................................................................... 300 .................. 400 .................. 500 ..................LOWER COLORADO RIVER, WHARTON & ONION CREEKS, TX ................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 LOWER SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASIC (TRI-COUNTY), TX ......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 300 .................. .................. ..................MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 400 ..................
37 

MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX ................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 325 .................. .................. ..................NORTHWEST EL PASO, TX ...................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX .................................................................................................................................................. 250 .................. 250 .................. 400 ..................RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX ..................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 300 .................. .................. 300 RESACAS AT BROWNSVILLE, TX ............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 250 .................. .................. ..................RIO GRANDE BASIN, TX ......................................................................................................................................................................... 50 .................. 50 .................. 50 ..................SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX ........................................................................................................................................................... 400 .................. 400 .................. 400 ..................SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX .................................................................................................................................................. 270 .................. 300 .................. 600 ..................SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY, TX ................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 125 ..................TEXAS CITY CHANNEL (50-FOOT PROJECT), TX ..................................................................................................................................... .................. 900 .................. .................. .................. 900 UPPER TRINITY RIVER, TX ..................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 1,600 .................. .................. ..................

UTAH 

PARK CITY WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT SUMMIT COUNTY, UTAH ............................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................

VIRGINIA 

AIWW BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA ..................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 289 CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE EROSION, MATHEWS COUNTY, VA ......................................................................................................... 39 .................. 39 .................. 39 ..................CLINCH RIVER WATERSHED, WISE, LEE, SCOTT, DICKENSON ............................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 275 ..................DISMAL SWAMP AND DISMAL SWAMP CANAL, VA ................................................................................................................................. 62 .................. 62 .................. 152 ..................ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENV RESTORATION, VA (PHASE II) ............................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 175 ..................ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA .............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 193 FOUR MILE RUN, VA .............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 800 .................. .................. ..................JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & NC (SEC 216) .................................................................................................................. 300 .................. 300 .................. .................. ..................LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA ............................................................................................................................................................... 349 .................. 349 .................. 403 ..................MIDDLE POTOMAC, CAMERON/HOLMES RUN, VA .................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 400 .................. .................. ..................NORFOLK HARBOR & CHANNELS, CRANEY ISLAND, VA ........................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 175 2,000 PHILPOT LAKE, VA .................................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 225 .................. .................. ..................POWELL RIVER WATHERSHED, VA ......................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................VICINITY OF WILLOUGHBY SPIT, VA ....................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 403 

WASHINGTON 

CENTRALIA, WA ...................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 ELLIOT BAY SEAWALL, WA ..................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 225 .................. 500 ..................GRAYS HARBOR AT CHEHALIS RIVER, WA ............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 325 .................. .................. ..................LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ..................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 400 ..................PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA ........................................................................................................ 400 .................. 500 .................. 1,500 ..................SKAGIT RIVER, WA ................................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 200 .................. 300 ..................SKOKOMISH RIVER, WA .......................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 325 .................. .................. ..................
38 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate 

House allowance 

Committee recommendation 

Investigations Planning RECON FEAS PED 

WEST VIRGINIA 

CHERRY RIVER BASIN, WV .................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 150 .................. ..................LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV ................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 88 300 PARKERSBURG/VIENNA RIVERFRONT PARK, WV .................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 325 .................. .................. ..................UPPER GUYANDOTTE RIVER BASIN, WV ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 150 .................. ..................

WISCONSIN 

ST CROIX RIVER RELOCATION OF ENDANGERED MUSSELS, WI ............................................................................................................ .................. .................. 325 .................. 325 ..................ST CROIX RIVER, WI & MN .................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 250 .................. .................. ..................

WYOMING 

BEAR RIVER FEASIBILITY STUDY, WY .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100 .................. ..................

MISCELLANEOUS 

COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,400 .................. 1,400 .................. 4,900 ..................ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES ............................................................................................................................................................ 50 .................. 50 .................. 50 ..................FLOOD DAMAGE DATA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 220 .................. 220 .................. 220 ..................FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES ................................................................................................................................................. 5,625 .................. 6,200 .................. 11,741 ..................HYDROLOGIC STUDIES ........................................................................................................................................................................... 250 .................. 250 .................. 250 ..................INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES ........................................................................................................................................................... 200 .................. 200 .................. 200 ..................NATIONAL INVENTORY OF FLOOD/STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PRO .................................................................................................... 20,000 .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY ................................................................................................................................................................ 375 .................. 375 .................. 375 ..................OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS ....................................................................................................................................................... 3,673 .................. 3,673 .................. 4,273 ..................PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES ....................................................................................................................................................... 4,550 .................. 4,550 .................. 6,300 ..................PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE) ..................................................................................................................... 225 .................. 225 .................. 225 ..................REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 150 .................. 150 .................. 150 ..................REPROGRAMMING INVESTMENT FUND ................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 15,000 .................. .................. ..................RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................................................. 15,200 .................. 17,734 .................. 35,000 ..................SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS ........................................................................................................................... 50 .................. 50 .................. 50 ..................STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY) ....................................................................................................................................... 600 .................. 600 .................. 600 ..................TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ................................................................................................................................................................... 350 .................. 350 .................. 350 ..................
39 

TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS TECHNOLOGY CENTER ..................................................................................................................................... 350 .................. 350 .................. 350 ..................USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES ............................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. ¥961 ..................SAVINGS & SLIPPAGE ............................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. ¥20,210 ..................

Total ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 90,057 3,943 128,000 4,289 118,732 45,506 GRAND TOTAL ........................................................................................................................................................................... 94,000 .................. 128,000 168,517 .................. ..................
40 

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 $400,000 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 $400,000 to initiate 

preconstruction engineering and design. 

Coyote Creek Watershed, California.—The Committee included 

$100,000 to initiate reconnaissance studies. 

Los Angeles River Watercourse Improvement, Headworks, California.—$562,000 is provided to complete the feasibility studies. 

Malibu Creek Watershed, California.—The Committee recommendation includes $608,000 to complete the feasibility study. 

Morro Bay Estuary, California.—$275,000 is provided to complete the feasibility study. 

San Clemente Shoreline, California.—The Committee included 

$329,000 to complete the feasibility study. 

Fountain Creek and Tributaries, Colorado.—The Committee provided $449,000 to complete the feasibility study. 

Boulder Creek, Greeley, Colorado.—The Committee included 

$100,000 to initiate this reconnaissance study. The Committee 

notes that studies were initiated under the Continuing Authorities 

Program, but that the scope of the study was considered to large 

for the program. 

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material in Delaware Estuary, Delaware.—$125,000 is provided to initiate the reconnaissance study. 

The study will be coordinated closely with ongoing efforts that are 

being undertaken by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in using 

dredged material to alleviate acid mine drainage concerns. 

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.—$553,000 is provided to complete the 

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

bed for the Institute of Water Resources Hurricane and Storm 

Damage Reduction model. 

Waialua-Kaiaka Watershed Restoration Study, Oahu, Hawaii.— 

The Committee provided $200,000 to initiate the reconnaissance 
41 

study to investigate the comprehensive scope and extensive water 

resource problems in the watershed. 

Boise River, Idaho.—The Committee provided a total of $330,000 for study efforts on this project. $44,000 is to complete the reconnaissance phase with the remainder to be used to initiate a cost 

shared feasibility study. 

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

recommendation includes $20,000,000 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. 

Marion Reservoir Watershed Ecosystem Restoration, Kansas.— This feasibility study is an interim under the Grand (Neosho) River 

Basin. The Committee provided $150,000 for this study. 

Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana.—The 

Committee provides $15,000,000 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 2008 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. 

The Committee recommendation is $10,000,000 less than the request as it is the Committee’s understanding that approximately 

that amount will be carried over into fiscal year 2007 due to delays 

in the study. Any funds from the fiscal year 2006 appropriation 

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 $425,000 for this study that was initiated under the Continuing Authorities Program in fiscal year 2006. $100,000 is to 

complete the reconnaissance phase with the remainder to initiate 

the feasibility phase. 

Ecorse Creek, Michigan.—The Committee recommendation includes $300,000 for the preconstruction engineering and design 

phase to initiate the general reevaluation report. 

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 sec-
42 

retary, 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 2007, 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. 

Roseau, Minnesota.—$326,000 is included to complete 

preconstruction engineering and design. 

Kansas Citys, Missouri and Kansas.—The Committee recommendation includes $750,000 for this effort. $250,000 is included 

for completion of the feasibility phase and $500,000 is for initiation 

of preconstruction engineering and design. 

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 $1,000,000 to complete topographic mapping 

for the study. 

New Jersey Shore Protection, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, 

New Jersey.—The Committee included $104,000 over the budget request to complete the preconstruction engineering and design 

phase of this study. 

Mahoning River, Ohio.—$500,000 is included to complete the 

preconstruction engineering and design phase. 

Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon and Washington.—$650,000 is 

provided to prepare and release the draft feasibility report/environmental impact statement for public review. 

Cedar Bayou, Texas.—$647,000 are provided to complete 

preconstruction engineering and design. 

Matagorda Ship Channel, Texas.—$400,000 is provided to continue the major rehabilitation study of the safety and reliability of 

the jettied entrance to the channel. 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement at Deep 

Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia.—The Committee recommendation includes $289,000 to complete the preconstruction engineering and 

design phase. 

Dismal Swamp and Dismal Swamp Canal, Chesapeake, Virginia.—$152,000 is provided to complete the final feasibility study 

for Phase I and to develop the draft feasibility study for Phase II. 

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

recommendation includes $403,000 to complete the preconstruction 

engineering and design phase. 

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

studies for flood control and environmental restoration in the Bear 

River Basin above Bear Lake. 

National Inventory of Flood/Storm Damage Reduction Projects.— 

No funds have been provided for this effort as $30,000,000 was provided via supplemental appropriations to initiate this effort in De-
43 

cember 2005. The Committee is supportive of this effort; however, 

the Committee believes that the scope of this study effort is poorly 

defined. The Committee notes that this study effort consumes a 

large portion of the General Investigations budget over the next 5 

years, yet it is unclear what the outputs of the study will be. The 

Committee recommends that the administration better define the 

scope of the study and the intended outputs before additional funds 

are provided. The Committee believes that providing additional resources to Flood Plain Management Services and Planning Assistance to States might achieve the same goals at a lower cost. 

Other Coordination Programs.—Within the funds provided, $600,000 is provided for Lake Tahoe coordination activities. 

Planning Assistance to States.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $6,300,000 for this nationwide program. Within the funds 

provided, $500,000 is for Kansas River Basin Watershed and 

Streamways, Kansas; $110,000 is for Ground Water Study, Greene 

County, Missouri; $150,000 is for Repaupo Watershed Flooding, 

New Jersey; $200,000 is for the Delaware Estuary Salinity Modeling Study, New Jersey and Delaware; $59,000 to complete the 

Mangum Lake, Oklahoma, Phase V; $253,000 to complete the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan, Oklahoma; $75,000 to complete 

the Bartlesville Water Supply Study, Oklahoma; $23,000 to complete the Port of Siuslaw, Oregon-Dredged Material Placement 

Study; $200,000 is for the Memphis Riverfront Development, Tennessee, N Phase 3; and $60,000 is for the Flood Control and Storm 

Water Management, Chesapeake, Virginia. 

Coastal Field Data Collection.—The Committee has provided $4,900,000 for this nationwide program. Within the funds provided 

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

for the Southern California Beach Processes Study; $750,000 is for 

the Surge and Wave Island Modeling Studies, Hawaii; and 

$750,000 is for the Pacific Island Land Ocean Typhoon Experiment 

Program. 

Flood Plain Management Services Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $11,741,000. Within the funds provided 

$200,000 for White Clay Creek, Delaware; $500,000 is for Albany, 

Georgia; $1,000,000 is for Hurricane Evacuation Studies, Hawaii; 

$205,000 is for Kaaawa, Hawaii; $50,000 is for Waikapu, Hawaii; 

$50,000 is for Wailuku, Hawaii; $300,000 is for Will County, Illinois; $161,000 is for East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana; 

$1,000,000 is for Livingston Parish, Louisiana; and $1,900,000 is 

for Papillion Creek Watershed, Nebraska. 

Research and Development.—The Committee has included 

$35,000,000 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 

$19,800,000 above the budget request. Within the funds provided 

$1,000,000 is provided for submerged aquatic vegetation research 

in the Chesapeake Bay; $1,500,000 is provided 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 
44 

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 nonFederal 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; $1,000,000 is provided for 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; $2,000,000 is provided for innovative technology demonstrations for urban flooding and channel restoration in Nevada. These 

demonstrations will be conducted in close coordination and cooperation with the Urban Water Research Program of the Desert Research Institute and the University of New Mexico; and $1,500,000 

is provided for implementation of the Collaborative Planning and 

Management Demonstration Program within the Institute for 

Water Resources in collaboration with Sandia National Laboratories and the Idaho National Laboratory. 

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. 1 $2,348,280,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,555,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,947,171,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,042,429,000 

1 Excludes emergency appropriations of $650,817,000 

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

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

the Nation. The construction and major rehabilitation projects for 

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

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

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will be applied to cover the 

Federal share of the Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program. 

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

than 500 projects or studies that were funded by Congress in the 

fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations Act but were not 

addressed by the administration proposal. 

Even with a more than $400,000,000 increase to the Corps’ accounts, the Committee is unable to address all of the needs. By the 

Committee’s estimate, only about 55–60 percent of the needed 

funding is available for this account. Construction schedules will 

slip due to this constrained funding. This will result in deferred 
45 

benefits to the national economy. The Committee does not believe 

that we can prioritize our way out of this problem. 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), emergency streambank and shoreline protection (section 14), beach erosion control (section 103), mitigation of shore damages (section 

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

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

improvement of the environment (section 1135). 

The budget request, the House allowance and the approved Committee allowance are shown on the following table: 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

ALABAMA 

MOBILE HARBOR, AL .................................................................................. 2,069 2,600 2,069 

TUSCALOOSA, AL ........................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 5,000 

WALTER F GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL & GA (REPLACEMENT) ................... 5,000 5,000 5,000 

ALASKA 

AKUTAN HARBOR, AK ................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 9,000 

ALASKA COASTAL EROSION, AK .................................................................. ........................ ........................ 5,000 

CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK ................................................................................. 5,000 ........................ 5,000 

FALSE PASS HARBOR. AK ........................................................................... ........................ ........................ 500 

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

NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK .......................................................... ........................ ........................ 3,000 

SAND POINT HARBOR, AK .......................................................................... 3,500 3,500 5,500 

SITKA BREAKWATER, AK ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ 6,300 

ST. PAUL HARBOR, AK ............................................................................... ........................ ........................ 3,000 

UNALASKA HARBOR, AK ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ 10,000 

ARIZONA 

NOGALES, AZ .............................................................................................. ........................ 1,000 3,000 

RIO DEL FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, AZ ................................................................... ........................ 1,500 3,000 

RIO SALADA, PHOENIX AND TEMPE REACHES, AZ ..................................... ........................ 8,400 ........................

TRES RIOS, AZ ........................................................................................... ........................ 2,000 ........................

TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, PIMA COUNTY, AZ ............................................ ........................ 2,000 4,000 

ARKANSAS 

MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR ................................................. 14,000 14,000 13,000 

MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR & OK ...... ........................ 300 ........................

RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, LA, AR, OK, & TN ............................... ........................ ........................ 2,500 

RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, AR & LA ............................. ........................ ........................ 4,000 
46 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

CALIFORNIA 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON FEATURES), CA ........................ ........................ ........................ 17,400 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MINI RAISE), CA ............... ........................ ........................ 23,400 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATION), CA ........... ........................ ........................ 6,000 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA ............................................................ 46,800 49,800 ........................

CALFED LEVEE STABILITY PROGRAM, CA ................................................... ........................ ........................ 6,000 

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA ...................................................................... ........................ 1,000 ........................

CITY OF CORONADO TRANSBAY PROJECT, CA ........................................... ........................ ........................ 500 

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

FARMINGTON GROUNDWATER, CA .............................................................. ........................ 300 ........................

GUADALUPE RIVER, CA .............................................................................. 5,000 6,700 3,000 

HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA ................................... 11,700 11,700 10,000 

HARBOR/SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING PROJECT, CA ............................ ........................ 800 4,000 

HEACOCK & CACTUS CHANNELS ................................................................ ........................ 900 ........................

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA ............................................. 5,564 5,564 5,564 

LOS ANGELES HARBOR DEEPENING, CA .................................................... ........................ 2,000 1,000 

MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA ...................................... ........................ ........................ 475 

MURRIETA CREEK, CA ................................................................................ ........................ 2,000 2,000 

NAPA RIVER, CA ......................................................................................... 9,000 11,000 11,000 

OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA .............................................. 43,500 43,500 36,000 

PETALUMA RIVER, CA ................................................................................. ........................ 3,200 ........................

PLACER COUNTY SUB-REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT, CA .............. ........................ 2,000 ........................

PORT OF LONG BEACH (DEEPENING), CA .................................................. 5,700 ........................ 5,000 

SACRAMENTO AREA, CA ............................................................................. ........................ 7,000 ........................

SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA ............................. 10,960 15,000 10,960 

SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL ................................... ........................ ........................ 500 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA ................................................... ........................ ........................ 700 

SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA ........................................................................... ........................ 500 ........................

SAN LUIS REY, CA ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000 

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

SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA ............................................................. 54,080 56,080 46,000 

SANTA MARIA RIVER LEVEE, CA ................................................................ ........................ ........................ 300 

SOUTH PERRIS PROJECT, CA ..................................................................... ........................ 2,000 ........................

SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA ............................................ 7,313 9,700 7,313 

STOCKTON METRO FLOOD CONTROL REIMBURSE, CA ............................... ........................ 1,500 ........................

SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY) ........................................ 25,000 25,000 25,000 

SURFSIDE-SUNSET-NEWPORT BEACH, CA 1 ................................................ ........................ 1,200 1,200 

UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CA .................................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,000 

UPPER NEWPORT, CA ................................................................................. ........................ 5,000 5,000 

YUBA BASIN, CA ......................................................................................... ........................ 1,500 1,500 

DELAWARE 

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET TO LEWES 1 ..................... ........................ 60 60 

DELAWARE COAST, BETHANY BEACH TO SOUTH BETHATNY BEACH ......... ........................ ........................ 3,000 

DELAWARE COAST, CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND, DE ................. ........................ ........................ 120 

DELAWARE COAST, CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND, REHOBETH 

BEACH/DEWEY BEACH, DE .................................................................... ........................ ........................ 100 

DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE .......................................................... ........................ ........................ 360 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

WASHINGTON, DC & VICINITY .................................................................... 320 ........................ 320 

FLORIDA 

BREVARD COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT, FL (GRR) .................... ........................ ........................ 315 

BREVARD COUNTY, FL (CANAVERAL HARBOR) 1 ........................................ ........................ 10,000 8,000 

BROWARD COUNTY, FL ............................................................................... ........................ 750 750 

CEDAR HAMMOCK, WARES CREEK, FL ....................................................... 6,000 6,000 6,000 

CENTRAL & SOUTH FLORIDA ...................................................................... ........................ ........................ 55,000 

DADE COUNDY, FL ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,500 

EVERGLADES & SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION .................... ........................ ........................ 8,289 

FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY, FL ........................................................... ........................ 1,300 3,000 
47 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL ............................................................................ ........................ ........................ 1,500 

HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL) .................................... 39,884 39,884 39,884 

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ........................................................................ ........................ 200 500 

KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL ................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 40,000 

LAKE WORTH SAND TRANSFER PLANT, FL 1 ............................................... ........................ 2,000 2,000 

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

MIAMI HARBOR, FL ..................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 500 

NASSAU COUNTY, FL .................................................................................. ........................ 6,500 6,000 

PINELLAS COUNTY, FL 1 .............................................................................. ........................ 1,000 ........................

PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL ........................................................................ ........................ ........................ 1,000 

PORT EVERGLADES, FL ............................................................................... ........................ 250 250 

SOUTH FLORIDA EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL .................. 164,000 164,000 ........................

ST JOHNS COUNTY, FL 1 ............................................................................. ........................ 200 200 

ST LUCIE INLET, FL .................................................................................... ........................ 1,000 1,000 

TAMPA HARBOR, BIG BEND, FL ................................................................. 8,500 8,500 7,500 

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

GEORGIA 

ATLANTA, GA (EI) ........................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 1,000 

BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA .......................................................................... ........................ 19,700 15,000 

OATES CREEK, AUGUSTA, GA (DEF CORR) ................................................. ........................ 750 750 

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC ....................................... 4,600 ........................ 4,600 

TYBEE ISLAND, GA ..................................................................................... ........................ 2,000 2,000 

HAWAII 

HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT, HI .............................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,500 

IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF CORR) ............................... ........................ ........................ 300

KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI ............................................... ........................ ........................ 14,500 

IDAHO 

RURAL IDAHO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE .................................... ........................ 3,000 4,800 

ILLINOIS 

CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR) .................. 6,800 6,800 6,800 

CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL ............................................................................ 10,000 10,000 10,000 

COOK COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE .................................. ........................ 750 ........................

DES PLAINES RIVER, IL .............................................................................. 6,000 7,000 6,000 

EAST ST LOUIS, IL ...................................................................................... 2,960 ........................ 2,960 

LOCK NO 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (REHAB) 1 ......................................... ........................ 3,400 2,500 

LOCK & DAM 24, IL & MO (REHAB) 1 ........................................................ ........................ 3,900 3,000 

MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL ................................................ 45,000 45,000 36,000 

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

OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY .................................... 110,000 110,000 90,000 

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & .................... 26,800 20,000 16,000 

WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT, IL ......................................... ........................ 250 ........................

INDIANA 

CADY MARSH DITCH, LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN ..................................... ........................ 4,000 ........................

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

INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY), IN .............................. ........................ ........................ 15,000 

INDIANA SHORELINE, IN ............................................................................. ........................ 1,000 ........................

INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN ................................................. 2,787 ........................ 2,787 

INDIANAPOLIS ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE .................................... ........................ 500 ........................

JOHN T MEYERS LOCK & DAM, IN & KY .................................................... ........................ 2,000 ........................

LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN ........................................................................ 14,000 15,500 12,000 

MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN (SEEPAGE CONTROL) ........................................... 6,000 6,000 6,000 

IOWA 

DES MOINES RECREATIONAL RIVER & GREENBELT, IA ............................. ........................ 6,000 3,000 

LOCK & DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (REHAB) 1 .................................. ........................ 20,300 18,320 

LOCK & DAM 19, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (REHAB) 1 .................................. ........................ 5,444 5,444 
48 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee 

recommendation 

MISSOURI R FISH & WILDLIFE MITIGATION IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, ND, SD .. ........................ ........................ 54,000 

MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS & MO .................................. 2,500 ........................ 2,500 

PERRY CREEK, IA ....................................................................................... 1,500 1,500 1,500 

KANSAS 

TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS & MO ............................................................... 4,000 4,000 5,000 

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS (DAM SAFETY) .................................................... 38,000 38,000 38,000 

KENTUCKY 

GREENUP LOCKS & DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY & OH ...................................... ........................ 200 ........................

KENTUCKY LOCK & DAM, KY ...................................................................... ........................ 10,000 20,000 

MARKLAND LOCKS & DAM, KY & IN (REHAB) 1 ......................................... ........................ 8,000 6,000 

MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY & IN .................................. 70,000 70,000 57,000 

METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, BEARGRASS CREEK, KY ................................ 600 600 600 

METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY .......................................... 3,948 3,948 3,948 

ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE) ................................ 1,991 1,991 1,991 

SOUTHERN & EASTERN KENTUCKY, KY ...................................................... ........................ 1,000 ........................

WOLF CREEK, KY (SEEPAGE CONTROL) ..................................................... 31,000 31,000 31,000 

LOUISIANA 

ASCENSION PARISH, LA (EI) ....................................................................... ........................ ........................ 375 

COMITE RIVER, LA ...................................................................................... ........................ 15,000 8,000 

EAST BATON ROUGE, LA (FC) .................................................................... ........................ 5,000 1,000 

EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA (EI) ........................................................ ........................ ........................ 750 

IBERIA PARISH, LA (EI) .............................................................................. ........................ ........................ 375 

INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA .......................................... ........................ 18,000 18,000 

J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA ....................................................... 1,500 2,000 15,000 

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

OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, LA ..................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,960 

MARYLAND 

ANACOSTIA RIVER & TRIBURARIES, MD & DC .......................................... ........................ ........................ 308 

ASSATEAGUE, MD 1 ..................................................................................... ........................ 2,000 2,000 

ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD ......................................................... ........................ ........................ 200 

CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD & VA ..................................... ........................ 2,000 2,000 

BALTIMORE METRO-GWYNNS FALLS, MD ................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,500 

CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM, MD, VA & PA .................. ........................ ........................ 1,000 

CUMBERLAND, MD ..................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 500 

LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY, ST. MARY’S COUNTY, MD ............................. ........................ ........................ 300 

POPLAR ISLAND, MD .................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 13,100 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MUDDY RIVER, BOSTON & BROOKLINE, MA .............................................. ........................ 1,000 1,000 

MICHIGAN 

GENESSEE COUNTY, MI .............................................................................. ........................ 500 500 

GEORGE W. KUHN DRAIN RETENTION FACILITY, MI ................................... ........................ ........................ 300 

GREAT LAKE FISHERY & ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION ................................. ........................ ........................ 500 

NEGAUNEE, MI ............................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 375 

SAULT STE. MARIE, MI ............................................................................... ........................ 2,200 1,500 

MINNESOTA 

BRECKENRIDGE, MN ................................................................................... ........................ 3,000 1,500 

MILLE LACS, MN ......................................................................................... ........................ 3,000 ........................

NORTHEAST, MN ......................................................................................... ........................ 1,000 ........................

MISSISSIPPI 

DESOTO COUNTY, MS ................................................................................. ........................ 2,000 7,000 

JACKSON COUNTY WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS, MS .................................... ........................ ........................ 5,500 

MISSISSIPPI, MS (EI) .................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 25,000 
49 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

MISSOURI 

BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO ...................................................... 2,000 2,000 2,000 

BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO ................................................. 9,750 9,750 9,000 

BOIS BRULE, MO ........................................................................................ ........................ 1,060 1,560 

CAPE GIRARDEAU, MO ............................................................................... ........................ 3,200 ........................

CHESTERFIELD, MO .................................................................................... ........................ 150 1,400 

CLEARWATER LAKE, MO (SEEPAGE CONTROL) ........................................... 28,000 28,000 25,000 

MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO ........... 7,560 8,560 7,560 

MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENHANCEMENT, MO .............. ........................ ........................ 1,000 

MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS & MO (L–142) .................... ........................ ........................ 100 

STE. GENEVIEVE, MO .................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 375 

MONTANA 

FT. PECK DAM & LAKE, MT ........................................................................ ........................ ........................ 800 

RURAL MONTANA, MT (EI) .......................................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,200 

NEBRASKA 

ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE ................................................................ 7,500 7,500 7,500 

SAND CREEK WATERSHED, NE ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000 

WESTERN SARPY & CLEAR CREEK, NE ...................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000 

NEVADA 

RURAL NEVADA, NV .................................................................................... ........................ 400 25,000 

TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION, NV & CA (EI) ............................................... ........................ ........................ 3,500 

TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV .................................................. 12,400 12,400 22,000 

NEW JERSEY 

BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG HARBOR, NJ .......................................... 2,500 6,000 2,500 

CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ 1 ............................................ ........................ 360 360 

DELAWARE RIVER MAIN HCANNEL, NJ, PA, & DE ...................................... ........................ ........................ 2,500 

GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET & PECK BEACH, NJ ........................................ ........................ ........................ 2,000 

HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ ................ ........................ ........................ 615 

JOSEPH G. MINISH PASSAIC RIVER WATERFRONT PARK, NJ ...................... ........................ ........................ 2,500 

LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ 1 .............................. ........................ 130 130 

MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ............................................. ........................ 100 ........................

MOLLY ANN’S BROOK AT HALEDON, PROSPECT PARK AND PATERS ......... 600 600 600 

PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE, NJ ...................... ........................ 4,000 1,800 

RAMAPO & MAHAWAH RIVERS, NEW JERSEY & SUFFERN, NY .................. ........................ ........................ 500 

RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ ............................................................... ........................ 455 445 

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

RARITAN BAY & SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ (PORT MONMOUTH) ..................... ........................ ........................ 1,000 

RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREENBROOK, NJ ................................................. ........................ 5,000 5,000 

SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ...................................................... ........................ ........................ 3,000 

TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ ............................................. 5,816 5,816 5,000 

NEW MEXICO 

ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM .......................................................... 2,400 2,400 2,400 

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

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

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELEN ......... ........................ ........................ 500 

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

RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE, ............ 600 600 800 

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

NEW YORK 

ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, ............. 2,400 2,400 2,400 

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY 1 ................................................. ........................ 5,000 5,000 

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY ............................................. 2,500 2,500 2,500 

JONES INLET TO EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY ............................................ ........................ 500 ........................

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY & NJ ...................................... 90,000 90,000 70,000 

NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED, NY .............................................................. ........................ ........................ 750 
50 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

ONONDAGA LAKE, NY ................................................................................. ........................ 2,000 500 

ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NY ................................................................... ........................ 250 ........................

NORTH CAROLINA 

BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC .......................................................... ........................ ........................ 600 

CAROLINA BEACH & KURE BEACH, NC ...................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000 

DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NC ..................................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000 

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

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ......................................................................... ........................ ........................ 10,000 

WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC ......................................................................... ........................ ........................ 300 

NORTH DAKOTA 

BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND AQUISITION, ND ............... ........................ ........................ 1,893 

DEVILS LAKE WATER SUPPLY ..................................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,972 

GRAND FORKS, ND—EAST GRAND FORKS, MN ......................................... 12,018 12,018 12,018 

MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION ................................................................. ........................ ........................ 300 

SHEYENNE RIVER, ND ................................................................................ 1,740 ........................ 1,740 

OHIO 

HOLES CREEK, WEST CARROLLTON, OH .................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,355 

LOWER GIRARD DAM, OH ........................................................................... ........................ 785 ........................

METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH ...................... 5,650 5,650 5,650 

MILL CREEK, OH ......................................................................................... 800 800 800 

OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................. ........................ 18,300 ........................

OKLAHOMA 

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

OREGON 

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

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR & WA ................... 6,300 6,300 6,300 

ELK CREEK LAKE, OR ................................................................................. 1,440 1,440 1,440 

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR & WA .............. 2,200 2,200 2,000 

WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR ..................................... ........................ ........................ 2,470 

PENNSYLVANIA 

EMSWORTH L&D, OHIO RIVER, PA (STATIC INSTABILITY CORRE ............... 17,000 17,000 15,000 

JOHNSTOWN, PA ......................................................................................... ........................ 800 ........................

LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ....................... 62,772 62,772 51,000 

NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA, PA ................................................................. ........................ 2,000 ........................

PRESQUE ISLE, PA ..................................................................................... ........................ 200 620 

SAW MILL RUN, PITTSBURGH, PA .............................................................. 2,300 ........................ 2,300 

SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, PA ......................................................... ........................ 9,000 ........................

SOUTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA INFRASTRUCTURE, PA .................................... ........................ 1,190 ........................

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

WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING) .................................................... 5,600 5,600 5,600 

PUERTO RICO 

ARECIBO RIVER, PR ................................................................................... 8,900 8,900 7,500 

PORTUGUES & BUCANA RIVERS, PR .......................................................... ........................ ........................ 5,000 

RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR ............................................................................ 25,000 25,000 18,000 

RHODE ISLAND 

FOX POINT HURRICANE BARRIER, RI ......................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,055 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

FOLLY BEACH, SC 1 .................................................................................... ........................ 25 80 

LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SC ........................................................... ........................ 7,000 ........................

SOUTH DAKOTA 

BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD .......................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000 
51 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

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

TENNESSEE 

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN ............................................................................ 27,000 27,000 27,000 

TEXAS 

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX .................................................................... 20,000 23,000 17,000 

CENTRAL CITY, FORT WORTH, UPPER TRINITY RIVER, TX ......................... ........................ 6,000 500 

CLEAR CREEK, TX ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000 

DALLAS FLOODWAY, TX .............................................................................. ........................ 5,000 13,000 

HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX ................................... 43,076 43,076 37,000 

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

NORTH PADRE ISLAND, TX ......................................................................... ........................ 500 ........................

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

SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, TX ....................................................................... ........................ 2,350 10,000 

SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX ....................................................................... 22,400 22,400 17,850 

TEXAS CITY CHANNEL, TX .......................................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,500 

UTAH 

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

VERMONT 

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

LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VT ............................................................ ........................ ........................ 3,000 

VERMONT DAMS REMEDIATION, VT ............................................................ ........................ ........................ 200 

VIRGINIA 

JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA ....................................................................... ........................ ........................ 425 

JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & NC (REPLACEMENT) .............. 11,000 11,000 10,000 

LAKE MERRIWEATHER, GOSHEN DAM & SPILLWAY, VA ............................. ........................ ........................ 1,000 

LYNCHBURG (CSO), VA .............................................................................. ........................ ........................ 400 

NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ............................................................................... ........................ 3,400 1,700 

RICHMOND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW, VA .......................................... ........................ ........................ 400 

ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA .......................... 8,300 8,300 8,300 

SANDBRIDGE, VA ........................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 2,000 

VIRGINIA BEACH HURRICANE PROTECTION, VA ......................................... ........................ 11,700 6,000 

WASHINGTON 

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

COLUMBIA RIVER FISHING MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID ............................... ........................ ........................ 83,000 

DUWAMISH & GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA .................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000 

HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, VA ............................ ........................ ........................ 16,658 

LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH & WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR ............ 850 850 850 

MT. ST. HELENS, WA .................................................................................. ........................ 500 500 

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY) .................................................. 5,470 5,470 5,470 

PUGET SOUND ADJACENT WATER, WA ....................................................... ........................ 500 1,500 

SHOALWATER BAY, WA ............................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,500 

WEST VIRGINIA 

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY) ........................................................ 15,200 15,200 15,200 

GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV ................................................................. ........................ ........................ 2,500 

ISLAND CREEK AT LOGAN, WV ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 150 

LEVISA & TUG FORKS, UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, VA, KY ............. ........................ 20,000 12,800 

LOWER MUD RIVER, WV ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ 750 

MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV ........................................................ 50,800 50,800 50,800 

ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV & OH ..................... 1,800 1,800 1,800 

SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA, WV ................................................................. ........................ 1,000 ........................

WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL, WV & PA ............. ........................ 750 ........................

WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV .................................... 4,300 4,300 4,300 

WISCONSIN 

NORTHERN WISCONSIN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE, WI ....................... ........................ 8,000 ........................
52 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee 

recommendation 

ST. CROIX FALLS ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, WI ........................ ........................ 500 ........................

MISCELLANEOUS 

ABANDONED MINE RESTORATION ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 746 

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206) ................................. 15,100 25,000 25,000 

AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM ......................................................... 3,000 4,000 5,000 

BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL—SEC 204/207/933 1 ............. ........................ 5,000 4,250 

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

DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY PROGRAM .................................. ........................ ........................ 18,250 

EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SECTION ........ 1,330 15,000 12,000 

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

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

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) .............................................. 16,075 29,933 45,000 

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

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

NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECTS (SEC. 111) 1 ...................................... ........................ 2,500 1,250 

NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107) ...................................................... 845 8,000 8,000 

PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONME .......... 15,000 25,000 25,000 

REPROGRAMMING INVESTMENT FUND ....................................................... ........................ 40,000 ........................

SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMO PROGRAM ..... ........................ ........................ 5,000 

SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION 103) ......................................... 550 2,000 5,000 

SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECTS (SEC 208) ...................................... ........................ 500 500 

SUSPENSION FUND ..................................................................................... 41,372 ........................ ........................

TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000 

USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES ................................................................ ........................ ........................ ¥6,472 

REDUCTION FIR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS & SLIPPAGE ................................. ........................ ........................ ¥81,468 

Total, Construction ....................................................................... 1,555,000 1,947,171 2,042,429 

1 Project contained in O&M budget request. 

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

for the relocation project at Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 

Akutan Harbor, Alaska.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 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, Point Hope, and Unalakleet. Section 117 of Public Law 108–447 will apply to this project. 

Unalaska, Alaska.—The Committee provides $10,000,000 to initiate construction. 

Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona.—The Committee provides 

$4,000,000 for construction 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. 
53 

American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Miniraise), California.— 

The Committee provides $23,400,000. Within the funds provided, 

$15,000,000 is for construction of the bridge. 

CALFED Levee Stability Program, California.—The Committee 

recommendation includes $6,000,000 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 $475,000 for a limited reevaluation report as well as other necessary studies in advance of reconstruction. 

Oakland Harbor, California.—The Committee recommends 

$36,000,000 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 

$46,000,000 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. 

Upper Guadalupe River, California.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue construction of this 

project. 

Delaware Bay Coastline, Bethany Beach to South Bethany Beach, 

Delaware.—$3,000,000 is provided for construction of this shore 

protection project. 

Delaware Coast, Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Delaware.— 

The Committee has included $1,700,000 to continue construction of 

this project. 

Washington, DC and Vicinity, District of Columbia.—The Committee provides $320,000 to initiate construction as proposed in the 

budget request. 

Brevard County Shore Protection Project, Florida.—The Committee recommendation includes $315,000 for continuation of the 

General Reevaluation Report. 

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 
54 

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. As the work involved primarily benefits Everglades National Park, budgeting for this work should be continued 

by the Interior Department as has been past practice. The Committee 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 $500,000 to continue work on the General Reevaluation Report. 

Tampa Harbor, Florida.—$7,500,000 is provided for the Big Bend Channel and $1,000,000 is for the Sutton Channel. 

Atlanta, Georgia.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$1,000,000 to continue this project. 

Brunswick Harbor, Georgia.—The Committee includes 

$15,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

Oates Creek, Richmond County, Georgia.—The Committee includes $750,000 to continue construction of 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 $4,800,000 for this project. Within the funds provided the Corps should give consideration to projects at Emmett, 

Burley, Deary, Rupert, Donnelly, Eastern Idaho Regional Water 

Authority, and Smelterville. Other communities that meet the program criteria should be considered as funding allows. 

Des Plaines River, Illinois.—The Committee includes $6,000,000 

to continue construction of this project. 

McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.—The Committee includes $36,000,000 for continued 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. 

Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky.—The 

Committee provides $90,000,000 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 
55 

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 $54,000,000 for this project. Legislative language is 

included in the bill that accompanies this report to make modifications to the Intake Dam in order to provide additional habitat for 

the pallid sturgeon. 

Turkey Creek, Kansas and Missouri.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue construction of this 

project. 

Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, Kentucky.—The Committee recommendation includes $20,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

McAlpine Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Kentucky and Indiana.— The Committee has provided $57,000,000 to continue construction 

of this project. The reduction made to this project should not be 

viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program 

among the various missions of the Corps. 

Inner Harbor Lock and Dam, Louisiana.—The Committee has included $18,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.—The Committee has 

provided $15,000,000 for navigation channel refinement features, 

land purchases and development for mitigation of project impacts, 

and construction of project recreation and appurtenant features. 

Ouachita River Levees, Louisiana.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,960,000 to complete the project. 

Chesapeake Bay Environmental Program, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia.—The Committee has included $1,000,000 for 

continuation of this project. Within the funds provided, $118,000 is 

included to continue 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 $800,000 for continuation of Fort Peck cabin 

sales. 

Rural Montana, Montana.—The Committee provides $4,200,000 

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, Helena-Missouri River Water Treatment Plant, Ranch Water 

District, Bigfork, Froid Water System Improvement, Town of Medicine Lake, County Water District of Billings Heights, Power Water 

System improvements, Seely Lake Sewer, Greater Woods Bay 

Wastewater System. Other communities that meet the program criteria should be considered as funding allows. 
56 

Sand Creek, Nebraska.—The Committee includes $1,000,000 to 

continue construction of this project. 

Rural Nevada, Nevada.—The Committee recommendation pro- vides $25,000,000 for this project. Within the funds provided the 

Corps should give consideration to projects at North Lemmon Valley, Spanish Springs Valley Phase II, Huffaker Hills Water Conservation, Lawton-Verdi, Boulder City, Lyon County, Gerlach, 

Searchlight, Incline Village, Esmeralda County, Churchill County, 

West Wendover, Yearington, Virgin Valley Water District, 

Lovelock, Truckee Meadows Water Authority, McGill-Ruth Consolidated Sewer and Water District, Carlin, Moapa, 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 $22,000,000 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. 

Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jersey.—$445,000 is included for 

this project. 

Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-basin, New Jersey.—The 

Committee includes $5,000,000 to continue construction of this 

project. 

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, New Mexico.—The Committee includes 

$5,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

New Mexico [EI], New Mexico.—The Committee includes 

$5,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

Buford Trenton Irrigation District, North Dakota.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,893,000 to complete construction of this project. 

Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, Pennsylvania.—The Committee recommendation includes $51,000,000 to 

continue construction of this project. The reduction made to this 

project should not be viewed as any dimunition of support for this 

project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers 

nationwide program among the various missions of the Corps. 

Presque Isle, Pennsylvania.—The Committee provides $620,000 

to continue this project. 

Big Sioux River, South Dakota.—The Committee includes 

$2,000,000 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 funding to pay administrative expenses, implementation of terrestrial 

wildlife plans, activities associated with land transferred or to be 

transferred, and annual expenses for operating recreational areas. 

The Committee includes $5,000,000 for this effort. Within the 

funds provided, the Committee directs that not more than 

$1,000,000 shall be provided for administrative expenses, and that 
57 

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 $27,000,000 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. Within the funds provided, the conferees direct the Corps of Engineers to investigate the technical 

merits of combining the project with the project for environmental 

restoration, Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas, described in the 

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May 29, 2003. In conducting 

this investigation, the Corps of Engineers shall not conduct a feasibility level review, but shall investigate the technical advantages, 

environmental acceptability, the opportunities to achieve synergy 

between the two projects and the views of the local interests related to combining the projects. The Chief of Engineers shall furnish a report containing his findings on this matter within 90 days 

of enactment of this act. While conducting this review, the Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to continue to pursue design 

and construction activities on the authorized Central City project 

in an expeditious manner, maintaining all established project 

schedules. 

Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas.—The Committee 

provides $37,000,000 for continued construction of this project. 

Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas.—The Committee Expects the 

Report of the Chief of Engineers for the Sabine-Neches Waterway, 

Texas project for navigation and other allied purposes to be expedited and completed by December 2006. 

Red River Basin Chloride Control, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas 

and Louisiana.—The Committee includes $1,500,000 to continue 

construction. 

Rural, Utah. 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. 

Columbia River Fish Recovery, Washington, Oregon, and 

Idaho.—The Committee has chosen not to combine the various, 

separately authorized, components of the project into a single line 

item as was proposed in the budget. The Committee believes that 

it is prudent to maintain visibility of the various project elements 

in the budget process and has therefore funded the three traditional line items combined in this heading in the budget. 

Mud Mountain, Washington.—Within the funds provided, the 

Corps is directed to use up to $1,070,000 to complete final design 

activities associated with the fish passage facilities. 

Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland 

River, West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia.—The Committee provides $12,800,000 for the continuation of the project. Within the 

funds provided, the Committee recommendation includes 

$5,300,000 for the Buchanan County, Dickenson County, and 

Grundy, Virginia elements. Further, the recommendation includes 

$7,500,000 for Kermit, Lower Mingo County, McDowell County, 

Upper Mingo and Wayne County, West Virginia. 
58 

Aquatic Plant Control Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for this program. Within the funds provided, the Committee has provided $600,000 for a cost-shared program for Lake Gaston, North Carolina and $400,000 for a costshared program for Lake Champlain, Vermont. 

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. $250,000 is provided above the budget request for 

the Wilmington Harbor, Delaware, Dredged Material Management 

Plan. 

Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the program. Within the 

funds provided, $3,000,000 is for Morehead City Harbor, North 

Carolina. 

Shore Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program.—The Committee provides $5,000,000 for this program. With- in the funds provided, $3,000,000 is for the Miami Beach Alternative Sand Test Beach and Breakwater Project in Florida and 

$2,000,000 is for the Sacred Falls Demonstration project in Hawaii. 

Tribal Partnership Program.—The Committee includes $350,000 

for Nevada for cultural resource restoration on historic Washoe 

lands; $350,000 for New Mexico to further the tribal assistance efforts by the Corps in New Mexico and $300,000 for work with the 

Shoshone Bannick Tribes of Fort Hall, Idaho. 

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

As was discussed in the fiscal year 2006 Senate Report, when 

Congress authorized the initial Continuing Authorities in the 1940s 

and 1950s, they were envisioned to provide a small pool of money 

available to the Corps of Engineers to solve very small localized 

problems without being encumbered by the longer study and 

project authorization process. As more programs were added to the 

Continuing Authorities Program [CAP] they became increasingly 

popular with congressional Members and the public. More and 
59 

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 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. Unfortunately, this moratorium did not have the desired effect and the Committee cannot recommend continuing it for fiscal year 2007. The Committee now believes that this was a heavy-handed approach to solving a problem 

that needed a more flexible solution. 

Prioritization of these projects by the Corps is still essential. The 

Committee directs that the Corps should prioritize projects in the 

following manner to try to get the backlog of these projects reduced. The first priority for funding should be for construction 

projects that already have an executed Project Cooperation Agreements. The next priority should be for projects with executed design agreements. Third priority would be for those with executed 

feasibility agreements. The fourth priority would be for those 

projects progressing from design to construction. The fifth priority 

would be for projects moving from feasibility to design and 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 limited new starts in each 

of the sections. 

After fiscal year 2007, 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 determining 

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. 

For fiscal year 2007, 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 should provide a quarterly report to the Committee displaying by CAP section the project status and the allocations received by the projects/studies in the previous quarter. 

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 
60 

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 ......................................................................................................................... 8,000,000 75 

Section 1135 ....................................................................................................................... 25,000,000 70 

Section 14 ........................................................................................................................... 12,000,000 80 

Sections 204, 207, 933 ...................................................................................................... 4,250,000 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 Committee understands that funding in some sections may be insufficient to fund all current obligations as well as the new projects 

added by the Committee. The Corps is directed not to initiate any 

new continuing authorities projects. 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: 

Section 14, Emergency Bank Stabilization 

Kwethluk, Alaska 

27th St. Bridge, Colorado 

Powers Boulevard, Colorado 

Coal Creek, Monroe County, Iowa 

Iowa River, Sac and Fox Tribe, Iowa 

Ouachita River, City of Monroe, Louisiana 

Tucker Road, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana 

Quoddy Narrows, South Lubec Road, Lubec, Maine 

Patuxent River, Patuxent Beach Road, Maryland 

Tallahatchie River, Site 3, Tallahatchie County, Mississippi 

Partridge Brook, Westmoreland, New Hampshire 

Elizabeth River, Valleyview Road, Hillside, New Jersey 

Mt. Pleasant Ave., Malapardis Brook, Township of Hanover, New 

Jersey 

South Branch Rahway River, Woodbridge, New Jersey 

Fort Abercrombie, North Dakota 

Tuscarawas County Road 1, Ohio 

St. Johns Landfill, Oregon 

City of Sunbury, Pennsylvania—Sunbury Riverfront Project 

New Castle, Pennsylvania (Neshannock Creek) 

Patrick Street to Magic Island, Charleston, West Virginia 

Kenosha Harbor Retaining Wall, Kenosha, Wisconsin 

Kinnickinnic River Storm Sewer, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin 

Section 103 Shoreline Protection 

Unalakleet, Alaska 

Bay Farm Island Dike, California 

Goleta Beach, California 
61 

Conquest Preserve, Maryland 

Franklin Point Park, Maryland 

Mayo Beach Park, Maryland 

Pleasure Island, Baltimore County, Maryland 

Philadelphia Shipyard Sea Wall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Section 107 Small Navigation Projects 

Kahoolawe Small Boat Harbor, Hawaii 

North Kohala Navigation Improvements, Hawaii 

Port Fourchon Extension, Louisiana 

Bass Harbor, Tremont, Maine 

Bucks Harbor Navigation Improvement, Machiasport, Maine 

Corea Harbor Navigation Improvement, Gouldsboro, Maine 

Nanticoke Harbor Jetty/Nanticoke, Maryland 

Woods Hole Great Harbor, Falmouth, Massachusetts 

Northwestern Michigan College, Traverse City, Michigan 

Coos Bay Turning Basin, Oregon 

Charlestown Breachway and Ninigret Pond, Rhode Island 

Northwest Tennessee Regional Harbor, Tennessee 

Tangier Island Jetty, Accomack County, Virginia 

Section 111 Mitigation of Shore Damages Attributable to Navigation Projects 

Saco River and Camp Ellis Beach, Saco, Maine 

Mobile Pass, Alabama 

Section 204, 207, 933 Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material 

Blackhawk Bottoms, Pool 19, Burlington, Iowa 

Atchafalaya River, Shell Island Pass, Louisiana 

Calcasieu River Mile 5 to 14, Cameron Parish, Louisiana 

Maumee Bay Habitat Restoration, Ohio 

Restoration of the Cat Islands Chain, Green Bay, Wisconsin 

Morehead City Harbor, North Carolina 

Section 205 Small Flood Control Projects 

Fort Yukon, Alaska 

Skagway, Alaska 

Cosgrove Creek, California 

Heacock and Cactus Channels, California 

New Hogan Reservoir Re-operation, California 

Oak Creek, Florence, Colorado 

Ben Hill County, Georgia 

Kuliouou Stream, Hawaii 

Palai Stream, Hawaii 

Waiahole-Waikane Valley, Hawaii 

Waiakea Stream, Hawaii 

Wailele Stream, Hawaii 

White River, Anderson, Indiana 

Denison, Iowa 

Indian and Dry Run Creeks, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 

Mad Creek, Muscatine, Iowa 

Red Oak Creek, Iowa 

Winnebago River, Mason City, Iowa 

Crown Point (Jean Lafitte), Jefferson Parish, Louisiana 
62 

Fisher School Basin, Jean Lafitte, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana 

Goose Bayou Basin, Jean Lafitte, Louisiana 

Lockport to Larose, Louisiana 

Pailet Basin, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana 

Rosethorn Basin (Jean Lafitte), Louisiana 

Snagging and Clearing, Bayou Sere, Louisiana 

Town of Carenco, Lafayette Parish, Louisiana 

Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland 

North River, Peabody, Massachusetts 

Montevideo, Minnesota 

McKinney Bayou, Tunica County, Mississippi 

Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri 

Charleston, Missouri 

Little River Diversion, Dutchtown, Missouri 

Livingston, Montana 

Platte River, Fremont, Nebraska 

Platte River, Schuyler, Nebraska 

Hatch, New Mexico 

Battle Mountain, Nevada 

Mill Brook, Highland Park, New Jersey 

Poplar Brook, Monmouth County, New Jersey 

Upper Passaic River and Tributaries, Long Hill Township, New 

Jersey 

Gila River, Grant, Hidalgo County, New Mexico 

Fargo-Ridgewood Addition, North Dakota 

Lower Lycoming Creek, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania 

Montoursville Borough, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania 

Chattanooga Creek Watershed Study, Tennessee 

First Creek, Knoxville, Tennessee 

Sandy Creek, Tennessee 

West Virginia Statewide Flood Warning System 

Williamstown, West Virginia 

Root River, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin 

Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration 

Eklutna, Alaska 

Northway, Alaska 

Brownsville Branch, Arkansas 

Upper York Creek Dam Removal and Restoration, California 

Arkansas River Fisheries Habitat Restoration, Colorado 

North Fork Gunnison River Ecosystem Restoration, Colorado 

Tamarisk Eradication, Colorado 

Mill River, Stamford, Connecticut 

Rose Bay, Florida 

Chattahoochee Fall Line Ecosystem Restoration Program, Georgia 

Mokuhinia/Mokuula Ecsystem Restoration, Hawaii 

Indian Creek, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Caldwell, Idaho 

Paradise Creek Ecosystem Restoration, Idaho 

Emiquon Preserve, Fulton County, Illinois 

Squaw Creek Aquatic Restoration, Lake County, Illinois 

Duck Creek, Davenport, Iowa 

Iowa River, Clear Creek, Iowa City, Iowa 

Storm Lake, Iowa 
63 

Ventura Marsh at Clear Lake, Iowa 

Whitebreast Creek, Iowa 

City of Mandeville, Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana 

False River Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana 

University Lakes, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

Anacostia River and Tribs, Maryland and the District of Columbia, Northwest Branch 

Deep Run/Tiber Hudson, Maryland 

Paint Branch Fish Passage, Maryland 

Parsons Creek, Dorchester County, Maryland 

St. Martin’s River, Worcester County, Maryland 

Milford Pond Restoration, Milford, Massachusetts 

Marion Mill Pond, Marion, Michigan 

Missouri Stream Restoration Pilot Project, Missouri 

Carson River, Nevada 

Grovers Mill Pond, New Jersey 

Blue Hole Lake, Santa Rosa, New Mexico 

Bottomless Lakes State Park, Roswell, New Mexico 

Janes-Wallace Memorial Dam, Santa Rosa, New Mexico 

Lower Hempstead Harbor, Village of Sea Cliff, Town of North 

Hempstead, Nassau County, New York 

Manhasset Bay, New York 

Soundview Park, New York 

Fall Run, Wheeling Creek, Belmont, Ohio 

Mineral Bayou Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Durant, Oklahoma 

Arrowhead Creek, Oregon 

Camp Creek, Oregon 

City of York-Codorus Creek, Pennsylvania 

Nanticoke Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project, Pennsylvania 

North Park Lake Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project, Pennsylvania 

Sheraden Park and Chartiers Creek, Pennsylvania 

Brush Neck Cove, Warwick, Rhode Island 

Narrow River, Narragansett, Rhode Island 

Ninigret and Cross Mills Ponds, Charlestown, Rhode Island 

Ten Mile River, East Providence, Rhode Island 

Winnapaug Pond, Westerly, Rhode Island 

Jonesborough Watershed, Tennessee 

Upper Jordan River Ecosystem Restoration, Utah 

West Branch of the Little River, Stowe, Lamoille County, 

Vermont 

Carpenter Creek, Washington 

Squak Valley Park Restoration Project, Washington 

Menomonee River Watershed, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin 

Tichigan Lake, Waterford, Wisconsin 

Section 208 Clearing and Snagging 

Upper Bayou Boeuf, Snagging and Clearing, Louisiana 

Great Piece Meadows and Pompton River Clearing and Snagging, 

Passaic, Essex and Morris Counties, New Jersey 

Section 1135 

Ditch 28, Arkansas 
64 

Millwood Lake, Grassey Lake, Arkansas 

Tujunga Wash, California 

Delaware Bay, Delaware and New Jersey Oyster Restoration 

Delaware City, Delaware 

Kaunakakai Stream Environmental Restoration, Hawaii 

Kawainui Marsh, Hawaii 

Rathbun Lake Habitat Restoration, Iowa 

Rathbun Lake Shoreline Restoration, Iowa 

Bayou Desiard, Monroe, Louisiana 

Bayou Macon, E&W Carroll and Franklin Parishes 

Frazier/Whitehorse Oxbow Lake Weir, Louisiana 

Lake St. Joseph, Tensas Parish, Louisiana 

Hart-Miller Island, Maryland 

Broad Meadows Marsh, Quincy, Massachusetts 

Blue Valley Wetlands, Jackson County, Missouri 

Duck Creek, Stoddard County, Missouri 

James River, Needmore Branch, Hidden Valley, Greene County, 

Missouri 

Lower Truckee River, McCarron Ranch, Nevada 

Lincoln Park West, Jersey City, New Jersey 

Rahway River Environmental Restoration, Union County, New 

Jersey 

Ecosystem Revitalization at Route 66, New Mexico 

Las Cruces Dam—Environmental Restoration, Don ̃ a Ana County, 

New Mexico 

Riparian Wetland Restoration, Pueblo of Santa Ana Reservation, 

New Mexico 

Socorro County Bosque Restoration, New Mexico 

Erie County, Smokes Creek, New York 

Gerritsen Creek, New York 

Spring Creek, New York 

Whitney Point Lake, Broome County, New York 

Fairmount Dam Fishladder, Pennsylvania 

Boyd’s Marsh (Town Pond), Portsmouth, Rhode Island 

Lake Champlain Canal Barrier, Vermont 

Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey Barriers, Vermont 

Village of Oyster, Northampton County, Virginia 

Union Slough, Washington 

Wells Lock and Dam, West Virginia 

Lake Poygan, Wisconsin 

The Committee has included a rescission of $56,046,000 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, 2006 ............................................................................. 1 $396,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 278,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 290,607,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 450,530,000 

1 Excludes emergency appropriation of $153,750,000. 
65 

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, the House allowance, and the approved 

Committee allowance are shown on the following table: 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee 

recommendation 

INVESTIGATIONS 

ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA ................................................................... 200 200 200 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM LAND STUDY, LA ...................... 100 100 100 

DONALDSONVILLE TO THE GULF, LA .......................................................... ........................ ........................ 500 

SPRING BAYOU, LA ..................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 500 

BAYOU METO, AR ....................................................................................... ........................ 1,550 1,550 

SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR ........................................................................ ........................ ........................ 500 

COLDWATER RIVER BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS .................................... 300 300 495 

QUIVER RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, MS .................................................... ........................ ........................ 100 

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA .................................................. 400 400 400 

MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER MGMT STUDY, TN & MS ............. ........................ ........................ 152 

MILLINGTON & VICINITY, TN ....................................................................... ........................ 27 ........................

MORGANZA TO THE GULF ........................................................................... ........................ 2,800 4,000 

CONSTRUCTION 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ........................... 43,092 43,092 47,000 

GRAND PRAIRIE, AR ................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 14,000 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ....................... 40,756 43,756 69,000 

ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO ................................................................... ........................ 4,230 6,000 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA .......................................... 4,840 4,840 4,840 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ............................................................................ 27,600 27,600 27,600 

MISSISSIPPI & LOUSIANA ESTUARINE AREAS, MS & LA ............................ ........................ ........................ 500 

MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA ................................................................. 3,212 3,212 3,212 

ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO ............................... 2,500 4,000 10,000 

SUSPENSION FUND ..................................................................................... 8,000 ........................ ........................

NONCONNAH CREEK, TN & MS .................................................................. ........................ ........................ 500 

WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN .......................................................... ........................ ........................ 500 

WOLF RIVER, MEMPHIS, TN ........................................................................ ........................ 500 1,500 

YAZOO BACKWATER, LESS ROCKY BAYOU, MS .......................................... ........................ ........................ 700 

YAZOO BASIN, BACKWATER PUMPING PLANT, MS ..................................... ........................ ........................ 15,000 

YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS .............................................. ........................ ........................ 7,250 

YAZOO BASIN, DELTA HEADWATERS, MS ................................................... ........................ 5,000 25,000 

YAZOO BASIN, MAINSTEM, MS ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 25 

YAZOO BASIN, REFORMULATION UNIT, MS ................................................ ........................ ........................ 3,200 

YAZOO BASIN, UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS ............................................ ........................ ........................ 22,500 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

REGION 8 LOWER MISSISSIPPI ................................................................... 145,616 147,616 ........................

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ........................... ........................ ........................ 60,280 

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ................................................... ........................ ........................ 400 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................... ........................ ........................ 273 

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR ............................................. ........................ ........................ 560 

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR ............................................. ........................ ........................ 310 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ....................... ........................ ........................ 8,400 

ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO .................................................................... ........................ ........................ 9,000 

TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA ............................ ........................ ........................ 2,600

WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,200 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL .................................................... ........................ ........................ 165 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................... ........................ ........................ 84 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA .......................................... ........................ ........................ 3,059 
66 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee 

recommendation 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ............................................................................ ........................ ........................ 18,655 

BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA .............................................. ........................ ........................ 715 

BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA .................................................. ........................ ........................ 56 

BONNET CARRE, LA .................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,596 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................... ........................ ........................ 588 

LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA .......................................... ........................ ........................ 66 

MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA ................................................................. ........................ ........................ 241 

OLD RIVER, LA ........................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 11,110 

TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA ............................................. ........................ ........................ 4,000 

GREENVILLE HARBOUR, MS ....................................................................... ........................ ........................ 437 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS .................................................. ........................ ........................ 475 

YAZOO BASIN, ARKABULTA LAKE, MS ........................................................ ........................ ........................ 9,251 

YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS .............................................. ........................ ........................ 2,209 

YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 12,532 

YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,020 

YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS ........................................................... ........................ ........................ 10,949 

YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS .................................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,929 

YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 12,425 

YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 830 

YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS ............................... ........................ ........................ 430 

YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS ........................................... ........................ ........................ 734 

YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS ................................................................. ........................ ........................ 770 

VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS ........................................................................... ........................ ........................ 387 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO .................................................. ........................ ........................ 195 

WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO .............................................................................. ........................ ........................ 4,768 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ................................................... ........................ ........................ 70 

MEMPHIS HARBOUR, MICKELLAR LAKE, TN ............................................... ........................ ........................ 1,013 

WOLF RIVER HARBOUR, TN ........................................................................ ........................ ........................ 540 

MAPPING ..................................................................................................... 1,384 1,384 1,384 

SAVINGS & SLIPPAGE ................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥5,000 

TOTAL ............................................................................................ 278,000 290,607 450,530 

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. 

Quiver River, Mississippi.—The Committee has provided 

$100,000 to initiate this study. 

Memphis Metro, Storm Water Management Study, Tennessee and 

Mississippi.—The Committee has provided $152,000 to initiate this 

study. 
67 

Construction 

Grand Prairie, Arkansas.—The Committee has provided $14,000,000 for continued construction of the project. 

Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisisna, 

Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.—The Committee has provided $69,000,000 to continue construction of this project. Utilizing continuing contracts, where appropriate, additional funds are provided 

for construction on St. John’s-New Madrid Levee Closure/Box Culvert, Missouri; complete Willow Point-Youngs Point, Louisiana 

Items 445-R and 450-R; land acquisition New Madrid Levee/Box 

Culvert; construction on Carrollton M–104–10L; Lower Venice, 2nd 

Lift; Tallulah-Magna Vista Item 474-L; Council Bend Relief Wells; 

Reid-Bedford-King Items 424-R and 428-R; Cairo Grade Raise; 

West Memphis Relief Wells; Vidalia-Morville Item 361-R; Gammon 

Relief Wells; continue miscellaneous relocations and construction of 

the LMRMRIS. 

Yazoo Basin, Backwater Pumping Plant, Mississippi.—The Committee has provided $15,000,000 to fully fund pump and motor contracts and initiate purchase of conservation easements. 

Yazoo Basin, Delta Headwaters Project, Mississippi.—The Committee has provided $25,000,000 to continue construction of this 

project. 

Yazoo Basin, Upper Yazoo Project, Mississippi.—The Committee 

has provided $22,500,000 to complete channel Item 6A; fully fund 

channel Item 6B; relocate utility lines; continue design of channel 

Item 7; initiate one bridge relocation; purchase project and mitigation lands; and reforestation. 

Maintenance 

Mississippi River Levees, Arkasnas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.—The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 to resurface levees; deliver levee gravel to 

the Laconia Circle Special Levee District and Laconia District of 

Desha County. 

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, 2006 ............................................................................. 1 $1,969,110,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 2,258,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 2,195,471,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,030,000,000 

1 Excludes emergency appropriation of $330,717,000. 

The Committee continues to believe that it is essential to provide 

adequate resources and attention to operation and maintenance requirements in order to protect the large Federal investment. Yet, 

current and projected budgetary constraints require the Committee 

to limit the amount of work that can be accomplished in the fiscal 

year. In order to cope with the current situation, the Corps has had 

to defer or delay scheduled maintenance activities. 

The Committee is very concerned with the downward trend in 

the Operation and Maintenance budget. The fiscal year 2007 budget proposal appears to show a significant increase in funding, but 
68 

this is due to the migration of projects from the Construction, General account to the Operations and Maintenance account. When 

these items are removed from the O&M account, the total remaining is a decrease from the fiscal year 2006 enacted amount. This 

is the wrong trend for O&M. 

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 regionalization of 

the O&M budget this year effectively disguises the underfunding of 

O&M 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. 

The Port of Lavaca-Point Comfort, Texas is an illustrative example of what concerns the Committee about this budget proposal. 

O&M funding has been insufficient to complete the study to repair 

the channel and jetty. A catastrophic jetty failure is a distinct possibility. 

Further, O&M funding has been insufficient for maintaining the 

channel at the authorized depth, nor has Federal maintenance of 

the turning basin been undertaken as authorized. GI funding has 

been insufficient to fund a deepening study. In desperation the port 

has indicated that they will likely finance the deepening study as 

well as the channel deepening and seek Federal reimbursement. 

The port supports 5,300 direct jobs, 4,590 induced jobs and 6,690 

indirect jobs. It provides $273,000,000 in direct wages and salaries, 

$1,000,000,000 of direct, induced and indirect income. It pays 

$99,000,000 State and local taxes and $178,000,000 Federal taxes. 

The port commissioned a study that shows that failure to maintain the 39 foot channel costs $9,000,000/year. Equally importantly, 

the business managers at the port industries tell the port and the 

Corps that their companies are moving investments overseas because their Texas plants are failing to compete on the margin with 

their companies’ rival plants overseas. The Port is unable to attract 

new investment, in part, because the investors consider channel 

availability, at authorized depth, to be a primary issue. 

The Alcoa Aluminum plant is at the port. They turn bauxite into 

aluminum ingots. Two years ago, when the channel was 18 to 24 

inches above the authorized depth, they told the Corps that it was 

costing them $150,000/inch to light load each ship or about 

$7,000,000 per shipload. The aluminum ingots they produce go primarily to car body plants in Waco, Texas and Detroit, Michigan. 

The plant managers and others from the Texas Alcoa operation 

met with the Corps earlier this year and their plant manager told 

Corps officials that Alcoa has nine plants around the world and 

that this was the only plant remaining in the United States. The 

U.S. plant is their least cost effective and transportation of raw 

materials is part of the reason. They usually keep about a 20–30 

day supply of bauxite on hand at any one time. 

The plant manager is concerned that if they have to shut down 

due to jetty failure, for example, they will not be allowed to restart 

the plant. It takes about 40 days to completely recover/restart from 
69 

a shut down. The manager is very concerned that the operation 

would move to one of their more cost effective overseas plants. 

There are hundreds of similar problems around the country. The 

Committee believes that maintenance of our aging infrastructure is 

imperative if the Nation is to remain competitive in the global marketplace. Even with the increase in funding provided by the Committee, O&M funding is barely keeping up with inflation. 

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. 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee 

recommendation 

ALABAMA 

ALABAMA—COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL .................... .......................... .......................... 180 

ALABAMA—COOSA RIVER, AL .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,860 

BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL ................................... .......................... .......................... 21,093 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL ................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,510 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL ............................................. .......................... .......................... 55 

MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM .......................................... .......................... .......................... 5,781 
70 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

MOBILE HARBOR, AL ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 19,600 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 100 

ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL ................................................ .......................... .......................... 6,122 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL .......................................... .......................... .......................... 94 

TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL .......... .......................... .......................... 2,000 

TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL & MS ................................... .......................... .......................... 28,500 

WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & GA .................................... .......................... .......................... 7,791 

ALASKA 

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 15,300 

CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,875 

CORDOVA HARBOR, AK ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 500 

DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 781 

HOMER HARBOR, AK ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 303 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK ............................................. .......................... .......................... 47 

KETCHIKAN HARBOR, BAR POINT, AK .................................................. .......................... .......................... 625 

NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 251 

NOME HARBOR, AK .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,613 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 474 

ARIZONA 

ALAMO LAKE, AZ .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,600 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ ............................................. .......................... .......................... 92 

PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,211 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ ......................................... .......................... .......................... 37 

WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 214 

ARKANSAS 

BEAVER LAKE, AR ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 5,385 

BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR .............................................. .......................... .......................... 8,442 

BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,412 

BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 6,292 

DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 6,576 

DEGRAY LAKE, AR ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 8,819 

DEQUEEN LAKE, AR .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,222 

DIERKS LAKE, AR ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,194 

GILLHAM LAKE, AR ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,127 

GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,952 

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ............................................. .......................... .......................... 430 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ............................................. .......................... .......................... 216 

MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR .......... .......................... .......................... 35,849 

MILLWOOD LAKE, AR ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 3,419 

NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR ................................................... .......................... .......................... 4,538 

NIMROD LAKE, AR ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,796 

NORFORK LAKE, AR .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 4,539 

OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 590 

OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA ............................................ .......................... .......................... 11,910 

OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR ........................................... .......................... .......................... 4,468 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 2 

WHITE RIVER, AR ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,000 

YELLOW BEND PORT, AR ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 176 

CALIFORNIA 

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,156 

BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA ............................................ .......................... .......................... 2,287 

CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,086 

COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA ..................................... .......................... .......................... 3,314 

CRESENT CITY HARBOR, CA ................................................................ .......................... .......................... 500 

DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA ..................... .......................... .......................... 5,895 

FARMINGTON DAM, CA ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 350 

HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA ........................................................ .......................... .......................... 2,427 
71 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 4,916 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA ............................................. .......................... .......................... 1,534 

ISABELLA LAKE, CA .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 4,050 

JACK D. MALTESTER CHANNEL, CA (SAN LEANDRO) ........................... .......................... .......................... 500 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA ....................................... .......................... .......................... 4,071 

LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH HARBOR, CA ........................................... .......................... .......................... 4,000 

LOWER PETALUMA RIVER, CA .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 500 

MARINA DEL REY, CA ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,460 

MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 331 

MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 204 

MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,300 

NAPA RIVER, CA ................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,000 

NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,226 

NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA ............................ .......................... .......................... 1,843 

OAKLAND HARBOR, CA ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 8,543 

OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 700 

PILLAR POINT HARBOR, CA .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,000 

PINE FLAT LAKE, CA ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,760 

PINOLE SHOAL MANAGEMENT STUDY, CA ............................................ .......................... .......................... 500 

PORT HUENEME, CA ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 500 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,069 

REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA ............................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,000 

RICHMOND HARBOR, CA ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 7,377 

SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA ..................................... .......................... .......................... 3,124 

SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA ........ .......................... .......................... 1,418 

SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA .......................... .......................... .......................... 93 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA ........................ .......................... .......................... 1,124 

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL) ................ .......................... .......................... 2,000 

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 2,447 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,070 

SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA ................................. .......................... .......................... 2,498 

SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,526 

SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ............................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,200 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA ......................................... .......................... .......................... 1,593 

SUCCESS LAKE, CA .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 2,308 

SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 2,833 

TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,349 

VENTURA HARBOR, CA ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,700 

YUBA RIVER, CA ................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 83 

COLORADO 

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 339 

CHATFIELD LAKE, CO ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,764 

CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,653 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO ............................................ .......................... .......................... 112 

JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO ............................................................. .......................... .......................... 2,206 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO ......................................... .......................... .......................... 627 

TRINIDAD LAKE, CO .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,456 

COMMONWEATLTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLAND 

ROTA HARBOR, CNMI ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,105 

CONNECTICUT 

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 469 

BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CT ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 250 

COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT ............................................................... .......................... .......................... 612 

HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 359 

HOP BROOK LAKE, CT .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,502 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT ............................................. .......................... .......................... 64 

LONG ISLAND SOUND, CT & NY ........................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,742 

MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT ............................................................. .......................... .......................... 807 
72 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee 

recommendation 

NORTH COVE HARBOR, CT ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000 

NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT ............................................................. .......................... .......................... 414 

NORWALK FEDERAL NAVIGATION PROJECT, CT .................................... .......................... .......................... 3,000 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,000 

STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT .................................................. .......................... .......................... 450 

THOMASTON DAM, CT ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 705 

WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 646 

DELAWARE 

HARBOR OF REFUGE BREAKWATER, SUSSEX COUNTY, DE .................. .......................... .......................... 600 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, D ... .......................... .......................... 12,008 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBETH BAY TO DELAWARE BAY, D ... .......................... .......................... 30 

MISPILLION RIVER, DE ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 30 

MURDERKILL RIVER, DE ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 30 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 83 

WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,900 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC ............................................ .......................... .......................... 19 

POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL) ................. .......................... .......................... 857 

POTOMAC RIVER BELOW WASHINGTON, DC ......................................... .......................... .......................... 100 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 25 

WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 20 

FLORIDA 

AIWW, NORFOLK, VA TO ST. JOHNS RIVER, FL, GA, SC, NC ................ .......................... .......................... 2,100 

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 4,600 

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL ............................................... .......................... .......................... 14,241 

FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,600 

FORT MYERS BEACH, FL ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 150 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL ............................................. .......................... .......................... 300 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, CALOOSAHATCHEE TO ANCLOTE, FL ........ .......................... .......................... 1,500 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL ................... .......................... .......................... 4,000 

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 4,700 

JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA ......... .......................... .......................... 7,896 

MIAMI RIVER, FL .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 7,000 

OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL ............................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,014 

PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,400 

PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 815 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,025 

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL .................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,325 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL .......................................... .......................... .......................... 30 

TAMPA HARBOR, FL .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 4,150 

GEORGIA 

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 6,818 

APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL & ........ .......................... .......................... 1,455 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA ............................................ .......................... .......................... 254 

BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,451 

BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA ...................................... .......................... .......................... 7,473 

CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 6,958 

HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 11,190 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA ............................................. .......................... .......................... 53 

J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC .................................................. .......................... .......................... 10,720 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 15 

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC ................................. .......................... .......................... 7,163 

SAVANNAH HARBOR, ADVANCED MAINTENANCE WIDENER, GA ........... .......................... .......................... 500 

SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 11,322 

SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA .............................................. .......................... .......................... 124 

WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA & AL ................................................ .......................... .......................... 9,642 
73 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

HAWAII 

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI ............................................................... .......................... .......................... 245 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI .............................................. .......................... .......................... 205 

POHIKI BAY, HAWAII, HI ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 220 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 440 

IDAHO 

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,653 

DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID ................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,069 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID .............................................. .......................... .......................... 80 

LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,822 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID .......................................... .......................... .......................... 443 

ILLINOIS 

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN .............................................. .......................... .......................... 4,219 

CARLYLE LAKE, IL ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 4,564 

CHICAGO HARBOR, IL ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,904 

CHICAGO RIVER, IL .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 398 

FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL ............................................................. .......................... .......................... 263 

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL & IN ..................................... .......................... .......................... 27,453 

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL & IN ..................................... .......................... .......................... 1,893 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL .............................................. .......................... .......................... 718 

KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,819 

LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL ............................................................ .......................... .......................... 607 

LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,291 

MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION) ..... .......................... .......................... 40,790 

MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION) ..... .......................... .......................... 22,501 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 50 

REND LAKE, IL ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 4,787 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL ....................... .......................... .......................... 120 

WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 704 

INDIANA 

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 694 

BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 883 

CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 741 

CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 920 

INDIANA HARBOR, IN ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 545 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN .............................................. .......................... .......................... 272 

J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,432 

MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 868 

MONROE LAKE, IN ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 801 

PATOKA LAKE, IN .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 814 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 89 

SALAMONIE LAKE, IN ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,179 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN ...................... .......................... .......................... 113 

IOWA 

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,304 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA .............................................. .......................... .......................... 205 

MISSOURI RIVER—KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA .............. .......................... .......................... 152 

MISSOURI RIVER—RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, KS & MO ...................... .......................... .......................... 5,580 

MISSOURI RIVER—SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA & NE ............................. .......................... .......................... 1,860 

RATHBUN LAKE, IA ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,204 

RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA ........................................... .......................... .......................... 3,902 

SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 4,473 

KANSAS 

CLINTON LAKE, KS ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,917 

COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,164 

EL DORADO LAKE, KS ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 585 
74 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

ELK CITY LAKE, KS ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 688 

FALL RIVER LAKE, KS ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,128 

HILLSDALE LAKE, KS ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 749 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS ............................................. .......................... .......................... 123 

JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS ......................................... .......................... .......................... 1,256 

KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,484 

MARION LAKE, KS ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,322 

MELVERN LAKE, KS .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 2,155 

MILFORD LAKE, KS ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,166 

PEARSON-SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS ................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,118 

PERRY LAKE, KS ................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,160 

POMONA LAKE, KS ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,905 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS ......................................... .......................... .......................... 64 

TORONTO LAKE, KS .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 535 

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,052 

WILSON LAKE, KS ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,512 

KENTUCKY 

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & TN ..................................... .......................... .......................... 7,790 

BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,842 

BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,352 

BUCKHORN LAKE, KY ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,288 

CARR CREEK LAKE, KY ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,607 

CAVE RUN LAKE, KY ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 883 

DEWEY LAKE, KY .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,224 

ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY ................................................. .......................... .......................... 12 

FISHTRAP LAKE, KY .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,580 

GRAYSON LAKE, KY .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,122 

GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY ........................................................ .......................... .......................... 2,028 

GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,651 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ............................................. .......................... .......................... 191 

KENTUCKY RIVER, KY ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 4 

LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,659 

MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 699 

MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY .................................. .......................... .......................... 62 

NOLIN LAKE, KY .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,886 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN & OH ................................ .......................... .......................... 39,243 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN & OH .......................... .......................... .......................... 4,040 

PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 828 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 2 

ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,479 

TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,002 

WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY ........................................ .......................... .......................... 7,008 

YATESVILLE LAKE, KY ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 823 

LOUISIANA 

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L ..... .......................... .......................... 16,000 

BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,104 

BAYOU LACOMBE ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 900 

BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA ............... .......................... .......................... 1,697 

BAYOU PIERRE, LA ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 32 

BAYOU SEGNETTE, LA .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,750 

BAYOU TECHE, LA ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 110 

CADDO LAKE, LA .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 190 

CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA ......................................................... .......................... .......................... 16,000 

FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,505 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA ................................................... .......................... .......................... 19,443 

HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA ........................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,000 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ............................................. .......................... .......................... 869 

J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA ................................................. .......................... .......................... 13,000 

LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 491 
75 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

MADISON PARISH PORT, LA ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 86 

MERMENTAU RIVER, LA ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 2,150 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA ....................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO ............ .......................... .......................... 54,074 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 60 

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA .................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000 

TANGIPAHOA RIVER, LA ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 650 

TCHEFUNCTE RIVER & BOUGE FALIA, LA ............................................. .......................... .......................... 450 

WALLACE LAKE, LA ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 200 

WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA ....................................... .......................... .......................... 500 

MAINE 

BUCKS HARBOR, MACHIASPORT, ME ................................................... .......................... .......................... 330 

DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,100 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME ............................................ .......................... .......................... 11 

NARRAGAUGAS RIVER, MILBRIDGE, ME ............................................... .......................... .......................... 700 

PORTLAND HARBOR, ME ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 135 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 866 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME ..................... .......................... .......................... 17 

MARYLAND 

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD ......................... .......................... .......................... 15,482 

BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL) ....................................... .......................... .......................... 330 

CHESTER RIVER, MD ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 110 

CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV ............................................... .......................... .......................... 500 

GOOSE CREEK, MD ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 80 

HERRING BAY & ROCKHOLD CREEK, MD ............................................. .......................... .......................... 550 

HONGA RIVER & TAR BAY, MD ............................................................ .......................... .......................... 110 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD ............................................ .......................... .......................... 32 

JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV ................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,992 

OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD ............ .......................... .......................... 100 

PARISH CREEK, MD .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 60 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 467 

RHODES POINT TO TYLERTON, MD ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 110 

ROCKALL HARBOR, MD ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 600 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD ........................................ .......................... .......................... 100 

TWITCH COVE AND BIG THOROFARE RIVER, MD ................................. .......................... .......................... 110

WICOMICO RIVER, MD .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 800 

MASSACHUSETTS 

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 641 

BIRCH HILL DAM, MA ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 740 

BOSTON HARBOR, MA .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 7,000 

BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 580 

CAPE COD CANAL, MA ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 8,348 

CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA ...................... .......................... .......................... 314 

CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 260 

EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 452 

HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 571 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA ............................................ .......................... .......................... 114 

KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 606 

LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 568 

NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER ..... .......................... .......................... 299 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,100 

SALEM HARBOR, MA ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 2,856 

TULLY LAKE, MA ................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 720 

WEST HILL DAM, MA ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 729 

WESTVILLE LAKE, MA ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 578 

WEYMOUTH-FORE RIVER, MA ............................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,728 

MICHIGAN 

ALPENA HARBOR, MI ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 429 
76 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee 

recommendation 

ARCADIA HARBOR, MI .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 80 

CEDAR RIVER HARBOR, MI .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 300 

CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI ........................................................ .......................... .......................... 87 

CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 137 

CLINTON RIVER, MI .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 660 

DETROIT RIVER, MI .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 5,331 

GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 455 

GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MI ............................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,500 

GRAYS REEF PASSAGE, MI ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 112 

HOLLAND HARBOR, MI ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 549 

INLAND ROUTE, MI ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 950 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI ............................................. .......................... .......................... 144 

LELAND HARBOR, MI ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 110 

LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 186 

LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 177 

MANISTEE HARBOR, MI ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 47 

MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 214 

NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 78 

ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 551 

PENTWATER, MI .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 84 

PETOSKEY HARBOR, MI ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,000 

PORTAGE LAKE HARBOR, MI ................................................................ .......................... .......................... 225 

PRESQUE ISLE HARBOR ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 292 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 178 

ROUGE RIVER, MI ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 20 

SAGINAW RIVER, MI ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,642 

SEBEWAING RIVER, MI ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 500 

ST CLAIR RIVER, MI ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,471 

ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 450 

ST MARYS RIVER, MI ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 19,267 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI ...................... .......................... .......................... 2,594 

WHITE LAKE HARBOR, MI ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 100 

MINNESOTA 

BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN & SD ................................... .......................... .......................... 239 

DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI ............................................... .......................... .......................... 4,890 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN ............................................ .......................... .......................... 132 

LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN .................................. .......................... .......................... 594 

MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 188 

MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION) ..... .......................... .......................... 59,296 

ORWELL LAKE, MN ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 339 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 67 

RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 147 

RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN ................. .......................... .......................... 2,928 

ST. PAUL, HARRIET ISLANDS, LOWER HARBOR, MN ............................ .......................... .......................... 200 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN .................... .......................... .......................... 314 

TWO HARBORS, MN .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 198 

MISSISSIPPI 

CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS ............................................................ .......................... .......................... 62 

EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS .................................................... .......................... .......................... 210 

GULFPORT HARBOR, MS ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,683 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ............................................ .......................... .......................... 61 

MOUTH OF THE YAZOO RIVER, MS ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 110 

OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,885 

PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 5,500 

PEARL RIVER, MS & LA ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 283 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 77 

ROSEDALLE HARBOR, MS ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 600 

YAZOO RIVER, MS ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 140 
77 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

MISSOURI 

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO ........................................................... .......................... .......................... 350 

CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO ...................... .......................... .......................... 5,916 

CLEARWATER LAKE, MO ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,660 

HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO .................................... .......................... .......................... 8,173 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ............................................ .......................... .......................... 768 

LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO ........................................................... .......................... .......................... 795 

LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 860 

MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO ..... .......................... .......................... 26,013 

NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 660 

NEW MADRID HARBOR, MILE 889, MO ................................................ .......................... .......................... 200 

POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO ............................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,080 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 2 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO ........................................ .......................... .......................... 327 

SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,137 

STOCKTON LAKE, MO ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 3,775 

TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 6,589 

UNION LAKE, MO .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 6 

MONTANA 

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT ............................................................... .......................... .......................... 4,076 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT ............................................ .......................... .......................... 19 

LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,642 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT ......................................... .......................... .......................... 89 

NEBRASKA 

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE & SD ..................... .......................... .......................... 5,803 

HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,133 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE ............................................. .......................... .......................... 102 

MISSOURI R MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL, NE, IA, KS, MO .......... .......................... .......................... 350 

PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, NE ................................. .......................... .......................... 583 

PAPIO CREEK, NE ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1 

SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 734 

NEVADA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV ............................................. .......................... .......................... 47 

MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV & CA ........................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,820 

PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV .......................................... .......................... .......................... 173 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

BLACKWATER DAM, NH ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 659 

COCHECO RIVER, NH ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000 

EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 573 

FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 734 

HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH ......................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,488 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH ............................................ .......................... .......................... 12 

OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 685 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 231 

SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH ................................................................ .......................... .......................... 659 

NEW JERSEY 

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 75 

COLD SPRING INLET, NJ ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 350 

DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 15 

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE ............. .......................... .......................... 17,909 

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ ...................... .......................... .......................... 250 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ ............................................. .......................... .......................... 85 

MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 335 

NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ ....................................... .......................... .......................... 75 

NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ ....................... .......................... .......................... 5,000 

PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ ................................... .......................... .......................... 460 
78 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,318 

RARITAN RIVER, NJ .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 200 

SALEM RIVER, NJ ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 70 

SANDY HOOK AT LEONARDO, NJ .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 300 

SHARK RIVER, NJ ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 80 

SHREWSBURY RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ ............................................ .......................... .......................... 500 

NEW MEXICO 

ABIQUIU DAM, NM ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 3,211 

ALBUQUERQUE LEVEES, NM ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 500 

COCHITI LAKE, NM ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 6,422 

CONCHAS LAKE, NM ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,887 

GALISTEO DAM, NM .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,000 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM ............................................ .......................... .......................... 221 

JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,733 

RIO GRANDE BOSQUE REHABILITATION, NM ........................................ .......................... .......................... 4,000 

SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM ........................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,329 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM ........................................ .......................... .......................... 1,471 

TWO RIVERS DAM, NM ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 531 

UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL ............................... .......................... .......................... 1,895

NEW YORK 

ALMOND LAKE, NY ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 473 

ARKPORT DAM, NY ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 280 

BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY ...................... .......................... .......................... 1,147 

BUFFALO HARBOR, NY ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 332 

DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 19 

EAST RIVER, NY ................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 70 

EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 2,800 

EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 592 

EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 250 

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY ............................................. .......................... .......................... 200 

FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY ........................................................... .......................... .......................... 200 

GLEN COVE CREEK, NY ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 350 

HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 5,410 

HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT) ................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,745 

HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C) ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,120 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY ............................................. .......................... .......................... 507 

JAMAICA BAY, NY ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 200 

JONES INLET, NY .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 100 

LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY ......................................................... .......................... .......................... 15 

LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY ..................................... .......................... .......................... 100 

MORICHES INLET, NY ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 100 

MT MORRIS LAKE, NY .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,320 

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY ..................................... .......................... .......................... 6,735 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (PREV OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSI ..... .......................... .......................... 700 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,475 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL) ................................ .......................... .......................... 4,800 

OSWEGO HARBOR, NY .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 844 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,418 

ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 957 

SHINNECOCK INLET, NY ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 100 

SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY ..................... .......................... .......................... 618 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY ..................... .......................... .......................... 460 

WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 722 

NORTH CAROLINA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC ........................................... .......................... .......................... 3,370 

B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC ............................................. .......................... .......................... 1,935 

CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC ........................................ .......................... .......................... 558 

CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC ................................................................ .......................... .......................... 550 
79 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

FALLS LAKE, NC ................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,856 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC ............................................ .......................... .......................... 79 

LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC ............................................................ .......................... .......................... 950 

MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC ........................................................ .......................... .......................... 10,000 

MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC ....................... .......................... .......................... 500 

MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC ............................................................. .......................... .......................... 5,200 

NEW RIVER INLET, NC .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 820 

NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC ...................... .......................... .......................... 675 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 675 

ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 200 

W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC .......................................... .......................... .......................... 3,170 

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 11,000 

NORTH DAKOTA 

BOWMAN—HALEY LAKE, ND ................................................................ .......................... .......................... 168 

GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND ............................................... .......................... .......................... 14,245 

HOMME LAKE, ND ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 184 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND ............................................ .......................... .......................... 87 

LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND ......................................... .......................... .......................... 1,281 

PIPESTEM LAKE, ND ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 499 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND ......................................... .......................... .......................... 118 

SOURIS RIVER, ND ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 402 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND ..................... .......................... .......................... 32 

OHIO 

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,243 

ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 676 

BERLIN LAKE, OH ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,714 

CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,376 

CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH ............................................................. .......................... .......................... 853 

CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,694 

CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,033 

DEER CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,006 

DELAWARE LAKE, OH ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,000 

DILLON LAKE, OH ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 763 

FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,941 

HURON HARBOR, OH ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 690 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH ............................................ .......................... .......................... 256 

LORAIN HARBOR, OH ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,283 

MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH ................................... .......................... .......................... 714 

MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH ................................................................ .......................... .......................... 832 

MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH ............................................................ .......................... .......................... 7,986 

NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH ....................................... .......................... .......................... 169 

PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 976 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 225 

SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 397 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH ..................... .......................... .......................... 180 

TOLEDO HARBOR, OH ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 4,010 

TOM JENKINS DAM, OH ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 567 

WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH ................................................ .......................... .......................... 560 

WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 923 

OKLAHOMA 

ARCADIA LAKE, OK ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 443 

BIRCH LAKE, OK ................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 736 

BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,716 

CANTON LAKE, OK ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 2,360 

COPAN LAKE, OK .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 974 

EUFAULA LAKE, OK ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,055 

FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,404 

FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 743 
80 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK ............................................................. .......................... .......................... 411 

HEYBURN LAKE, OK .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 567 

HUGO LAKE, OK .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,412 

HULAH LAKE, OK .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 506 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK ............................................. .......................... .......................... 123 

KAW LAKE, OK ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,012 

KEYSTONE LAKE, OK ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,867 

OOLOGAH LAKE, OK .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,149 

OPTIMA LAKE, OK ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 127 

PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK .................... .......................... .......................... 64 

PINE CREEK LAKE, OK .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 942 

ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIRS, OK .................... .......................... .......................... 5,059 

SARDIS LAKE, OK ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 975 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK ......................................... .......................... .......................... 972 

SKIATOOK LAKE, OK .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,700 

TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK ................................................................ .......................... .......................... 4,039 

WAURIKA LAKE, OK ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,445 

WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK .................................................. .......................... .......................... 4,164 

WISTER LAKE, OK ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 610 

OREGON 

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 736 

BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 287 

BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA .............................................. .......................... .......................... 8,829 

CHETCO RIVER, OR .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 451 

COLUMBIA & LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW VANCOUVER, WA & PORTLA .. .......................... .......................... 17,800 

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA ....................................... .......................... .......................... 20,189 

COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, O ... .......................... .......................... 415 

COOS BAY, OR ..................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 4,189 

COQUILLE RIVER, OR ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 275 

COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 876 

COUGAR LAKE, OR ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 993 

DEPOE BAY, OR .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 3 

DETROIT LAKE, OR ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 782 

DORENA LAKE, OR ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 704 

FALL CREEK LAKE, OR ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 853 

FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,436 

GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,415 

HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 586 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR ............................................ .......................... .......................... 168 

JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA .................................................. .......................... .......................... 5,571 

LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,692 

LOST CREEK LAKE, OR ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,842 

MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA .................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,845 

PORT ORFORD, OR ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 273 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 180 

ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR .................................................... .......................... .......................... 483 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR ......................................... .......................... .......................... 62 

SIUSLAW RIVER, OR ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 486 

SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 93 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR ..................... .......................... .......................... 400 

TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR (PORT OF GARIBALDI) ......................... .......................... .......................... 1,500

UMPQUA RIVER, OR ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 979 

WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR .................................. .......................... .......................... 258 

WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR ........................................ .......................... .......................... 94 

WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 612 

YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,566 

YAQUINA RIVER, OR ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 836 

PENNSYLVANIA 

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 6,361 
81 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 641 

AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA ............................................................ .......................... .......................... 283 

BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,080 

BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 2,411 

CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,144 

COWANESQUE LAKE, PA ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,023 

CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,192 

CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 741 

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA ............................................ .......................... .......................... 906 

ERIE HARBOR, PA ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 22 

FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 799 

FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA ............................................................... .......................... .......................... 770 

GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA ........................... .......................... .......................... 223 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA ............................................. .......................... .......................... 311 

JOHNSTOWN, PA ................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,864 

KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA ................................... .......................... .......................... 1,834 

LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,699 

MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA ................................................................ .......................... .......................... 737 

MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 12,520 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH & WV .................................... .......................... .......................... 17,901 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH & WV ............................. .......................... .......................... 520 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 55 

PROMPTON LAKE, PA ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 575 

PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 14 

RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 4,482 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA ......................................... .......................... .......................... 57 

SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 950 

SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 2,015 

STILLWATER LAKE, PA .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 405 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA ..................... .......................... .......................... 75 

TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA ................................................................ .......................... .......................... 2,541 

TIONESTA LAKE, PA .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,458 

UNION CITY LAKE, PA ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 242 

WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA ............................................................... .......................... .......................... 754 

YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA ............................................................... .......................... .......................... 663 

YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD ............................................... .......................... .......................... 1,994 

PUERTO RICO 

SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 4,000 

RHODE ISLAND 

BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR, RI ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 850 

BULLOCKS POINT COVE, RI .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 900 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI .............................................. .......................... .......................... 15 

POINT JUDITH POND HARBOR OF REFUGE, RI ..................................... .......................... .......................... 1,866 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 400 

SOUTH COAST, RHODE ISLAND, REGIONAL SEDIMENT MGMT, RI ........ .......................... .......................... 250 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC ............................................ .......................... .......................... 539 

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 7,655 

COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ........................................ .......................... .......................... 3,345 

FOLLY RIVER, SC .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 250 

GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,644 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC ............................................. .......................... .......................... 61 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 532 

TOWN CREEK, SC ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 520 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 6,948 

CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUS, SD ................ .......................... .......................... 2,500 
82 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

COLD BROOK LAKE, SD ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 327 

COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD ........................................................ .......................... .......................... 236 

FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD ................................... .......................... .......................... 6,737 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD ............................................. .......................... .......................... 17 

LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 561 

MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND GAVINS PT, SD, MT ..... .......................... .......................... 200 

OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD & ND ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 9,133 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD ......................................... .......................... .......................... 53 

TENNESSEE 

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 4,817 

CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN ........................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,677 

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,250 

CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN .......................................... .......................... .......................... 5,014 

DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 4,256 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ............................................. .......................... .......................... 141 

J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ......................................... .......................... .......................... 3,696 

OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 7,178 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 2 

TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 19,306 

WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 251 

TEXAS 

AQUILLA LAKE, TX ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 844 

ARKANSAS—RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL—AREA VI ...... .......................... .......................... 1,153 

BARDWELL LAKE, TX ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,741 

BELTON LAKE, TX ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,570 

BENBROOK LAKE, TX ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 2,185 

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,480 

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX .............................................. .......................... .......................... 2,164 

CANYON LAKE, TX ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 3,494 

CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 310 

CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ................................................... .......................... .......................... 7,000 

DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX ........................................................ .......................... .......................... 5,855 

ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX .............................. .......................... .......................... 6 

FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O’ THE PINES, TX ................................ .......................... .......................... 3,146 

FREEPORT HARBOR, TX ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 4,400 

GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX ............................................. .......................... .......................... 2,600 

GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,120 

GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,822 

GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 2,717 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX ................................................... .......................... .......................... 35,190 

HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,270 

HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................... .......................... .......................... 15,225 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX ............................................. .......................... .......................... 613 

JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,553 

JOE POOL LAKE, TX .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 729 

LAKE KEMP, TX ..................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 207 

LAVON LAKE, TX ................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,266 

LEWISVILLE DAM, TX ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 3,373 

MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,367 

NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,871 

NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX .................... .......................... .......................... 2,261 

O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,263 

PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,431 

PROCTOR LAKE, TX .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 2,156 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 500 

RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,251 

SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 9,972 

SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX ........................................... .......................... .......................... 7,524 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX .......................................... .......................... .......................... 103 
83 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,242 

STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX ............................................................. .......................... .......................... 2,068 

TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX ........................................................... .......................... .......................... 850 

TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX ...................................... .......................... .......................... 1,000 

TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX ................................... .......................... .......................... 2,694 

WACO LAKE, TX .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,590 

WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,437 

WHITNEY LAKE, TX ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 6,293 

WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX .................................................. .......................... .......................... 4,036 

UTAH 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT ............................................. .......................... .......................... 42 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT ......................................... .......................... .......................... 672 

VERMONT 

BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,299 

CONNECTICUT RIVER FLOOD CONTROL DAMS ..................................... .......................... .......................... 188 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT ............................................. .......................... .......................... 49 

NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT & NY ........................................... .......................... .......................... 10 

NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 850 

NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT ............................................................. .......................... .......................... 981 

TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 873 

UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 666 

VIRGINIA 

APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 500 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—ACC, VA ................................. .......................... .......................... 1,798 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—DSC, VA ................................. .......................... .......................... 867 

CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 852 

GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA ........................................... .......................... .......................... 2,082 

HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS HBR, VA (DRIFT REM .. .......................... .......................... 920 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA ............................................. .......................... .......................... 211 

JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,043 

JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC ............................................................. .......................... .......................... 11,060 

JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA .................................. .......................... .......................... 1,366 

NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 13,518 

NORFOLK HARBOR, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS ..... .......................... .......................... 221 

NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA ............................................ .......................... .......................... 601 

PHILPOTT LAKE, VA .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 4,688 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 840 

RUDEE INLET, VA ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 953 

WASHINGTON 

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 837 

COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA (PORT OF ILWACO) .................. .......................... .......................... 750 

COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND THE HEAD OF SAND ........ .......................... .......................... 750 

EDIZ HOOK, WA .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 310 

EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA .................................. .......................... .......................... 895

GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA ........................................ .......................... .......................... 6,679 

HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,232 

ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 4,538 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA ............................................ .......................... .......................... 311 

LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ................................................... .......................... .......................... 6,112 

LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,755 

LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA ................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,280 

LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA ......................................... .......................... .......................... 2,398 

MILL CREEK LAKE, WA ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,584 

MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ............................................ .......................... .......................... 301 

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,639 

NEAH BAY, WA ..................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 33 

OLYMPIA HARBOR, WA ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,918 
84 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 317 

PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA ...................................... .......................... .......................... 907 

QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,052 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA ......................................... .......................... .......................... 570 

SEATTLE HARBOR, WA .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 66 

STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 128 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA ..................... .......................... .......................... 98 

SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 627 

TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA ........................................................... .......................... .......................... 140 

THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA & OR .............................................. .......................... .......................... 3,432 

WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 84 

WEST VIRGINIA 

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,078 

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,098 

BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,738 

EAST LYNN LAKE, WV ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,699 

ELKINS, WV ........................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 17 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV ............................................ .......................... .......................... 129 

KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV ............................................. .......................... .......................... 9,185 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY & OH .................................... .......................... .......................... 20,665 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY & OH ............................. .......................... .......................... 2,140

R D BAILEY LAKE, WV .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,302 

STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 830 

SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,883 

SUTTON LAKE, WV ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,750 

TYGART LAKE, WV ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,350 

WISCONSIN 

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 723 

FOX RIVER, WI ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,147 

GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,607 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI ............................................. .......................... .......................... 41 

MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 650 

MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 176 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 105 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI ...................... .......................... .......................... 472 

WYOMING 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY ............................................ .......................... .......................... 11 

JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 853 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY ......................................... .......................... .......................... 87 

SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER STATES ....................... .......................... .......................... 2,008,455 

O&M Regions: 

NEW ENGLAND ............................................................................. 42,703 45,078 ..........................

MID-ATLANTIC .............................................................................. 146,700 143,250 ..........................

SOUTH ATLANTIC-GULF ................................................................ 318,443 297,043 ..........................

GREAT LAKES .............................................................................. 96,660 101,407 ..........................

OHIO ............................................................................................ 249,331 252,886 ..........................

TENNESSEE .................................................................................. 20,701 21,301 ..........................

UPPER MISSISSIPPI ..................................................................... 247,967 233,803 ..........................

LOWER MISSISSIPPI ..................................................................... 140,613 147,021 ..........................

SOURIS-RED-RAINY ..................................................................... 2,999 2,999 ..........................

MISSOURI .................................................................................... 180,200 151,180 ..........................

ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED ................................................................ 176,934 178,084 ..........................

TEXAS-GULF ................................................................................. 147,422 141,113 ..........................

RIO GRANDE ................................................................................ 10,209 10,209 ..........................

UPPER COLORADO ....................................................................... 722 722 ..........................

LOWER COLORADO ...................................................................... 3,327 3,327 ..........................

GREAT BASIN ............................................................................... 761 761 ..........................
85 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST ................................................................... 252,093 242,593 ..........................

CALIFORNIA ................................................................................. 98,232 102,461 ..........................

ALASKA ........................................................................................ 22,204 22,204 ..........................

HAWAII ......................................................................................... 1,995 1,995 ..........................

CARIBBEAN .................................................................................. 4,000 4,000 ..........................

SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER REGIONS ..................... 2,164,216 2,103,437 ..........................

REMAINING ITEMS: 

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH .................................. 690 690 690 

ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE. .................................................................................... 4,000 4,000 4,000 

COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM ........................................ 2,475 2,475 2,475 

CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION) ............................. 2,000 2,000 2,000 

DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE .......................................... 8,000 8,000 8,000 

DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM ................ 18,000 18,000 ..........................

DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM ......................................................................................... 1,062 1,062 1,062 

DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVRIONMENTAL RESEARCH 

(DOER). ................................................................................... 6,080 6,080 6,080 

DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM 

(DOTS) ..................................................................................... 1,391 1,391 1,391 

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM .......................... 270 270 270 

FACILITY PROTECTION ................................................................. 12,000 12,000 12,000 

GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL ............................................... 900 900 900 

INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP 

PR ........................................................................................... 500 500 ..........................

INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS ................................... 3,708 3,708 3,708 

MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS ................ 1,575 1,575 1,575 

NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING ..................................................... 2,400 2,400 8,600 

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM .............................................. 6,300 6,300 6,300 

NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (NEPP) ....... 5,000 5,000 5,000 

PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM ........... 2,540 2,540 2,540 

PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR WATER STORAGE REALLOCATION ........................................................................................ 300 300 300 

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT 

(ABS,P2,WINABS) .................................................................... 300 300 300 

PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION ...................................................... 5,541 5,541 5,541 

RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM (MSP) ............ 1,600 1,600 1,600 

REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 1,391 3,641 2,041 

RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHABILITATION ... 608 608 ..........................

STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM ............................................ 500 500 500 

WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS) .................... 653 653 653 

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ............................................... 89,784 92,034 78,634 

SAVINGS & SLIPPAGE ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥57,089 

TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .................................. 2,254,000 2,195,471 2,030,000 

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi.—The 

Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for the construction of mooring cells at Columbus, Mississippi and additional funding for additional maintenance dredging, aquatic plant control activities and backlog maintenance. 

Cordova Harbor, Alaska.—The Committee has included $500,000 

for maintenance dredging of the harbor. 

Helena Harbor, Arkansas.—The Committee includes $430,000 for 

maintenance dredging of this harbor. 
86 

McClellan-Kerr, Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkansas 

and Oklahoma.—An additional $4,000,000 is provided to complete 

the general reevaluation study to identify the long term fix for the 

Arkansas-White Cutoff Structure and for repairs along the existing 

Melinda Structure. 

Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana.—The Committee recommendation includes an additional $2,000,000 for backlog maintenance. 

Crescent City, California.—The Committee has provided $500,000 

for dredging. 

Oakland Harbor, California.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $8,543,000 for dredging the Inner and Outer Harbors. 

Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, California.—$4,000,000 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 

$12,008,000 for this project. 

AIWW, Norfolk, Virginia to St. Johns River, Florida, Georgia, 

South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia.—The Committee includes $2,100,000 for maintenance dredging. 

Intracoastal Waterway, Caloosahatchee to Anclote, FLorida.—The 

Committee provides $1,500,000 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 $7,000,000 for 

continued operations and maintenance of the Miami River Channel. This project will provide the first maintenance dredging of the 

Miami River since its original authorization in 1930. The Corps of 

Engineers is currently studying the economic benefits of the dredging project. In so doing, the Secretary should take into consideration the broad economic benefits of this project, including the increase in maritime cargo, the increased maritime business activity 

on the Miami River that will result from the project, such as megayacht servicing, and other economic and environmental benefits related to the revitalization of the area bordering the Miami River. 

Apalachiacola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers and Alabama, 

Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.— 

Prior notification of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and affected congressional Members is required before any 

funding shall be reprogrammed or otherwise used for updating 

masterplans having to do with projects in these river basins. 
87 

Pohiki Bay, Hawaii, Hawaii.—The Committee includes $200,000 

to complete plans and specifications for the breakwater repair. 

Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis (MVR 

Portion), Illinois.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$40,790,000. Within the funds provided, $3,582,000 is for continuation of the major maintenance of Lock and Dam 11 and Lock and 

Dam 19 as well as dredging small boat harbors. 

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 $2,548,000 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 to initiate dredging in the Inner Harbor. 

Weymouth-Fore River, Massachusetts.—$1,728,000 is provided for 

dredging this project. 

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. 

Okatibbee Lake, Mississippi.—The Committee includes additional 

funds for maintenance of public use facilities. 

Rosedale Harbor, Mississippi.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $600,000 for maintenance dredging of the harbor. 

Cocheco River, New Hampshire.—The Committee provides 

$2,000,000 continue dredging of the Cocheco River project. 

Albuquerque Levees, New Mexico.—The Committee recommendation provides $500,000 to complete plans and specifications. 

Cochiti Lake, New Mexico.—The Committee provides additional 

funds to fully fund routine operation and maintenance, campground construction, Cochiti baseline, gate automation, grout control tower to stop all water leaks, and structural review of the 

project water tower. 

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. 

Scheduling Reservoir Operations, New Mexico.—The Committee 

recommendation provides $1,471,000. Within these funds, $250,000 

is provided to develop an outline for an Integrated Management 

Plan of the Rio Grande in New Mexico in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, other Federal, State and local agencies. 

Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model, New Mexico.—The 

Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for assessment of 

options to develop a conservation pool to assist in meeting ESA requirements in the Middle Rio Grande. 
88 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.—The Committee 

includes an additional $3,370,000 for dredging of the project. Within the funds provided, $500,000 is for dredging Snow’s cut. 

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 $100,000 for mosquito control, $900,000 for the 

Corps to work in cooperation with the Friends of Lake Sakakawea 

to ensure the recreation sites around the lake can be utilized, and 

$5,000,000, along with prior year unobligated balances, shall be 

used for the relocation of the Fort Stevenson marina. 

Columbia and Lower Willamette River Below Vancouver, Washington and Portland, Oregon.—The Committee recommendation includes $17,800,000 for this project. Within the funds provided, up 

to $1,384,000 shall be used for dredging the 43 foot channel and 

$470,000 is for dredging at the Old Mouth of the Columbia River 

at Longview, Washington. 

Columbia River at the Mouth, Oregon and Washington.—The 

Committee recommendation includes $20,189,000 for the project. 

Within these funds, $9,315,000 is provided to complete interim repairs on the South jetty; complete the Phase 1 Major Rehabilitation 

Report; and to initiate a Design Documentation Report for Phase 

1 and the Phase 2 Major Rehabilitation Report. 

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 $2,500,000 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. 

Houston Ship Channel, Texas.—The Committee includes an additional $2,000,000 for additional dredging and dredging related activities. 

Texas Water Allocation Study, Texas.—The Committee provides 

$1,000,000 for this ongoing study. 

Connecticut River Flood Control Dams, Vermont.—$188,000 is 

provided to complete the evaluation of structural modifications to 

the five Corps dams within the Connecticut River Basin in 

Vermont. 

Norfolk Harbor, Virginia.—The Committee provides an additional $3,747,000 for maintenance dredging and to raise the containment dikes to provide the capacity needed for the Norfolk Harbor Deepening project. 

Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.—Within the funds provided, 

the Corps is directed to use up to $500,000 to satisfy Federal fish 

passage obligations for the term of the cooperative agreement with 

Puget Sound Energy. 
89 

R.D. Bailey Lake, West Virginia.—The Committee includes an additional $770,000 for drift removal and for drift removal equipment. 

Fox River, Wisconsin.—The Committee has included an additional $1,000,000 to reimburse Wisconsin, in accordance with the 

agreement, for the costs of repairs and rehabilitation of the transferred property. 

Independent Assessment of Environmental Stewardship Program.—The Committee has not provided funding for this new 

study. 

Reliability Models Program for Major Rehabilitation.—The Committee has not provided funding for this new study. 

Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program.—The 

Committee has provided $2,041,000 for this program. Within the 

funds provided, $500,000 is for the southeast coast of Oahu, Hawaii 

and $250,000 for Ocean and Bay Coastlines in Virginia. The Committee has not included funds for the Benson Beach demonstration 

project. It is the Committee’s understanding that funds are available from prior year appropriations for this project. The Committee 

directs the Corps to work with the State of Washington to study 

the effects of nearshore disposal and littoral drift on nourishment 

of Benson Beach. 

National Coastal Mapping.—$8,600,000 is provided for this pro- gram. Within the funds provided $1,600,000 is for collection of 

LIDAR bathymetry and $4,600,000 is for Coastal Zone Mapping 

and Imaging Laser to be conducted with the University of Southern 

Mississippi. 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. ( 1 ) 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... $81,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 32,000,000 

1 Excludes emergency appropriation of $5,422,989,000. ................

The Committee has included $32,000,000 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. 

Since Hurricane Katrina made landfall in late August 2005, 

nearly $5,500,000,000 has been provided to this account through 

supplemental appropriations. The Committee believes that carryover funds should be available to address unexpected disasters that 

occur in fiscal year 2007. Therefore, the Committee provides 

$32,000,000. This is the amount considered necessary for annual 

readiness and preparedness activities of the Corps. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $158,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 173,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 173,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 168,000,000 
90 

An appropriation of $168,000,000 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 continues to be concerned about the backlog of 

permit applications and the delay in making permit decisions, especially in certain areas. Some of these permit actions have major national or regional impacts and the delays are, accordingly, having 

negative consequences on the Nation’s economy and environmental 

quality. To partially address this concern, the Corps of Engineers 

is directed to initiate a series of pilot programs aimed at streamlining decisions for high impact permit applications with national 

or regional implications, especially those which are repetitive or 

which have common characteristics with other similar permit applications. These pilot programs are to be designed to gain efficiencies by sharing knowledge and expertise gained by Corps regulators in processing similar types of applications in one area with 

their colleagues facing similar applications in another, promoting 

consistency, developing and sharing ‘‘best practices’’ approaches to 

evaluating such permit applications, and use of virtual or dedicated 

teams to expedite broad-impact permit applications. In establishing 

these pilot programs, the Corps shall give priority to applications 

aimed at streamlining the expansion of interstate rail capacity in 

an economically and environmentally sound manner and in reaching similarly sound, streamlined decisions on large-scale commercial and residential land developments involving complex land use 

considerations. 

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. 
91 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $138,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 130,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 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 of Engineers during fiscal year 

2007 to complete expeditiously its Site Ownership and Operational 

History review and continue its Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 

Study toward the goal of initiating any necessary remediation of 

the former Sylvania nuclear fuel site at Hicksville, New York, in 

accordance with CERCLA. 

The Committee directs the Corps to continue ongoing cleanup efforts at the Former Linde Air Products, Tonawanda, New York, 

consistent with current CERCLA cleanup standards. 

GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. 1 $152,460,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 164,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 142,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 164,000,000 

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

This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office, Chief of 

Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research and statistical 

functions of the Corps of Engineers. The Committee recommendation is $165,000,000. The Committee understands that the cost of 

the required financial audit of the Corps of Engineers may exceed 

$20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006. Therefore, the Committee encour-
92 

ages the Corps to use the Revolving Fund to undertake this audit 

and budget appropriation for this audit in future years. 

Executive Direction and Management.—The Office of the Chief of 

Engineers and eight division offices supervise work in 38 district 

offices. 

Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.—This support center provides administrative services (such as personnel, logistics, 

information management, and finance and accounting) for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate field operating activities. 

Institute for Water Resources.—This institute performs studies, 

analyses, and develops planning techniques for the management 

and development of the Nation’s water resources. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.—This 

center provides centralized support for all Corps finance and accounting. 

Office of Congressional Affairs.—The Committee has included 

statutory language for the past several years prohibiting any funds 

from being used to fund an Office of Congressional Affairs within 

the executive office of the Chief of Engineers. The Committee believes that an Office of Congressional Affairs for the Civil Works 

Program would hamper the efficient and effective coordination of 

issues with the Committee staff and Members of Congress. The 

Committee believes that the technical knowledge and managerial 

expertise needed for the Corps headquarters to effectively address 

Civil Works authorization, appropriation, and Headquarters policy 

matters resides in the Civil Works organization. Therefore, the 

Committee strongly recommends that the Office of Congressional 

Affairs not be a part of the process by which information on Civil 

Works projects, programs, and activities is provided to Congress. 

The Committee reminds the Corps that the General Expenses account is to be used exclusively for executive oversight and management of the Civil Works Program. 

In 1998, The Chief of Engineers issued a Command Directive 

transferring the oversight and management of the General Expenses account, as well as the manpower associated with this function, from the Civil Works Directorate to the Resource Management Office. General Expense funds are appropriated solely for the 

executive management and oversight of the Civil Works Program 

under the direction of the Director of Civil Works. 

The Committee is pleased with the efforts of the Corps to restructure the management of general expense funds. It continues 

to believe that the general expense dollars are ultimately at the 

discretion of the Chief of Engineers and are intended to be utilized 

in his effort to carry out the Corps’ mission. The new controls put 

in place to manage the general expense dollars and evaluate the 

needs of the Corps address the Committee’s previous concerns. The 

Committee requests the Corps continue to provide biannual written 

notification of the dispersal of general expense funds. 

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-
93 

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 fiscal year 2007 program is about $5,100,000,000. Using the same percentage, this 

translates to $181,000,000 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 did not provide $181,000,000 for the GE ac- count, it did retain the requested level of $164,000,000, which includes $6,000,000 to fund the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 

the Army (Civil Works). The Committee directs that the funds proposed for the ASA[CW] along with the funds proposed for competitive sourcing in the budget request be used to provide up to 40 additional staff for the headquarters office. Additional staff should 

also be provided for the Mississippi Valley Division in order to 

oversee hurricane recovery efforts and the more than 

$6,000,000,000 that Congress has provided for that effort. Up to 

$1,500,000 may be used to augment the General Expense budget 

of the Mississippi Valley Division. The Committee expects the administration to budget for this increased staffing in future budget 

submissions. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)

The Committee has provided no funding for the Office of the 

Assitant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The Committee 

does not believe that the ASA[CW] has the time nor should 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. 

The decisions of fiscal year 2005 and 2006 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 2 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. As 

a result, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommends that in 

fiscal year 2007 and thereafter the expenses of the Office of the As-
94 

sistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works again should be 

funded through the Defense Department appropriations for Operation and Maintenance, Army [OMA]. 

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 complicated the Army’s accounting for such indirect and overhead expenses with no commensurate benefit to justify the change. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

Section 101. The bill includes language concerning reprogramming. 

Section 102. The bill includes language limiting reimbursements. 

Section 103. The bill includes language prohibiting the divesting 

or transferring Civil Works functions. 
95 

Section 104. The bill includes language prohibiting any steps to 

dismantle the St. Georges Bridge in Delaware. 

Section 105. The bill includes language concerning report notifications. 

Section 106. The bill includes language concerning reallocations 

in Lake Cumberland, Kentucky. 

Section 107. The bill includes language regarding the Lower Mud 

River, Milton, West Virginia, project. 

Section 108. The bill includes language allowing the use of the 

revolving fund to construct two buildings. 

Section 109. The bill includes language concerning cooperative 

agreements. 

Section 110. The bill includes language concerning in-kind services for the Rio Grande Basin Watershed study. 

Section 111. The bill includes language regarding the Middle Rio 

Grande Collaborative Program, New Mexico. 

Section 112. The bill includes language regarding Apalachiacola, 

Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers and Alabama, Coosa and 

Tallapoosa Rivers, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. 

Section 113. The bill includes language regarding the Rio De 

Flag, Arizona, project. 

Section 114. The bill includes language regarding Avian Predation in the Columbia River Fish Mitigation project. 

Section 115. The bill includes language regarding the Santa Ana, 

California, project. 

Section 116. The bill includes language regarding the Upper 

Guadalupe, California, project. 

Section 117. The bill includes language concerning the conveyance of surplus property in Tate County, Mississippi. 

Section 118. The bill includes language regarding two environmental infrastructure projects in Nevada. 

Section 119. The bill includes language regarding the Devils 

Lake, North Dakota, environmental infrastructure. 

Section 120. The bill includes language regarding the Federal 

dredges. 

Section 121. The bill includes language regarding the Federal 

dredges. 

Section 122. The bill includes language regarding the Federal 

dredges. 

Section 123. The bill includes language concerning Missouri 

River mitigation. 

Section 124. The bill includes language limiting Corps of Engineers expenditure on a project. 

Section 125. The bill includes language repealing two sections of 

Public Law 109–103. 

Section 126. The bill includes language concerning the Shore 

Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program. 

Section 127. The bill includes language regarding congressional 

budget justifications. 

Section 128. The bill includes language regarding non-Federal 

sponsors. 

Section 129. The bill includes language regarding reimbursements. 
96 

Section 130. The bill includes language regarding Johnson Creek, 

Texas. 

Section 131. The bill includes language regarding McAlpine Lock 

and Dam. 

Section 132. The bill includes language regarding Federal Civilian Employee Compensation. 

Section 133. The bill includes language regarding crediting of 

non-Federal expenditures. 

Section 134. The bill includes language regarding the San 

Lorenzo River, California. 

Section 135. The bill includes a provision regarding the Missouri 

and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project. 
(97) 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $34,007,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 40,155,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 40,155,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,155,000 

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2007 to carry out 

the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act totals 

$40,155,000. An appropriation of $37,587,000 has been provided for 

Central Utah project construction; $937,000 for fish, wildlife, and 

recreation, mitigation and conservation. The Committee recommendation provides $1,603,000 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, due to the cancellation of its building lease. 

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, 2006 ............................................................................. 1 $874,679,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 2 745,424,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 2 761,122,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 888,994,000 

1 Includes Emergency Supplemental Appropriations of $9,000,000. 

2 Includes a rescission of $88,000,000. 

An appropriation of $888,994,000 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 
98 

operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest 

overall level of benefits, to protect public safety, and to conduct 

studies on ways to improve the use of water and related natural 

resources. Work will be done in partnership and cooperation with 

non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies. 

The Committee has divided underfinancing between the Resources Management Subaccount and the Facilities Operation and 

Maintenance Subaccount. The Committee directs that the underfinancing amount in each subaccount initially be applied uniformly 

across all projects within the subaccounts. Upon applying the 

underfinanced amounts, normal reprogramming procedures should 

be undertaken to account for schedule slippages, accelerations or 

other unforeseen conditions. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the 

following table along with the budget request and the House allowance. 
99 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

ARIZONA 

AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ............................................................................................................................ .................. 7,920 .................. 7,920 .................. 7,920 CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER BASIN ........................................................................................................................ 27,050 153 27,050 153 27,650 153 COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM .......................................................................................................................... 5,495 .................. 5,495 .................. 5,495 ..................FORT MCDOWELL SETTLEMENT ACT ...................................................................................................................................................... 396 .................. 396 .................. 396 ..................NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .................................................................................................................................. 297 .................. 297 .................. 297 ..................PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT ................................................................................................................................ 198 .................. 198 .................. 198 ..................SALT RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................. 297 .................. 297 .................. 297 ..................SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT ........................................................................................................................ 297 .................. 297 .................. 297 ..................SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 4,713 .................. 4,713 .................. 4,713 ..................SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................... 1,074 .................. 1,074 .................. 1,074 ..................TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION ............................................................................................................................................... 223 .................. 473 .................. 223 ..................YUMA AREA PROJECTS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,652 21,080 2,147 21,080 1,652 21,080 YUMA EAST WETLANDS, AZ ................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 ..................

CALIFORNIA 

CACHUMA PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,021 558 1,521 558 1,521 558 CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................ 574 .................. 574 .................. 574 ..................CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING PLANT ............................................................................................................... 990 .................. 990 .................. 1,200 ..................CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT: 

AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,815 7,158 3,065 7,158 1,815 7,158 AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT ..................................................................................................................................................... 4,025 .................. 5,025 .................. 4,025 ..................DELTA DIVISION ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10,819 5,840 10,819 5,840 10,819 5,840 EAST SIDE DIVISION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,598 2,523 1,598 2,523 1,598 2,523 FRIANT DIVISION ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,894 3,814 1,894 3,814 1,894 3,814 MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS ......................................................................................................................................... 13,658 1,259 13,658 1,259 13,658 1,259 REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINT ......................................................................................................... .................. 18,315 .................. 18,315 .................. 18,315 SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVERSION .................................................................................................................................................. 2,445 1,740 2,445 1,740 4,395 1,740 SAN FELIPE DIVISION .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,015 .................. 1,015 .................. 1,015 ..................SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION ................................................................................................................................................................. 309 .................. 309 .................. 309 ..................SHASTA DIVISION .......................................................................................................................................................................... 802 7,625 802 7,625 802 7,625 TRINITY RIVER DIVISION ............................................................................................................................................................... 7,379 3,318 7,379 3,318 9,379 3,318 
100 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 1,648 9,483 1,648 9,483 1,648 9,483 WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT ............................................................................................................................. 3,921 6,992 3,921 6,992 3,921 6,992 YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................................................... 792 .................. 792 .................. 792 ..................

HI-DESERT WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND REUSE .............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 500 .................. .................. ..................LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 4,500 ..................LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 743 .................. 743 .................. 907 ..................LONG BEACH DESALINATION PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 ..................IRVINE BASIN GROUND AND SURFACE WATER IMPROVEMENT ............................................................................................................. .................. .................. 1,000 .................. 250 ..................NAPA-SONOMA-MARIN AGRICULTURAL REUSE PROJECT ....................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 1,238 .................. 1,238 .................. 1,238 ..................ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT, PHAS .................................................................................................... 1,238 .................. 1,238 .................. 2,500 ..................ORLAND PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 674 14 674 14 674 SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVERSION STUDY ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 1,000 .................. .................. ..................SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................... 743 .................. 2,243 .................. 743 ..................SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM .......................................................................................................... 3,465 .................. 3,465 .................. 3,465 ..................SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................... 743 .................. 743 .................. 743 ..................SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 10,000 .................. .................. ..................SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM ............................................................................................................ 495 .................. 495 .................. 495 ..................SANTA MARGARITA RIVER CONJUNCTIVE USE PROJECT ........................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................SOLANO PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,287 2,558 1,287 2,558 1,287 2,558 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. 406 .................. 1,308 .................. 406 ..................WATSONVILLE AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT ................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 1,000 .................. .................. ..................VENTURA RIVER PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................................................... 824 .................. 824 .................. 824 ..................

COLORADO 

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, CRSP SECTION 5 & 8 .............................................................................................................................. 57,420 .................. 57,420 .................. 65,000 ..................COLLBRAN PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 170 1,370 170 1,370 170 1,370 COLORADO—BIG THOMPSON PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................. 334 14,861 334 14,861 334 14,861 COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................. 396 .................. 396 .................. 396 ..................FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................. 81 144 81 144 81 144 FRYINGPAN—ARKANSAS PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................ 196 6,868 196 6,868 196 6,868 GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ................................................................................................................................................ 167 882 167 882 167 882 
101 

LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY ............................................................................................................................................... 74 1,970 74 1,970 74 1,970 MANCOS PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................................. 50 85 50 85 500 85 PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ............................................................................................................................................ 60 2,067 60 2,067 60 2,067 PINE RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................. 182 125 182 125 182 125 SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................... 292 5,141 292 5,141 292 5,141 UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT ....................................................................................................................................................................... 128 162 128 162 128 162 

HAWAII 

HAWAIIAN RECLAIM AND REUSE STUDY ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................

IDAHO 

BOISE AREA PROJECTS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2,523 2,706 2,523 2,706 2,523 2,706 COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT ............................................................................................................... 17,325 .................. 17,325 .................. 17,325 ..................IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................................................ 574 .................. 574 .................. 574 ..................LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 339 31 339 31 339 31 MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS .................................................................................................................................................................... 3,266 2,938 3,266 2,938 3,266 2,938 MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 114 .................. 114 .................. 114 ..................MINIDOKA PROJECT, GRASSY LAKE SOD ............................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

KANSAS 

KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ...................................................................................................................................................... 150 .................. 150 .................. 150 ..................WICHITA PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 436 15 436 15 436 

MONTANA 

FORT PECK DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM ................................................................................................................................ 5,000 .................. 6,000 .................. 10,000 ..................HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................................................... .................. 990 .................. 990 .................. 990 HUNTLEY PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................. 50 131 50 131 50 131 MILK RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................. 487 1,099 487 1,099 487 1,099 MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................................................................................................................... 318 .................. 318 .................. 318 ..................NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA RURAL WATER PROJECT ........................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 5,500 .................. 6,000 ..................ST. MARY’S FACILITIES REHABILIATION ................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 5,000 ..................SUN RIVER PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 98 249 98 249 98 249 

NEBRASKA 

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 31 82 31 82 31 82 NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................. 129 .................. 129 .................. 129 ..................

NEVADA 

HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY .......................................................................................................................................................... 198 .................. 198 .................. 198 ..................LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................... 4,982 2,807 4,982 2,807 4,982 2,807 
102 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM .............................................................................................................................................. 476 .................. 476 .................. 2,274 ..................NORTH LAS VEGAS WATER REUSE ........................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 3,000 ..................

NEW MEXICO 

ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER & RECLAMATION REUSE ............................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 2,770 ..................CARLSBAD PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2,031 1,604 2,031 1,604 2,031 2,804 CHIMAYO, NM ........................................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 2,000 ..................EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER SUPPLY ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................EASTERN NEW MEXICO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................ 50 .................. 50 .................. 50 ..................JICARILLA APACHE RESERVATION RURAL WATER SYSTEM .................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 500 .................. .................. ..................MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................. 15,470 8,290 15,470 8,290 23,980 15,520 NAVAJO GALLUP WATER SUPPLY ........................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................................... 50 .................. 50 .................. 50 ..................PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT ................................................................................................................................... .................. 189 .................. 189 .................. 189 RIO GRANDE PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 960 3,564 960 3,564 960 3,564 SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. 149 .................. 149 .................. 149 ..................SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 179 .................. 179 .................. 179 ..................TUCUMCARI PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 23 13 23 13 23 13 UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 99 .................. 99 .................. 99 ..................

NORTH DAKOTA 

DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .................................................................................................................................................... 378 .................. 378 .................. 378 ..................DAKOTAS TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ....................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................ 30 64 30 64 30 64 GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT ................................................................................................................................................................... 19,255 4,966 20,255 4,966 24,255 4,966 

OKLAHOMA 

ARBUCKLE PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 37 151 37 151 37 151 MCGEE CREEK PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 26 545 26 545 26 545 MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 370 6 370 6 370 NORMAN PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................. 12 332 12 332 12 332 OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................. 25 .................. 775 .................. 25 ..................
103 

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10 1,187 10 1,187 10 1,187 W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7 425 7 425 7 425 

OREGON 

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 433 508 433 508 433 508 DESCHUTES PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 330 231 330 231 330 231 EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS ................................................................................................................................................................ 662 364 662 364 662 364 KLAMATH PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................. 23,504 1,246 23,504 1,246 23,504 1,246 MALHEYR, OWYHEE, POWDER, ............................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

BURNT RIVER BASIN FEASIBILITY ST ........................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 240 ..................

OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................................................... 389 .................. 389 .................. 389 ..................ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION ................................................................................................................................. 756 418 756 418 756 418 SAVAGE RAPIDS DAM REMOVAL ............................................................................................................................................................ 13,000 .................. 13,000 .................. 13,000 ..................TUALATIN PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................ 165 216 165 216 165 216 TUALATIN VALLEY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY PROJECT ...................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 280 .................. 280 ..................UMATILLA PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................ 721 3,006 721 3,006 721 3,006 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................................... 21,000 .................. 22,000 .................. 23,500 ..................MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................... .................. 15 .................. 15 .................. ..................MNI WICONI PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 22,914 9,256 22,914 9,256 23,914 9,256 PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT ........................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 1,250 .................. 1,000 ..................RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM ............................................................................................................................................ .................. 54 .................. 54 .................. 54 

TEXAS 

BALMORHEA PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 26 16 26 16 26 16 CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................... 68 87 68 87 68 87 DALLAS TRINITY WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 205 ..................LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 50 .................. 50 .................. 2,000 ..................NUECES RIVER ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 488 27 488 27 488 SAN ANGELO PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 367 6 367 6 367 TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................................................ 204 .................. 204 .................. 204 ..................WILLIAMSON COUNTY WATER RECYCLING PROJECT .............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 750 .................. .................. ..................

UTAH 

HYRUM PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................................... 122 29 122 29 122 29 MOON LAKE PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3 29 3 29 3 29 NEWTON PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................................. 55 25 55 25 55 25 NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ....................................................................................................................................... 74 .................. 74 .................. 274 ..................OGDEN RIVER PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 199 70 199 70 199 70 
104 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

PARK CITY FEASIBILITY STUDY .............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 200 .................. 200 ..................PROVO RIVER PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 798 321 798 321 798 321 SCOFIELD PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................ 72 33 72 33 72 33 SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ....................................................................................................................................... 149 .................. 149 .................. 149 ..................STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................. 199 14 199 14 199 14 WEBER BASIN PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,121 406 1,121 406 1,121 406 WEBER RIVER PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 46 66 46 66 46 66 

WASHINGTON 

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................... 4,050 6,104 4,050 6,104 4,050 6,104 MAKAH INDIAN COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY ......................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. 200 ..................STORAGE DAM FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY ............................................................................................................................... 693 .................. 693 .................. 693 ..................WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 104 5 104 5 104 5 WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................................. 352 .................. 352 .................. 952 ..................YAKIMA PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,267 6,890 2,267 6,890 2,267 6,890 YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT ........................................................................................................................ 11,484 .................. 9,484 .................. 11,484 ..................YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 2,500 .................. 2,000 ..................

WYOMING 

KENDRICK PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................... 109 4,265 109 4,265 109 4,265 NORTH PLATTE PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 328 2,446 328 2,446 328 2,446 SHOSHONE PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 89 733 89 733 89 733 WYOMING INVESTIGATION PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

VARIOUS 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I ........................................................................................................... .................. 10,566 .................. 10,566 .................. 10,566 COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE II ......................................................................................................................... 8,910 .................. 8,910 .................. 8,910 ..................COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 5 ............................................................................................................................... 2,455 3,291 2,455 3,291 2,455 3,291 COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 8 ............................................................................................................................... 4,455 .................. 4,455 .................. 4,455 ..................COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .............................................................................................................. 401 .................. 401 .................. 401 ..................DAM SAFETY PROGRAM: 

DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM .......................................................................................................................................... .................. 1,485 .................. 1,485 .................. 1,485 
105 

INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION .............................................................................................................................................. .................. 49,203 .................. 49,203 .................. 47,203 SAFETY OF EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS ................................................................................................................................ .................. 18,315 .................. 18,315 .................. 18,315 

DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 475 .................. 475 .................. 475 ..................EMERGENCY PLANNING & DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. .................. 1,346 .................. 1,346 .................. 1,346 ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................................... 11,299 .................. 10,190 .................. 11,299 ..................ENVIRONMENTAL & INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................. 1,695 .................. 1,695 .................. 1,695 ..................ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................................................................................... 836 .................. 836 .................. 836 ..................EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES .............................................................................................................................................. 15 6,083 15 6,083 15 6,083 FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................... .................. 1,559 .................. 1,559 .................. 1,559 GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,986 .................. 1,466 .................. 1,986 ..................LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................................... 8,461 .................. 8,461 .................. 8,461 ..................LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................... 297 .................. 297 .................. 297 ..................LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................... 17,028 .................. 17,028 .................. 17,028 ..................MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................... .................. 653 .................. 653 .................. 653 NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM .................................................................................................................................................. 6,307 .................. 6,307 .................. 6,307 ..................NATURAL RESOURCES DAMAGE ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................NEGOTIATION & ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING .................................................................................................................... 1,492 .................. 1,492 .................. 1,492 ..................OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................ .................. 1,176 .................. 1,176 .................. 1,176 PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN—OTHER PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................... 4,150 37,700 4,150 37,700 4,150 37,700 POWER PROGRAM SERVICES ................................................................................................................................................................. 719 212 719 212 719 212 PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................................... 624 147 624 147 624 147 RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................................................................... 1,965 .................. 1,965 .................. 1,965 ..................RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT—TITLE XXVIII .................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 ..................RECREATION & FISH & WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................. 1,201 .................. 1,201 .................. 1,201 ..................RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ............................................................... 25 .................. 25 .................. 7,025 ..................SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................. 8,514 .................. 8,514 .................. 10,764 ..................SITE SECURITY ....................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. 39,600 .................. 39,600 .................. 39,600 SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,832 .................. 832 .................. 1,832 ..................TITLE XVI, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................... 990 .................. 990 .................. 4,740 ..................UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES—TECHNICAL SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 89 .................. 89 .................. 89 ..................WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICE PROGRAM 1 ............................................................................................................................. 7,221 .................. 7,221 .................. 8,421 ..................WATER 2025 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 14,500 .................. .................. .................. 14,500 ..................UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON ANTICIPATED DELAYS ............................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. ¥35,000 ¥3,664 RESCISSION—Public Law 109–148 ...................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

TOTAL WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 456,526 376,898 471,724 376,898 509,345 379,649 GRAND TOTAL ........................................................................................................................................................................... 833,424 .................. 849,122 .................. 888,994 ..................

1 Starting in fiscal year 2006 the new line item combines two previous line items: Efficiency Incentives Program and Water Management Conservation Program. 
106 

Central Arizona Project, Colorado River Basin.—The Committee 

recommendation includes $600,000 for activities related to the Gila 

River Settlement in New Mexico. 

Central Valley Project—Sacramento River Division.—The Committee recommendation includes $450,000 for the Colusa Basin 

Intergrated Resources Management Plan. 

Miscellaneous Project Programs.—An additional $1,500,000 above 

the budget request is provided for the Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Program, $735,000 of which 

shall be made available for a cooperative agreement or agreements 

with the Northern California Water Association to be provided to 

the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District for continued work on the 

Stony Creek Fan Conjunctive Water Management Program, 

$240,000 of which shall be available in the same manner for the 

Sacramento Valley Conjunctive Water Management Technical Investigation to be provided to the Stony Creek Fan Partnership and 

the Natural Heritage Institute, and $525,000 of which shall be 

made available in the same manner for the Lower Tuscan Formation Aquifer System Recharge Investigation and Environmental 

Monitoring Program to be provided to the counties of Butte and 

Tehama, California. 

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 $65,000,000 for construction of this 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.—$200,000 is provided above the 

request for rehabilitation of the radial gates at Sumner Dam. 

$1,000,000 is provided for work related to water efficiency and supply supplementation in the Pecos consistent with the partnership 

between the Carlsbad Irrigation District and the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. 

Chimayo, New Mexico.—The Committee has provided $2,000,000 

to continue this project. 

Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.—The Committee recommendation includes $39,500,000 for the Middle Rio Grande 

project, $23,980,000 for Resources Management and $15,520,000 

for Operations, Maintenance and Replacements. Within the 

$23,980,000 for Resources Management, the Committee includes 

$14,980,000 for the Collaborative Program; $5,000,000 for water acquisition for the Collaborative Program; $1,000,000 to be transferred to the USGS for stream gages for the Collaborative Program; 

$1,000,000 for continued refinements to the Upper Rio Grande 

Water Operations Model; and $2,000,000 for the Silvery Minnow 

off-channel sanctuaries. Within the $15,520,000 for Operations, 

Maintenance and Replacements, the Committee includes 

$14,770,000 for Operations and Maintenance; $250,000 for an integrated management plan; and $500,000 to evaluate a conservation 

pool. 

The Committee is concerned with the significant amount of funds 

spent by the Bureau of Reclamation on the administration of the 
107 

Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program. 

The Committee directs the Secretary of Interior to undertake a 

study of the administrative costs associated with the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s administration of the program and opportunities to 

increase the percentage of funds that are spent to comply with the 

2003 Biological Opinion referenced in section 205(b) of the Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 

108–447; 118 Stat. 2949) as amended by section 121(b) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 

109–103; 119 Stat. 2256). 

Deschutes Ecosystem Restoration Project, Oregon.—The Committee is supportive of this program, however the authorization has 

expired. The Committee is unable to provide funds for an unauthorized program. 

Williamson County Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, 

Texas.—The Committee has provided $200,000 to initiate this 

project. 

Northern Utah Investigations Program, Utah.—The Committee 

has included an additional $500,000 for the Rural Water Technology Alliance. 

Washington Investigations Program, Washington.—The Committee has provided $952,000 for this program. Within the funds 

provided, $600,000 is for the Odessa Sub Area study, and $50,000 

is for the West Canal study. 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I.—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, and the Committee is concerned that it will not be one- 
108 

third operational by the end of calendar year 2006. Accordingly, 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 2006. 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, 2007. If the plant is 

not one-third operational by the end of calendar year 2006, 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, 

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 $7,025,000 for this 

program. The Bureau of Reclamation is directed to develop a cooperative agreement with New Mexico State University under which 

Bureau transfers operations and maintenance of the Tularosa 

Basin National Desalination Research Facility and transfers the 

administration of research activities undertaken at the Tularosa 

Facility to New Mexico State University following the completion 

of construction of the Tularosa Facility by the Bureau. Title to the 

facility shall remain in the United States. Of the funds provided, $4,000,000 is provided to New Mexico State University of which $1,600,000 is provided for operations and 

maintenance of the newly constructed Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility and $1,300,000 is provided to New 

Mexico State University for research activities undertaken at or associated with the Tularosa Facility. An amount of $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, State agencies, local agencies, industry, other 

educational institutions or other water research entities New Mexico State University deems necessary to carry out the program. 

New Mexico State University may enter into any cost-sharing 

agreements, grants, contracts or any other agreements necessary to 

carry out the program. 

Research and Development, Science and Technology Program.— 

$10,764,000 is provided for this program. Within the funds provided, $250,000 is provided to initiate a salt cedar management 

demonstration on the Canadian River. $1,000,000 is provided to 

further a salt cedar management demonstration on the Rio Grande 

River. $1,000,000 is provided to further a salt cedar management 

demonstration on the Pecos River. 

Title XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse.—The Committee has 

provided $4,740,000 for this program. Within the funds provided, 

the Committee has included $3,000,000 for the WateReuse Foundation. These funds shall be available to support the Foundation’s research priorities. $500,000 is for Sandoval County, New Mexico, 

Desalination Project and $250,000 is for Rio Rancho Recycled 

Water and Groundwater Recharge, New Mexico. 
109 

Water Conservation Field Service Program.—The Committee has 

provided $8,421,000 for the Water Conservation Field Services Program. Within the amounts provided, $400,000 shall be allocated for 

urban water conservation projects identified through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Innovative Conservation 

Program, including the California Friendly program for water conservation in new home construction; $100,000 shall be allocated for 

industrial water efficiency surveys to assess opportunities to conserve water in industrial water use; and $200,000 shall be allocated for weather based irrigation controller activities to pilot ways 

to speed distribution and acceptance of these landscape water efficiency devices. $500,000 shall be for the Elephant Butte Irrigation 

District for irrigation water efficiency improvements. 

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 

$14,500,000 for this initiative proposed by the administration. The 

Committee believes that water resource and efficiency issues, combined with the drought and endangered species listings, make the 

Rio Grande River in New Mexico the embodiment of the Water 

2025 initiative. Therefore, the Committee has included $2,000,000 

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, 

$2,000,000 is for the Desert Research Institute to address water 

quality and environmental issues in ways that will bring industry 

and regulators to mutually acceptable answers. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $52,219,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 41,478,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 41,478,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 41,478,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,478,000, the 

same as the budget request for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. 

The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized in 

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of Public Law 

102–575. This fund was established to provide funding from project 

beneficiaries for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, 

and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of California. Revenues are derived from payments 

by project beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project 

beneficiaries include several required by the act (Friant Division 

surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to non-CVP users, 

and tiered water prices) and, to the extent required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation and restoration payments. 
110 

CALIFORNIA BAY—DELTA RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $36,630,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 38,610,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 40,110,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 38,610,000 

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, 2006 ............................................................................. $57,338,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 58,069,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 58,069,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 58,069,000 

The Committee recommendation for general administrative expenses is $58,069,000. 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. 

Section 202. The bill includes language that states requirements 

for purchase or lease of water from the Middle Rio Grande or 

Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico. 

Section 203. The bill includes language regarding Drought Emergency Assistance. 

Section 204. The bill includes language concerning Water 2025. 

Section 205. The bill includes language regarding the Rio Grande 

Collaborative water operations team. 

Section 206. The bill includes language concerning the project at 

Las Vegas Wash and Lake Mead. 

Section 207. The bill includes language concerning the Truckee 

River Settlement Act. 

Section 208. The bill includes language regarding the All American Canal. Z10rept.007 
(111) 

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

EPACT IMPLEMENTATION

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 [EPACT] is a landmark piece of 

legislation which has begun to shape the future of America’s energy 

policy while supporting the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative 

through a wide variety of clean and economically feasible alternative energy sources. It is critical at this juncture that the United 

States decreases its dependence on foreign oil, and the Energy Policy Act lays out a tangible plan for action. Whether in the arena 

of ethanol, nuclear power, solar power, or clean vehicles, the Energy Policy Act has set the stage for a new wave of energy solutions. 

A renewed focus on alternative sources of energy has the potential to benefit communities throughout the country. The Energy 

Policy Act has created an environment which has stimulated renewed interest in the construction of nuclear power plants. Already, companies have announced that they have identified reactor 

technology for more than 20 new sites. If built, these reactors will 

not only generate enough power for 15–19 million households, 

these plants will also create thousands of new jobs across the country without contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Rural communities also have much to gain from the EPACT legislation. Investment in ethanol production will lead to the displacement of 2 

billion barrels of foreign oil over the next 6 years and to the construction and expansion of ethanol plants in the rural United 

States. Additionally, this legislation encourages clean coal generation, a move that will bring about significant benefits to the environment and attention to an industry that has been and continues 

to be the major source of energy in America. 

ASIA PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP

The Committee is unaware of the mission and goals of the recently developed Asian Pacific Partnership, as it is not described in 

the Department’s budget justification, and the Committee has no 

direction by which to designate funding. The Committee understands that the administration has not requested additional funding for this initiative, but has ‘‘earmarked’’ funding within available funds. Nevertheless, the Committee understands this is a top 

priority for the administration. Therefore the Committee directs 

the Department to fund this activity in three parts and from within 

available funds. One-third is to be provided from the Office of Policy and International Affairs, one-third from the Office of Science, 

Biological and Environmental Research, Climate Change Research 

Account, and one-third from the Office of Energy Supply and Con-
112 

servation, Wind Energy activities. Prior to submitting an official reprogramming request for the movement of these funds, the Department shall provide a report to support the justification of these activities and the impact this will have on the programs from which 

the Department has withdrawn funding. 

This new partnership is directed to work in conjunction with the 

existing Clean Energy Techology Exports program in order to pursue project development, implementation assistance, and capacity 

building and to work with foreign governments, international financial insitutions, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations to establish the appropriate technology and investment 

frameworks and to improve governance practices in emerging markets around the world. 

HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES [HBCUS] 

The Department has a long history of supporting HBCUs. 

HBCUs receive support for research and development, fellowships, 

scholarships, internships, administrative infrastructure, and private sector partnerships. In recent years, departmental programs 

have established innovative multi-year programs to support various 

mission-focused programs. For example, in 2005 and 2006 the National Nuclear Security Administration within the Department established partnerships with HBCUs to advance its national security and nonproliferation missions. In 2007, the Department should 

broaden its HBCU support to include each departmental programmatic area, not just the NNSA. The Department’s mission includes activities where the HBCUs can be brought into the energy 

supply and conservation, nuclear security, and science based programs, which would represent a well-rounded program supported 

by key DOE programs to further the Department’s mission. The 

Department should also consider initiating a similar program with 

Hispanic-serving Institutions. The Committee directs the Department to provide $2,000,000 for the Jackson State University Bioengineering Research Training Complex and $2,000,000 for the 

Morehouse College National Nuclear Security Administration Research and Education Project. 

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 en-
113 

ergy 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. 

The laboratories work in close partnership with DOE/NNSA to 

ensure that the LDRD projects are providing strong support for national security missions, which is the primary focus of our laboratories. Because of the fundamental nature of R&D, LDRD provides 

multiple benefits to the taxpayer across multiple national security 

missions. For example, R&D in high energy density physics 

[HEDP] is directly relevant to the R&D needs of the nuclear weapons program, but it also has the potential to support DOE’s longterm energy security goal of controlled nuclear fusion as a cheap 

and reliable energy source. Similarly, LDRD projects that develop 

the tools to synthesize, characterize, and understand novel materials for nuclear weapons systems also have shown promise for the 

development of fuel cell membranes. Because of LDRD projects’ 

multiple benefits, taxpayers obtain a greater return on their tax 

dollar investment. Furthermore, this is an indicator of a successful 

R&D program that continues to refocus on and provide solutions 

for the national security challenges facing our Nation. 

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 

flexibility in fiscal year 2007, 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. 
114 

ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $1,173,843,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,176,421,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,319,434,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,385,504,000 

The Committee recommendation provides $1,410,254,000 for re- newable energy resources, an increase of $211,660,000 from the 

current year level. Within the funds provided, $4,000,000 is for the 

National Center on Energy Management and Building Technologies 

and $3,000,000 for the UNR Renewable Energy Center for Geothermal Energy and Hydrogen. 

Hydrogen.—The Committee recommends $189,860,000, an increase of $34,233,000 above current year levels. The President’s 

budget also provides additional R&D support to the hydrogen program through the Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Energy, and 

Fossil Energy for a total of just under $290,000,000 in fiscal year 

2007. The full benefits of a hydrogen economy will be realized when 

we are able to generate hydrogen from renewable sources and nuclear energy. At present, our hydrogen economy remains far too reliant on natural gas. The Committee recommends full funding for 

Technology Validation at $39,566,000, which combines infrastructure and vehicle validation accounts from the fiscal year 2006, as 

proposed by the President. This demonstration program is unique 

in that for the first time vehicles and energy infrastructure are integrated in real world settings that serve as test laboratories. The 

Department requires extensive data collection and sharing that 

will be used to help advance this technology toward commercialization. The program requires full cost sharing. The Committee recommends an increased investment into Hydrogen Storage R&D 

and provides $40,000,000 to advance this critical research through 

the Hydrogen Centers of Excellence. Consistent with the energy 

and water conference report for fiscal year 2006 and the recommendation from the National Academies, no funding is provided 

to support Distributed Energy Fuel Cell Systems, as this technology is already fully commercialized. The Committee provides 

$13,848,000 for Safety Codes and Standards and Hydrogen Education Activities. The Committee recommends $9,892,000 for Systems Analysis, which represents an increase of $4,925,000 above 

current year levels. The Committee directs the Department to provide $1,978,000 for Manufacturing R&D activities from within the 

funds provided for Systems Analysis. 

Within available funds, $4,000,000 is provided for the UNLV Research Foundation to continue evaluation of solar-powered thermochemical production of hydrogen; $3,500,000 is for the UNLV Research Foundation for hydrogen fuel cell and storage research and 

development; $2,500,000 for the National Center for Hydrogen 

Technology; $500,000 for Michigan Technical University fuel cell 

research; and $3,400,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation to 

continue development of photovoltaic high pressure integrated electrolysis. 

Biomass.—The Committee strongly endorses the President’s commitment to decreasing our reliance on foreign oil and has made an 
115 

investment in biomass research and development commensurate 

with that goal. The President has set an ambitious goal of 100 billion gallons of ethanol production by 2025. This equals one-half of 

our domestic gasoline consumption today. Consistent with the goals 

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Committee recognizes an increased investment in demonstrating first-of-its-kind technology to 

develop the refining and production technologies that will lead to 

commercial deployment of cellulosic biomass ethanol production facilities. The Committee recommends $213,000,000, an increase of 

$63,313,000 above the President’s request. The Committee provides 

the authorized level of funding as provided in EPACT. The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the Integration of Biorefinery 

Technologies program to support deployment of several pilot scale 

demonstrations using a variety of feed stocks in order to promote 

a competitive cellulosic biofuels industry. The Department shall 

use a combination of competitive grants and loan guarantees as 

provided in section 17 of EPACT to support the deployment consistent with the goals of section 932(d) of EPACT. The Secretary 

shall consider the following projects as part of the open competition: 

—Florida Farm to Fuel Project, Florida; 

—Biorefinery and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Research, Development 

and Demonstration, Georgia; 

—Expanding Unique Plant Production for Alternative Energy, 

Idaho; 

—Chemistry Consortium Biomass Initiative, Maine; 

—Minnesota Center for Renewable Energy Research, Minnesota; 

—Center for Applied Biofuel Research, Minnesota; 

—Laurentian Bioenergy Project, Minnesota; 

—Biological and Economic Feasability Analysis of Wood Waste to 

Energy, Missouri; 

—Ohio University—Biorefining for Energy Security, Ohio; 

—Biodiesel Injection Blending Facilities Project, Pennsylvania; 

—Messiah College Bio-Diesel Production Center, Pennsylvania. 

—City of Stamford Waste-to-Energy Project, Connecticut; 

—University of Connecticut Bio-Energy Project to Meet the Renewable Energy needs of Connecticut, Connecticut; 

—Development of Applied Membrane Technology for Processing 

Ethanol from Biomass, Delaware; 

—Chariton Valley Biomass Power for Rural Development Project, 

Iowa; 

—Bio-Waste to Bio-Energy Project at SUNY Cobleskill, New 

York; 

—Center for Bioproducts and Bioenergy, Washington; 

—Snohomish County Biodiesiel Initiative, Washington 

—Small Wood Biomass Project, Washington; 

—Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Energy Project, Nevada; 

—North Spring Valley Pinyon Juniper Biomass Project, Nevada; 

—UNR Renewable Energy Center Biofuels Project, Nevada; 

—Aberdeen Biorefinery and ethanol production, Mississippi; and 

—National Com-to-Ethanol Research Center project, Illinois. 

Feedstock Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends an additional $13,000,000 to support demonstration activities within the 

Feedstock Infrastructure account. Within the additional funds pro-
116 

vided, $10,000,000 is provided to the Sustainable Energy Center, 

Mississippi. The Committee also supports the Department’s investment in research and development for a variety of cellulosic feed 

stocks that will encourage regional fuel supply diversity as provided in section 945 of the Energy Policy Act. The Committee directs the Department to provide $3,000,000 to designate several 

universities in different regions across the country as ‘‘Department 

of Energy Biomass Centers of Excellence’’. These centers will recommend a cellulosic biomass fuel strategy that identifies the variety of regionally available cellulosic feed stocks and develops a 

strategy for the collection, pretreatment, hydrolysis and fermentation process using regionally available material. These centers will 

recommend any additional research necessary to support the use of 

regional, sustainable feedstocks for the conversion of that material 

into cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel feedstock including using 

brackish water. 

Provided within the budget request, within the Feedstock Infra- structure subprogram, is $4,500,000 to work with the Department 

of Agriculture on biomass feedstock. The Committee directs that 

the $4,500,000 be allocated among the Sun Grant Initiative Centers (identified in section 9011, of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8190)) to work in collaboration with 

the Department of Energy, on consultation with the USDA, to facilitate regional feedstock development. 

The Committee understands the Department intends to pursue 

a new solicitation for biomass research. However, the Committee 

strongly recommends that the Department complete unfinished or 

ongoing competitively awarded research to the greatest extent possible before funding new biorefineries. In addition, the Committee 

urges the Department to focus on supporting the production of cellulosic ethanol to reduce our need for foreign oil. The Committee 

is aware the Department solicited input on implementation of reverse auction incentives. The Committee directs the Department to 

make recommendations on the implementation of section 942 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Department shall provide this report to Congress concurrent with the President’s budget submission 

for fiscal year 2008. Within available funds, $4,000,000 is provided 

to the Consortium for Plant Biomass Consortium Research and 

$500,000 for the Washington State University Bioproducts and Bioenergy project. The Committee supports the budget request for biomass-related activities at PNNL. 

Solar.—The Committee applauds the efforts by the President to 

diversify our energy supply and minimize the generation of greenhouse gas emissions as part of his Advanced Energy Initiative. To 

that end, the President has recommended a significant funding increase in solar energy research as part of the Solar America Initiative. The Committee recommends $2,400,000 in support for the 

Southwestern Regional Photovoltaic Experimental Station. 

The Committee recommends $148,372,000 for the Solar America 

Initiative. The Committee provides $130,472,000 for Photovoltaic 

Energy Systems. The Committee wants to ensure that the Department continues its support of a balanced research program that focuses not only on major system breakthroughs, but will support 

R&D efforts to improve the manufacture, reliability and cost-effec-
117 

tiveness of solar technology components and balance-of-systems 

through which breakthroughs are likely to come from smaller corporations. Within available funds, $5,000,000 is provided for solar 

heating and lighting. The Committee is concerned that funding for 

the solar water heater program was eliminated and directs the Department to prepare a report, by January 31, 2007, on the potential 

energy savings generated by solar water heaters, market impediments, and strategy for wider deployment of this technology. 

The Committee is concerned about the increasing cost of silicon 

feedstock, the raw material used in photovoltaic cells. Material 

costs have risen with the increasing demand for computer chips 

and photovoltaic cells. The Committee urges the Department to 

support research into solar technology that uses materials other 

than silicon as a hedge against rising material costs. The Committee directs the Department to provide a study to the Committee 

by March 31, 2007, on the short- and long-term market conditions 

of silicone and possible impacts it could have on the photovoltaic 

market. 

The Committee recommends $17,900,000 for concentrating solar 

research and development. Within the available funding for the 

Concentrating Solar Power program, the Committee recommends 

that $9,000,000 be used in cooperation with the Office of Nuclear 

Energy to support the deployment of a solar-hydrogen pilot plant 

using sulfur based thermo-chemical process consistent with sections 812, 934, and 974 of the Energy Policy Act. Without a reactor 

available to support the nuclear hydrogen program, the Office of 

Nuclear Energy can utilize the National Thermal Test Facility as 

a suitable proxy for a high temperature reactor at this stage of research. The Committee recommendation includes $3,500,000 to 

continue the efforts of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

[NREL] to develop renewable energy resources uniquely suited to 

the Southwestern United States through its virtual site office in 

Nevada; $4,000,000 is provided for research and development into 

advanced thermal management systems designed for, and integrated into, high efficiency photovoltaic collector modules. 

The Committee directs that the funding of a 1 megawatt dish 

sterling demonstration facility can only be used to support the deployment in New Mexico. 

Wind.—The Committee recommends $39,428,000 a reduction of 

$4,391,000 below the budget request. The Committee has shifted 

the funding to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability to support the interconnection of wind, solar and other renewable and distributed sources of electricity consistent with the 

Senate and conference report for fiscal year 2006. As such, the 

Committee provides no funding in the System Integration Account. 

In addition, the Committee recommends no funding for the distributed wind technology accounts, of which the Department only allocated $481,000. The Committee does not believe this level of funding will support meaningful long-term research. Instead, the Department should focus its efforts within the Technology Acceptance 

program to support deployment in areas of the country where wind 

energy can compete in a competitive marketplace and can make 

the biggest impact in displacing natural gas and coal usage. By 

March 2007, the Committee requests that the Office of Energy Effi-
118 

ciency and Renewable Energy and the Office of Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability provide a report to Congress as to the location of the most promising wind resources and the best opportunities to integrate that power into the electric grid. The Department 

should also identify which States provide incentives for the deployment of wind or other renewable energy resources. 

The Committee encourages the Department to convene an interagency working group to promote renewable energy use and production in all aspects of Federal agency operation and particularly 

on Federal lands. In particular, such a working group would be valuable in avoiding the delays on a variety of wind energy projects 

that have been caused by inconsistent Federal policies and approval procedures and the slow pace of application of strategies and 

techniques to mitigate any adverse radar effects. 

While the Committee strongly supports the research objective of 

the low wind speed technology program, which is to reduce the cost 

of electricity from large onshore and offshore wind systems, the 

Committee is concerned that the Department has not fully funded 

the competitively awarded 2 megawatt permanent magnet directdrive [PMDD] wind turbine development program. Therefore, the 

Committee recommends that $2,400,000 be provided in fiscal year 

2007 (as a competitive award) for continued development of the 2 

megawatt PMDD wind turbine, which will eliminate the use of 

gearboxes, a main failure mechanism in current generation wind 

turbines. 

Geothermal Energy.—The Committee recommends $22,500,000 

for geothermal research and development. 

Hydropower.—The Committee provides $4,000,000 to support research and development and a study of advanced hydropower technology, including ocean energy. The study shall provide an evaluation of the opportunities for development of these next generation 

technologies and the technical justification for such development. 

The study shall also evaluate the characteristics of the various regions in the United States so that likely candidates for demonstrating these technologies may be identified. The Committee 

would also benefit from knowing the electric generating potential 

and cost/kilowatt, as well as developing a better understanding of 

the regulatory issues and controlling legal authorities associated 

with the various technology. Finally, the Committee expects the 

Department to outline a thorough research and development roadmap and the possible role for the Department in supporting the 

R&D efforts. This report shall be delivered to the Committee by 

May 1, 2007. 

Vehicles Technology.—The Committee recommends $180,024,000, 

an increase of $14,000,000. This program seeks to develop cars and 

trucks that are more energy-efficient in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Transportation needs consume over 50 percent 

of total U.S. oil consumption. The Committee recommends 

$109,724,000, as requested for FreedomCAR activities within this 

account. The Committee is encouraged by the President’s support 

of hybrid and electric propulsion technologies, which support critical research into battery storage R&D and provides full funding 

for this activity. The Committee directs the Department to use the 

expertise in the Vehicles Technology and the Office of Electricity 
119 

Delivery and Energy Reliability to study possible impacts to the 

electricity supply and distribution networks if plug-in hybrids become commercially viable. The study should pay particular attention to urban areas, which are already transmission constrained 

and also the most likely market for plug-in hybrids. The study 

should also consider the net environmental demand as a result of 

shifting from gasoline consumption to electricity consumption. This 

report should be provided to the Congress by March 31, 2007. 

The Committee continues to recognize the need to ensure that 

materials research funding within the vehicles technology program 

supports strategic advances in science and innovation and the longterm competitiveness of U.S. industry. The Committee directs DOE 

to expand research in the area of computational predictive engineering and testing of lightweight thermoplastic polymer composites as an enabling technology supporting the future design and 

manufacture of safer, more fuel efficient, and lower emissions vehicles competitive in global markets. In addition, the Committee acknowledges the important work in this area being undertaken by 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory in cooperation with the American Plastics Council. The Committee provides $15,031,000, an increase of $3,000,000, 

for the Technology Introduction activity, including the Clean Cities 

activities that were previously funded in the weatherization account. For the Clean Cities program the Committee recommends 

$6,393,000, an additional $3,000,000, to encourage the expansion of 

alternative fuel and vehicle technology through competitive solicitation. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to support Advanced 

Materials and Computer modeling at Mississippi State University; 

and $1,000,000 for the lightweight composite materials for heavyduty vehicles program. The Committee also recommends $4,534,000, an increase of 

$1,000,000 for the Testing and Evaluation program to support work 

with automakers to improve engine performance and increase fuel 

mileage for higher octane ethanol based fuels. 

Buildings Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$95,329,000, an increase of $26,063,000 to support 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 energy-efficient technology and applying state-ofthe-art distributed renewable generation so as to achieve a net zero 

energy consumption. This goal is important, and the timetable by 

which the homebuilders across the country deploy the very best in 

energy saving technology should be accelerated by at least 5 years. 

Based on the administration’s proposed reduction of the weatherization accounts, it is incumbent on the Department to improve 

home energy efficiency as soon as possible. By March 31, 2007, the 

Department shall provide the Committee a technology road map 

that will outline a strategy to accelerate the zero energy goals by 

5 to 7 years. The Committee encourages the Department to support 

a Challenge X program for housing in the same manner as the Department supports technology development in the auto industry. 
120 

Within the Research and Development program, the Department 

should initiate design competitions in each of the five climate regions identified by the Department in which participants design a 

modest-sized home with the goal of demonstrating how the Department’s Zero Emission House goal of 2020 can be accelerated by at 

least 5 years. The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for this activity. The Committee provides $5,000,000 to implement section 

140 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to establish an Energy Efficiency Pilot Program. The Committee recommends $27,000,000 for the solid state light- ing program, an increase of $5,000,000. The Committee is encouraged by the potential to realize significant energy savings in the 

area. The Committee directs the Department to provide $5,000,000 

to the competitively awarded National Center for Solid State Lighting consistent with funding provided in the current year. The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation for photonics research including evaluation of 

advanced fiber optics and LEDs. 

Industrial Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$47,563,000 for the Industries of the Future, an increase of 

$2,000,000 above the budget request. The mission of this program 

is to reduce the energy intensity of the U.S. industrial sector. The 

Committee recommends that from within available funds, 

$2,000,000 is provided to Sandia National Laboratories, in partnership with a computer chip manufacturer, to support research into 

energy efficiency applications that might decrease the amount of 

energy used by computer technology. In a recent study conducted 

for the Department of Energy, it was concluded that residential energy consumption has escalated dramatically, due to the use of 

home computers and other related technologies. 

Federal Energy Management Program.—The Committee recommends $16,906,000, as requested. This program is intended to 

support the deployment of energy efficiency and renewable technology to U.S. Government buildings. The Department should lead 

by example within the Federal Government to demonstrate stateof-the-art technology deployment. The Committee notes that the 

PART score for program results and accountability were 50 percent 

in 2005. The Committee hopes that the Department can deliver 

stronger results. 

Facilities Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$5,935,000 for operations and maintenance costs and general infrastructure upgrades at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

Weatherization.—The Committee provides $204,550,000, an increase of $40,352,000, to support Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities. 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 Committee provides $49,457,000 to the State Energy Program. The Committee also provides $2,473,000 for International 

Renewable Energy Program; $4,957,000 for Tribal Energy Activities, with $1,000,000 provided to the Council of Renewable Energy 

Resource Tribes [CERT]; and $4,946,000 for Renewable Energy 

Production Incentives. 
121 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommendation for Program Direction is $91,024,000. The Committee recommends the Department provide the necessary funding to support the Office of 

Loan Guarantees as authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

be provided from within available funds. 

Program Support.—The Committee recommendation for Program Support is $10,930,000. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION PROJECTS 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

Integrated Distribution Management System in Alabama [OE] ...................................................................... $1,000,000 

Distributed energy systems for telecommunications applications in Kansas [OE] ........................................ 1,500,000 

University of Missouri Rolla Energy Research and Development Center [OE] ................................................ 1,000,000 

Load Control System Reliability, Montana [OE] .............................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Hawaii/New Mexico Sustainable Energy Project [OE] ...................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Dine Power Authority, New Mexico [OE] ........................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

National Center for Reliable Electric Power Transmission, Arkansas [OE] .................................................... 400,000 

Electric Power Surety Institute, New Mexico [OE] ........................................................................................... 200,000 

Navajo Electrification Program, New Mexico [OE] ........................................................................................... 1,000,000 

New York Polytechnic University [OE] .............................................................................................................. 500,000 

Nevada Energy Independence Partnership [OE] .............................................................................................. 500,000 

Gerlach Green Energy Project, Nevada [OE] .................................................................................................... 400,000 

Transportable Emissions Testing Laboratory, West Virginia [OE] ................................................................... 2,000,000 

Eastern Michigan University Coatings Research Institute [OE] ...................................................................... 400,000 

The University of Louisville Sustainable Buildings Project, Kentucky (Buildings Tech) ................................. 400,000 

Affordable, Energy Efficient Self-Help Housing, Mississippi (Buildings Tech) ............................................... 300,000 

University of Dubuque Environmental Science Center, Iowa (Buildings Tech) ............................................... 500,000

Arts & Sciences Center at Quincy University, Illinois (Buildings Tech) ......................................................... 250,000 

Green Shingle Initiative, Tennessee (Buildings Tech) ..................................................................................... 500,000 

Improved Materials for Fuel Cell Membranes at USM, Mississippi (Hydrogen) ............................................. 500,000 

University of Mississippi Bio-processing Research Center (Biomass) ............................................................ 1,500,000 

Cooling, Heating, and Power [CHP] at MSU, Mississippi (Biomass) .............................................................. 2,000,000 

Mississippi Ethanol (Biomass) ........................................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Alternative Fuel for Cement Processing, Alabama (Biomass) ........................................................................ 1,000,000 

The Kentucky Rural Energy Consortium (Biomass) ......................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Trees and Waste Wood to Energy in Missouri (Biomass) ............................................................................... 400,000 

Biodiesel Injection Blending Facilities Project, Pennsylvania (Biomass) ........................................................ 1,000,000 

Foster Glocester School District Biomass Project, Rhode Island (Biomass) ................................................... 1,000,000 

Sugar Ethanol Research at the University of Florida/Earth University (Biomass) ......................................... 250,000 

National Ag-Based Industrial Lubricants Center at the University of Northern Iowa (Biomass) .................. 400,000 

Pecos Valley Biomass Cooperative, New Mexico (Biomass) ............................................................................ 250,000 

Michigan Biotechnology Initiative (Biomass) .................................................................................................. 500,000 

Vermont Biomass Energy Resource Center (Biomass) .................................................................................... 400,000 

Oxydiesel Demonstration, Nevada (Biomass) .................................................................................................. 400,000 

UNLV Research Foundation continued development of biofuels utilizing ionic transfer membranes, Nevada (Biomass) ........................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Biomass Research through Thermal Gasification Technology Project, Nevada (Biomass) ............................ 450,000 

Chatauqua County, New York Landfill at Ellery (Biomass) ............................................................................ 500,000 

Demonstration of Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles, Kansas (Vehicles Tech) ............................................................... 1,000,000 

Southern Regional Center for Lightweight Innovative Design, Mississippi (Vehicles Tech) .......................... 2,100,000 

Engine Turbocharger Research, Montana (Vehicles Tech) .............................................................................. 1,000,000 

Biodiesel Engine Testing Program, Missouri (Vehicles Tech) ......................................................................... 1,500,000 

National Ethanol Vehicle Coaltion: E-85 Fueling Infrastructure in Montana (Clean Cities) .......................... 250,000 

Solar to Biofuels Research Program at USU, Utah (Solar) ............................................................................. 1,000,000 

High Efficiency Cascade Solar Cells, New Mexico (Solar) .............................................................................. 1,500,000 

Stirling Demonstration Concentrating Solar Program, New Mexico (Solar) .................................................... 3,500,000 

NCSU Nanostructures for Energy, North Carolina (Solar) ............................................................................... 250,000 

Ohlone College Energy Innovation & Conservation, California (Solar) ........................................................... 250,000 

Tonopah Green Energy Feasibility Study, Nevada (Solar) ............................................................................... 400,000 

Texas Tech University Great Plains Wind Power Test Facility (Wind) ............................................................. 1,500,000 

Renewable Energy for Rural Economic Development Program, Utah (Wind) .................................................. 500,000 

Emissions Reduction Technologies related to megawatt-scale solid oxide fuel cells, Ohio (Hydrogen) ....... 500,000 

University of Tennessee, Chattanooga Fuel Cell Reliability study (Hydrogen) ............................................... 500,000 
122 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION PROJECTS—Continued 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus Project, Washoe County, RTC, Nevada (Hydrogen) ................................................... 2,500,000 

UNLV Research Foundation Photoelectric Chemical Production of Hydrogen, Nevada (Hydrogen) ................ 2,500,000 

Des Moines Hydrogen Fleet Vehicle Demonstration, Iowa (Hydrogen) ............................................................ 250,000 

National Center for Manufacturing Technologies, Michigan (Hydrogen) ........................................................ 400,000 

Portland State University Science and Technology Center, Oregon (Hydrogen) .............................................. 400,000

Hydrogen and Alkane Generation from Biomass Derived Carbohydrates, Wisconsin (Hydrogen) ................... 400,000 

OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $161,878,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 124,928,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 144,028,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 135,004,000 

The Committee recognizes the hard work by staff of the Office 

of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability following Hurricane 

Katrina. This Office worked to coordinate the Federal Government’s energy supply response to restore electricity and pipeline capacity for natural gas and gasoline as quickly as possible to ensure 

rescue and recovery efforts could proceed unimpeded. In addition to 

responding during emergencies, this Office supports fundamental 

R&D activities to increase the efficiency, reliability and security of 

our electricity grid and to minimize impacts during energy loss or 

operational disturbances. 

This Office has also been charged with the implementation of 

several provisions in the Energy Policy Act 2005, to encourage the 

identification and designation of energy corridors that would help 

improve the reliability and capacity of our national energy infrastructure. This Office also has the expertise to lead the Department’s technology deployment of renewable technology including 

wind and various distributed energy sources. 

The Committee directs the Department to provide this Office 

with the full responsibility to work at the local, State, and Federal 

level to define constructive standards and policies that are technically sound to support the effective integration of renewable and 

distributed technology into the electricity grid. The Committee 

strongly urges the Department to heed this advice for fiscal year 

2007 and beyond. The Committee recommendation also includes 

$4,500,000 for research and development of thermal and electrical 

components specific to micro-grid systems and for optimizing the 

integration of components of such systems. 

The Committee recommendation is $135,004,000, an increase of 

$10,076,000 above the budget request. The Committee provides 

$105,636,000 for Research and Development activities, including 

$45,468,000 for Superconductivity R&D and $27,551,000 for Visualization Controls, as requested in the budget. The Committee appreciates the fact that this Office has developed a SCADA roadmap to 

prioritize critical research and industry standardization. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to support continued research and 

development into the SCADA systems R&D to be divided equally 

between Sandia and Idaho National laboratories, consistent with 

current year levels. The Committee encourages the Department to 

continue its efforts at the Integrated Energy Operations Center at 
123 

PNNL. The Committee provides $5,000,000, within available funds, 

at the National Energy Technology Laboratory associated with 

electricity transmission, distribution, and energy assurance activities. 

The Committee recommends $17,000,000, an increase of 

$4,991,000, for Operations and Analysis. This funding is provided 

for Permitting, Siting, and Analysis. These funds were transferred 

from the Wind Energy Office to coordinate renewable energy integration with the electricity system. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $535,660,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 632,698,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 499,805,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 711,285,000 

The Committee recommendation for the Office of Nuclear Energy is $711,285,000, an increase of $151,533,000 above the request. 

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.—The Committee recognizes 

and appreciates the considerable investment this administration 

has made in this area and supports efforts to close the nuclear fuel 

cycle. It is imperative that the Federal Government support longterm research to discover ways to reduce the amount of nuclear 

waste and recycle the vast amount of untapped energy that remains in the current once-through nuclear fuel cycle. Faced with 

the reality of long-term storage needs and the fact that our Nation 

is unlikely to permit and license more than one permanent repository, our best alternative is to vastly reduce the amount of waste, 

the heat content, and the radiotoxicity of the spent fuel before permanent disposal. The President has proposed the Global Nuclear 

Energy Partnership as a multi-pronged technical approach to close 

the nuclear fuel cycle and encourage the recycling of uranium and 

destruction of long-lived actinides through advanced reactor technology. The budget supports the development of recycling technologies that have the opportunity to enhance the proliferation resistance of existing recycling or separation technologies. By utilizing the proposed UREX approach, scientists will not separate 

pure plutonium. The Committee expects the Department to continue to fully integrate proliferation resistant controls within the 

recycling technology. The Committee has provided additional funding within the National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of 

Nuclear Nonproliferation to support long-term research and deployment of improved nuclear safeguards to enhance proliferation resistance and to allow for the safe expansion of nuclear power. The 

Committee encourages the Department to involve private industry 

in the GNEP program through competitive grants. 

University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.—From within 

available funds provided to the NERI program, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 to support fuels research for the Next Generation Nuclear Reactor. The Committee is disappointed the Department has eliminated funding for this program without warning. Universities depend on technical support from the Department, 

and the nuclear industry relies on the Universities to provide academic training to the next generation of nuclear scientists, reactor 

operators, and experts trained in health physics. The Committee is 
124 

pleased with the success this program has had thus far and recognizes that a more modest level of funding is appropriate. The Committee supports this activity again this year and directs the Department to provide $27,000,000 to support the University Reactor 

Infrastructure and Education Initiative that was eliminated in the 

fiscal year 2007 budget request and strongly encourages the administration to budget for these activities in fiscal year 2008. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research and development includes a total of $446,655,000, an increase of 

$99,533,000. 

Nuclear Power 2010.—The Committee has included $88,000,000, 

an increase of $33,969,000 to support the development license application for new nuclear power plant designs under the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission’s Combined Operating License [COL] process. The Committee believes this program is critical and has consistently provided additional funding to accelerate this effort in the 

past. The Committee understands the appetite for funding this program continues to grow beyond what the Department has budgeted 

and the level of funding the Committee can provide. It is clear that 

the original budget baselines were not sufficient and additional 

work is needed. Therefore, the Department must ensure that the 

limited Federal funds are applied in the most effective and useful 

fashion. The Department should focus funding on supporting the 

design and engineering work of the two reactors designs. The Department should also eliminate any unnecessary overhead charges 

incurred by the Department and its industry partners for this program. The Committee supports the Department’s decision to contract directly with two reactor vendors to support a standardized 

nuclear plant design that can validate the untested regulatory licensing process. The Committee also has significant concerns with 

financial conduct of the industry consortium involved in the 

NP2010 program. The Committee expects that the Department 

work with its industry partners to instill fiscal discipline and ensure conformity to the Federal budget rules and standards. 

Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.—The Committee recommends 

$31,665,000 for nuclear hydrogen research and development, an increase of $9,000,000. The added funding will be matched with 

$9,000,000 from the Solar program to support the creation of a hydrogen pilot plant using a sulfur-based thermo chemical process 

coupled with the Department of Energy’s National Solar Thermal 

Test Facility as the proxy for a high temperature nuclear reactor. 

Deployment of this pilot-scale demonstration by 2010 will accelerate the completion of a commercial scale facility by 2015, the 

date at which automakers are expected to make a decision on commercial deployment of hydrogen cars. This demonstration is also 

consistent with objectives established in sections 643, 812(a), 934 

and 974 of the Energy Policy Act, 2005. The Committee recommendation also includes $5,000,000 for the UNLV Research 

Foundation to continue research and development of high temperature heat exchangers and chemical processing equipment to permit 

demonstration of nuclear-powered production of hydrogen from 

water. 
125 

Generation IV.—The recommendation includes $48,000,000 for 

the Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative. The Committee directs that within the available funds $40,000,000 be provided to support the Next Generation Nuclear Plant [NGNP]. This 

level of funding is consistent with funding in fiscal year 2006 and 

is $16,564,000 above the budget request. The increased level of 

funding is provided to support research on the Very High Temperature Reactor [VHTR] at Idaho National Lab. This technology, if developed, is the only reactor technology which supports the production of electricity and hydrogen. The increased funds shall be used 

to support fuels and material research and accelerate design activities necessary to develop a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license 

application. The Committee directs the Department to continue its 

efforts to work with the private sector in VHTR technology. The 

Committee directs the Department to provide a report as to how 

the Department of Energy is implementing subtitle C of EPACT 

2005. The Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 for completion of the IAC LCS upgrade. 

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.—The Committee recommends 

$279,000,000, an increase of $36,000,000 above the budget request. 

The initiative should continue its focus on the technological 

underpinnings of the closed fuel cycle through a robust research 

and development program that includes the national laboratories, 

the university community, industries, and the international research community. The initiative should also continue to develop 

designs for the facilities necessary for demonstrating the technologies and the associated environmental analyses. 

In working with the Department, the Committee has recommended significant changes to the budget priorities for GNEP to 

encourage increased research and development on fuels, separation, and transmutation research. The Committee encourages the 

Department to coordinate the fuels research within the Office of 

Nuclear Energy, including research of the Next Generation Nuclear 

Plant. Within the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, the Committee 

provides $53,800,000 for separations technology, $60,000,000 for 

advanced fuels development, $25,000,000 for transmutation engineering, $35,000,000 for systems analysis. Within the initiative, 

the Committee provides $40,000,000 for design of an engineering 

scale demonstration of a spent fuel separations facility, which will 

provide feedstock of transuranic materials for remanufacture into 

reactor fuel and dispose of waste products; $10,000,000 for design 

of this advanced fuel cycle facility and the operational support for 

the separations facility and burner reactor facility; and $15,000,000 

for design of an advanced burner reactor to be powered by transuranic fuel. In addition, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 to 

support the modernization of Wing 9 of the CMR facility, which 

contains hot cells capable of accommodating fuel fabrication for the 

GNEP program. The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the 

material test station at Los Alamos to support materials and fuel 

experiments using fast neutron spectrum systems. Without the use 

of the Fast Flux Test Facility, the United States has lost its domestic fast neutron source needed to conduct actinide transmutation. 

The Committee provides $2,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation to extend fuel cycle studies to high temperature gas reac-
126 

tors. Additionally, the Department is directed to enter into a 5 year 

cooperative agreement with the UNLV Research Foundation for 

these activities. Finally, the Committee provides $4,000,000 for the 

Center for Materials Reliability at the University of Nevada Reno. 

The Committee instructs the Department not to support any further research with Russia or Russian entities until the Russian 

Federation and U.S. Government are able to come to an agreement 

on the disposal of 34 tons of Russian weapons-grade plutonium. 

Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility.—The Committee supports the deployment of an engineering-design scale recycling facility to demonstrate the feasibility and technical capacity of a demonstrationscale advanced recycling facility. The Committee has provided direction in section 311 in the report to the Department to clarify the 

amount of spent nuclear fuel that can be used for the demonstration and requires that the material be removed from the site within 

1 year, upon completion of the demonstration. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $67,608,000 in 

Program Direction, which includes $7,000,000 for the Federal and 

contractor staff to plan, implement, and manage the Advanced Fuel 

Cycle Initiative research, development, and demonstration activities. 

CONSOLIDATION OF COMMERCIAL SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

The Committee has included language to provide the Secretary 

with expanded authority to consolidate commercial spent nuclear 

fuel at a separate facility within a State or at a regional site. Section 313 of the bill section requires the Secretary of Energy to appoint a Director of Consolidation and Preparation. Within 180 days 

of enactment, the CAP Director is required to issue a report making recommendations to the Secretary regarding the siting of a facility for the consolidation and preparation of spent nuclear fuel 

(‘‘AP facility’’) in each State containing a civilian nuclear power reactor. Within 90 days of the issuance of the report, the Secretary, 

in consultation with the Governor of each State containing a civilian nuclear power reactor shall designate a site for a CAP facility 

within that State. Recognizing that Governors can recommend 

sites, the Committee also believes that it is desirable for the Secretary, in selecting a site, to first consider sites recommended by 

the Governors. 

The Secretary may determine that it is in the National interest 

to designate a regional CAP facility. No regional CAP facility may 

be designated in a State in which a State-wide CAP facility has 

previously been designated. The Committee believes it is desirable 

that States address their own waste needs and the Committee directs the Secretary to provide sufficient time for a State site to be 

designated and licensed before making a decision to designate a regional facility. A regional facility cannot be located in a State with 

a designated and licensed State site. Any site owned by the Federal 

Government, and any site that can be purchased from a willing 

seller may be designated as a CAP facility site. Nevada, as the 

State that has been designated as the site of the permanent repository is ineligible, along with any State in which a commercial, 

away-from-reactor, dry cask storage facility is authorized. Lands 
127 

within national parks, wildlife refuges, or wilderness areas are also 

ineligible. 

The Secretary shall submit a license application to the NRC no 

later than 30 days after the designation of a CAP facility site. The 

license for a CAP facility shall be for a term of 25 years, and shall 

be non-renewable. The Secretary must submit an environmental 

report with the license application to the NRC. The NRC is required to issue an environmental impact statement in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 prior to 

issuing a license. Judicial review of the EIS will be consolidated 

with the review of the NRC’s licensing decision. The NRC is required to grant or deny a license application for a CAP facility 

within 32 months. 

In addition, at the request of the owner of a shut-down reactor, 

the Secretary of Energy (the ‘‘Secretary’’) is required to assume 

title to, and responsibility for, spent nuclear fuel at the site of the 

shut-down reactor. 

The provisions of this section, along with the Secretary’s obligation to develop a permanent repository under the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act of 1982, provide sufficient and independent grounds for 

further findings by the NRC that spent nuclear fuel will be disposed of safely for purposes of licensing civilian nuclear power reactors. 

Finally, this section provides that the Secretary shall make expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the siting, construction and operation of CAP facilities. Funding for this activity is 

provided within the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The purpose of the Radiological Facilities Management program 

is to maintain critical nuclear facilities in a safe, environmentallycompliant and cost-effective manner. The primary user is the Office 

of Nuclear Energy with facilities at Idaho, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, 

Sandia, and Brookhaven National Laboratories. The Committee 

recommends $54,722,000 an increase of $5,000,000, for the Radiological Facilities Management program. 

Space and Defense Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$35,640,000, an increase of $5,000,000. The Committee recommends $12,200,000 to support activities at Idaho, $13,800,000 at 

Los Alamos, and $9,650,000 for Oak Ridge, including an additional 

$5,000,000 to upgrade hot cells. The Committee is aware of the fact 

that the Department has conducted its mid-term report to Congress 

on the relocation of the Nuclear Operations for Plutonium 238 activities, which found that the total cost of moving the purification, 

pelletization and encapsulation operations from Los Alamos to 

Idaho would cost $100,000,000 to $250,000,000 in relocation costs. 

The Committee appreciates the benefits that would be gained by 

consolidating the mission, but requires more information on the 

overall benefits to the program, including what new activities will 

replace the existing PU–238 mission within TA–55. The Committee 

directs the Department to provide a more detailed breakdown of 

the costs to transition this mission to Idaho by activity (i.e. transportation, security requirements and facility construction). In addi-
128 

tion, the Department shall provide to the Congress options for replacing the PU–238 mission within TA–55. The Department shall 

provide this new analysis no later than March 31, 2008. 

The Committee recommends $15,634,000, as requested for the 

medical isotopes infrastructure, $491,000 for Enrichment Facility 

Infrastructure, and $2,947,000 for the Research Reactor Infrastructure programs. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $115,290,000 to support nuclear 

power research and development at the Idaho National Laboratory. 

The Committee recommendation includes an increase in funding of 

$15,000,000 for planning, design and implementation of safety posture improvements at the Advanced Test Reactor at Idaho National 

Laboratory. The Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 

to support infrastructure upgrades at Idaho National Laboratory. 

The Committee also recommends $6,030,000, as requested, to support 06–E–200 Nuclear Energy Project Engineering and Design 

[PED]. 

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. 

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH

The Office of Environment, Safety, and Health is committed to 

ensuring that the safety and health of the Department of Energy 

workforce, the public, and the environment are integrated into activities throughout the Department. The Committee recommendation includes $19,993,000 for program direction, the amount of the 

budget request. The Committee has also provided $94,814,000 from 

Other Defense Activities. 

LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Committee provides $33,139,000 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. The 

Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the completion 

of the Office of Legacy Management Records Management Facility. 

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

(INCLUDING DEFERRAL AND RECISSION)

The Committee recommends the deferral of $203,000,000 in clean 

coal technology funding until fiscal year 2008. The Committee recommends that the Department rescind $50,000,000 of prior year 

balances from excess contingency estimates in demonstration 

projects. 
129 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $593,014,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 469,686,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 558,204,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 644,267,000 

The Committee recommendation for Fossil Energy Research and Development is $644,267,000, an increase of $174,581,000 above 

the request. 

The Committee is concerned with the reduction in the fossil energy research and development activities proposed as part of this 

budget. Last year, the Congress passed and the President signed 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This legislation provided for several 

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 environmentallysound generating facilities, while creating opportunities for production of hydrogen or other coal to liquid technologies at an affordable cost. 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. The Committee also recognizes much 

of the oil and gas research has been replaced by the Ultradeep program authorized in section 999 of EPACT 2005. The Committee 

still expects that this program will continue to support transfer of 

oil and gas technology to small producers to enhanced production 

technology development as directed in section 999A(b)(3). The Committee recognizes that EPACT provides 7.5 percent of the annual 

allocation of $50,000,000 provided from oil and gas lease income. 

Clean Coal Power Initiative.—The Committee recommends 

$70,000,000. The Committee is frustrated by the remarkably low 

level of funding provided to this initiative which demonstrates advanced coal technologies including carbon capture, mercury control 

and other co-production opportunities. The budget only provided 

$4,957,000. 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 Department 

has identified one project that will not be able to spend the remaining balances of $50,000,000. The Committee directs the Department to rescind the available balances and apply that funding to 

the Clean Coal Power Initiatives for a future competitive award. In 

addition, the Committee provides an additional $20,000,000. Combined with existing balances of $70,000,000 provided in the current year, the Department will have $140,000,000 to commit to 

the next CCPI solicitation. 

FutureGen.—The Committee recommends $54,000,000 for the 

FutureGen program, as requested. The Committee understands 

and recognizes the value of FutureGen project. However, the Committee is concerned about maintaining adequate funding for the 

core fossil energy research, development, and demonstration programs, especially with the new programmatic demands of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Committee will continue to give full 

consideration to the FutureGen project, contingent upon the admin-
130 

istration maintaining adequate funding requests for other related 

fossil energy programs. 

Fuels and Power Systems.—The Committee recommends 

$311,000,000 for fuels and power systems activity, an increase of 

$39,838,000. The recommendation includes $25,000,000 for Innovations for Existing Plants, including $10,000,000 to be provided to 

support research and development of ways to minimize the water 

usage at electric generating plants, with particular attention paid 

to problems of the desert Southwest. Within the available funds, 

$8,000,000 is provided to Sandia National Lab energy-water technology research program to support water reduction strategies for 

power plant operations. Within available funds, the Committee 

urges the National Environmental Technology Laboratory to work 

with the West Virginia University on an Advanced Energy/Water 

Management Initiative. The Committee recommends $54,000,000 

for the Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle activities. 

The Committee recommends $90,000,000 for Carbon Sequestration 

activities, including $10,000,000 for Los Alamos National Lab to 

study the long term stability of deposited carbon dioxide in geological reservoirs and $6,000,000 is provided to the Zero Emissions 

Coal Research and Technology program. The Committee recommends $29,000,000 for Fuels, $63,000,000 for Fuel Cell Research 

and $30,000,000 for Advanced Research. Within available funds for 

advanced research, the Committee recommendation includes 

$8,000,000 for the advanced metals for energy and industrial systems program, including $2,000,000 for West Virginia University. 

From within available funds, the Committee recommends 

$3,000,000 for the Center for Advanced Separation Technology 

[CAST], and $700,000 for West Virginia University to continue the 

long-term study of the environmental and economic impacts of the 

development of coal liquefaction in China. The Committee directs 

the Department to consider the potential for a demonstration program of coal to liquid low-rank coal water fuels produced from hydrothermal treatment of lignite and sub-bituminous coals in Choctaw County, Mississippi. The Committee directs the Department to 

consider coal to liquid technology to be located in Natchez, Mississippi for support under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. 

The Committee recommends, from within available funds 

$2,000,000 to complete research under the Ion Transportation 

Membrane Syngas Project. 

United States/China Energy and Environmental Centers.—No 

funding is provided to support this activity. 

Natural Gas Technology.—The Committee recommends 

$17,000,000 to support natural gas production from gas hydrates 

located in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. Of this amount, 

$1,000,000 is to be provided to University of Mississippi to support 

gas hydrates research. From within available funds the Committee 

recommends $7,000,000 for the Arctic Energy Office. 

Oil Technology.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to 

support oil technology research and development to reduce the cost 

of domestic unconventional resources including oil shale and tar 

sands extraction. The Committee recommends $1,500,000 to sup-
131 

port the Risk Based Management System, a nationwide data base 

of oil and gas regulations and technology developments. 

Program Direction.—The committee recommendation includes 

$142,396,000. The additional funds shall be provided to the National Energy Technology Laboratory. 

Plant and Capital Equipment.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $12,000,000 for plant and capital equipment, an increase 

of $12,000,000 above the budget request. Within these funds, 

$8,000,000 is for the infrastructure improvement program at the 

National Energy Technology Laboratory and $4,000,000 is for General Plant Projects. 

Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration.—The Committee recommendation for fossil energy environmental restoration is 

$11,700,000, $2,000,000 above the request. The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the remediation of environmental issues at the Albany Research Center. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED FUELS AND POWER PROJECTS 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

Western State IGCC CO2 Capture, Colorado .................................................................................................... $1,850,000

Colorado Center for Sustainable Energy at Colorado School of Mines ........................................................... 1,000,000 

University of Kentucky Coal-Derived Low Energy Materials for Sustainable Construction Project ................ 1,000,000 

High Temperature Electrochemistry Center, Montana ..................................................................................... 4,000,000 

Contribution of the Petroleum Industry to the Montana Economy .................................................................. 150,000 

Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................... 750,000 

Heavy Oil Research at University of Utah ....................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Mine of the Future, New Mexico ...................................................................................................................... 1,750,000 

Hardin Generating Station Coal-Fired Power Plant Mercury Emission Control Demonstration project, Montana ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Methane Conversion Project, Nevada ................................................. 1,000,000 

NOX Reduction Vehicle Project, Nevada .......................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $21,285,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 18,810,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 18,810,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 39,810,000 

The Committee recommends $39,810,000, an increase of 

$21,000,000 above the requested level. The Committee has provided an additional $2,000,000 to support the activities under the 

NPR/Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming program. Within the available 

funds, $4,169,000 is provided to support the Rocky Mountain Oil 

Technology Centers, $4,559,000 is recommended to support NPR– 

3, and $3,276,000 is provided to cover operational costs, including 

program direction, business management activities, and salaries. 

Development of Oil Shale and Tar Sands.—The Committee recommends an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget estimate to 

initiate a program to accelerate the commercial development of oil 

shale and tar sands, as required in section 369 of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 and consistent with the recommendations from the 

Taskforce on Strategic Unconventional Fuels to support technology 

development and production from unconventional resources. Within 

the available funding $2,000,000 is provided to Los Alamos to support an investigation of basin-scale environmental impacts of in- 
132 

situ production methods for oil shale development. The Committee 

also includes $6,000,000 for the Energy and Environment Research 

Center/Western Research Institute. 

ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $83,160,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Committee requests no funds for the Elk Hills School Lands 

Fund for fiscal year 2007, consistent with the budget request. The 

State of California is to receive 9 percent of the net sales proceeds 

generated from the sale of Elk Hills. The level of future budget requests is dependent on the results of the equity finalization process. 

The State of California maintains that they are due $9,000,000 

under the Elk Hills program in 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, 2006 ............................................................................. $164,340,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 155,430,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 155,430,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 155,430,000 

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created to reduce the economic impact of a major petroleum supply interruption to the 

United States and to carry obligations created by the international 

energy program. The Committee recommends $155,430,000 for the 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve, consistent with the budget request. 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... $4,950,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,950,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,950,000 

The Committee recommends $4,950,000 for the Northeast Home 

Heating Oil Reserve, the same as the President’s request, for storage, operation, and management in case of severe energy supply 

interruption in the Northeast. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $85,314,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 89,769,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 89,769,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 93,032,000 

The Committee recommends $93,032,000, for the Energy Information Administration. The additional funds will be used to support improved data collection and research into gasoline markets 

and gasoline storage capacity, as well as ethanol-based renewable 

fuels markets. A recent external study team recommended that the 

EIA take precautions to protect the data stored on the EIA computer systems and protect against malicious use and unauthorized 

access. The Committee requests that the Department provide a re-
133 

port to Congress on the precautions being taken to protect the market sensitive data and any needs related to upgrading the EIA 

computer facilities to provide the necessary precautions. This report is due to the Congress by March 1, 2008. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $349,687,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 310,358,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 309,946,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 310,358,000 

The Committee recommends $310,358,000, as requested by the President. The Committee recommendation includes $35,201,000 

for the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant uranium conversion and 

stabilization activities and $72,215,000 for Portsmouth gaseous 

plants, including $32,700,000 for depleted uranium conversion. The 

recommendation includes $34,843,000 for the Fast Flux Test Reactor and $73,400,000 for West Valley Demonstration Project. 

Small Sites.—The Committee recommendation provides the President’s request for the following projects: $10,726,000 for Argonne National Laboratory; $28,272,000 for Brookhaven National 

Laboratory; $16,000,000 for Energy Technology Engineering Center; $22,865,000 for the Moab site and $500,000 is provided from 

within available for Grand County, Utah, for soil and water remediation measures at the former Atlas Uranium Mill Tailings site 

for infrastructure improvements, regulatory support, public education and related activities; and $5,720,000 for Stanford Linear 

Accelerator Center. 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $556,606,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 579,368,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 579,368,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 573,368,000 

For the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, the Committee recommends $573,368,000. The Committee provides $151,320,000 for cleanup activities at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and $110,000,000 for the Paducah 

Gaseous Diffusion Plant, an increase of $14,000,000. The Department shall use the additional funds at Paducah to accelerate the 

characterization and disposition of waste offsite, including the Designated Material Storage Areas, low-level wastes, TSCA waste and 

mixed low-level waste. In 2004, the Government Accountability Office was commissioned to report on the outlook of the cleanup of 

the uranium enrichment facilities using the Uranium Enrichment 

Decontamination and Decommissioning fund that was authorized 

in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. The GAO found that under no plausible scenario would the funds meet the cleanup needs at the three 

facilities. The GAO made a recommendation that the fund be extended for 3 additional years beyond its expiration in 2007 to provide the Department time to develop a plan to support long-term 

cleanup needs at these enrichment facilities. Since the GAO’s recommendation, the Department has neither developed a plan, nor 

extended the fee. The Committee directs the Department to provide 
134 

a long-term plan to the Committee on the baseline cleanup schedules for each of the three facilities and how the Department intends to cover the costs of the cleanup without sufficient funding 

from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning fund. The Committee expects the Department to deliver 

this plan by March 31, 2007. 

Uranium/Thorium Reimbursement.—The Committee recommends no funding for this activity. 

SCIENCE

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $3,596,393,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 4,101,710,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,131,710,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,241,062,000 

The Committee recommends $4,241,062,000 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. 

Economists estimate that about half of U.S. economic growth 

since World War II has been the result of technological innovation. 

Basic research and science education lay the groundwork for tomorrow’s technology breakthroughs. The DOE Office of Science is the 

largest Federal provider of research in the physical sciences. In 

July 2005, the Congress passed and the President signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This directed the Department to increase 

its investment in funding for basic physical sciences. In his State 

of the Union address, the President unveiled his vision for science, 

embodied in the American Competitiveness Initiative [ACI], which 

proposes doubling the appropriation to the Office of Science over 10 

years. Congressional initiatives such as the PACE-Energy Act propose a similar objective. The fiscal year 2007 request will put the 

Office of Science on course to doubling the funding over the next 

decade. This is critical to augmenting fundamental research while 

also supporting the President’s new investment in energy technologies such as solar, hydrogen, coal and nuclear power as outlined in the Advanced Energy Initiative [AEI]. Increased support 

from both the Office of Energy Supply and Conservation and the 

Office of Science should foster a healthy partnership to transfer 

fundamental research in genomic, advanced materials and biology 

into current and future technology applications that will result in 

field-test demonstrations. It will be incumbent of Federal managers 

and the Department of Energy leadership to ensure that research 

in both of these offices is shared in a mutually beneficial manner, 

especially as it relates to energy technology. 

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 
135 

the next 5 years. This report is due to the Committee concurrent 

with the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget submission. 

Science Education.—It is increasingly clear that the economic future of the United States will be tied to our ability to innovate and 

maintain a technological lead to ensure reliable and affordable energy supplies, advanced technologies that can be sold worldwide, 

and innovations that can deliver increases in productivity. These 

advantages must be earned and can only be guaranteed through investing in our education system and teachers. In 1999, only 41 percent of U.S. eighth graders received instruction from a teacher with 

specialization in mathematics, compared to the international average of 71 percent. This is a frightening statistic, but one that can 

be changed. A recent National Academy of Sciences report, Rising 

Above the Gathering Storm, made several recommendations that 

closely track the recommendations of the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board, Science and Mathematics Education Task Force. The 

Task Force recently concluded that the Department of Energy has 

a significant opportunity to enhance science and math education in 

the Nation, and it is already well positioned to take a leadership 

role. The Department of Energy’s national laboratories are home to 

many of the best scientific minds, but are also geographically distributed over the country, allowing access to teachers across the 

Nation. Moreover, the network of national laboratories is also tightly linked with industrial and academic resources, giving DOE the 

ability to forge educational partnerships that can extend its reach, 

and therefore also its capacity to enhance science, engineering and 

math education nationwide. The Committee believes more should 

and can be done to tap the significant teaching potential within the 

labs, and therefore has supported several initiatives within the Office of Science. As such, the Committee recommends additional 

funding in the Workforce Development account to support teacher 

training and primary and secondary science and math education. 

The Committee is concerned that the Department is no longer 

abiding by the peer-reviewed 20 year Facilities plan the Department produced less than 3 years ago. This document established a 

prioritization of large investments and facilities the Department intended to support based on input from all of the scientific advisory 

boards within the Department. These investments are sufficiently 

large that they require long-term funding commitment that will exceed beyond a specific administration. As such, continual 

reprioritization will undermine the long-term goals and is likely to 

hinder the ability of the Office of Science to plan and this Committee’s efforts to fund such long term investments. The Committee 

expects the Department to clarify its current priorities and update 

the 20 year plan to reflect these new priorities. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

For High Energy Physics, the Committee recommends 

$766,789,000. 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 

Committee fully funds the investments at the user facilities including the Tevatron Collider, the Neutrinos in the Main Injector at 

Fermi Laboratory and the B-Factor at Stanford Linear Accelerator 
136 

Center. In addition, the Committee provides full funding for the 

Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear 

Research Laboratory. 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 $45,000,000, an increase of $15,000,000 above current year levels, 

to support pre-conceptual 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. The budget 

calls for doubling the request above current year to support preconceptual R&D, yet the Committee does not have a clear understanding of the cost of this international project, which has been 

reported to exceed $8,000,000,000, twice the annual budget of the 

Office of Science. 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. Therefore, before the Committee agrees to adopt 

large budget increases for the ILC, 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. In addition, the Committee would like to see the 

initial results from the Large Hadron Collider, which is set to begin 

operations in mid 2007 before the Committee commits to a longterm investment toward the ILC. The Committee looks forward to 

reviewing the data and visiting this matter again in 2008. 

Joint Dark Energy Mission.—The Committee has consistently 

demonstrated its support of the Department’s initiative to launch 

a space probe to answer the fundamental physics question of our 

time—what is the ‘‘dark energy’’ that constitutes the majority of 

the universe? The Committee strongly believes that this initiative 

should move forward. Unfortunately, the multi-agency aspect of 

this initiative faces insurmountable problems that imperil its future, and the Department risks losing a world-class scientific team. 

The Committee is concerned that the joint mission between the Department of Energy and NASA is untenable because of NASA’s reorganization and change in focus toward manned space flight. The 

Committee directs the Department to immediately begin planning 

for a single-agency space-based dark energy mission and to conduct 

a peer-reviewed competition to select a single winning proposal 

based both upon the quality of the science and the overall cost to 

the Department. The competition should be initiated by the end of 

the calendar year 2006 and completed in 2007 with the goal of a 

launch in fiscal year 2013. The Committee encourages the Department to aggressively explore potential domestic and international 

partnerships and launch options to help defray the cost of the mis-
137 

sions. The Committee provides $74,271,000 for Non-Accelerator 

Physics, an increase of $15,000,000 above the request to support 

the Joint Dark Energy Mission. The Committee has moved 

$8,310,000 from Theoretical Physics to the High Energy Density 

Physics account. 

HIGH ENERGY DENSITY SCIENCE

The Committee recommends the creation of a new discipline 

within the Office of Science to support the growing research in high 

energy density sciences currently being pursued within the Office 

of Science, the National Nuclear Security Administration and universities worldwide. With his recent elevation of position, from Director to Under Secretary, the Under Secretary is increasing his 

field of view and now has the responsibility of developing science 

at all the labs within the Department, not just the Office of 

Science. As such, the Committee recommends that a new office be 

created to consolidate and support research in high energy density 

physics. This office will be charged with supporting research in inertial fusion energy, fast ignition, petawatt laser development, 

plasma accelerators and other laboratory and university sponsored 

research related to high energy density science that is presently 

funded within the Fusion Energy, Nuclear Physics, High Energy 

Physics and the NNSA, ICF accounts. This research has important 

applications ranging from materials research to fusion energy and 

fundamental research into the make up and reactions of nuclear 

matter. One of the of the primary responsibilities for this new program will be to establish a peer-reviewed technology and research 

and development roadmap to support a robust experimental program. This R&D roadmap is due to the Committee by March 31, 

2007. The Committee directs the Department to break out the 

funding within the existing budgets and programs and consolidate 

within this new office. The Committee provides $79,924,000 to support this new research account, funded equally between the Office 

of Science and the NNSA and consistent with the high energy density research allocation within the Office of Science. Funding shall 

be drawn from the following accounts: $11,949,000 from the Fusion 

Energy Account, $20,000,000 from Nuclear Physics, and $8,310,000 

from High Energy Physics. In addition, the Committee has provided funding from the ICF budget that includes the following: 

$8,903,000 to support university grants and $30,000,000 to support 

research on z pinches, high average power lasers and other HED 

research that has been exclusively funded within the NNSA accounts. The Committee provides $7,000,000 for the continued operation and experimental program on the Atlas Pulse Power Machine. This funding is in addition to the funding provided within 

the NNSA. Additionally, the Committee recommendation includes 

$2,000,000 for the Nevada Terawatt Facility for joint research on 

dynamics of materials under extreme conditions; and $2,000,000 

for UNR to continue its advanced research on Z-pinch and wire 

array physics. The Committee directs the Department to renew its 

base Nevada Terawatt Facility high energy density physics research cooperative agreement at financial levels consistent with the 

current year. The Committee recommendation includes $5,300,000 

above the budget request for fast ignition research. The Committee 
138 

provides $3,000,000 in the ICF and High Yield Science Campaign 

of the NNSA to continue the development of a short pulse laser at 

the University of Texas at Austin, and $2,000,000 for continued collaborative research under the z-Petawatt Consortium for operations 

at the Z-Beamlet laser facility at Sandia National Laboratories, 

and $1,000,000 for collaborative research. 

The Department is directed to convene an advisory board to develop a technology roadmap for this program and provide the Congress with a plan to support HED science while contributing to the 

operations at the various facilities in the NNSA. The Committee 

strongly urges the Department to eliminate barriers to discovery 

that have developed by historic jurisdictional boundaries and line 

management responsibility. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee provides $434,060,000 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. The Committee has shifted 

a portion of the funding budgeted for High Energy Density R&D 

to the new High Energy Density Science program. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

For Biological and Environmental Research [BER], the Com- mittee provides $560,000,000, the same as the budget request. BER 

uses competitive and peer-reviewed research at national laboratories, universities, and private institutions to further the Nation’s 

competitiveness in the scientific arena. 

Genomes to Life.—The Committee strongly supports the GTL 

program and provides full funding as requested. Even before the 

Department mapped the first human genome, the Committee encouraged the Department to expand its genomic research and recommended that the Department accelerate the deployment of the 

four Genomes to Life facilities as was proposed in the 20 year plan. 

Now, a National Academies report has also concluded that the Department could greatly accelerate the research needed to unlock 

the genome. The Committee supports the Department’s efforts to 

adjust its plan to move quickly to award two energy-related GTL 

collaborative research facilities. The Committee recommends full 

funding, as requested. 

Medical Applications and Measurement Science.—Modern nuclear medicine builds on the exploitation of nuclear energy to promote human health, a concept that has been successful since the 

middle of the 20th century. The Committee is disappointed the Department has eliminated funding for nuclear medicine for the second year in a row from its budget request. The Committee understands the Department is working with the National Institutes of 

Health on a research strategy between the two entities, furthering 

research in the nuclear medicine arena in a manner that does not 

duplicate efforts. However, because the Committee lacks necessary 

information about this partnership, the Committee is concerned 

that either research might be duplicated or that the NIH might not 

have the means to fund its share. Section 314 of the bill proposes 
139 

to provide funding derived from a research account charged against 

Department of Energy research as provided in section 1001(e) of 

title X of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Committee expects 

that $25,000,000 will be available to support nuclear medicine research. 

Asia Pacific Project.—The Committee recommends that up to 

one-third of the funding be provided from the climate research activities from within this account. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED OFFICE OF SCIENCE PROJECTS 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

Positron Emission Tomography [PET] Scanning for Neurological Diseases, Alabama ................................... $1,000,000 

UCLA Institute for Molecular Medicine, California .......................................................................................... 3,700,000 

Ultra Dense Supercomputing Memory Storage, Colorado ................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Kansas University Cancer Center Laboratory Reconfiguration, Kansas .......................................................... 500,000 

The University of Louisville Computational Biomarker Discovery Center, Kentucky ....................................... 1,000,000

Tulane Environmental and Material Science Clean Room Facility, Louisiana ................................................ 800,000

Contrast Media Savings Study-[MEDRAD], Mississippi ................................................................................... 500,000 

Health Sciences Research and Education Facility at University of Missouri-Columbia ................................. 1,500,000 

Billings Clinic Cancer Research Institute, Montana ....................................................................................... 1,300,000 

PET Scanner, Middletown Regional Health System, Ohio ............................................................................... 510,000 

Enhanced Outpatient Cancer Services, Ohio ................................................................................................... 500,000 

National Center for Regenerative Medicine, Ohio ........................................................................................... 500,000 

Cuyahoga Community College, Ohio Alternative Energy Training Program .................................................... 500,000

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .......................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Texas A&M University Intelligent Power System Monitoring and Diagnostics ................................................ 1,500,000 

Center for River Dynamics and Restoration at USU, Utah ............................................................................. 400,000 

Blackstone River Science and Exploration Center, Rhode Island ................................................................... 250,000 

Fisk University Science Laboratory Improvements, Tennessee ........................................................................ 540,000 

MIND Institute, New Mexico ............................................................................................................................. 12,000,000 

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences .................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Oakland Children’s Hospital, California .......................................................................................................... 225,000 

St. Mary Medical Center, California ................................................................................................................ 225,000 

UCSD–NEES/NSF Outdoor Shake Table, California .......................................................................................... 600,000 

St. John’s Hospital Center, Santa Monica, California, Women’s Health Center ............................................. 200,000

Costilla County Biodiesel Pilot Project, Colorado ............................................................................................ 80,000 

Lower AK Valley Water Conservancy District Small-Scale Biodiesel Plant, Colorado ..................................... 250,000 

Yale New Haven Health System Center for Public Health, Connecticut ......................................................... 250,000 

Stamford Health Systems, Connecticut ........................................................................................................... 250,000 

Waterbury Hospital Clinical Information System Initiative, Connecticut ........................................................ 250,000 

Norwalk Hospital Foundation, Connecticut ...................................................................................................... 250,000 

University of Delaware Brown Laboratory Renovation ..................................................................................... 500,000 

St. Francis Hospital, Delaware ........................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Mt. Sinai Medical Center, Florida .................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Upgrade Electrical at Hawaii’s Major Trauma Centers ................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Edward Hospital Cancer Center, Illinois .......................................................................................................... 250,000 

University of Chicago Hospitals, Illinois .......................................................................................................... 250,000 

Franklin County Hospital, Illinois ..................................................................................................................... 250,000 

Rush University Medical Center, Illinois .......................................................................................................... 500,000 

Benedictine University Science Lab., Lisle, Illinois ......................................................................................... 250,000 

Marian College Biomedical Research Initiative, Indiana ................................................................................ 400,000 

University of Maryland-Baltimore Center for Nanomedicine & Cellular Delivery ............................................ 250,000

Kennedy-Krieger Institute, Maryland ................................................................................................................ 250,000 

St. Agnes Hospital, Maryland .......................................................................................................................... 500,000 

University of Massachusetts at Boston Multidisciplinary Research Facility .................................................. 500,000 

Noble Hospital Diagnostic Imaging Project, Massachusetts ........................................................................... 500,000 

Montana Cardiology Telemedicine Network ..................................................................................................... 500,000 

University of Nebraska Medical Center ........................................................................................................... 500,000 

Virtua Memorial Hospital, New Jersey ............................................................................................................. 500,000 

Atlantic Health System Comprehensive Cardiovascular Initiative, New Jersey .............................................. 500,000

Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute, New York ......................................................................... 750,000 

Central New York Biotechnology Research Center .......................................................................................... 250,000 

Hospital for Special Surgery, New York ........................................................................................................... 250,000 
140 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED OFFICE OF SCIENCE PROJECTS—Continued 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

Heart Center of Niagara, New York ................................................................................................................. 750,000 

Rochester General Hospital Heart Failure MYOTECH Treatment, New York .................................................... 400,000

University of North Dakota Center for Biomass Utilization ............................................................................. 1,000,000 

University of Rhode Island Transgenic & Genomic Center ............................................................................. 500,000 

University of Vermont Functional MRI Research ............................................................................................. 500,000 

University Medical Center, Nevada .................................................................................................................. 500,000 

Nevada Cancer Institute .................................................................................................................................. 500,000 

Black Mountain Institute, Nevada ................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Tahoe Center for Environmental Sciences, Nevada ......................................................................................... 250,000 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $1,445,930,000 for Basic Energy 

Sciences, an increase of $24,950,000 from the budget request. Basic 

Energy Sciences supports work on the natural sciences emphasizing fundamental research in materials sciences, chemistry, geosciences, and aspects of biosciences. The Committee recommends 

$1,004,212,000 to support the Materials, Sciences and Engineering 

research program. The Committee recommends the following: 

$174,409,000 in fully operational funding for Spallation Neutron 

Source; full funding for the four Nanoscale Science Research Centers to support construction and operations; full funding for Linac 

Coherent Light Source; the requested level of $25,000,000 for National Synchrotron Light Source-II; $10,582,000 to support operations for the Manuel Lujan, Jr. Neutron Scattering Center and 

$8,000,000, as requested for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. 

The Committee recommends $293,449,000, an increase of 

$24,950,000 for Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Energy Biosciences program. This program supports basic research in atomic 

and molecular chemistry, chemical physics, radiation chemistry, organic and inorganic chemistry, geochemistry and geophysics. 

Energy and Water Technology Development.—Consistent with 

section 979 of the Energy Policy Act, 2005, the Committee recommends $24,950,000 authorized by this section to support research, development and demonstration of water technology used 

in the production of energy. The Committee believes water planning and water conservation are critical factors in economic development, human health and environmental well being. There are 

many regions in this country and across the world facing severe 

water shortages that are forced to look to water reclamation and 

desalination activities for adequate supplies. The Committee urges 

the Department to draw on the existing expertise within Department of Energy laboratories and other Federal agencies to develop 

a program consistent with the authorities provided in section 979 

of Public Law 109–58; the Committee provides $15,950,000 within 

the available funds to support this activity. The Committee directs 

the Department to provide Sandia National Lab with $10,000,000 

for advanced concept desalination and arsenic treatment research 

to be used in partnership with other national laboratories and universities. 
141 

The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the University of Vermont Plant Sciences Building and $500,000 for the 

Environmental Learning Center, Nevada. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $148,269,000 to support construction activities within the Basic Energy Science activities, as requested. Full funding is provided to the Nanocenters and 

the Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC. Construction funding 

for the Spallation Neutron Source is no longer needed as the construction phase is complete. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

For Advanced Scientific Computing Research, the Committee 

provides $318,654,000, the same as the President’s request. In the 

past two decades, leadership in scientific computation has become 

a cornerstone of the Department’s strategy to ensure the security 

of the Nation and success in the areas of science and environmental quality. The Committee is supportive of advanced computing as the Department has taken technological risks as part of 

the weapons program. The decisions have paid off as the Department deploys the Red Storm and Blue G architecture across the 

complex to support fusion, nuclear energy, and other disciplines in 

need of high speed computational capabilities to support complex 

simulations. 

The Committee is concerned with the relationship between the 

Office of Science and the NNSA. As an example, the ASCR strategic plan discusses the need to work with other Federal agencies 

including several defense agencies, but only discusses in general 

terms three areas of research where NNSA and the Office of 

Science cooperated. In the area of basic research, the strategic plan 

states that it is an area that is ‘‘not important enough to justify 

ASCI investment at this time.’’ The Committee is also aware that 

the Office of Science has budgeted $13,000,000 for the DARPA to 

support a petaflop computer deployment by 2010. The Committee 

believes this funding would be better spent within the Department 

to support a petaflop initiative. The Department is directed to divide the funds equally between the Office of Science and the NNSA 

Advanced Simulation and Computing activities to support development of component architecture for high-performance software and 

storage. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

For Fusion Energy Sciences, the Committee recommends 

$307,001,000. 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. Consistent with budget descriptions, 

the Committee has shifted $11,949,000 provided for High Energy 

Density Science to the new office within the Department of Energy. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $50,888,000, to support infrastructure activities at the 10 Office of Science laboratories and the Oak 

Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Within available funds, 
142 

$10,000,000 is provided as the Office of Science fiscal year 2007 

contribution to the Capability Replacement Laboratory (300 Area) 

project. The Committee reiterates its recent criticisms that the Department has done a very poor job of coordinating this project between offices internally and with the Department of Homeland Security, the other 300 Area tenant. 

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 $170,877,000 for the Office of 

Science Program Direction, the same as the budget request. This 

level of funding will support approximately 1,000 FTEs for fiscal 

year 2007. 

SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

These initiatives support the missions of the Department’s Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists program. The Committee provides $6,000,000 to establish the Protecting America’s 

Competitive Edge [PACE] fellows program as a competitive, meritbased graduate fellowship program for students pursuing doctoral 

degrees in a science or engineering field related to a mission area 

of the Department. Fellowship recipients must rank in the upper 

10 percent of their class and be citizens or permanent resident 

aliens of the United States. Fellowships awarded under this program shall be portable with the fellow. 

The Committee recognizes that the scientific and professional 

staff of the Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security 

Administration laboratories are an untapped resource that should 

be used to support mathematics, science and engineering education 

and training in our primary and secondary schools. The Committee 

provides $35,000,000 to support this effort. Half of the funding will 

be used to establish or expand summer institutes at National Laboratories to provide additional training to strengthen the mathematics and science teaching skills of teachers employed at public 

schools in kindergarten through grade 12. The Committee directs 

the remaining funds to be used to support at each of the National 

Laboratories the establishment of a Center of Excellence in Mathematics and Science at one public secondary school located in the region of the National Laboratory. The Secretary is directed to provide scientific and engineering staff of the National Laboratories to 

assist in teaching courses at these Centers, and to use National 

Laboratory scientific equipment in the teaching of the courses. The 

Secretary shall consider the results of performance assessments of 

the Centers in any performance review of a National Laboratories 

management and operations contractor. 
143 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $148,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 156,420,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 186,420,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 136,420,000 

The Committee recommendation for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management includes $136,420,000 from fees collected by the Secretary which are deposited into the fund established by Public Law 97–425 as amended and $358,080,000 provided from the defense contribution for a total of $494,500,000. The 

Committee is frustrated by challenges facing the Yucca Mountain 

project. The project is still recovering from several setbacks in the 

license application including: the remanding of the Environmental 

Protection Agency radiation standards, the quality control of the 

U.S. Geological Survey practices, and the subsequent rejection of 

the Department’s certification of its License Support Network. The 

Committee is concerned that the Department is redesigning the repository with significant changes, including plans for the surface 

facility as well as changes to the in-mountain storage configuration 

and cost re-estimate for the entire project that will be included in 

the Total System Performance Assessment [TSPA] model. As a result of the program setbacks and redesign of repository, the Department does not intend to submit a License Application until the 

second quarter of fiscal year 2008 at the earliest. These delays 

have forced the Committee to reconsider the project’s budget needs. 

As a result of program design changes, the Department will have 

a new conceptual design for the surface facilities and for the canister retrieval and handling activities. The clean canister approach 

is intended to minimize the need to handle bare spent nuclear fuel 

with a goal to provide a uniform storage solution by requiring fuel 

to be handled at the individual utility or facility sites. However, the 

Department needs to account for and plan how to package fuel for 

locations where fuel handling facilities no longer exist. Without the 

necessary cost data and a clear understanding of the specifics of 

the TSPA, the Committee is greatly concerned with the redesign effort and will withhold support of the initiative until the TSPA is 

available for a more careful review. 

The Committee directs the Department to support only the preliminary design activities of the Canister Handling Facility and not 

to proceed with performance based engineering or any procurement 

or construction activities. In addition, the Committee limits the Department to spending current year levels for Disposable Canister 

work and Waste Package activities. The Committee does support 

the budget request for the Initial Infrastructure Readiness, Site 

Safety Upgrades work. The Committee recognizes this investment 

is important to maintaining a safe workplace. However, the Committee directs the Department to exercise great discretion to ensure 

that any construction 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 directs the Government Accountability Office to review 

the fiscal year 2007 budget plan for the Office of Civilian Nuclear 
144 

Waste Management to ensure that all of the activities planned for 

the fiscal year are consistent with the requirements of the NWPA. 

The Committee directs the Department to make funding reductions in transportation activities and not reduce funding for licensing support activities or infrastructure and safety upgrades. 

In the fiscal year 2006 energy and water conference report, the 

conferees directed the Department to enter into a 3-year cooperative agreement with Inyo County, California, to address groundwater contamination concerns. Instead, the Department provided a 

5-year cooperative agreement. The Committee expects the Department to be far more respectful of explicit congressional direction 

and intent in the future and provides $750,000 (in addition to the 

amounts provided in the cooperative agreement) to accelerate the 

necessary drilling. 

The Committee recommendation includes $750,000 for Nuclear 

Transportation Hazard Research at the University of Nevada Reno, 

and $1,000,000 for the Nye County Resource Assessment. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $250,289,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 278,382,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 278,382,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 281,382,000 

(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. ¥$121,770,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ¥123,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥123,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥123,000,000 

The Committee recommends the President’s request of 

$278,382,000 for Departmental Administration, a net appropriation 

of $158,382,000. 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. The 

Committee is concerned with the lack of qualified program managers within the Department. 

Chief Financial Officer.—Last year, the Department encountered 

a number of challenges resulting from the 2005 implement of the 

Standard Accounting and Reporting System [STARS]. Despite the 

work of the staff, the auditors issued a disclaimer of opinion on the 

Department’s fiscal year 2005 consolidated financial statements. 

Despite the staff’s best effort, the Committee is skeptical that the 

fiscal year 2007 budget request of $36,790,000 is sufficient to address all the issues identified in the financial audit. The Committee 

believes the additional funding is needed to fully support the transition to the Oracle-based accounting system and to hire additional 

staff to broaden the skill mix among the staff. The Committee recommends an additional $3,180,000 to support this transition. 

Policy and International Affairs.—The Committee recommendation includes $600,000 within available funds for continuation of 

the Clean Energy Technology Exports Initiative [CETE]. The pri-
145 

mary goals of CETE are to strengthen U.S. Government interagency cooperation and private stakeholder outreach, to support 

the deployment of clean energy projects, and to open and expand 

clean energy markets abroad. CETE must be enhanced and carried 

out in a manner that is consistent with the 2002 strategic plan and 

should guide the implementation of other international energy 

technology and market deployment activities within the Department and other Federal agencies. The Committee also reminds the 

Department that up to one-third of the cost of the Asia Pacific 

Partnership can be taken from this office. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $41,580,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 45,507,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 45,507,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 45,507,000 

For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee recommends 

$45,507,000, consistent with the budget request. The Office of Inspector 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, 2006 ............................................................................. $6,369,603,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 6,407,889,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 6,412,001,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,503,051,000 

The Weapons Activities account provides for the maintenance, refurbishment and scientific validation regarding the reliability, security and safety of the nuclear weapons stockpile. In addition, the 

NNSA is charged with certifying the reliability of the stockpile 

without the use of underground testing, so all changes and updates 

that are integrated into the stockpile must utilize data from existing tests that are also supported through independent experimentation and validated using computer simulation. The NNSA is also 

working to upgrade their capability to develop new designs and the 

responsive nuclear weapons infrastructure needed to respond to an 

evolving, threat based environment as determined by the Nuclear 

Posture Review. The directors of Los Alamos, Sandia and Livermore National Labs and the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command 

share the belief that maintaining incremental modifications to the 

existing and highly optimized legacy systems is not sustainable. In 

order to reduce the concerns, the laboratory initiated the development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead. This program is intended to assure the reliability of the stockpile. In addition the laboratory design teams have been charged with developing a weapons 

system that is much easier to manufacture and maintain, as well 

as integrating 21st Century use controls to reduce the threat of unintended use. A key component of this design will be to increase 
146 

the performance margins that will maintain the same level of reliability and counter the effects of aging so as to avoid the need for 

underground testing in the future. However, until the NNSA can 

demonstrate the ability to design and manufacture a weapon with 

the same or better performance margins, the Department of Defense will continue to maintain a significant hedge of reserve legacy systems and parts to protect against technical challenges within the stockpile. The Committee recognizes the need to protect 

against unforeseen challenges and urges the NNSA to accelerate 

the transition to a responsive infrastructure and to proceed expeditiously with the RRW design. The Committee also realizes that a 

dual track strategy of supporting eight legacy systems and a RRW 

program is not sustainable and therefore has taken steps in this 

legislation to reduce the number of legacy systems and begin the 

replacement with RRW designs. The Committee has also initiated 

a second design competition for another RRW design in lieu of the 

W80 life extension activities, which are no longer supported by the 

Nuclear Weapons Council and the Department of Defense. 

NNSA Act Reform.—The Committee is pleased that the Administrator has recognized that the NNSA operational and oversight culture was becoming risk-adverse and focused more on oversight and 

compliance activities than on implementing the mission and milestones. The Committee is aware of the numerous activities underway in the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy 

to address issues and recommendations of the Defense Science 

Board [DSB] Task Force on Nuclear Capabilities and the Secretary 

of Energy Advisory Board’s [SEAB] Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task Force. Their reports identified weaknesses and 

opportunities in the NNSA’s ability to meet the future needs for 

the Nation’s nuclear capabilities, including fundamental concerns 

with line management authority and accountability, staff and advisory groups directing line management, embedding safety and security functions in line management, and consolidating and modernizing the weapons complex. The Committee is also aware of responses to these actions to date including: organizational alignments to improve line management decision making; procedure 

changes to improve interfaces with oversight groups within and 

outside of the Department; formation of the Office of Transformation; formation of a senior management team to improve 

throughput at Pantex; review of certain orders, regulations and polices to eliminate practices that weaken line responsibilities; establishment of multi-site performance measures to increase delivery of 

work for the Department of Defense. Hopefully, these actions will 

address the fundamental concerns addressed by the Defense Safety 

Board. 

Material Consolidation.—The Committee recognizes the Department’s challenge in consolidating both the nuclear weapons complex and the challenge to consolidate special nuclear material 

[SNM]. The Committee is supportive of the initiative taken by the 

Department to create the Nuclear Materials Disposition and Consolidation Committee [NMDCC] to develop a strategy to consolidate 

and dispose of special nuclear material. The Committee has yet to 

see a plan for consolidation of material outside of the broad goals 

included in Complex 2030. The planning team is encouraged to pro-
147 

vide updates to the Committee on a regular basis and provide a 

consolidation roadmap to the Congress as soon as possible. The 

Committee also expects the Department to identify a disposal pathway for all excess SNM. The Committee has provided additional 

funding to initiate the first shipment of SNM out of Lawrence 

Livermore National Lab in fiscal year 2007. 

Indirect Security Funding.—The Committee understands the Department continues to consider the policy of indirectly funding security costs at NNSA facilities. The Committee strongly opposes 

this proposal and directs the Department to continue to provide 

transparency when it comes to its costs, especially security costs, 

and directly fund all security costs within the Department Energy 

and the NNSA. 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

The Committee recommendation includes $1,323,224,000 for this 

activity. The Directed Stockpile Work [DSW] includes all activities 

that directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including 

maintenance, research and development, engineering, certification, 

dismantlement and disposal activities. 

Life Extension Program.—Within the Life Extension Program [LEP], the Committee recommends $230,618,000 for LEP activities. 

The Committee recommends $58,934,000 for the B61 LEP activities, as requested. The Committee recommends $151,684,000 as requested to support W76 LEP efforts. 

W80.—Based on the recent decision by the Nuclear Weapons 

Council decision to terminate the W80 LEP, the Committee allocates $20,000,000 to support the closeout of the W80 LEP activities. Delay of the W80 Life Extension Plan will result in a cost savings of $82,000,000 in fiscal year 2007 and additional savings in 

the FYNSP. The savings from the W80 plan should be used to support the Reliable Replacement Warhead and responsive infrastructure, so that the transformation of the stockpile and the NNSA infrastructure can proceed. Additionally, Stockpile Services funding 

must be maintained to enable NNSA to properly support the legacy 

stockpile, and this requirement is unaffected by the cancellation of 

the W80 LEP. Support for these legacy weapons is crucial since 

they will be needed for many more years until they can be replaced 

with Reliable Replacement Warhead systems. The Committee acknowledges that any further cuts in the Directed Stockpile Work 

and, in particular, the Stockpile Services, will further add to the 

significant challenges NNSA has in supporting the legacy stockpile. 

Stockpile Systems.—The Committee supports the budget request 

for the Stockpile Systems account and provides $325,545,000, as requested. These activities are critical to support the specific and 

routine repair and replacement of various limited-life components 

and to sustain the necessary surveillance activities of each weapons 

system. The Committee recommends the following: $63,782,000 for 

the B61; $3,738,000 for the W62; $56,174,000 for the W76; 

$50,662,000 for the W78; $27,230,000 for the W80; $23,365,000 for 

the B83; $1,465,000 for the W84; $59,333,000 for the W87; and 

$39,796,000 for the W88. 

Reliable Replacement Warhead [RRW].—The Committee recommendation provides $62,707,000 for the Reliable Replacement 
148 

Warhead initiative, an increase of $35,000,000 from the budget request. The additional funding is realigned from savings realized by 

the Nuclear Weapons Council’s decision to cancel W80 LEP. The 

Committee expects the laboratories and plants will utilize the 

unneeded resources in the Directed Stockpile, Campaigns, and 

Readiness in Technical Based and Facilities accounts where applicable to further the RRW design options to support a Nuclear 

Weapons Council decision. The Committee expects the initial RRW 

design approved by the Department to be selected based on a combination of considerations, including the ability to certify the warhead without underground nuclear testing, cost production and 

ease of maintenance and dismantlement. The Committee would oppose the use of workload leveling among the labs as a factor in any 

design selection decision. The design teams at both Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory have worked extremely hard on their respective designs with 

the expectation that the best design would be selected. Any selection that isn’t decided purely on merits would be a disservice to the 

Department of Defense, the RRW design teams and the NNSA. The 

Committee continues to have concerns regarding the slow pace of 

the Nuclear Weapons Complex consolidation efforts and how those 

efforts pertain to the future of the RRW. Rapid RRW development 

and deployment will reduce the further need for many complex 

manufacturing capabilities currently maintained by the NNSA. By 

utilizing a RRW design, the stockpile will also contain systems that 

are much easier to maintain and manufacture, apply enhanced surety applications and retain the same level of reliability as can be 

certified by the three laboratory directors. The Committee believes 

that in order to maintain RRW on going basis and to hedge against 

any unforeseen problems in any one particular design, the Secretary and the Administrator should expand the RRW program immediately to ensure that our strategic forces have at least two different certified RRW warheads. Having multiple strategic systems 

that continue to meet the existing military requirements maintains 

the current strategic doctrine of hedging against a single point failure in any one system. The Committee provides $10,000,000 to 

support a second RRW design competition. The Committee expects 

the NNSA to proceed with this design competition in the same 

manner in which the initial RRW was implemented. The funding 

shall be used to support the following: establish a Project Officers 

Group to undertake a feasibility evaluation for a first production 

goal of fiscal year 2014; identify the appropriate military characteristics in order to maintain existing military capability; support a 

conceptual design competition within the laboratory; establish a 

basis for selection, including support of a responsive infrastructure 

and appropriate workload balancing among the labs if necessary; 

and develop a comparative cost assessment comparing implementing the RRW with implementing the LEP program. 

Dismantlement.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$35,000,000 for the warhead dismantlement program. The Committee expects the NNSA to implement an aggressive warhead dismantlement program as part of a concerted effort to relieve the 

weapons complex of excess cold war era warheads and continue the 

development of a responsive infrastructure consistent with the 
149 

President’s Nuclear Posture Review. The Committee appreciates 

the efforts of the NNSA to implement a streamlined dismantlement 

program, which requires numerous changes within the complex to 

support this initiative. First, the NNSA has made dismantlement 

and materials consolidation a priority. Second, the NNSA plans incorporate a complex-wide approach to balancing surveillance activities, meeting life extension commitments and increasing the rate of 

dismantlement. The Committee supports the NNSA’s efforts to dismantle unnecessary weapons, but reminds the NNSA that it must 

follow through with elimination of excess weapons-grade material 

that will be left over. Once disassembled, the material still poses 

a proliferation threat and must be secured at a significant cost to 

taxpayers. In order to fully address this problem, the Department 

must develop and implement a comprehensive dismantlement and 

consolidation program for the total elimination and destruction of 

excess weapons-grade material. 

The Committee supports the Department’s efforts to construct 

and operate the pit disassembly facility and mixed oxide fabrication 

facility to turn weapons-usable pits into commercial spent nuclear 

fuel. Before the Committee provides full funding for the dismantlement program, the Committee would like to ensure the pit disassembly and MOX fabrication facility will be built. Therefore before the NNSA accelerates dismantlement activities, the Committee 

directs the Department to allocate only $35,000,000 for dismantlement work. 

Stockpile Services.—The Committee recommends $669,354,000, 

as provided in the budget. The Stockpile Services account supports 

the research and development and production activities for multiple weapon systems, but the costs are not allocated by tail number in the same manner as the Stockpile Systems or Life Extension 

Program. Therefore, despite a reduction in the LEP activities for 

the W80, there are no savings within this activity. The Committee 

recommends $236,115,000 for Production Support work. This account supports the personnel costs associated with weapons assembly, disassembly, and component productions. Research and Development Support activities are provided $63,948,000 to support 

R&D of component and surety research such as neutron generations and other weapons systems. The Committee recommendation 

for R&D Certification and Safety is $194,199,000. Activities funded 

within this account are very critical and support a broad range of 

stewardship activities including plutonium experiments, sub critical tests, safety and reliability analysis, and funding for the Nuclear Weapons Study Groups of the various military services. The 

Committee recommendation includes $9,000,000 above the budget 

request for BEEF. This additional funding, coupled with $3,000,000 

in RTBF, will provide funding for critical high pressure experiments in the Phoenix Program. 

CAMPAIGNS

Campaigns focus on scientific, technical and engineering efforts 

to develop and maintain critical capabilities and tools needed to 

support the existing stockpile through continued assessment and 

annual certification in the absence of underground testing. The 

major elements of the campaign are: Science, Engineering, Inertial 
150 

Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Advanced Simulation 

and Computing, Pit Manufacturing, and Certification and Readiness Campaigns. 

Science Campaign 

The Committee recommendation includes $268,762,000, as requested in the budget. The Science campaign is the principal program for supporting the science required to maintain the technical 

viability of the physics package. Developing a better understanding 

of the operating margins through the Quantification of Margins 

and Uncertainties, using experimentation and simulation, is critical to certification of the current stockpile and the basis for which 

a RRW design can be developed without underground testing. The 

focus of the scientific research is code development in support of 

the Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign for primaries 

and secondaries associated with the RRW design and other experimental technical milestones. 

Primary Assessment Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$50,527,000, as requested in the budget, to improve the understanding of boost physics, a complex challenge for weapons designers. Funding supports experiments associated with plutonium 

using hydrotests, proton radiography and subcritical tests in Nevada. 

Test Readiness.—The Committee recommends $14,757,000 for 

Test Readiness as requested and a reduction of $5,000,000 from 

current year levels. 

Dynamic Materials Properties.—The Committee recommends 

$85,727,000 for Dynamic Materials. Funding will be used to support a variety of experiments on JASPER, TA–55 gas guns, Z/R, 

LANSCE and U1A to understand plutonium dynamics. Specifically, 

the Committee recommends an increase of $5,000,000 above the 

budget request of $11,500,000 to support a doubling of the shot 

rate for plutonium experiments at JASPER, greatly improving efficiency in operation of the JASPER test bed and DAF glove box for 

target assembly. 

Advanced Radiography.—The Committee recommends 

$36,745,000 as requested in the budget to support hydrotest and 

radiographic activities. The budget supports completion and commissioning of the second axis cell refurbishment on DARHT. The 

Committee expects the NNSA to deliver on the promise of commissioning this facility in fiscal year 2008, when hydrotests are needed. 

Secondary Assessment Technologies.—The Committee recommends $81,006,000 for Secondary Assessment Technologies. 

Funding is provided in this subprogram to support high energy 

density physics experiments on inertial confinement fusion experimental facilities. The Committee recommends full funding for the 

Z machine activities at $14,700,000, as requested in the budget. 

Engineering Campaign 

The Committee recommends $207,033,000, an increase of 

$46,114,000 above the requested level. This campaign provides validation of engineering science, modeling and simulation tools necessary to support design qualification and certification of the stock-
151 

pile. Critical elements of this program are the Enhanced Surety 

and Surveillance activities that are critical in applying the highest 

level of use controls possible using engineered solutions developed 

at MESA at Sandia National Laboratories. 

Enhanced Surety.—The Committee recommends $41,200,000, an 

increase of $14,469,000 above the budget request. The surety systems are the means by which the safety, security and use control 

of nuclear weapons are achieved. These high-consequence systems 

require careful design and ultra-reliable components. 

Weapons Systems.—The Committee recommends $28,000,000, an 

increase of $6,800,000 above the budget request, to support advance computer simulation and related code development. This activity also supports manufacturing of critical design components 

and microsystems. 

Nuclear Survivability.—The Committee recommends $23,000,000 

to support the budget request. Within the available funds, the Department is directed to use $6,000,000 to support research into radiation hardening capabilities and to prevent damage to critical 

electronics from electromagnetic pulse. 

Enhanced Surveillance.—The Committee recommends 

$103,200,000, an increase of $3,995,000 above the current year. 

This funding will be used to accelerate the deployment of advanced 

micro-engineering devices that can be used to adopt advance surveillance devices into the RRW design. Applying enhanced surveillance technology can provide a more accurate, cost-effective and 

real time means of tracking performance of existing stockpile systems. 

Project 01–D–108 Microsystem and Engineering Science Applications, SNL, Albuquerque, New Mexico.—The Committee recommends $6,920,000, to complete the MESA project in fiscal year 

2007. The Committee recommends $4,613,000 for other MESA 

project costs. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign 

The Committee recommends $412,256,000, a reduction of 

$38,935,000 from the budget request. The NNSA has implemented 

the National Ignition Campaign and declared it an ‘‘enhanced management’’ activity, which appears to be nothing more than a NIFat-all-costs-strategy. The NNSA has pursued this agenda as a 

means to justify an aggressive spending baseline at the expense of 

other compelling stewardship responsibilities in the ICF campaign. 

The NNSA has proven unable to maintain a balanced ICF and high 

yield research program. As such the Committee has reallocated 

funding out of NIF demonstration and Construction activities to 

ensure that there is adequate program balance. 

Ignition.—The Committee recommends $69,763,000, a reduction 

of $10,000,000, from the budget request. This reduction has been 

used to offset an imbalance in research priorities. 

Support of Other Stockpile Programs.—The Committee recommends $25,872,000. This account has also suffered as a result 

of the NIF program. The additional funding provides for the support of research into high energy density physics within other campaigns. The additional funding will be to increase the utilization of 

the Z machine and work to integrate the Z petawatt laser and sup-
152 

port stockpile stewardship activities that are being delayed as a result of the NIF priorities. The JASONS recommended in their review of NIF that the NNSA develop an ‘‘aggressive program of experiments on high energy density laser and Z pinch facilities’’ in 

order to understand the physics challenges and understand computer models. The report also found that the ‘‘the plans to use LIL 

and Z/ZR are not yet adequately developed.’’ The Committee recognizes that the Department just completed a refurbishment of Z/ZR 

making a substantial investment of over $60,000,000 to improve 

the operational capabilities. The Committee directs the Department 

to fully utilize the Z machine. Funding is provided to support expanded operations and HED stockpile stewardship R&D that has 

been delayed until 2011. 

NIF Diagnostics, Cryogenics and Experimental Support.—Unlike 

the funding provided in the Support of Other Stockpile Programs, 

the budget request provides a slight increase from the current year 

levels. However, the Committee recommends $42,578,000, the same 

level as current year, a reduction of $3,381,000. These funds will 

be applied toward the joint HEDP program. 

Pulsed Power Inertial Confinement Fusion.—The Committee recommends $10,603,000 to support experiments on the refurbished Z 

facility. 

University Grants.—The Committee believes these activities 

would be better supported in a broader program that would provide 

students and faculty broader research and experimental opportunities. 

Facility Operations and Target Production.—The Committee recommendation is $53,021,000, as requested in the budget. The Committee provides $10,000,000 above the budget request for advanced 

ICF target design, fabrication and testing on the OMEGA laser system at the LLE and the Z-machine at SNL. 

NIF Demonstration Program.—The remaining work under the 

Demonstration program activities includes assembly and installation of optics into the remaining roughly 180 of the 192 beamlines. 

The Department is directed to work to find cost savings by increasing the efficiency and productivity for assembly activities. The 

Committee recommends $129,000,000 for demonstration activities. 

High-Energy Petawatt Laser Development.—The Committee recommendation no funding for this activity. The funds that were 

budgeted for this account have been shifted to the Office of Science 

High Energy Density Physics program, an increase of $27,693,000 

above current year levels. 

Construction—Project 96–D–111.—The Committee recommends 

$81,419,000 and directs the NNSA to utilize available contingency 

funds of $30,000,000 to make up any funding shortfalls. Remaining 

contingency balances are sufficient to cover the remaining costs of 

the construction project. This funding will be used to support the 

NNSA’s contribution to the joint High Energy Density Physics program office. 

Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign 

The Committee recommends $695,995,000, an increase of 

$78,040,000 above the request. The Committee supports the program reforms made to improve budget clarity and program focus. 
153 

Of the additional funds provided, $60,000,000 shall be used to support the purchase of a petaflop computing capability at Los Alamos 

National Laboratory. This builds on the additional funding provided by the Committee in fiscal year 2006 to increase computing 

capacity at Los Alamos. With these resources, the United States 

will be in the best position to deploy the first petaflop computer in 

the world. If successful, this additional capacity will enable the Department of Energy to develop new computer architectures to facilitate a leap forward in high speed computing. The Department is 

directed to continue activities consistent with fiscal year 2006 funding under its renewed 5-year cooperative agreement with the University of Nevada Las Vegas and the University of Nevada Reno. 

Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign 

The Committee provides a total of $237,598,000 for the Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign, consistent with the request. 

Using the existing capabilities at Los Alamos, the NNSA will demonstrate the ability to manufacture pits, to confirm the nuclear performance of a W88 warhead without nuclear testing, and establish 

a basis for certification of future pits. The Committee supports the 

NNSA’s decision to commit out year funding for the Modern Pit Facility toward demonstrating the capability to manufacture other 

stockpile pits, including an RRW design at Los Alamos. 

Readiness Campaign 

The Committee recommends $205,965,000, as provided in the 

budget. 

Stockpile Readiness Campaign.—The Committee recommends 

$17,576,000, as requested. The funding is intended to be used to 

restore or replace aging production infrastructure within the complex. The Committee is concerned with the decline in funding considering the need and age of the existing complex. 

High Explosives and Weapons Operations.—The Committee recommendation is $17,188,000, a slight increase over current funding 

and consistent the budget request. 

Tritium Readiness.—The Committee supports the request of $86,385,000. This funding will be used to maintain the national inventory of tritium by irradiating tritium producing rods in a commercial light-water reactor. 

Advanced Design and Production Technologies.—The Committee 

recommends $53,645,000 as requested in the budget. 

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

For Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities, the Committee 

provides $1,780,772,000, and increase of $95,000,000 above the 

budget request to restore funding cut in fiscal year 2006. The activities funded in the RTBF account provide of the operational 

funding, including salaries of thousands of staff as well as the operating costs for the production complex. The NNSA is facing a challenge in attempting to address the consolidation of special nuclear 

material throughout the complex, a lasting and costly legacy from 

the cold war. The NNSA is also looking at consolidating and coordinating the production mission in order to cut costs to meet tight 

budgets and rising costs attributed to security needs and as well 
154 

has the rising cost of medical and pension costs. At the Committee’s insistence, the Department is pursuing a RRW program that 

is the embodiment of a responsive infrastructure desired by the Department of Defense. By demonstrating the capability to respond to 

a threat based deterrent, the Department will have the confidence 

to further reduce the overall number of weapons and weapons systems in the stockpile. 

Special Nuclear Materials Consolidation.—In fiscal year 2007, 

the Committee directs the NNSA to initiate the removal of excess 

Special Nuclear Materials [SNM] from the Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory [LLNL] and develop a plan for removal of all 

Category I/II SNM from LLNL by fiscal year 2012. The Committee 

recommends $10,000,000 to support this activity and to support 

disposition of nuclear materials at LLNL, SNL, Y–12, and Pantex 

as well. 

Operations of Facilities.—The Committee includes 

$1,263,004,000, an increase of $59,218,000 above the budget request, for Operations of Facilities. The budget provides for modest 

growth in this account and supports both workforce funding and facilities operation, which are the backbone of the NNSA capability. 

The Department moved operational funding for the Z machine to 

this account, but failed to increase the budget to accommodate the 

additional responsibility. As such the Committee recommends 

$30,000,000 to support Z operational charges, as requested. The 

Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 above the budget 

request of $17,900,000 for BEEF. This additional funding, coupled 

with $9,000,000 above the request in DSW, will provide funding for 

critical high pressure experiments in the Phoenix Program. The 

Committee also recommends an increase of $6,000,000 above the 

budget request of $34,300,000 for the Device Assembly Facility. 

This funding will allow a ‘‘Mission Capable’’ level of support which 

is the minimum required to reliably ensure compliance with Federal regulations and standards. In addition, the Committee recommends $13,500,000 to be divided evenly among the three NNSA 

laboratories to upgrade facilities as necessary and demonstrate the 

manufacturability of the new RRW designs. 

Special Projects.—The Committee provides $28,782,000 for the 

following activities. The Committee recommends $3,500,000 for the 

Technologies Ventures Corporation to support technology transfer 

from each of the three weapons laboratories. These balances will be 

expended, and the Committee provides funding for the fourth year 

of a 5-year commitment. The Committee recommends that 

$5,832,000 be provided to the grant-funded University Research 

Program in Robotics [URPR], for research, development, and technology transfer to NNSA laboratories. The Committee provides 

$7,500,000 for the continued operation and experimental program 

on the Atlas Pulse Power Machine. Included within that amount, 

the Committee has provided $2,300,000 to the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for research, experimentation, development, design and demonstration of technologies for containment and confinement related to the future employment of special nuclear materials on the Atlas Pulse Power machine. This funding is in addition 

to the funding provided in Science. Additionally, the Committee 

recommendation includes $2,000,000 in enhanced funding for sub-
155 

critical experiments at NTS; $2,500,000 for the Consortium for Terrorism and Fire Science at UNR-Elko; $250,000 for the Atomic 

Testing History Institute; $1,000,000 to continue the on-going infrastructure support grant for the UNLV Research Foundation; 

$1,000,000 for the UNR/DRI Technology Transfer Initiative; 

$1,000,000 to the UNLV Research Foundation to continue support 

of the radioanalytical services laboratory; $400,000 for virtual reality technologies for command and control of security operations 

at the Nevada Test Site; and $1,500,000 for the UNLV Research 

Foundation to support the ongoing programs of the Institute for Security Studies. The Committee is concerned that the ISS has not 

adequately fulfilled its key mission objective of establishing an academic center of excellence on national security and terrorism-related issues. Therefore the Committee directs the ISS to allocate 

funding necessary to fully implement its undergraduate and graduate level academic program as well as its research and training 

mission. From within available funds, the Committee recommends 

$1,000,000 for the Arrowhead Center, New Mexico. 

Program Readiness.—The Committee includes $75,167,000, the 

same as the budget request, for Program Readiness. 

Material Recycle and Recovery.—The Committee recommends 

$69,982,000, consistent with the budget request, for Material Recycle and Recovery. These activities include reuse of plutonium, enriched uranium and tritium, limited life components and dismantlement operations. 

Construction Projects.—The Committee recommends $288,422, 

000 for various construction projects, an increase of $7,000,000. 

The Committee provides $112,442,000 for 04–D–125, Chemistry 

and Metallurgy Research Facility Replacement, as requested in the 

budget. This facility is critical to support the only plutonium work 

at Los Alamos, and will provide necessary laboratory support to the 

pit manufacturing mission. The Committee has reviewed the Department’s Complex 2030 proposal and notes several assumptions 

regarding mission scope of the CMR–R facility that don’t seem to 

match current planned activities. The Committee directs the Administrator to deliver a report by June 1, 2007, clarifying the cost 

and mission requirements this facility will be expected to address. 

The Committee firmly believes this facility will continue to play a 

central role in the plutonium mission at Los Alamos and is needed 

to support the research and chemistry mission of plutonium activities. The Committee is skeptical the NNSA will be able to site new 

plutonium facilitie that include storage and manufacturing capabilities in the foreseeable future, let alone find sufficient funding 

within the constrained budgets to build a new facility. The Committee also reminds the Department that it has been unable to secure funding in the current year to support planning for a Modern 

Pit Facility. As such, the Committee directs the Department to consider alternatives to making changes to the CMR–R facility to accommodate an expanded mission scope. Design changes related to 

security enhancements and inadequate management controls during the construction of the Highly Enriched Uranium Manufacturing Facility [HEUMF] at the Y–12 National Security Complex 

(01–D–124) has resulted in a significant delay in the completion of 

this facility and a significant increase in the overall cost. The de-
156 

sign of the related Uranium Process Facility [UPF] is stretched out 

pending resolution of the project management shortfalls and 

$35,000,000 of $40,000,000 PED requested by the administration is 

to be applied against the HEUMF project. The Committee directs 

the Department to use prior year funding from the Y–12 Readiness 

Campaign and the down sized Security Improvement Program at 

Y–12 for a total of $17,866,000 to support HEUMF construction. 

The Committee is aware that even with this additional funding the 

HEUMF project is still under funded in fiscal year 2007 and the 

NNSA will identify additional sources in the near future to support 

project completion in fiscal year 2008. 

The Committee recommends $14,828,000 for 07–D–220, Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility Upgrades. The Committee 

is concerned by what it views as wavering support by the Department for a major experimental science facility. The Los Alamos 

Neutron Science Center [LANSCE] is an important facility that 

supports the Laboratory’s core weapons mission, as well as a broad 

range of science in virtually every technical division of the Laboratory. LANSCE also includes an Office of Science User Facility and 

annual operating funds from the Office of Science. LANSCE is in 

need of repair and refurbishment to continue as a scientific engine 

and recruiting tool for the Laboratory. The Committee urges the 

Department to approve Critical Decision Zero for LANSCE refurbishment so that the appropriate investment can be made. The 

Committee provides $7,000,000 for project engineering and design 

work for LANSCE-R. Full funding is provided to 06–D–402, NTS 

Replacement Fire Stations. The Committee is concerned with the 

recent problems associated with 01–D–124, Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility. The Committee understands cost increases 

are a result of a combination of poor NNSA oversight and poor contractor execution. The Committee provides $21,267,000, as requested, but expects an explanation of the cost increases. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

The Committee recommends $283,205,000 for the Facilities and 

Infrastructure Recapitalization, to restore, rebuild, and revitalize 

the physical infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex. 

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

The Committee recommends $209,264,000 for Secure Transportation Asset, the same as the budget request. Funds are used for 

the safe, secure transport of nuclear weapons, weapons components, and Special Nuclear Materials for requirements set by the 

Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and other customers. 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE

The Nuclear Weapons Incident Response program responds to 

and mitigates worldwide nuclear and radiological incidents. The 

Committee recommends $135,354,000, the same as the budget request, for Nuclear Weapons Incident Response. 
157 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $759,412,000, for Safeguards and 

Security activities at laboratories and facilities managed by the National Nuclear Security Administration. 

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 to be provided to Sandia 

National Laboratories to support research and development activities to support enhanced security measures that will provide improved early warning detection and use denial strategies in order 

to reduce the overall security costs for the Complex. 

The Committee remains concerned that, despite the expenditure 

of hundreds of millions of dollars for information security needs, a 

large percentage of all Federal agencies received failing grades 

from both the GAO and OMB for their cyber security management. 

The Department of Energy has received an F as its computer security grade since 2001 by the House Government Reform Committee 

and no higher than a 59 (out of 100) for its FIMSA score over that 

same period of time. 

The Committee provides $1,250,000, within available funds, to 

allow the Department to develop a vulnerability and risk management solution that continuously discovers and prioritizes network 

exposures including integrated network topology risk analysis. The 

solution should be appliance-based technology, running a hardened 

operating system with an integrated database and reporting services and must be certified at Common Criteria EAL Level 3 (the 

NIST/NIAP standard). It must facilitate Certification and Accreditation under FIMSA by performing the Continuous Monitoring requirement as specified by NIST SP 800–37 Section 2.7. 

The Committee directs the Department to begin to the necessary 

steps to protect personnel data at a level comparable to classified 

material to prevent the misuse and unauthorized access of such 

data. Within 60 days after enactment, the Department is directed 

to provide a report to Congress detailing activities and steps being 

taken to secure employee data and other personnel records and the 

costs associated with such security modifications. 

FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommends an offset of $33,000,000, the same 

as the request, for the Safeguards and Security charge for reimbursable work. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $1,631,839,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 1,726,213,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,593,101,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,572,654,000 

NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $274,967,000 for Nonproliferation 

and Verification Research and Development activities, an increase 

of $14,000,000 above the request. The Committee recommends 

$10,000,000 to restore funding for Nuclear Detection R&D to be divided among Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories. The 

Committee recommends $166,446,000 for Proliferation Detection, 
158 

$106,601,000 for Nuclear Explosion Monitoring; $7,920,000 for construction of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Physical 

Sciences Facility; $2,500,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation to 

continue support of nonproliferation activities at the Institute for 

Security Studies; and $1,500,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation megacargo imaging development program at the NTS. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

For Nonproliferation and International Security, the Committee 

recommends $127,411,000, the same as the President’s request. 

The Department has reorganized several activities under one program, including $38,967,000 for Dismantlement and Transparency 

activities that provide technical support of nonproliferation and 

arms control treaties. Of this amount, $17,531,000 is provided to 

support the Highly Enriched Uranium down blending under the 

HEU Purchase Agreement, and $14,814,000 is available to support 

Warhead Dismantlement and Fissile Material Transparency activities. The Committee recommends $50,232,000 for Global Security 

Engagement and Cooperation, to engage former weapons scientists 

in non-weapons research and commercial activities to discourage 

the sale and black-market trade of nuclear technology. The Committee provides $31,787,000 for International Regimes and Agreements. The Committee commends NNSA’s support for the Northeast Asia Cooperation Dialogue [NEACD], which provides a (an unofficial) security forum for the United States in a region of great 

strategic and economic importance, and encourages NNSA to continue to support the program. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Caucasus Seismic Network. 

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

The primary function of this program is to prevent the diversion, 

sale or theft of nuclear material from Russia and other countries 

by eliminating this threat through increasing security at weapons 

facilities. The program also supports the installation of detection 

equipment at border crossings and ports to prevent illegal shipments. The Committee recommends $427,182,000 for International 

Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation, an increase of 

$14,000,000 above the request. The additional funding is to be used 

to install mobile points of need detector systems in overseas ports 

to demonstrate mobile, enhanced detection of port cargo as part of 

the Megaports program. The Committee recommends $17,330,000 

for Navy Complex subprogram, $129,245,000 to support the implementation of securities measures at Russian Strategic Rocket 

Forces, $56,505,000 for Rosatom Weapons Complex, and 

$123,973,000 for Second Line of Defense Activities, including 

$55,118,000 for the Megaports program. 

ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

The Committee is disappointed with the lack of cooperation from 

the Russian Government in implementing the Fissile Materials 

Disposition program. The Russians have recently claimed that they 

will no longer commit to paying for the operations of the mixed 

oxide fuel fabrication facility the G–8 partners have committed to 
159 

build. This brand new facility would provide the Russians with a 

western fuel fabrication capability and the opportunity to sell MOX 

fuel worldwide in exchange for the Russians fulfilling their commitment to destroy 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium. This Committee has run out of patience with the Russians and believes that 

maintaining the unilateral commitment by the U.S. Government to 

destroy 34 tons of weapons grade material is a worthy endeavor. 

In order to restore essential funding for construction of the U.S. 

MOX fuel fabrication facility caused by Russian delays, funding 

Plutonium Production Elimination has been eliminated. Using 

their windfall gains from oil and gas sales, the Russian Government can complete the remaining work on Sversk, which is nearly 

complete and Zheleznogorsk on their own. The Committee recommendation for the Elimination of Weapons-Grande Plutonium 

Production is no funding, a decrease of $206,654,000. 

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The Committee recommends $618,356,000 for the Fissile Materials Disposition, an increase of $15,095,000 above the budget request. The Committee strongly supports the objective of the bilateral Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement, which 

commits the United States and Russia to dispose of 34 tons of 

weapons-grade plutonium. Until, now, the United States and Russia have maintained parallel schedules as required by the September 2000 Agreement. Recently, right before the United States 

was to proceed with a new construction start, the Russian Government declared it will not contribute operational funding for the 

Russian facility, raising the stakes for the United States and G– 

7 partners, who have already committed over $800,000,000 toward 

construction of a new mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility. Failure 

for the United States to proceed with construction and long lead 

procurement will have a devastating effect on the project and jeopardize the largest nonproliferation project ever undertaken by the 

U.S. Government. Further delays in construction would increase 

the cost of the facility, threaten the Department’s ability to meet 

commitments to South Carolina, as set forth in existing law, and 

significantly increase the likelihood that the Department would 

have to pay penalties or take other actions under 50 U.S.C. 2566. 

In addition, proceeding with plutonium disposition will further 

demonstrate to our international partners that the United States 

is committed to nonproliferation. The planned facilities in South 

Carolina also play a crucial role in the Department’s efforts to 

downsize the nuclear weapons complex, increase nuclear material 

safety and reduce safeguards and security costs. The Committee 

endorses the Department of Energy proceeding with construction of 

the U.S. facility and continuing its work with the Russians to find 

a mutually acceptable solution that will guarantee the destruction 

of 34 tons of weapons grade plutonium from each of the United 

States and Russian stockpiles over the same period of time it will 

take the United States to destroy its own stockpile. The Committee 

is aware of the recent Russian proposal to burn plutonium using 

advanced reactor technology. The Committee understands that this 

proposal can only destroy a small portion of the material and does 

not provide a full solution. Likewise, the Committee does not be-
160 

lieve that the development of new reactor technology is likely and 

does not support this initiative. The Committee does not support 

activities to resume the design of an immobilization facility under 

the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition. The Committee recognizes that in the past, Russia has indicated that it did not support 

immobilization as a disposition option and would be unlikely to go 

forward if the United States chooses to immobilize its 34 metric 

tons of plutonium. Furthermore, MOX is a mature, accepted technology with fuel in use in over 30 reactors worldwide. The technology supporting the immobilization of weapon-grade plutonium is 

still in the research and development stage. Even in an optimistic 

scenario, the Department would not be able to begin construction 

of an immobilization facility for at least 10 years. Moreover, irradiating MOX fuel in commercial nuclear reactors would also serve as 

an important stepping-stone for demonstrating this technology in 

the United States and utilizing the energy value of the plutonium. 

The Committee continues to view fissile materials disposition as an 

important nonproliferation priority. 

The Committee provides $235,051,000 for U.S. Plutonium Disposition. The Committee doesn’t provide any funding for the Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program. 

Construction.— 

Project 99–D–141, Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility.— 

The Committee recommends $93,000,000, an increase of 

$14,300,000 above the budget request. The Pit Disassembly facility is critical not only to the Fissile materials program, but 

it provides the only means to convert weapons-grade plutonium 

metal into a powder that can be turned into fuel. 

Project 99–D–143, MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility.—The Committee recommends $325,000,000, an increase of $35,490,000 

above the budget request. 

GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

The Committee recommends $116,818,000 for the Global Threat 

Reduction Initiative, an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget 

request. This program is charged with responsibility of identifying 

and removing high-risk nuclear material and other radioactive material around the world that pose a threat if released either by accident or done maliciously. The additional funding shall be used to 

support the International Radiological Threat Reduction program 

to secure radioactive material that might be used in medical or industrial applications or in a radiological dispersal device. The Committee directs the Department to use the funds to support work 

with other countries to secure high-risk radioactive materials. 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $781,605,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 795,133,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 795,133,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 795,133,000 

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 chal-
161 

lenges of 21st century security concerns. The Committee recommends $795,133,000 for the Naval Reactors program. 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $388,450,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 386,576,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 399,576,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 386,576,000 

The Committee recommends $386,576,000 for the Office of the 

Administrator, the same as the President’s request. The increase in 

funds is for expanding Federal staffing to support defense nuclear 

nonproliferation, as well as positions transferred to the NNSA from 

other organizations. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Reprogramming Authority.—The Committee understands and 

continues to support the need for project managers to maintain 

flexibility to meet the changing funding requirements at sites. In 

fiscal year 2007, the Department may transfer up to $5,000,000 between the accounts listed below to reduce health or safety risks or 

to gain cost savings, 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: 

—Closure sites; 

—Savannah River site, 2012 accelerations; 

—Savannah River site, 2035 accelerations; 

—Savannah River Tank Farm; 

—Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; 

—Idaho National Laboratory; 

—Oak Ridge Reservation; 

—Hanford site 2012 accelerated completions; 

—Hanford site 2035 accelerated completions; 

—Office of River Protection Tank Farms Operations and Management; 

—Office of River Protection [ORP] Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant; 

—Program Direction; 

—Program Support; 

—UE D&D Fund contribution; 

—Technology Development; 

—All Construction Line Items; 

—NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites; and 

—Safeguards and Security. 
162 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $6,130,448,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 5,390,312,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,551,812,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,479,070,000 

For Defense Environmental Cleanup, the Committee provides $5,479,070,000. The Committee is pleased with the program’s success in completing the cleanup at Rocky Flats and Fernald in fiscal 

year 2006. The Department’s effort to complete cleanups in the future will be challenged by the failure to request sufficient funding 

for future cleanups. The Department continues to be plagued by 

project management challenges that will require significant attention from senior management to better define cleanup costs and 

schedules. The Committee will continue to carefully monitor future 

high-risk cleanup strategies undertaken by the Department to ensure the Department is applying best business practices. Within 

available funds, $1,300,000 is provided to support historic preservation activities related to the Manhattan Project sites, including Los 

Alamos, New Mexico, Hanford, Washington and Eastern Tennessee 

Historical Park and $300,000 to support the Rocky Flats historic 

preservation activities. The Committee also recommends 

$1,000,000 for the Self Reliance Foundation/Hispanic Communications Network. The Committee also provides $5,000,000 to support 

the Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory, 

$2,500,000 to fund the WERC/Department of Energy Cooperative 

Agreement, and $5,000,000 for the Western Environmental Technology Office; and $10,000,000 for hazardous waste worker training. 

Closure Sites.—The Committee includes $320,937,000, the same 

as the request. This includes funding for Ashtabula, Columbus, 

Fernald, Miamisburg, and Rocky Flats all at the requested level. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee includes $1,064,394,000, 

consistent with the request. The Committee recommends 

$216,468,000 consistent with the requested level for 2012 cleanup 

activities, including $212,468,000 for SR–0011B Stabilization and 

Disposition activities. The Committee provides $277,338,000 for 

2035 projects cleanup activities as provided in the budget. The 

Committee recommends the requested level of $570,924,000 for 

SR–00114C Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition activities. 

H Canyon located at Savannah River is the last remaining largescale chemical separations facility in this country and provides a 

one-of-a-kind capability to facilitate the down blend and disposal of 

the legacy nuclear fuel within the Department of Energy complex. 

The Committee is concerned that the Department, while maintaining the facility in a high state of readiness, is not maximizing its 

potential for the disposition of excess special nuclear material and 

spent nuclear fuel. Recently the Department of Energy Inspector 

General report found that the delays in developing a strategy to 

address spent nuclear fuel at Savannah River will require the Department to maintain the H Canyon facility in an idle capacity for 

an additional 2 years at a cost of $300,000,000. Based on a declining environmental cleanup budget, it is clear that the Department 

can ill-afford to waste such sums without a clear mission. However, 

the Committee recognizes that this facility can play an important 
163 

role in permanently disposing tons of spent fuel as well as plutonium. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to submit, 

consistent with the fiscal year 2008, an operations plan including 

costs and schedule for utilizing H Canyon to dispose of nuclear material and uranium alloy spent nuclear fuel stored throughout the 

complex, or a plan for immediate shutdown and deactivation of the 

H Canyon. Either path will ensure that the Department will not 

waste funding to maintain an unused capability. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [WIPP].—The Committee recommendation includes $232,278,000, an increase of $17,000,000 

above the requested amount. The Committee provides $5,000,000 

to support the consolidation of all Department of Energy records in 

Carlsbad relevant to the operations of WIPP and TRU waste stored 

in the repository. The Committee also recommends $3,500,000 

made available to the community of Carlsbad for educational support, infrastructure improvements and related initiatives to address the impacts of accelerated operations at WIPP. The Committee directs the Department to provide $2,000,000 from within 

available funds to support work of the Center for Excellence in 

Hazardous Materials. The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for 

work on neutrino research. An additional $7,000,000 shall be used 

to support remote-handled operations once the permits have been 

approved. 

Idaho National Laboratory.—The Committee includes 

$512,604,000, the same as the requested amount to support cleanup of nuclear and hazardous waste from the Snake River Plain at 

the Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee recommends 

$193,910,000 for Solid Waste Stabilization (ID–0013), and 

$120,510,000 for Soil and Water Remediation 2012 (ID–0030B). 

NNSA Sites.—The Committee recommendation is $282,466,000. 

The additional $50,000,000 is provided to offset reductions in the 

Department’s request for Los Alamos National Laboratory cleanup 

activities. The Committee is very concerned with the overall performance of the Legacy Waste Disposition project at the Los Alamos National Laboratory [LANL]. The transfer of transuranic 

[TRU] waste from LANL to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [WIPP] 

has been significantly below the Committee’s expectations. Characterization costs from the facility are significantly higher than at 

other Department of Energy [DOE] sites, and the waste removal 

schedules are not meeting overall program goals. Although the 

project has demonstrated some recent improvement in the volume 

of shipments to WIPP, the Committee expects the Department and 

the new LANL management contractor to demonstrate significant 

progress in the near term. The Department is directed to provide 

a report within 120 days of enactment of this legislation detailing 

the progress being made at LANL with a particular emphasis on 

steps the Department has taken to assist the new management 

team in streamlining the overall TRU waste handling process. The 

Committee is also concerned that joint reviews by DOE Headquarters and the National Nuclear Security Administration 

[NNSA] have revealed significant issues preventing the independent validation of cost estimates and schedules for LANL’s Environmental Management [EM] Project Baseline Summaries [PBS] 

in recent years. LANL must address these issues and develop a 
164 

compliant and independently validated baseline against which future performance can be measured. The Committee is disappointed 

with the deep cuts proposed by the Department with the assumption that the new contractor will be able to fund savings to make 

up the difference. This assumption by the Department has the potential to backfire and increase costs by extending the cost of cleanup and fines and penalties that can be imposed by the State of 

New Mexico, as provided in the Consent Order signed between the 

Department and the State of New Mexico. The Committee understands that the State could charge between $8,000,000 to 

$35,000,000 in penalties for noncompliance. The Committee expects 

the Department to take a more involved role in solving cleanup 

problem at the lab to reduce costs and increase cleanup. Consequently, the Committee allocates a total of $141,000,000 for environmental management activities at LANL, an increase of 

$50,000,000 above the budget request. However, since the Department has failed to make specific recommendations to accelerate 

cleanup and provide appropriate oversight, the Committee has required that any penalties paid at Los Alamos as a consequence of 

non-compliance, shall be paid out of the Program Direction account. 

The Committee provides the requested level of funding for the following projects: California Sites ($545,000), Kansas City Plant 

($4,481,000), Lawrence Livermore ($29,283,000), Nevada Off-Sites 

($2,818,000), Nevada ($84,177,000), NNSA Service Center 

($8,221,000), and Pantex ($23,726,000). 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee includes $179,222,000, 

an increase of $19,360,000 above the budget request. The additional funding will be used to support Nuclear Waste Facilities 

D&D activities at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The Committee provides $41,316,000 to support these activities. 

Hanford Site.—The Committee includes $804,716,000, the same 

as the President’s request. The Committee recommendation includes $423,618,000 for 2012 Completion Projects, including 

$221,022,000 for River Corridor Closure projects. The Committee 

recommends $81,651,000 for Nuclear Material Stabilization and 

Disposition and $81,069,000 for SNF Stabilization and Disposition. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $6,000,000 for 

the HAMMER Facility. The Committee recommendation includes 

$381,098,000 for the 2035 Completion Projects, including 

$188,989,000 for the Solid Waste Stabilization and Disposition 200 

Area. The Committee provides $75,973,000 for Vadose Zone cleanup and $94,270,000 for Nuclear Facility D&D activities. 

Office of River Protection.—The Committee includes 

$964,127,000, as requested. The Government Accountability Office 

identified three primary concerns with the Department’s management of the Waste Treatment Facility. The GAO’s three concerns 

include: (1) The Department has allowed the contractor to utilize 

a design-build approach that does not allow adequate time for Federal managers, independent oversight, or construction teams to 

validate the designs; (2) the contractor has failed to maintain oversight and adherence to cost and schedules; and (3) the contract 

fails to provide proper incentives and controls to encourage responsible management and cost containment. The Committee does recognize that the change in leadership within the Department of En-
165 

ergy has forced the Department to take the necessary corrective 

steps to manage this large, technically challenging construction 

project in a more responsible and active manner. The Department 

is taking corrective action in the following ways: First, the Department has delayed construction, permitting the design teams to take 

more time with the design and allowing for adequate review. Second, the Secretary has taken steps to identify cost issues and validate the data with several independent teams, including the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers and an independent team of industry experts, as well as a new headquarters senior level management 

oversight team, all of whom will implement an Earned Value Management System [EVMS]. The EVMS is a key project management 

tool for assessing the cost and schedule performance of a project. 

The lack of an effective EVMS was highlighted by the dramatic increase in the cost of the WTP in 2005 within a matter of months. 

This Committee understands that if an effective EVMS had been 

in place, the Department would have had early warning signs that 

the project was headed toward dramatic increases in cost and 

delays in schedule. Therefore, the Committee expects the Department to have a certified system in place by the end of calendar 

year 2006, and this expectation will be satisfied when the Defense 

Contract Management Agency has certified that the earned value 

management system used to track and report costs of the Waste 

Treatment and Immobilization Plant is in place. Finally, the Committee is also troubled by the fact that the Department has not yet 

developed a contracting strategy to reward cost savings and shrewd 

project oversight. Based on the initial Army Corps evaluation, this 

project continues to carry massive contingency to protect the contractor, not the taxpayer, from risk. GAO found the contractor has 

added contingency to the project, which has added over 

$2,000,000,000 to the cost of the project. The Committee remains 

concerned that a large contingency request is a clear indication the 

contractor lacks confidence in their own cost estimates. If the Department expects the Committee to support future appropriations 

for this project, it must be more demanding and drive down costs 

and contingencies. The Committee would like to see an incentivebased contract that will encourage the contractor to reduce costs. 

Seismic Evaluation.—Of the amount appropriated to the Waste 

Treatment and Immobilization Plant, none of the amount may be 

obligated or expended for construction or procurement of critical 

equipment affected by seismic criteria on the Pretreatment Facility 

and the High-Level Waste Facility of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant until the date on which the Department certifies 

to the Congress that the final seismic and ground motion criteria 

have been approved by the Department. Additionally, funds are not 

to be used until the contracting officer of the Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant Project has formally directed the final criteria 

for the design of the Pretreatment Facility and the High-Level 

Waste Facility of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. 

Due to expected delays as a result of seismic work and necessary 

evaluation, the Committee recommends a reduction in the allocation for these two facilities. The Committee recommends 

$690,000,000 for the major construction activities of the Waste 

Treatment Plant. The Committee is concerned that the WTP 
166 

project still does not have a validated project baseline. The Committee does feel, however, that the Department is on track to completing this validation, but does not think it will be completed in 

time to be useful in current budget deliberations. Although this 

issue is significant, as are those raised by the Government Accountability Office and the Department’s own chartered external 

reviews, the Committee recognizes and is encouraged by the recent 

activities the Department has initiated to improve project and contract management, to resolve the higher-priority technical issues, 

and to validate the project baseline that supports a funding level 

of $690,000,000, as requested. The Department must understand 

that funding beyond fiscal year 2007 is contingent on the successful 

execution of this validated baseline. The Committee recommends 

the following funding distribution for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant: $120,000,000 for the low activity waste facility; 

$46,000,000 for the analytical laboratory; $53,000,000 for the balance of facilities; $191,000,000 for the high level waste facility; and 

$280,000,000 for the pretreatment facility. This Committee is troubled by the apparent failure of the Department to act in a timely 

manner on issues raised by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board [DNFSB]. The Committee does not support the removal of 

the DNFSB from its congressionally mandated oversight responsibilities at the WTP, but it does recognize that changes do need 

to be made. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to 

submit a quarterly report to the Committee on Appropriations describing all interactions between the Department and the DNFSB 

regarding the WTP. The report should include, but not be limited 

to, issues resolved, issues unresolved and corrective actions taken 

by the Department. 

Program Direction.—The Committee includes $291,216,000, the 

same as the requested amount. 

Program Support.—The Committee includes $37,881,000, consistent with the request. 

Technology Development and Deployment.—The Committee includes $21,389,000, the same as the President’s request. The Committee recommends $5,000,000 to support the AEA Technology Program in Pennsylvania; $1,500,000 for the Nye County Groundwater 

Monitoring Program; $3,000,000 for the James E. Rogers and Louis 

Weiner Jr., Large Scale Structures Laboratory; $4,000,000 for the 

continuation of the remediation of low level nuclear waste using ceramic ionic transport membranes project; $1,000,000 for the Inland 

Northwest Research Alliance consortium of universities; $4,000,000 

for the Nevada Water Resources Data, Modeling, and Visualization 

Center; $750,000 for polymeric hydrogels for radiation decontamination; $1,000,000 for the UNR Center for Plasma 

Spectronomy; and $1,000,000 for the Nevada Statewide Intermediate Scale Research Facility. 

The Department is directed to both continue activities under its 

renewed NRAMP cooperative agreement at levels consistent with 

prior years funding and renew its other existing cooperative agreements with UNR and UNLV consistent with current year levels. 

Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 

and Decommissioning Fund.—The Committee includes 

$452,000,000, the same as the requested amount. 
167 

Safeguards and Security.—The Committee recommends 

$295,840,000, the same as the budget request. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $635,577,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 717,788,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 720,788,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 734,791,000 

The Committee recommends $734,791,000 for Other Defense Activities, consistent with the budget request. 

OFFICE OF SECURITY AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

The Committee recommends $298,497,000 for the Office of Security and Performance Assurance. 

The Security Program consists of nuclear safeguards and security, security investigations, and program direction. These programs provide policy for the protection of the Department’s nuclear 

weapons, nuclear materials, classified information, and facilities. 

They ensure a Department-wide capability to continue essential 

functions across a wide range of potential emergencies, allowing 

the DOE to uphold its national security responsibilities and provide 

security clearances for Federal and contractor personnel. 

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH (DEFENSE)

The Committee provides $94,814,000 for defense-related Environment Safety and Health, of which $20,076,000 is provided for program direction. The Committee recommendation includes 

$5,000,000 for the DOE Worker Records Digitization project in Nevada. 

Former Medical Worker Screening.—The Committee allocates an 

additional $14,000,000 for the former worker medical screening 

program, which is equal to the appropriated levels in fiscal year 

2006. The Committee recommends $500,000 to screen workers at 

Paducah, Portsmouth, and Oak Ridge, gaseous diffusion plants. 

The Committee directs $500,000 to continue medical screening and 

commence a 5-year Early Lung Cancer Detection Screening Program for current and former Nevada Test Site workers who worked 

during the nuclear weapons testing era. The Committee intends to 

build on the success of the use of ELCD for high risk workers in 

finding lung cancers when they are small and can be removed at 

an early stage leading to a normal life expectancy. The Committee 

urges DOE to request sufficient funding for this program in fiscal 

year 2008. 

LEGACY MANAGEMENT

For Legacy Management, the Committee recommends 

$167,851,000, consistent with the budget request. Funds are used 

to manage the long-term stewardship responsibilities at Department of Energy cleanup sites. 
168 

FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES IN IDAHO

The Committee recommends $75,949,000, the same as the request, for defense-related activities at the Idaho National Laboratory and associated Idaho cleanup sites. 

DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

For Defense Related Administrative Support, the Committee rec- ommends $93,258,000, 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 $4,422,000 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 that the Secretary may delegate. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $346,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 388,080,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 388,080,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 358,080,000 

The Committee recommends $358,080,000 for defense nuclear 

waste disposal; this is a reduction of $30,000,000 below the request. The Committee directs the Department to find reductions in 

the transportation activities. 

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. 

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 2007. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $5,544,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 5,723,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,723,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,723,000 

For the Southeastern Power Administration, the Committee recommends $5,723,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee provides $48,003,000 for purchase power and wheeling. 

The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric 

power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 11 Southeastern 
169 

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, 2006 ............................................................................. $29,864,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 31,539,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 31,539,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 31,539,000 

For the Southwestern Power Administration, the Committee recommends $31,539,000, the same as the budget request. Within 

these funds, the Committee provides $13,600,000 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, 2006 ............................................................................. $231,652,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 212,213,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 212,213,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 212,213,000 

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 

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 recommends $212,213,000 for the Western Area 

Power Administration, the same as the budget request. The total 

program level for Western in fiscal year 2007 is $688,511,000, 

which includes $60,205,000 for construction and rehabilitation, 

$45,734,000 for system power operation and maintenance, 

$427,931,000 for purchase power and wheeling, and $147,748,000 

for program direction. The Committee recommendation includes 

$6,893,000 for the Utah Mitigation and Conservation Fund. Additionally, the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration is directed to participate in the construction of transmission 

lines and facilities in eastern Colorado and western Kansas. 
170 

Offsetting collections total $472,593,000. With the use of $3,705,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam 

Fund (as authorized in Public Law 98–381), this requires a net appropriation of $212,213,000. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $2,665,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 2,500,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 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, 2006 ............................................................................. $218,196,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 230,800,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 230,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. ¥$218,196,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ¥230,800,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥230,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

As noted by the Committee in our 2004 report, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the preemptive authority to approve and site liquefied natural gas terminals on-shore or in State 

waters. Congress reaffirmed this authority last year as part of the 

Energy Policy Act. While the FERC is often criticized by individual 

Members of Congress about specific local decisions it makes with 

respect to natural gas infrastructure, few express support for the 

overall success the Commission has achieved in ensuring the timely development of these critical energy facilities. We therefore want 

to state our support for the thoughtful and balanced manner in 

which the FERC has exercised its authority to approve natural gas 

pipelines and LNG terminals, and encourage all relevant Federal 

and State permitting agencies to fully cooperate with the Commission in reviewing proposed natural gas infrastructure projects. 
171 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION 

ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

Hydrogen Technology: 

1Hydrogen technology ................................................................................... 80,288 195,801 195,801 189,860 ∂109,572 ¥5,941 ¥5,941 Fuel cell technologies ................................................................................... 75,339 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥75,339 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, hydrogen technology ................................................................. 155,627 195,801 195,801 189,860 ∂34,233 ¥5,941 ¥5,941 

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D ................................................................. 90,718 149,687 149,687 213,000 ∂122,282 ∂63,313 ∂63,313 Solar energy ........................................................................................................... 83,113 148,372 148,372 148,372 ∂65,259 .......................... ..........................Wind energy ............................................................................................................ 38,857 43,819 43,819 39,428 ∂571 ¥4,391 ¥4,391 Geothermal technology ........................................................................................... 23,066 .......................... .......................... 22,500 ¥566 ∂22,500 ∂22,500 Hydropower ............................................................................................................. 495 .......................... .......................... 4,000 ∂3,505 ∂4,000 ∂4,000 Vehicle technologies ............................................................................................... 182,104 166,024 177,538 180,024 ¥2,080 ∂14,000 ∂2,486 Building technologies ............................................................................................. 69,266 77,329 93,029 95,329 ∂26,063 ∂18,000 ∂2,300 Industrial technologies ........................................................................................... 56,855 45,563 51,563 47,563 ¥9,292 ∂2,000 ¥4,000 Federal Energy Management Program: 

Departmental energy management program ................................................ 1,999 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,999 .......................... ..........................Federal energy management program .......................................................... 16,976 16,906 18,906 16,906 ¥70 .......................... ¥2,000 

Subtotal, Federal Energy Management Program ...................................... 18,975 16,906 18,906 16,906 ¥2,069 .......................... ¥2,000 

Facilities and infrastructure: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory ........................................................ 5,742 5,935 10,935 5,935 ∂193 .......................... ¥5,000 Research Support Buildings ......................................................................... 9,900 .......................... 5,000 .......................... ¥9,900 .......................... ¥5,000 Construction: 02–E–001 Science and technology facility, NREL ................. 10,410 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥10,410 .......................... ..........................

Total, Facilities and infrastructure .......................................................... 26,052 5,935 15,935 5,935 ¥20,117 .......................... ¥10,000 

Weatherization programs: 

Weatherization assistance ............................................................................ 237,996 159,648 250,000 200,000 ¥37,996 ∂40,352 ¥50,000 Training and technical assistance ............................................................... 4,554 4,550 4,554 4,550 ¥4 .......................... ¥4 
172 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Subtotal, Weatherization programs .......................................................... 242,550 164,198 254,554 204,550 ¥38,000 ∂40,352 ¥50,004 

Other: 

State energy program grants ........................................................................ 35,640 49,457 25,000 49,457 ∂13,817 .......................... ∂24,457 State energy activities .................................................................................. 495 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥495 .......................... ..........................Gateway deployment ..................................................................................... 25,400 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥25,400 .......................... ..........................International renewable energy program ...................................................... 3,871 2,473 4,473 2,473 ¥1,398 .......................... ¥2,000 Tribal energy activities ................................................................................. 3,960 3,957 3,957 4,957 ∂997 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 Renewable energy production incentive ....................................................... 4,950 4,946 4,946 4,946 ¥4 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Other ......................................................................................... 74,316 60,833 38,376 61,833 ¥12,483 ∂1,000 ∂23,457 

Program Direction .................................................................................................. 98,529 91,024 91,024 91,024 ¥7,505 .......................... ..........................Program Support .................................................................................................... 13,321 10,930 10,930 10,930 ¥2,391 .......................... ..........................Congressionally directed technology deployments ................................................. .......................... .......................... 54,900 54,250 ∂54,250 ∂54,250 ¥650 

TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ........................... 1,173,844 1,176,421 1,344,434 1,385,504 ∂211,660 ∂209,083 ∂41,070 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY 

High temperature superconductivity R&D ............................................................. 49,995 45,468 45,468 45,468 ¥4,527 .......................... ..........................Transmission reliability R&D ................................................................................. 12,870 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥12,870 .......................... ..........................Electricity distribution transformation R&D .......................................................... 60,059 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥60,059 .......................... ..........................Energy storage R&D ............................................................................................... 2,970 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,970 .......................... ..........................Gridwise .................................................................................................................. 5,445 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,445 .......................... ..........................Gridworks ................................................................................................................ 4,950 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥4,950 .......................... ..........................Visiualization and controls .................................................................................... .......................... 17,551 17,551 27,551 ∂27,551 ∂10,000 ∂10,000 Energy storage and power electonics .................................................................... .......................... 2,965 4,965 2,965 ∂2,965 .......................... ¥2,000 Distributed energy resources ................................................................................. .......................... 29,652 29,652 24,737 ∂24,737 ¥4,915 ¥4,915 

Total, Research and development ............................................................ 136,289 95,636 97,636 100,721 ¥35,568 ∂5,085 ∂3,085 

Electricity restructuring .......................................................................................... 12,276 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥12,276 .......................... ..........................Operations and analysis ........................................................................................ .......................... 12,009 12,009 17,000 ∂17,000 ∂4,991 ∂4,991 Program direction ................................................................................................... 13,313 17,283 17,283 17,283 ∂3,970 .......................... ..........................
173 

Congressionally directed technology deployments ................................................. .......................... .......................... 17,100 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥17,100 

TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY ...................... 161,878 124,928 144,028 135,004 ¥26,874 ∂10,076 ¥9,024 

NUCLEAR ENERGY 

University reactor infrastructure and education assist ........................................ 26,730 .......................... 27,000 27,000 ∂270 ∂27,000 ..........................Research and development: 

Nuclear power 2010 ...................................................................................... 65,340 54,031 54,031 88,000 ∂22,660 ∂33,969 ∂33,969 Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative .......................................... 54,450 31,436 31,436 48,000 ¥6,450 ∂16,564 ∂16,564 Nuclear hydrogen initiative ........................................................................... 24,750 18,665 18,665 31,665 ∂6,915 ∂13,000 ∂13,000 Advanced fuel cycle initiative ....................................................................... 79,200 243,000 120,000 279,000 ∂199,800 ∂36,000 ∂159,000 

Total, Research and development ............................................................ 223,740 347,132 224,132 446,665 ∂222,925 ∂99,533 ∂222,533 

Infrastructure: 

Radiological facilities management: 

Space and defense infrastructure ....................................................... 39,303 30,650 44,650 35,650 ¥3,653 ∂5,000 ¥9,000 Medical isotopes infrastructure ........................................................... 14,251 15,634 15,634 15,634 ∂1,383 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Medical isotopes infrastructure ....................................... 14,251 15,634 15,634 15,634 ∂1,383 .......................... ..........................

Enrichment facility and uranium management .................................. 495 491 491 491 ¥4 .......................... ..........................Research reactor infrastructure ........................................................... .......................... 2,947 .......................... 2,947 ∂2,947 .......................... ∂2,947 

Subtotal, Radiological facilities management ................................ 54,049 49,722 60,775 54,722 ∂673 ∂5,000 ¥6,053 

Idaho facilities management: 

INL Operations and infrastructure ................................................................ 101,878 89,260 97,260 104,260 ∂2,382 ∂15,000 ∂7,000 INL infrastructure: 

Construction: 

06–E–200 Project engineering and design (PED), INL, ID ........ 7,791 6,030 6,030 6,030 ¥1,761 .......................... ..........................Research support buildings ........................................................ .......................... .......................... 20,000 5,000 ∂5,000 ∂5,000 ¥15,000 06–E–201 Gas test loop in the ATR, INL, ID ............................. 3,054 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥3,054 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................ 10,845 6,030 26,030 11,030 ∂185 ∂5,000 ¥15,000 Subtotal, Idaho facilities management .................................. 112,723 95,290 123,290 115,290 ∂2,567 ∂20,000 ¥8,000 

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ............................................................... 74,258 72,946 72,946 72,946 ¥1,312 .......................... ..........................

Total, Infrastructure .................................................................................. 241,030 217,958 257,011 242,958 ∂1,928 ∂25,000 ¥14,053 
174 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Program direction ................................................................................................... 60,498 67,608 64,608 67,608 ∂7,110 .......................... ∂3,000 

Subtotal, Nuclear Energy .......................................................................... 551,998 632,698 572,751 784,231 ∂232,233 ∂151,533 ∂211,480 

Funding from other defense activities .................................................................. ¥122,634 ¥72,946 ¥72,946 ¥72,946 ∂49,688 .......................... ..........................Funding from Naval Reactors ................................................................................ ¥13,365 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂13,365 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY ......................................................................... 415,999 559,752 499,805 711,285 ∂295,286 ∂151,533 ∂211,480 

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH 

Office of Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense) ..................................... 7,029 9,128 9,128 9,128 ∂2,099 .......................... ..........................Program direction ................................................................................................... 20,691 19,993 19,993 19,993 ¥698 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH ........................................... 27,720 29,121 29,121 29,121 ∂1,401 .......................... ..........................

OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT 

Legacy management .............................................................................................. 33,187 33,139 33,139 33,139 ¥48 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION .......................................... 1,812,628 1,923,361 2,050,527 2,294,053 ∂481,425 ∂370,692 ∂243,526 

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY 

Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2005 ............................................. 257,000 .......................... .......................... 257,000 .......................... ∂257,000 ∂257,000 Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2007 ............................................. ¥257,000 257,000 257,000 ¥203,000 ∂54,000 ¥460,000 ¥460,000 Rescission Request ................................................................................................ .......................... ¥203,000 ¥257,000 .......................... .......................... ∂203,000 ∂257,000 Rescission, uncommitted balances ....................................................................... ¥20,000 .......................... .......................... ¥50,000 ¥30,000 ¥50,000 ¥50,000 Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D (FutureGen) ........................................................... .......................... ¥54,000 .......................... ¥54,000 ¥54,000 .......................... ¥54,000 

Total, Clean Coal Technology ................................................................... ¥20,000 .......................... .......................... ¥50,000 ¥30,000 ¥50,000 ¥50,000 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

Clean coal power initiative .................................................................................... 49,500 4,957 36,400 70,000 ∂20,500 ∂65,043 ∂33,600 
175 

FutureGen ............................................................................................................... 17,820 54,000 54,000 54,000 ∂36,180 .......................... ..........................Fuels and Power Systems: 

Innovations for existing plants ..................................................................... 25,146 16,015 25,000 25,000 ¥146 ∂8,985 ..........................Advanced integrated gasification combined cycle ....................................... 55,886 53,982 56,000 54,000 ¥1,886 ∂18 ¥2,000 Advanced turbines ........................................................................................ 17,820 12,801 20,000 20,000 ∂2,180 ∂7,199 ..........................Carbon sequestration .................................................................................... 66,330 73,971 73,971 90,000 ∂23,670 ∂16,029 ∂16,029 Fuels .............................................................................................................. 28,710 22,127 29,000 29,000 ∂290 ∂6,873 ..........................Fuel cells ....................................................................................................... 61,380 63,352 63,352 63,000 ∂1,620 ¥352 ¥352 Advanced research ........................................................................................ 52,622 28,914 28,914 30,000 ¥22,622 ∂1,086 ∂1,086 U.S./China Energy and environmental center ............................................... 984 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥984 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Fuels and power systems ......................................................... 308,878 271,162 296,237 311,000 ∂2,122 ∂39,838 ∂14,763 Subtotal, Coal ........................................................................................... 376,198 330,119 386,637 435,000 ∂58,802 ∂104,881 ∂48,363 

Natural Gas Technologies ...................................................................................... 32,670 .......................... .......................... 17,000 ¥15,670 ∂17,000 ∂17,000 Petroleum—Oil Technologies ................................................................................. 31,680 .......................... 2,700 10,000 ¥21,680 ∂10,000 ∂7,300 Methane hydrates R&D .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 12,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥12,000 Program direction ................................................................................................... 105,872 129,196 126,496 142,396 ∂36,524 ∂13,200 ∂15,900 Plant and Capital Equipment ................................................................................ 19,800 .......................... .......................... 12,000 ¥7,800 ∂12,000 ∂12,000 Fossil energy environmental restoration ................................................................ 9,504 9,715 9,715 11,715 ∂2,211 ∂2,000 ∂2,000 Import/export authorization .................................................................................... 1,781 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,781 .......................... ..........................Advanced metallurgical research .......................................................................... 7,920 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥7,920 .......................... ..........................Special recruitment programs ............................................................................... 649 656 656 656 ∂7 .......................... ..........................Cooperative research and development ................................................................. 5,940 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,940 .......................... ..........................Congressionally directed technology deployments ................................................. .......................... .......................... 20,000 15,500 ∂15,500 ∂15,500 ¥4,500 

TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT .......................... 592,014 469,686 558,204 644,267 ∂52,253 ∂174,581 ∂86,063 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES ..................................................... 21,285 18,810 18,810 39,810 ∂18,525 ∂21,000 ∂21,000 ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUNDS ......................................................................... 83,160 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥83,160 .......................... ..........................STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE ......................................................................... 164,340 155,430 155,430 155,430 ¥8,910 .......................... ..........................NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE ............................................................ .......................... 4,950 4,950 4,950 ∂4,950 .......................... ..........................ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION ............................................................... 85,314 89,769 89,769 93,032 ∂7,718 ∂3,263 ∂3,263 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

West Valley Demonstration Project ........................................................................ 76,329 73,400 73,400 73,400 ¥2,929 .......................... ..........................Gaseous Diffusion Plants ....................................................................................... 48,325 74,860 74,860 74,860 ∂26,535 .......................... ..........................Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion, 02–U–101 ....................................... 84,945 32,556 32,556 32,556 ¥52,389 .......................... ..........................Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA) ...................................................................... 45,652 34,843 34,843 34,843 ¥10,809 .......................... ..........................
176 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Small Sites: 

Argonne National Lab ................................................................................... 10,382 10,726 11,726 10,726 ∂344 .......................... ¥1,000 Brookhaven National Lab .............................................................................. 33,985 28,272 28,860 28,272 ¥5,713 .......................... ¥588 Idaho National Lab ....................................................................................... 5,221 7,000 7,000 7,000 ∂1,779 .......................... ..........................Consolidated Business Center: 

California Site support ......................................................................... 99 160 160 160 ∂61 .......................... ..........................Inhalation Toxicology Lab ..................................................................... 302 2,931 3,431 2,931 ∂2,629 .......................... ¥500 Lawrence Berkeley National Lab .......................................................... 3,861 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥3,861 .......................... ..........................Stanford Linear Accelerator Center ...................................................... 3,465 5,720 5,720 5,720 ∂2,255 .......................... ..........................Energy Technology Engineering Center ................................................ 8,910 16,000 16,000 16,000 ∂7,090 .......................... ..........................Los Alamos National Lab ..................................................................... 485 1,025 1,025 1,025 ∂540 .......................... ..........................Moab ..................................................................................................... 27,726 22,865 19,865 22,865 ¥4,861 .......................... ∂3,000 UMTRA site litigation ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 500 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥500 

Subtotal, small sites ....................................................................... 94,436 94,699 94,287 94,699 ∂263 .......................... ∂412 TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP .......................... 349,687 310,358 309,946 310,358 ¥39,329 .......................... ∂412 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND 

Decontamination and decommissioning ................................................................ 536,806 559,368 559,368 573,368 ∂36,562 ∂14,000 ∂14,000 Uranium/thorium reimbursement ........................................................................... 19,800 20,000 20,000 .......................... ¥19,800 ¥20,000 ¥20,000 

SUBTOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT D&D FUND ........................................ 556,606 579,368 579,368 573,368 ∂16,762 ¥6,000 ¥6,000 

Uranium sales and barter (scorekeeping adjustment) ......................................... (3,000 ) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥3,000 ) .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, UED&D FUND/URANIUM INVENTORY CLEANUP ............................. (556,606 ) (579,368 ) (579,368 ) (573,368 ) (∂16,762 ) (¥6,000 ) (¥6,000 ) 

SCIENCE 

High energy physics: 

Proton accelerator-based physics ................................................................. 388,172 376,536 376,536 376,536 ¥11,636 .......................... ..........................Electron accelerator-based physics .............................................................. 131,494 117,460 117,460 117,460 ¥14,034 .......................... ..........................Non-accelerator physics ................................................................................ 38,203 59,271 59,271 59,271 ∂21,068 .......................... ..........................
177 

Theoretical physics ........................................................................................ 48,612 52,056 52,056 43,746 ¥4,866 ¥8,310 ¥8,310 Advanced technology R&D ............................................................................ 110,213 159,476 159,476 159,476 ∂49,263 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 716,694 764,799 764,799 756,489 ∂39,795 ¥8,310 ¥8,310 

Construction: 07–SC–07 Project engineering and design (PED) lectron neutrino 

appearance (EvA) .............................................................................................. .......................... 10,300 10,300 10,300 ∂10,300 .......................... ..........................

Total, High energy physics ....................................................................... 716,694 775,099 775,099 766,789 ∂50,095 ¥8,310 ¥8,310 

Nuclear physics ...................................................................................................... 365,054 439,540 439,540 419,540 ∂54,486 ¥20,000 ¥20,000 

Construction: 

07–SC–001 Project engineering and design (PED) 12 GeV continuous electron beam accelerator facility upgrade, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator facility, Newport News, VA ...................... .......................... 7,000 7,000 7,000 ∂7,000 .......................... ..........................07–SC–002 Electron beam ion source Brookhaven National Laboratory, NY ............................................................................................ .......................... 7,400 7,400 7,400 ∂7,400 .......................... ..........................06–SC–02 Project engineering and design (PED), Electron beam ion 

source, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY ...................... 1,980 120 120 120 ¥1,860 .......................... ..........................

Total, Nuclear physics ................................................................. 367,034 454,060 454,060 434,060 ∂67,026 ¥20,000 ¥20,000 

Biological and environmental research ................................................................. 579,831 510,263 540,263 560,000 ¥19,831 ∂49,737 ∂19,737 Basic energy sciences: 

Research: 

Materials sciences and engineering research ..................................... 738,682 1,004,212 1,004,212 1,004,212 ∂265,530 .......................... ..........................Chemical sciences, geosciences and energy biosciences ................... 219,583 268,499 268,499 293,449 ∂73,866 ∂24,950 ∂24,950 

Subtotal, Research .......................................................................... 958,265 1,272,711 1,272,711 1,297,661 ∂339,396 ∂24,950 ∂24,950 

Construction: 

07–SC–06 Project engineering and design (PED) National Synchrotron light source II (NSLS-II) ........................................................... .......................... 20,000 20,000 20,000 ∂20,000 .......................... ..........................07–SC–12 Project engineering and design (PED) Advanced light 

source user building, LBNL ............................................................. .......................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 ∂3,000 .......................... ..........................

05–R–320 LINAC coherent light source (LCLS) .................................. 82,170 105,740 105,740 105,740 ∂23,570 .......................... ..........................05–R–321 Center for functional nanomaterials (BNL) ....................... 36,187 18,864 18,864 18,864 ¥17,323 .......................... ..........................04–R–313 The molecular foundry (LBNL) ........................................... 9,510 257 257 257 ¥9,253 .......................... ..........................03–SC–002 Project engineering & design (PED) SLAC ...................... 2,519 161 161 161 ¥2,358 .......................... ..........................03–R–313 Center for Integrated Nanotechnology ............................... 4,580 247 247 247 ¥4,333 .......................... ..........................99–E–334 Spallation neutron source (ORNL) ..................................... 41,327 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥41,327 .......................... ..........................
178 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Subtotal, Construction ..................................................................... 176,293 148,269 148,269 148,269 ¥28,024 .......................... ..........................Total, Basic energy sciences ........................................................... 1,134,558 1,420,980 1,420,980 1,445,930 ∂311,372 ∂24,950 ∂24,950 

High Energy Density Physics .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... 79,924 ∂79,924 ∂79,924 ∂79,924 Advanced scientific computing research ............................................................... 234,684 318,654 318,654 318,654 ∂83,970 .......................... ..........................Fusion energy sciences program ........................................................................... 287,645 318,950 318,950 307,001 ∂19,356 ¥11,949 ¥11,949 Science laboratories infrastructure: 

Laboratories facilities support: 

Infrastructure support .......................................................................... 1,505 1,520 1,520 1,520 ∂15 .......................... ..........................General plant projects ......................................................................... 2,970 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,970 .......................... ..........................Construction: 

07–SC–04 Science laboratories infrastructure project engineering and design (PED) ...................................................... .......................... 8,908 8,908 8,908 ∂8,908 .......................... ..........................04–SC–001 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations .................................................................................... 2,970 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,970 .......................... ..........................03–SC–001 Science laboratories infrastructure MEL001 Multiprogram energy laboratory infrastructure projects, 

various locations .................................................................... 14,720 19,033 19,033 19,033 ∂4,313 .......................... ..........................

07–SC–05 Physical sciences facility at PNNL ........................... .......................... .......................... 7,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥7,000 

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................ 17,690 27,941 34,941 27,941 ∂10,251 .......................... ¥7,000 Subtotal, Laboratories facilities support ................................ 22,165 29,461 36,461 29,461 ∂7,296 .......................... ¥7,000 

Oak Ridge landlord ....................................................................................... 5,028 5,079 5,079 5,079 ∂51 .......................... ..........................Excess facilities disposal .............................................................................. 14,491 16,348 9,348 16,348 ∂1,857 .......................... ∂7,000 

Total, Science laboratories infrastructure ................................................ 41,684 50,888 50,888 50,888 ∂9,204 .......................... ..........................

Safeguards and security ........................................................................................ 73,574 76,592 76,592 76,592 ∂3,018 .......................... ..........................Workforce development for teachers and scientists ............................................. 7,120 10,952 10,952 35,952 ∂28,832 ∂25,000 ∂25,000 
179 

Science program direction: 

Field offices ................................................................................................... 90,677 95,832 95,832 95,832 ∂5,155 .......................... ..........................Headquarters ................................................................................................. 68,441 75,045 75,045 75,045 ∂6,604 .......................... ..........................

Total, Science program direction ............................................................. 159,118 170,877 170,877 170,877 ∂11,759 .......................... ..........................Subtotal, Science ...................................................................................... 3,601,942 4,107,315 4,137,315 4,246,667 ∂644,725 ∂139,352 ∂109,352 

Less security charge for reimbursable work ......................................................... ¥5,549 ¥5,605 ¥5,605 ¥5,605 ¥56 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, SCIENCE ........................................................................................ 3,596,393 4,101,710 4,131,710 4,241,062 ∂644,669 ∂139,352 ∂109,352 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL 

Repository program ................................................................................................ 19,800 80,986 80,986 50,986 ∂31,186 ¥30,000 ¥30,000 Interim storage ....................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 30,000 10,000 ∂10,000 ∂10,000 ¥20,000 Program direction ................................................................................................... 79,200 75,434 75,434 75,434 ¥3,766 .......................... ..........................Integrated spent fuel recycling .............................................................................. 49,500 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥49,500 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL .......................................................... 148,500 156,420 186,420 136,420 ¥12,080 ¥20,000 ¥50,000 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION 

Administrative operations: 

Salaries and expenses: 

Office of the Secretary ......................................................................... 5,345 5,539 4,752 5,539 ∂194 .......................... ∂787 Board of Contract Appeals .................................................................. 642 147 126 147 ¥495 .......................... ∂21 Chief financial officer .......................................................................... .......................... 36,790 31,562 39,970 ∂39,970 ∂3,180 ∂8,408 Management ......................................................................................... .......................... 55,237 47,391 55,237 ∂55,237 .......................... ∂7,846 Human capital management ............................................................... .......................... 22,029 18,892 22,029 ∂22,029 .......................... ∂3,137 Chief information officer ...................................................................... 38,991 47,722 40,942 47,722 ∂8,731 .......................... ∂6,780 Congressional and intergovernmental affairs ..................................... 4,778 4,866 4,174 4,866 ∂88 .......................... ∂692 Economic impact and diversity ........................................................... 5,298 5,144 4,415 5,144 ¥154 .......................... ∂729 General counsel .................................................................................... 22,985 24,725 21,214 24,725 ∂1,740 .......................... ∂3,511 Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation .................................. 108,207 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥108,207 .......................... ..........................Policy and international affairs ........................................................... 14,843 18,744 16,083 18,744 ∂3,901 .......................... ∂2,661 Public affairs ....................................................................................... 4,459 4,419 3,790 4,419 ¥40 .......................... ∂629 

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ..................................................... 205,548 225,362 193,341 228,542 ∂22,994 ∂3,180 ∂35,201 
180 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Program support: 

Minority economic impact .................................................................... 815 825 709 825 ∂10 .......................... ∂116 Policy analysis and system studies ..................................................... 388 612 527 612 ∂224 .......................... ∂85 Environmental policy studies ............................................................... 556 520 446 520 ¥36 .......................... ∂74 Cybersecurity and secure communications ......................................... 24,486 38,183 32,760 38,183 ∂13,697 .......................... ∂5,423 Corporate management information program ..................................... 22,824 22,917 19,659 22,917 ∂93 .......................... ∂3,258 

Subtotal, Program support .............................................................. 49,069 63,057 54,101 63,057 ∂13,988 .......................... ∂8,956 

Competitive sourcing initiative (A–76) ......................................................... 2,455 2,982 2,559 2,982 ∂527 .......................... ∂423 

Total, Administrative operations .............................................................. 257,072 291,401 250,001 294,581 ∂37,509 ∂3,180 ∂44,580 

Cost of work for others .......................................................................................... 79,916 80,239 68,839 80,239 ∂323 .......................... ∂11,400 

Subtotal, Departmental Administration .................................................... 336,988 371,640 318,840 374,820 ∂37,832 ∂3,180 ∂55,980 

Funding from other defense activities .................................................................. ¥86,699 ¥93,258 ¥93,258 ¥93,258 ¥6,559 .......................... ..........................

Total, Departmental administration (gross) ............................................. 250,289 278,382 225,582 281,562 ∂31,273 ∂3,180 ∂55,980 

Miscellaneous revenues ......................................................................................... ¥121,770 ¥123,000 ¥123,000 ¥123,000 ¥1,230 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net) ........................................ 128,519 155,382 102,582 158,562 ∂30,043 ∂3,180 ∂55,980 

Office of Inspector General .................................................................................... 41,580 45,507 45,507 45,507 ∂3,927 .......................... ..........................

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES 

Life extension program: 

B61 Life extension program .......................................................................... 50,302 58,934 58,934 58,934 ∂8,632 .......................... ..........................
181 

W76 Life extension program ......................................................................... 148,270 151,684 151,684 151,684 ∂3,414 .......................... ..........................W80 Life extension program ......................................................................... 99,238 102,044 22,044 20,000 ¥79,238 ¥82,044 ¥2,044 

Subtotal, Life extension program ............................................................. 297,810 312,662 232,662 230,618 ¥67,192 ¥82,044 ¥2,044 

Stockpile systems: 

B61 Stockpile systems .................................................................................. 65,390 63,782 63,782 63,782 ¥1,608 .......................... ..........................W62 Stockpile systems ................................................................................. 8,877 3,738 3,738 3,738 ¥5,139 .......................... ..........................W76 Stockpile systems ................................................................................. 62,903 56,174 56,174 56,174 ¥6,729 .......................... ..........................W78 Stockpile systems ................................................................................. 32,306 50,662 50,662 50,662 ∂18,356 .......................... ..........................W80 Stockpile systems ................................................................................. 26,052 27,230 27,230 27,230 ∂1,178 .......................... ..........................B83 Stockpile systems .................................................................................. 26,127 23,365 23,365 23,365 ¥2,762 .......................... ..........................W84 Stockpile systems ................................................................................. 4,358 1,465 1,465 1,465 ¥2,893 .......................... ..........................W87 Stockpile systems ................................................................................. 50,171 59,333 59,333 59,333 ∂9,162 .......................... ..........................W88 Stockpile systems ................................................................................. 32,503 39,796 39,796 39,796 ∂7,293 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Stockpile systems ..................................................................... 308,687 325,545 325,545 325,545 ∂16,858 .......................... ..........................

Reliable replacement warhead .............................................................................. 24,750 27,707 52,707 62,707 ∂37,957 ∂35,000 ∂10,000 Warheads Dismantlement ...................................................................................... 59,400 75,000 105,000 35,000 ¥24,400 ¥40,000 ¥70,000 Stockpile services: 

Production support ........................................................................................ 227,700 236,115 200,698 236,115 ∂8,415 .......................... ∂35,417 Research and development support ............................................................. 60,640 63,948 54,356 63,948 ∂3,308 .......................... ∂9,592 Research and development certification and safety .................................... 225,450 194,199 165,069 194,199 ¥31,251 .......................... ∂29,130 Management, technology, and production .................................................... 167,891 159,662 135,713 159,662 ¥8,229 .......................... ∂23,949 Responsive infrastructure ............................................................................. .......................... 15,430 40,430 15,430 ∂15,430 .......................... ¥25,000 

Subtotal, Stockpile services ..................................................................... 681,681 669,354 596,266 669,354 ¥12,327 .......................... ∂73,088 Total, Directed stockpile work .................................................................. 1,372,328 1,410,268 1,312,180 1,323,224 ¥49,104 ¥87,044 ∂11,044 

Campaigns: 

Science campaign: 

Primary assessment technologies ........................................................ 49,221 50,527 50,527 50,527 ∂1,306 .......................... ..........................Test readiness ...................................................................................... 19,800 14,757 14,757 14,757 ¥5,043 .......................... ..........................Dynamic materials properties .............................................................. 83,055 80,727 80,727 85,727 ∂2,672 ∂5,000 ∂5,000 Advanced radiography .......................................................................... 49,025 36,745 36,745 36,745 ¥12,280 .......................... ..........................Secondary assessment technologies .................................................... 75,569 81,006 81,006 81,006 ∂5,437 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Science campaigns .......................................................... 276,670 263,762 263,762 268,762 ¥7,908 ∂5,000 ∂5,000 
182 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Engineering campaign: 

Enhanced surety ................................................................................... 39,600 26,731 26,731 41,200 ∂1,600 ∂14,469 ∂14,469 Weapons system engineering assessment technology ........................ 17,365 21,156 21,156 28,000 ∂10,635 ∂6,844 ∂6,844 Nuclear survivability ............................................................................ 22,162 14,973 14,973 23,100 ∂938 ∂8,127 ∂8,127 Enhanced surveillance ......................................................................... 99,205 86,526 86,526 103,200 ∂3,995 ∂16,674 ∂16,674 Microsystem and engineering science applications (MESA), other 

project costs .................................................................................... 4,667 4,613 4,613 4,613 ¥54 .......................... ..........................

Construction: 01–D–108 Microsystem and engineering science applications (MESA), SNL, Albuquerque, NM ...................................... 64,908 6,920 6,920 6,920 ¥57,988 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, MESA ............................................................................ 69,575 11,533 11,533 11,533 ¥58,042 .......................... ..........................Subtotal, Engineering campaign ................................................ 247,907 160,919 160,919 207,033 ¥40,874 ∂46,114 ∂46,114 

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield campaign: 

Ignition .......................................................................................................... 74,859 79,763 79,763 69,763 ¥5,096 ¥10,000 ¥10,000 Support of stockpile programs ..................................................................... 19,673 5,872 5,872 25,872 ∂6,199 ∂20,000 ∂20,000 NIF diagnostics, cryogenics and experiment support ................................... 42,578 45,959 55,959 42,578 .......................... ¥3,381 ¥13,381 Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion .................................................... 10,902 10,603 10,603 10,603 ¥299 .......................... ..........................University grants/other support .................................................................... 7,623 8,903 8,903 .......................... ¥7,623 ¥8,903 ¥8,903 Facility operations and target production .................................................... 63,977 43,021 58,021 53,021 ¥10,956 ∂10,000 ¥5,000 Inertial fusion technology ............................................................................. 47,520 .......................... 40,000 .......................... ¥47,520 .......................... ¥40,000 NIF demonstration program .......................................................................... 101,307 143,438 143,438 129,000 ∂27,693 ¥14,438 ¥14,438 High-energy petawatt laser development ..................................................... 34,650 2,213 14,213 .......................... ¥34,650 ¥2,213 ¥14,213 

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 403,089 339,772 416,772 330,837 ¥72,252 ¥8,935 ¥85,935 

Construction: 96–D–111 National ignition facility, LLNL ............................ 140,494 111,419 111,419 81,419 ¥59,075 ¥30,000 ¥30,000 

Subtotal, Inertial confinement fusion ...................................................... 543,583 451,191 528,191 412,256 ¥131,327 ¥38,935 ¥115,935 

Advanced simulation and computing .................................................................... 599,772 617,955 635,155 695,995 ∂96,223 ∂78,040 ∂60,840 
183 

Pit manufacturing and certification: 

W88 pit manufacturing ................................................................................. 119,717 147,658 147,658 147,658 ∂27,941 .......................... ..........................W88 pit certification ..................................................................................... 61,276 56,605 56,605 56,605 ¥4,671 .......................... ..........................Pit manufacturing capability ........................................................................ 22,840 33,335 33,335 33,335 ∂10,495 .......................... ..........................Pit campaign support activities at NTS ....................................................... 34,830 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥34,830 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Pit manufacturing and certification ......................................... 238,663 237,598 237,598 237,598 ¥1,065 .......................... ..........................

Readiness campaign: 

Stockpile readiness ....................................................................................... 31,086 17,576 17,576 17,576 ¥13,510 .......................... ..........................High explosives and weapons operations ..................................................... 16,926 17,188 17,188 17,188 ∂262 .......................... ..........................Non-nuclear readiness .................................................................................. 28,344 31,171 31,171 31,171 ∂2,827 .......................... ..........................Advanced design and production technologies ............................................ 53,500 53,645 55,645 53,645 ∂145 .......................... ¥2,000 Tritium readiness .......................................................................................... 62,067 86,385 86,385 86,385 ∂24,318 .......................... ..........................

Construction: 98–D–125 Tritium extraction facility, SR ..................... 24,645 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥24,645 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Tritium readiness ............................................................. 86,712 86,385 86,385 86,385 ¥327 .......................... ..........................Subtotal, Readiness campaign ....................................................... 216,568 205,965 207,965 205,965 ¥10,603 .......................... ¥2,000 Total, Campaigns ............................................................................ 2,123,163 1,937,390 2,033,590 2,027,609 ¥95,554 ∂90,219 ¥5,981 

Consolidated Production Center (CPC) .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 100,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥100,000 Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF): 

Operations of facilities ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... 1,263,004 ∂1,263,004 ∂1,263,004 ∂1,263,004 

Kansas City Plant ................................................................................ .......................... 98,057 98,057 .......................... .......................... ¥98,057 ¥98,057 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ............................................. .......................... 96,906 106,906 .......................... .......................... ¥96,906 ¥106,906 Los Alamos National Laboratory .......................................................... .......................... 306,258 306,258 .......................... .......................... ¥306,258 ¥306,258 Nevada Test Site .................................................................................. .......................... 67,687 67,687 .......................... .......................... ¥67,687 ¥67,687 Pantex ................................................................................................... .......................... 96,124 116,124 .......................... .......................... ¥96,124 ¥116,124 Sandia National Laboratory ................................................................. .......................... 163,627 163,627 .......................... .......................... ¥163,627 ¥163,627 Savannah River Site ............................................................................ .......................... 100,013 100,013 .......................... .......................... ¥100,013 ¥100,013 Y–12 Production Plant ......................................................................... .......................... 191,092 234,092 .......................... .......................... ¥191,092 ¥234,092 Institutional Site Support ..................................................................... .......................... 84,022 84,022 .......................... .......................... ¥84,022 ¥84,022 

Total, Operations and facilities ....................................................... 1,159,192 1,203,786 1,276,786 1,263,004 ∂103,812 ∂59,218 ¥13,782 

Program readiness ................................................................................................. 104,681 75,167 75,167 75,167 ¥29,514 .......................... ..........................Material recycle and recovery ................................................................................ 72,003 69,982 69,982 69,982 ¥2,021 .......................... ..........................Containers .............................................................................................................. 17,075 20,130 20,130 20,130 ∂3,055 .......................... ..........................Storage ................................................................................................................... 24,970 35,285 35,285 35,285 ∂10,315 .......................... ..........................
184 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Special Projects ...................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 28,782 ∂28,782 ∂28,782 ∂28,782 

Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and fac ...................................... 1,377,921 1,404,350 1,477,350 1,492,350 ∂114,429 ∂88,000 ∂15,000 

Construction: 

07–D–140–03 Project engineering and design (PED) LANSCE–R ............... .......................... .......................... .......................... 7,000 ∂7,000 ∂7,000 ∂7,000 07–D–140 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations .......... .......................... 4,977 4,977 4,977 ∂4,977 .......................... ..........................07–D–220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility upgrade project, 

LANL .......................................................................................................... .......................... 14,828 14,828 14,828 ∂14,828 .......................... ..........................

06–D–140 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations .......... 13,972 51,577 51,577 16,577 ∂2,605 ¥35,000 ¥35,000 06–D–402 NTS replace fire stations 1&2 Nevada Test Site, NV ................ 8,201 13,919 13,919 13,919 ∂5,718 .......................... ..........................06–D–403 Tritium facility modernization Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory, Livermore, CA ......................................................................... 2,574 7,810 7,810 7,810 ∂5,236 .......................... ..........................

06–D–404 Building remediation, restoration, and upgrade, Nevada Test 

Site, NV ..................................................................................................... 15,840 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥15,840 .......................... ..........................

05–D–140 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations .......... 6,930 9,615 9,615 9,615 ∂2,685 .......................... ..........................05–D–401 Building 12–64 production bays upgrades, Pantex plant, 

Amarillo, TX .............................................................................................. 10,890 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥10,890 .......................... ..........................

05–D–402 Berylium capability (BEC) project, Y–12 National security 

complex, Oak Ridge, TN ........................................................................... 7,623 5,084 5,084 5,084 ¥2,539 .......................... ..........................

04–D–103 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations .......... 1,980 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,980 .......................... ..........................04–D–125 Chemistry and metallurgy facility replacement project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM ............................................ 54,450 112,422 12,422 112,422 ∂57,972 .......................... ∂100,000 04–D–128 TA-18 mission relocation project, Los Alamos Laboratory, Los 

Alamos, NM ............................................................................................... 12,870 24,197 24,197 24,197 ∂11,327 .......................... ..........................

03–D–103 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations .......... 28,710 14,161 14,161 14,161 ¥14,549 .......................... ..........................01–D–103 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations .......... 8,910 1,565 1,565 1,565 ¥7,345 .......................... ..........................01–D–124 HEU materials facility, Y–12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN ................... 80,537 21,267 21,267 56,267 ¥24,270 ∂35,000 ∂35,000 

Subtotal, Construction .............................................................................. 253,487 281,422 181,422 288,422 ∂34,935 ∂7,000 ∂107,000 Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities ................................... 1,631,408 1,685,772 1,658,772 1,780,772 ∂149,364 ∂95,000 ∂122,000 

Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program ......................................... 99,840 245,283 100,283 237,270 ∂137,430 ¥8,013 ∂136,987 
185 

Construction: 

07–D–253 TA 1 heating systems modernization (HSM) Sandia National Laboratory .............................................................................. .......................... 14,500 14,500 14,500 ∂14,500 .......................... ..........................06–D–160 Project engioneering and design (PED), various locations ................................................................................................. 5,753 2,700 2,700 2,700 ¥3,053 .......................... ..........................06–D–601 Electrical distribution system upgrade, Pantex Plant, 

Amarillo, TX ..................................................................................... 3,960 6,429 6,429 6,429 ∂2,469 .......................... ..........................

06–D–602 Gas main and distribution system upgrade, Pantex 

Plant, Amarillo, TX ........................................................................... 3,663 3,145 3,145 3,145 ¥518 .......................... ..........................

06–D–603 Steam plant life extension project (SLEP), Y–12 National 

Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN .................................................... 722 17,811 17,811 17,811 ∂17,089 .......................... ..........................

05–D–160 Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program 

project engineering design (PED), various locations ...................... 10,538 648 648 648 ¥9,890 .......................... ..........................

05–D–601 Compressed air upgrades project (CAUP), Y–12, National 

security complex, Oak Ridge, TN ..................................................... 9,644 702 702 702 ¥8,942 .......................... ..........................

05–D–602 Power grid infrastructure upgrade (PGIU), Los Alamos 

National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM ............................................. 8,415 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥8,415 .......................... ..........................

05–D–603 New master substation (NMSU), SNL ................................ 6,831 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥6,831 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ..................................................................... 49,526 45,935 45,935 45,935 ¥3,591 .......................... ..........................Total, Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program ......... 149,366 291,218 146,218 283,205 ∂133,839 ¥8,013 ∂136,987 

Secure transportation asset: 

Operations and equipment ........................................................................... 142,328 130,484 130,484 130,484 ¥11,844 .......................... ..........................Program direction .......................................................................................... 67,651 78,780 78,780 78,780 ∂11,129 .......................... ..........................

Total, Secure transportation asset ........................................................... 209,979 209,264 209,264 209,264 ¥715 .......................... ..........................

Nuclear weapons incident response ...................................................................... 117,608 135,354 135,354 135,354 ∂17,746 .......................... ..........................Environmental projects and operations: Long term response actions .................. .......................... 17,211 17,211 17,211 ∂17,211 .......................... ..........................Safeguards and security ........................................................................................ 756,841 665,701 702,701 670,701 ¥86,140 ∂5,000 ¥32,000 

Cybersecurity ................................................................................................. .......................... 88,711 89,711 88,711 ∂88,711 .......................... ¥1,000 Construction: 05–D–170 Project engineering and design (PED), various 

locations ................................................................................................... 40,590 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥40,590 .......................... ..........................

Material security and consolidation project, Idaho National Lab, ID .......... .......................... .......................... 40,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥40,000 

Total, Safeguards and security ................................................................ 797,431 754,412 832,412 759,412 ¥38,019 ∂5,000 ¥73,000 Subtotal, Weapons activities .................................................................... 6,401,283 6,440,889 6,445,001 6,536,051 ∂134,768 ∂95,162 ∂91,050 
186 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Less security charge for reimbursable work ......................................................... ¥31,680 ¥33,000 ¥33,000 ¥33,000 ¥1,320 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES .................................................................... 6,369,603 6,407,889 6,412,001 6,503,051 ∂133,448 ∂95,162 ∂91,050 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION 

Nonproliferation and verification, R&D .................................................................. 305,910 260,967 290,160 274,967 ¥30,943 ∂14,000 ¥15,193 Construction: 06–D–180 06–01 Project engineering and design (PED) National 

Security Laboratory, PNNL ................................................................................. 12,870 7,920 17,920 7,920 ¥4,950 .......................... ¥10,000 

Subtotal, Nonproliferation & verification R & D ...................................... 318,780 268,887 308,080 282,887 ¥35,893 ∂14,000 ¥25,193 

Nonproliferation and international security ........................................................... 74,250 127,411 127,411 127,411 ∂53,161 .......................... ..........................

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation ........................ 422,730 413,182 583,182 427,182 ∂4,452 ∂14,000 ¥156,000 Global initiatives for proliferation prevention .............................................. 39,600 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥39,600 .......................... ..........................HEU transparency implementation ............................................................... 19,288 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥19,288 .......................... ..........................Elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production program ................... 174,423 206,654 206,654 .......................... ¥174,423 ¥206,654 ¥206,654 

Fissile materials disposition: 

U.S. surplus materials disposition ............................................................... 193,050 235,051 171,651 235,051 ∂42,001 .......................... ∂63,400 Russian surplus materials disposition ......................................................... 34,163 34,695 .......................... .......................... ¥34,163 ¥34,695 ..........................Construction: 

99–D–141 Pit disassembly and conversion facility, Savannah River, 

SC .................................................................................................... 23,760 78,700 .......................... 93,000 ∂69,240 ∂14,300 ∂93,000 

99–D–143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah River, 

SC .................................................................................................... 217,800 289,510 .......................... 325,000 ∂107,200 ∂35,490 ∂325,000 

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................ 241,560 368,210 .......................... 418,000 ∂176,440 ∂49,790 ∂418,000 

Plutonium Immobilization, Savannah River Site, SC ................................... .......................... .......................... 111,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥111,000 

Subtotal, Fissile materials disposition ..................................................... 468,773 637,956 282,651 653,051 ∂184,278 ∂15,095 ∂370,400 
187 

Use of prior year balances ........................................................................... .......................... ¥34,695 ¥34,695 ¥34,695 ¥34,695 .......................... ..........................

Total, Fissile materials disposition .......................................................... 468,773 603,261 247,956 618,356 ∂149,583 ∂15,095 ∂370,400 

Global threat reduction initiative .......................................................................... 96,995 106,818 147,618 116,818 ∂19,823 ∂10,000 ¥30,800 

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................. 1,614,839 1,726,213 1,620,901 1,572,654 ¥42,185 ¥153,559 ¥48,247 TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ...................................... 1,614,839 1,726,213 1,620,901 1,572,654 ¥42,185 ¥153,559 ¥48,247 

NAVAL REACTORS 

Naval reactors development .................................................................................. 721,512 761,176 761,176 761,176 ∂39,664 .......................... ..........................

Construction: 

07–D–190 Materials research technology complex (MRTC) ................ .......................... 1,485 1,485 1,485 ∂1,485 .......................... ..........................06–D–901 Central office building II ................................................... 6,930 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥6,930 .......................... ..........................Transfer to Nuclear Energy .................................................................. 13,365 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥13,365 .......................... ..........................05–N–900 Materials development facility building, Schenectady, 

NY .................................................................................................... 9,801 1,287 1,287 1,287 ¥8,514 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................ 30,096 2,772 2,772 2,772 ¥27,324 .......................... ..........................Total, Naval reactors development ............................................. 751,608 763,948 763,948 763,948 ∂12,340 .......................... ..........................

Program direction ................................................................................................... 29,997 31,185 31,185 31,185 ∂1,188 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS ......................................................................... 781,605 795,133 795,133 795,133 ∂13,528 .......................... ..........................

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR 

Office of the Administrator .................................................................................... 345,277 386,576 399,576 386,576 ∂41,299 .......................... ¥13,000 Use of prior year balances .................................................................................... ¥6,827 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂6,827 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ................................................... 338,450 386,576 399,576 386,576 ∂48,126 .......................... ¥13,000 TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ......................... 9,104,497 9,315,811 9,227,611 9,257,414 ∂152,917 ¥58,397 ∂29,803 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

Closure Sites: 

Ashtabula ...................................................................................................... 15,840 295 1,295 295 ¥15,545 .......................... ¥1,000 Columbus ...................................................................................................... 9,405 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥9,405 .......................... ..........................
188 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Closure sites administration ......................................................................... .......................... 25,896 25,896 25,896 ∂25,896 .......................... ..........................Fernald .......................................................................................................... 324,333 258,877 258,877 258,877 ¥65,456 .......................... ..........................Miamisburg ................................................................................................... 104,475 34,869 34,869 34,869 ¥69,606 .......................... ..........................Rocky Flats .................................................................................................... 564,251 1,000 1,000 1,000 ¥563,251 .......................... ..........................

Total, closure sites ................................................................................... 1,018,304 320,937 321,937 320,937 ¥697,367 .......................... ¥1,000 

Hanford Site: 

Nuclear material stabilization & disposition PFP ........................................ 196,681 81,651 81,651 81,651 ¥115,030 .......................... ..........................SNF stabilization and disposition ................................................................. 57,894 81,069 78,937 81,069 ∂23,175 .......................... ∂2,132 Nuclear facility D&D, river corridor closure project ..................................... 176,716 221,022 221,022 221,022 ∂44,306 .......................... ..........................Solid waste stablilzation and disposition .................................................... .......................... 39,876 39,876 39,876 ∂39,876 .......................... ..........................HAMMER facility ............................................................................................ 7,425 .......................... 7,500 .......................... ¥7,425 .......................... ¥7,500 B-reactor museum ........................................................................................ 1,980 .......................... 500 .......................... ¥1,980 .......................... ¥500 

Subtotal, 2012 accelerated completions .................................................. 440,696 423,618 429,486 423,618 ¥17,078 .......................... ¥5,868 

Solid waste stabilization & disposition—2035 ........................................... 165,442 188,989 191,121 188,989 ∂23,547 .......................... ¥2,132 Soil & water remediation—groundwater/vadose zone ................................. 73,750 75,973 75,973 75,973 ∂2,223 .......................... ..........................Nuclear facility D&D—remainder of Hanford .............................................. 70,104 94,270 94,270 94,270 ∂24,166 .......................... ..........................Operate waste disposal facility .................................................................... 5,802 3,534 3,534 3,534 ¥2,268 .......................... ..........................SNF stabilization and disposition/storage .................................................... 1,795 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,795 .......................... ..........................Richland community and regulatory support ............................................... 15,257 18,332 18,332 18,332 ∂3,075 .......................... ..........................Columbia River Cleanup Technologies ......................................................... .......................... .......................... 20,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥20,000 

Subtotal, 2035 accelerated completions .................................................. 332,150 381,098 403,230 381,098 ∂48,948 .......................... ¥22,132 Total, Hanford Site ................................................................................... 772,846 804,716 832,716 804,716 ∂31,870 .......................... ¥28,000 

Office of River Protection: 

01–D–16A Low activity waste facility .......................................................... 161,370 77,800 112,200 120,000 ¥41,370 ∂42,200 ∂7,800 Analytical laboratory ..................................................................................... 44,550 21,800 45,200 46,000 ∂1,450 ∂24,200 ∂800 Balance of facilities ...................................................................................... 64,350 48,900 52,400 53,000 ¥11,350 ∂4,100 ∂600 High-level waste facility ............................................................................... 102,960 253,700 171,700 191,000 ∂88,040 ¥62,700 ∂19,300 
189 

Pretreatment facility ..................................................................................... 147,510 287,800 218,500 280,000 ∂132,490 ¥7,800 ∂61,500 

Subtotal, Waste treatment & immobilization plant ................................. 520,740 690,000 600,000 690,000 ∂169,260 .......................... ∂90,000 

Tank Farm activities: 

Rad liquid tank waste stabil. and disposition ............................................ 325,710 273,656 293,656 273,656 ¥52,054 .......................... ¥20,000 River protection community and regulatory support .................................... 466 471 471 471 ∂5 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Tank Farm activities ................................................................. 326,176 274,127 294,127 274,127 ¥52,049 .......................... ¥20,000 Total, Office of River Protection ............................................................... 846,916 964,127 894,127 964,127 ∂117,211 .......................... ∂70,000 

Idaho National Laboratory: 

SNF stabilization and disposition/storage .................................................... 12,539 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥12,539 .......................... ..........................Nuclear material stabilization and disposition ............................................ 1,539 1,000 1,000 1,000 ¥539 .......................... ..........................SNF stabilization and disposition—2012 .................................................... 18,966 18,415 18,415 18,415 ¥551 .......................... ..........................Solid waste stabilization and disposition .................................................... 138,615 193,910 193,910 193,910 ∂55,295 .......................... ..........................Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ....................... 91,273 73,514 73,514 73,514 ¥17,759 .......................... ..........................06–D–401, Sodium bearing waste treatment project, ID ............................ 53,727 31,000 31,000 31,000 ¥22,727 .......................... ..........................04–D–414, Sodium bearing waste treatment facility, PED ID .................... 9,108 .......................... 32,000 .......................... ¥9,108 .......................... ¥32,000 Soil and water remediation—2012 .............................................................. 159,874 120,510 120,510 120,510 ¥39,364 .......................... ..........................Nuclear facility D&D ..................................................................................... 4,976 67,562 67,562 67,562 ∂62,586 .......................... ..........................Non-nuclear facility D&D .............................................................................. 38,714 3,010 3,010 3,010 ¥35,704 .......................... ..........................Idaho community and regulatory support .................................................... 3,511 3,683 3,683 3,683 ∂172 .......................... ..........................

Total, Idaho National Laboratory .............................................................. 532,842 512,604 544,604 512,604 ¥20,238 .......................... ¥32,000 

NNSA: 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ...................................................... 29,282 11,580 11,580 11,580 ¥17,702 .......................... ..........................NNSA Service Center ..................................................................................... 8,221 26,122 26,122 26,122 ∂17,901 .......................... ..........................Nevada .......................................................................................................... 84,174 79,668 79,668 79,668 ¥4,506 .......................... ..........................Kansas City Plant ......................................................................................... 4,481 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥4,481 .......................... ..........................California site support .................................................................................. 545 370 370 370 ¥175 .......................... ..........................Pantex ............................................................................................................ 19,457 23,726 23,726 23,726 ∂4,269 .......................... ..........................Sandia National Laboratories ....................................................................... 9,671 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥9,671 .......................... ..........................Nevada off-sites ............................................................................................ 2,818 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,818 ..........................Los Alamos National Laboratory ................................................................... 140,787 90,602 90,602 141,000 ∂213 ∂50,398 ∂50,398 

Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites .................................................. 299,436 232,068 232,068 282,466 ¥16,970 ∂50,398 ∂50,398 

Oak Ridge Reservation: 

Solid waste stabilization and completion—2006 ........................................ 4,584 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥4,584 .......................... ..........................
190 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Soil and water remediation—Melton Valley ................................................. 46,308 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥46,308 .......................... ..........................Solid waste stabilization and disposition—2012 ........................................ 67,676 48,888 68,809 48,888 ¥18,788 .......................... ¥19,921 Soil and water remediation—offsites .......................................................... 16,318 15,381 7,033 15,381 ¥937 .......................... ∂8,348 Nuclear facility D&D, E. Tenn. Technology Park ........................................... 5,974 10,094 11,056 10,094 ∂4,120 .......................... ¥962 Nuclear facility D&D Y–12 ............................................................................ 40,152 40,000 19,817 40,000 ¥152 .......................... ∂20,183 Nuclear facility D&D ORNL ........................................................................... 15,874 21,956 41,316 41,316 ∂25,442 ∂19,360 ..........................Solid waste stabilization & disp.—science current gen ............................. 18,084 18,544 21,332 18,544 ∂460 .......................... ¥2,788 OR reservation community & regulatory support ......................................... 5,613 4,999 4,999 4,999 ¥614 .......................... ..........................Building 3019 ............................................................................................... 17,820 .......................... 25,000 .......................... ¥17,820 .......................... ¥25,000 

Total, Oak Ridge Reservation ................................................................... 238,403 159,862 199,362 179,222 ¥59,181 ∂19,360 ¥20,140 

Savannah River site: 

Nuclear facility D&D ..................................................................................... .......................... 3,664 3,664 3,664 ∂3,664 .......................... ..........................Nuclear material stabilization and disposition 2012 ................................... 247,800 208,233 208,233 208,233 ¥39,567 .......................... ..........................04–D–423 Container surveillance capability in 235F ................................. .......................... 21,300 21,300 21,300 ∂21,300 .......................... ..........................04–D–414 Project Engineering and Design, 105–K .................................... 18,414 2,935 2,935 2,935 ¥15,479 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, 2012 accelerated completions .................................................. 266,214 236,132 236,132 236,132 ¥30,082 .......................... ..........................

SNF stabilization, disposition/storage .......................................................... 13,750 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥13,750 .......................... ..........................SR community and regulatory support ......................................................... 12,916 12,542 12,542 12,542 ¥374 .......................... ..........................Nuclear material stabilization and disposition ............................................ 74,354 41,160 41,160 41,160 ¥33,194 .......................... ..........................Spent nuclear fuel stabilization and disposition ......................................... 11,160 22,668 22,668 22,668 ∂11,508 .......................... ..........................Solid waste stabilization and disposition .................................................... 111,863 85,276 85,276 85,276 ¥26,587 .......................... ..........................Soil and water remediation .......................................................................... 93,421 103,150 103,150 103,150 ∂9,729 .......................... ..........................Nuclear facility D&D ..................................................................................... 56,644 12,542 12,542 12,542 ¥44,102 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, 2035 accelerated completions .................................................. 374,108 277,338 277,338 277,338 ¥96,770 .......................... ..........................

Radioactive liquid tank waste stabil. & disposition .................................... 495,965 507,724 618,724 507,724 ∂11,759 .......................... ¥111,000 05–D–405, Salt waste processing facility ................................................... 495 25,700 25,700 25,700 ∂25,205 .......................... ..........................04–D–408, Glass waste storage building .................................................... 6,905 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥6,905 .......................... ..........................03–D–414, Salt waste processing facility PED SR ...................................... 34,989 37,500 37,500 37,500 ∂2,511 .......................... ..........................
191 

SWPF fiscal year 2005 uncosted balances .................................................. ¥19,800 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂19,800 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Tank farm activities ................................................................. 518,554 570,924 681,924 570,924 ∂52,370 .......................... ¥111,000 Total, Savannah River site ....................................................................... 1,158,876 1,084,394 1,195,394 1,084,394 ¥74,482 .......................... ¥111,000 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: 

Operate WIPP ................................................................................................. 116,769 132,026 132,026 139,026 ∂22,257 ∂7,000 ∂7,000 Central Characterization Project ................................................................... 38,117 23,190 23,190 23,190 ¥14,927 .......................... ..........................Transportation ............................................................................................... 37,255 32,940 32,940 32,940 ¥4,315 .......................... ..........................Community and regulatory support .............................................................. 36,183 25,122 25,122 37,122 ∂939 ∂12,000 ∂12,000 

Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ............................................................. 228,324 213,278 213,278 232,278 ∂3,954 ∂19,000 ∂19,000 

Program direction ................................................................................................... 241,378 291,216 301,216 291,216 ∂49,838 .......................... ¥10,000 Program support .................................................................................................... 32,518 37,881 37,881 37,881 ∂5,363 .......................... ..........................Safeguards and Security: 

Waste Isolation Pilot Project ......................................................................... 4,181 4,324 4,324 4,324 ∂143 .......................... ..........................Oak Ridge Reservation .................................................................................. 28,566 22,889 22,889 22,889 ¥5,677 .......................... ..........................Fernald .......................................................................................................... 1,377 1,216 1,216 1,216 ¥161 .......................... ..........................West Valley .................................................................................................... 1,782 1,600 1,600 1,600 ¥182 .......................... ..........................Paducah ........................................................................................................ 10,904 8,707 8,707 8,707 ¥2,197 .......................... ..........................Portsmouth .................................................................................................... 17,664 15,642 15,642 15,642 ¥2,022 .......................... ..........................Richland/Hanford Site ................................................................................... 81,333 77,836 77,836 77,836 ¥3,497 .......................... ..........................Rocky Flats .................................................................................................... 3,168 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥3,168 .......................... ..........................Savannah River Site ..................................................................................... 135,376 163,626 163,626 163,626 ∂28,250 .......................... ..........................

Total, Safeguards and Security ................................................................ 284,351 295,840 295,840 295,840 ∂11,489 .......................... ..........................

Technology development ........................................................................................ 29,764 21,389 31,389 21,389 ¥8,375 .......................... ¥10,000 Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution ......................................................... 446,490 452,000 452,000 452,000 ∂5,510 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP .......................................... 6,130,448 5,390,312 5,551,812 5,479,070 ¥651,378 ∂88,758 ¥72,742 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance: 

Nuclear safeguards and security .................................................................. 185,009 182,548 185,548 182,548 ¥2,461 .......................... ¥3,000 Security investigations .................................................................................. 46,258 40,000 40,000 40,000 ¥6,258 .......................... ..........................Program direction .......................................................................................... 72,757 75,949 75,949 75,949 ∂3,192 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance ............ 304,024 298,497 301,497 298,497 ¥5,527 .......................... ¥3,000 
192 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Environment, safety and health (Defense) ............................................................ 56,908 60,738 60,738 74,738 ∂17,830 ∂14,000 ∂14,000 

Program direction—EH ................................................................................. 19,351 20,076 20,076 20,076 ∂725 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Environment, safety & health (Defense) .................................. 76,259 80,814 80,814 94,814 ∂18,555 ∂14,000 ∂14,000 

Office of Legacy Management: 

Legacy management ..................................................................................... 31,107 156,790 156,790 156,790 ∂125,683 .......................... ..........................Program direction .......................................................................................... 13,518 11,061 11,061 11,061 ¥2,457 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Office of Legacy Management .................................................. 44,625 167,851 167,851 167,851 ∂123,226 .......................... ..........................

Nuclear energy: 

Infrastructure: 

Idaho facilities management ............................................................... 17,584 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥17,584 .......................... ..........................Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ............................................. 74,258 75,949 75,949 75,949 ∂1,691 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Infrastruture ..................................................................... 91,842 75,949 75,949 75,949 ¥15,893 .......................... ..........................

Program direction .......................................................................................... 30,792 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥30,792 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Nuclear energy .......................................................................... 122,634 75,949 75,949 75,949 ¥46,685 .......................... ..........................

Defense related administrative support ................................................................ 86,699 93,258 93,258 93,258 ∂6,559 .......................... ..........................Office of Hearings and Appeals ............................................................................ 4,309 4,422 4,422 4,422 ∂113 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Other Defense Activities ........................................................... 638,550 720,791 723,791 734,791 ∂96,241 ∂14,000 ∂11,000 

Less security charge for reimbursable work ......................................................... ¥2,973 ¥3,003 ¥3,003 ¥3,003 ¥30 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ......................................................... 635,577 717,788 720,788 731,788 ∂96,211 ∂14,000 ∂11,000 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL 

Defense nuclear waste disposal ............................................................................ 346,500 388,080 388,080 358,080 ∂11,580 ¥30,000 ¥30,000 
193 

TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ......................................... 16,217,022 15,811,991 15,888,291 15,826,352 ¥390,670 ∂14,361 ¥61,939 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS 

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Purchase power and wheeling ...................................................................... 32,386 48,003 48,003 48,003 ∂15,617 .......................... ..........................Program direction .......................................................................................... 5,544 5,723 5,723 5,723 ∂179 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ..................................................... 37,930 53,726 53,726 53,726 ∂15,796 .......................... ..........................

Less alternative financing (PPW) .......................................................................... .......................... ¥13,611 .......................... ¥13,611 ¥13,611 .......................... ¥13,611 Offsetting collections ............................................................................................. ¥32,386 .......................... ¥48,003 .......................... ∂32,386 .......................... ∂48,003 Offsetting collections (Public Law 106–377) ........................................................ .......................... ¥34,392 .......................... ¥34,392 ¥34,392 .......................... ¥34,392 

TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................... 5,544 5,723 5,723 5,723 ∂179 .......................... ..........................

SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Operating expenses ....................................................................................... 6,972 7,145 7,145 7,145 ∂173 .......................... ..........................Purchase power and wheeling ...................................................................... 2,970 13,600 13,600 40,600 ∂37,630 ∂27,000 ∂27,000 Program direction .......................................................................................... 19,758 20,782 20,782 20,782 ∂1,024 .......................... ..........................Construction .................................................................................................. 3,134 3,612 3,612 3,612 ∂478 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ..................................................... 32,834 45,139 45,139 72,139 ∂39,305 ∂27,000 ∂27,000 

Less alternative financing (PPW) ................................................................. .......................... ¥10,600 .......................... ¥10,600 ¥10,600 .......................... ¥10,600 Offsetting collections .................................................................................... ¥2,970 .......................... ¥13,600 .......................... ∂2,970 .......................... ∂13,600 Offsetting collections (Public Law 106–377) ............................................... .......................... ¥3,000 .......................... ¥30,000 ¥30,000 ¥27,000 ¥30,000 

TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION ................................... 29,864 31,539 31,539 31,539 ∂1,675 .......................... ..........................

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Construction and rehabilitation .................................................................... 53,417 60,205 60,205 60,205 ∂6,788 .......................... ..........................Operation and maintenance ......................................................................... 46,822 45,734 45,734 45,734 ¥1,088 .......................... ..........................Purchase power and wheeling ...................................................................... 276,210 427,931 427,931 427,931 ∂151,721 .......................... ..........................Program direction .......................................................................................... 128,900 147,748 147,748 147,748 ∂18,848 .......................... ..........................Utah mitigation and conservation ................................................................ 6,633 6,893 6,893 6,893 ∂260 .......................... ..........................
194 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ..................................................... 511,982 688,511 688,511 688,511 ∂176,529 .......................... ..........................

Less alternative financing (for O&M) .................................................................... .......................... ¥1,091 .......................... ¥1,091 ¥1,091 .......................... ¥1,091 Less alternative financing (for O&M) .................................................................... .......................... ¥33,928 .......................... ¥33,928 ¥33,928 .......................... ¥33,928 Less alternative financing (for O&M) .................................................................... .......................... ¥9,643 .......................... ¥9,643 ¥9,643 .......................... ¥9,643 Less alternative financing (for O&M) .................................................................... .......................... ¥153,079 .......................... ¥153,079 ¥153,079 .......................... ¥153,079 Offsetting collections ............................................................................................. ¥276,210 .......................... ¥472,593 .......................... ∂276,210 .......................... ∂472,593 Offsetting collections (Public Law 98–381) .......................................................... ¥4,120 ¥3,705 ¥3,705 ¥3,705 ∂415 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections (Public Law 106–377) ........................................................ .......................... ¥274,852 .......................... ¥274,852 ¥274,852 .......................... ¥274,852 

TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................... 231,652 212,213 212,213 212,213 ¥19,439 .......................... ..........................

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND 

Operation and maintenance .................................................................................. 2,665 2,500 2,500 2,500 ¥165 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS ......................................... 269,725 251,975 251,975 251,975 ¥17,750 .......................... ..........................

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ................................................................. 218,196 230,800 230,800 230,800 ∂12,604 .......................... ..........................FERC revenues ....................................................................................................... ¥218,196 ¥230,800 ¥230,800 ¥230,800 ¥12,604 .......................... ..........................

GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ................................................ 24,046,773 24,074,717 24,373,489 24,725,146 ∂678,373 ∂650,429 ∂351,657 

(Total amount appropriated) ........................................................... (24,031,133 ) (24,277,717 ) (24,630,489 ) (24,775,146 ) (∂744,013 ) (∂497,429 ) (∂144,657 ) (Advance appropriations from previous years) ............................... (35,640 ) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥35,640 ) .......................... ..........................(Rescissions) .................................................................................... (¥20,000 ) (¥203,000 ) (¥257,000 ) (¥50,000 ) (¥30,000 ) (∂153,000 ) (∂207,000 ) 
195 

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 2007 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 310 regarding the 

terms and conditions of loan guarantees provided under section 

1702(b)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Section 311. Language is included regarding the terms and conditions by which the Secretary of Energy is directed to manage 

spent nuclear fuel with regard to demonstration of advanced recycling technologies. 

Section 312. 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 
196 

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. 

Section 313. Language is included regarding the establishment of 

consolidation and preparation facilities intended to store spent nuclear fuel for up to 25 years. Language is also included regarding 

waste confidence standards. 
(197) 

TITLE IV 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $64,817,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 65,472,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 35,472,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 65,472,000 

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 

2007, the Committee recommends the budget request of 

$65,472,000 for the ARC, of which $6,000,000 is for salaries and expenses and $58,472,000 is for programs development and 

$1,000,000 is for the Appalachian Highway System. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users authorized $470,000,000 annually, from 

2005–2009, from the Highway Trust Fund for construction projects 

on the Appalachian Development Highway System. The ARC exercises policy and programmatic control over these funds. 

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. 

The Committee has included no earmarks in ARC funds. The 

Commission allocates its funds by formula to its member States, 

based primarily on need. Under the Commission’s formula system, 

earmarks out of ARC’s base funding could come at the expense of 

those States that have no earmarks. Accordingly, the Committee 
198 

directs that any future earmarks in any State be taken from within 

that State’s regular ARC allocation. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $21,812,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 22,260,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 22,260,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 22,260,000 

For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends $22,260,000, 

the same as the President’s request, for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. This Board is responsible for evaluating the implementation 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, 2006 ............................................................................. $11,880,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 5,940,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,940,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,000,000 

For the Delta Regional Authority, the Committee recommends 

$12,000,000, an increase of $6,060,000 from the budget request. 

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, 2006 ............................................................................. $49,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 2,536,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 7,536,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 50,000,000 

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 2007, the Committee recommends 

$50,000,000, an increase of $47,464,000 above the requested level. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $727,032,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 768,410,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 808,410,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 808,410,000 
199 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. ¥$611,010,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ¥628,328,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥656,328,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 656,328,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $116,022,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 148,896,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 152,082,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 152,082,000 

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission for fiscal year 2007 is $808,410,000, an increase of 

$40,000,000 over the budget request. This amount is offset by estimated revenues of $656,328,000, resulting in a net appropriation of 

$152,082,000. 

The Committee provides an additional $38,000,000 to prepare for 

the anticipated growth in new reactor licensing. The additional 

funds are available to hire, relocate, and train additional staff, support pre-application activities not chargeable to a specific licensee, 

and build out, equip, and rent additional office space. 

The Committee also provides an additional $2,000,000 from the 

General Fund for the Commission to update its regulatory infrastructure for spent fuel recycling and keep pace with the Department of Energy’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership [GNEP] initiative. These funds are excluded from the Commission’s fee recovery requirements. 

The Committee directs the Commission to continue to provide 

quarterly reports on the status of its licensing and other regulatory 

activities. The Committee further directs the Commission to include in these quarterly reports the status of actions and tasks that 

must be completed prior to and during the new reactor licensing 

application process. 

Within available funds provided new reactor licensing, the Committee directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to implement 

the Multinational Design Approval Process [MDAP]. The objective 

of the MDAP is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the 

regulatory design reviews of new nuclear power reactors and enhance surety, clarity, predictability and transparency by converging 

regulations, codes, and standards. The Committee believes that 

MDAP will help to enhance both national and international reactor 

safety. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $8,233,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 8,144,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 8,144,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,144,000 
200 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. ¥$7,410,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ¥7,330,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥7,330,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥7,330,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $823,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 814,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 814,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 814,000 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $3,572,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 3,670,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,670,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,670,000 

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 2007, the Committee recommends $3,670,000. 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... $15,100,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

OFFSET FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FUND

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ¥$15,100,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

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. 
(201) 

TITLE V 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The following list of general provisions are recommended by the 

Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions which 

have been included in previous Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Acts: 

Section 501. The provision prohibits the transfer of unexpended 

balances of appropriations to another Federal department, agency 

or instrumentality of the U.S. Government. 

Section 502. The provision addresses part 750 of title 23. 

Section 503. The provision addresses transfer authority under 

this act. 

Section 504. The provision addresses the submittal of budget justifications. 

Section 505. The bill includes a provision regarding the North 

and Middle Forks of the American River. 
(202) 

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; 

Office of Environment, Safety and Health; 

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 29, 2006, the 

Committee ordered reported, en bloc: H.R. 5427, making appropriations for Energy and Water for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 2007, and for other purposes, with an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute and an amendment to the title; H.R. 5522, making 

appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and 

related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, 

and for other purposes, with an amendment in the nature of a sub-
203 

stitute and an amendment to the title; H.R. 5386, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and 

for other purposes, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute; and H.R. 5441, making appropriations for the Department 

of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2007, and for other purposes, with an amendment in the nature of 

a substitute, with each bill subject to further amendment and each 

subject to the budget allocation, by a recorded vote of 28–0, a 

quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Cochran 

Mr. Stevens 

Mr. Specter 

Mr. Domenici 

Mr. Bond 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Burns 

Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Gregg 

Mr. Bennett 

Mr. Craig 

Mrs. Hutchison 

Mr. DeWine 

Mr. Brownback 

Mr. Allard 

Mr. Byrd 

Mr. Inouye 

Mr. Leahy 

Mr. Harkin 

Ms. Mikulski 

Mr. Reid 

Mr. Kohl 

Mrs. Murray 

Mr. Dorgan 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Johnson 

Ms. Landrieu 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the Committee.’’ 
204 

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 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 otherwise 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. 

* * * * * * * 

SAN LUIS REY INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT 

ACT, PUBLIC LAW 100–675 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—ALL AMERICAN CANAL LINING 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 210. * * * 

SEC. 211. ALL AMERICAN CANAL PROJECTS. 

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon enactment 

of this subsection, the Secretary shall without delay implement the 

All American Canal Lining Project identified as the preferred alternative in the Record of Decision dated July 29, 1994, and as defined 

in the Allocation Agreement allocating water from the All American 

Canal Lining Project entered into as of October 10, 2003. If a State 

conducts a review or study of the implications of the All American 
205 

Canal Lining Project as implemented, then upon request from the 

Governor of said State, the Commissioner of Reclamation shall cooperate, to the extent practicable, in such review or study: Provided, 

That in no event shall the review or study delay implementation of 

the All American Canal Lining Project. 

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon enactment 

of this subsection, the Secretary shall, pursuant to authority granted 

by the Act of January 21, 1927 (44 Stat. 1010 et seq.), as amended 

by the Act of July 1, 1940 (54 Stat. 708), the Act of June 28, 1946 

(60 Stat. 338), and the Act of May 1, 1958 (72 Stat. 101), without 

delay proceed to design and provide for the construction, operation 

and maintenance of a regulated water storage facility, including all 

incidental works that are reasonably necessary to operate the storage facility, to provide additional storage capacity to reduce nonstorable flows on the Colorado River below Parker Dam. The storage facility shall be located near or on the All American Canal, including all incidental works. 

(c) The Treaty between the United States of America and the 

Republic of Mexico relating to Utilization of the Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, Treaty Series 994 

(59 Stat. 1219), is the exclusive authority for identifying, considering, analyzing, or addressing impacts occurring outside the 

boundary of the United States of works constructed, acquired or 

used within the territorial limits of the United States. 

* * * * * * * 

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. 

* * * * * * * 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992, 

PUBLIC LAW 102–580 

* * * * * * * 
206 

TITLE II—GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS 

SEC. 219. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(71) * * * 

(72) CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.—$50,000,000 for wastewater 

infrastructure, Clark County, Nevada. 

(73) HENDERSON, NEVADA.—$15,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Henderson, Nevada. 

* * * * * * * 

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 

* * * * * * * 
207 

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. 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘(e) FUNDING.— ‘‘(1) RESPONSIBILITY.—The cost of and responsibility for operation and maintenance (excluding monitoring) of a demonstration project under the erosion control program shall be 

borne by non-Federal interests on completion of construction of 

the demonstration project. 

‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated ø$25,000,000¿ $40,000,000 to carry out 

this section. 

* * * * * * * 

OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED AND EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999, PUBLIC LAW 

105–277 

* * * * * * * 

DIVISION C—OTHER MATTERS 

TITLE I—OTHER MATTERS 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—DENALI COMMISSION 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 306. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) STAFF.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal Cochairperson of the Commission may, without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, appoint and terminate such personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to perform its duties. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 309. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to 

the Commission to carry out the duties of the Commission consistent with the purposes of this title and pursuant to the work 

plan approved under section 4 under this Act, $20,000,000 for fiscal 

year 1999, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 

ø2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003¿ 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. 

* * * * * * * 
208 

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 for the period of øfiscal 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. 597. NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) EFFECT ON ENVIRONMENTAL LAW.—Nothing in this section 

abrogates any requirement of any environmental law. 

SEC. 598. DEVILS LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA. 

(a) DEFINITION OF PROJECT.—In this section, the term ‘‘project’’ 

means a project to provide a continued safe and reliable municipal 

water supply system for Devils Lake, North Dakota. 

(b) PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 

shall enter into a project cooperation agreement with the nonFederal interest to provide assistance in designing and constructing the project. 

(2) RESPONSIBILITY FOR DESIGN WORK.—At the option of the 

non-Federal interest, the non-Federal interest may complete the 

design work for the project. 
209 

(3) NEPA.—The Secretary shall comply with all applicable 

requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) before beginning construction on 

the project. 

(4) REQUIREMENTS.—The project cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall provide for— 

(A) the development by local officials of a water supply 

project and related facilities, and if the non-Federal interest 

elects to complete the design work for the project, appropriate engineering plans and specifications; and 

(B) the establishment of such legal and institutional 

structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term 

operation of the project by the non-Federal interest. 

(5) COST SHARING.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The project cooperation agreement 

shall provide that the Federal share of the cost of the 

project— 

(i) shall be 75 percent; and 

(ii) may be in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN AND ENGINEERING WORK.—The 

non-Federal interest shall receive credit, not to exceed 6 percent of the total construction costs of design and engineering work completed by the non-Federal interest before entering into a project cooperation agreement with the Secretary 

under this subsection for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF- WAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit, not to 

exceed 25 percent of the total cost of the project, for lands, 

easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the nonFederal share of project costs (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on 

publicly owned or controlled land). 

(D) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for the project 

shall be 100 percent. 

* * * * * * * 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

ACT, 2004, PUBLIC LAW 108–137 

* * * * * * * 

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 im-
210 

proving 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 

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.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 106. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the requirements regarding the use of continuing contracts under the authority of section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 (33 U.S.C. 2331) shall apply only to projects funded under the 

Operation and Maintenance account and the Operation and Maintenance subaccount of the Flood Control, Mississippi River and 

Tributaries account.¿ 

* * * * * * * 
211 

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). In carrying 

out a study, survey, or assessment under this subsection the Secretary 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, 2007. The Secretary may also provide planning and administrative assistance to the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species 

Collaborative Program, which assistance 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— 

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 
212 

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).¿ 

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 2007: Subcommittee on Energy and Water: 

Mandatory ............................................................................ .................... .................... NA 1 5 

Discretionary ........................................................................ 30,731 30,731 NA 1 31,756 

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2007 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 19,132 

2008 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 9,277 

2009 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2,117 

2010 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 179 

2011 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 81 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2007 ......................................................................................... NA 120 NA 25 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
213 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropria- tion Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with 

(∂ or ¥) 

2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Corps of Engineers—Civil 

Investigations ......................................................................................................... 162,360 94,000 128,000 168,517 ∂6,157 ∂74,517 ∂40,517 

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–148) ....................................... 37,300 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥37,300 .......................... ..........................Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–234) ....................................... 3,300 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥3,300 .......................... ..........................

Construction ........................................................................................................... 2,348,280 1,555,000 1,947,171 2,042,429 ¥305,851 ∂487,429 ∂95,258 

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–148) ....................................... 101,417 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥101,417 .......................... ..........................Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–234) ....................................... 549,400 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥549,400 .......................... ..........................Rescission ..................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥56,046 ¥56,046 ¥56,046 ¥56,046 ..........................

Sutbtotal, Construction ............................................................................. 2,999,097 1,555,000 1,891,125 1,986,383 ¥1,012,714 ∂431,383 ∂95,258 

Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee ............................................. 396,000 278,000 290,607 450,530 ∂54,530 ∂172,530 ∂159,923 

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–148) ....................................... 153,750 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥153,750 .......................... ..........................

Operations and Maintenance ................................................................................. 1,969,110 2,258,000 2,195,471 2,030,000 ∂60,890 ¥228,000 ¥165,471 

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–148) ....................................... 327,517 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥327,517 .......................... ..........................Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–234) ....................................... 3,200 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥3,200 .......................... ..........................

Regulatory program ................................................................................................ 158,400 173,000 173,000 168,000 ∂9,600 ¥5,000 ¥5,000 FUSRAP ................................................................................................................... 138,600 130,000 130,000 140,000 ∂1,400 ∂10,000 ∂10,000 Flood control and coastal emergencies ................................................................. .......................... 81,000 32,000 32,000 ∂32,000 ¥49,000 ..........................

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–148) ....................................... 2,277,965 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,277,965 .......................... ..........................Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–234) ....................................... 3,145,024 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥3,145,024 .......................... ..........................

General expenses ................................................................................................... 152,460 164,000 142,100 164,000 ∂11,540 .......................... ∂21,900 

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–148) ....................................... 1,600 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,600 .......................... ..........................

Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ....................................... 3,960 .......................... 1,500 .......................... ¥3,960 .......................... ¥1,500 

Total, title I, Department of Defense—Civil ............................................ 11,929,643 4,733,000 4,983,803 5,139,430 ¥6,790,213 ∂406,430 ∂155,627 
214 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropria- tion Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with 

(∂ or ¥) 

2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Appropriations .................................................................................. (5,329,170 ) (4,733,000 ) (4,983,803 ) (5,139,430 ) (¥189,740 ) (∂406,430 ) (∂155,627 ) Emergency appropriations ............................................................... (6,600,473 ) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥6,600,473 ) .......................... ..........................

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Central Utah Project Completion Account 

Central Utah project construction ......................................................................... 31,351 37,587 37,587 37,587 ∂6,236 .......................... ..........................Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation .................................. 937 965 965 965 ∂28 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 32,288 38,552 38,552 38,552 ∂6,264 .......................... ..........................

Program oversight and administration .................................................................. 1,719 1,603 1,603 1,603 ¥116 .......................... ..........................

Total, Central Utah project completion account ...................................... 34,007 40,155 40,155 40,155 ∂6,148 .......................... ..........................

Bureau of Reclamation 

Water and related resources .................................................................................. 874,679 833,424 849,122 888,994 ∂14,315 ∂55,570 ∂39,872 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... .......................... ¥88,000 ¥88,000 .......................... .......................... ∂88,000 ∂88,000 

Subtotal, water and related resources ..................................................... 874,679 745,424 761,122 888,994 ∂14,315 ∂143,570 ∂127,872 

Central Valley project restoration fund ................................................................. 52,219 41,478 41,478 41,478 ¥10,741 .......................... ..........................California Bay-Delta restoration ............................................................................ 36,630 38,610 40,110 38,610 ∂1,980 .......................... ¥1,500 Policy and administration ...................................................................................... 57,338 58,069 58,069 58,069 ∂731 .......................... ..........................

Total, Bureau of Reclamation .................................................................. 1,020,866 883,581 900,779 1,027,151 ∂6,285 ∂143,570 ∂126,372 Total, title II, Department of the Interior ................................................. 1,054,873 923,736 940,934 1,067,306 ∂12,433 ∂143,570 ∂126,372 
215 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Energy supply and conservation ............................................................................ 1,812,627 1,923,361 2,050,527 2,294,053 ∂481,426 ∂370,692 ∂243,526 Clean coal technology: 

Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2005 .................................... 257,000 .......................... .......................... 257,000 .......................... ∂257,000 ∂257,000 Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2007 .................................... ¥257,000 257,000 257,000 ¥203,000 ∂54,000 ¥460,000 ¥460,000 Rescission, uncommitted balances .............................................................. ¥20,000 ¥203,000 ¥257,000 ¥50,000 ¥30,000 ∂153,000 ∂207,000 Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D ...................................................................... .......................... ¥54,000 .......................... ¥54,000 ¥54,000 .......................... ¥54,000 

Total, Clean coal technology .................................................................... ¥20,000 .......................... .......................... ¥50,000 ¥30,000 ¥50,000 ¥50,000 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ............................................................. 592,014 469,686 558,204 644,267 ∂52,253 ∂174,581 ∂86,063 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves .............................................................. 21,285 18,810 18,810 39,810 ∂18,525 ∂21,000 ∂21,000 Elk Hills School Lands Fund .................................................................................. 83,160 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥83,160 .......................... ..........................Strategic petroleum reserve ................................................................................... 164,340 155,430 155,430 155,430 ¥8,910 .......................... ..........................Northeast home heating oil reserve ...................................................................... .......................... 4,950 4,950 4,950 ∂4,950 .......................... ..........................Energy Information Administration ........................................................................ 85,314 89,769 89,769 93,032 ∂7,718 ∂3,263 ∂3,263 Non-defense environmental clean up .................................................................... 349,687 310,358 309,946 310,358 ¥39,329 .......................... ∂412 Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund ..................... 556,606 579,368 579,368 573,368 ∂16,762 ¥6,000 ¥6,000 Science ................................................................................................................... 3,596,393 4,101,710 4,131,710 4,241,062 ∂644,669 ∂139,352 ∂109,352 Nuclear Waste Disposal ......................................................................................... 148,500 156,420 186,420 136,420 ¥12,080 ¥20,000 ¥50,000 Departmental administration ................................................................................. 250,289 278,382 225,582 281,382 ∂31,093 ∂3,000 ∂55,800 

Miscellaneous revenues ................................................................................ ¥121,770 ¥123,000 ¥123,000 ¥123,000 ¥1,230 .......................... ..........................

Net appropriation ...................................................................................... 128,519 155,382 102,582 158,382 ∂29,863 ∂3,000 ∂55,800 

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................. 41,580 45,507 45,507 45,507 ∂3,927 .......................... ..........................

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons activities ........................................................................................ 6,369,603 6,407,889 6,412,001 6,503,051 ∂133,448 ∂95,162 ∂91,050 Defense nuclear nonproliferation .................................................................. 1,614,839 1,726,213 1,620,901 1,572,654 ¥42,185 ¥153,559 ¥48,247 Naval reactors ............................................................................................... 781,605 795,133 795,133 795,133 ∂13,528 .......................... ..........................Office of the Administrator ........................................................................... 338,450 386,576 399,576 386,576 ∂48,126 .......................... ¥13,000 

Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration ................................ 9,104,497 9,315,811 9,227,611 9,257,414 ∂152,917 ¥58,397 ∂29,803 

Defense environmental cleanup ............................................................................. 6,130,448 5,390,312 5,551,812 5,479,070 ¥651,378 ∂88,758 ¥72,742 Other defense activities ......................................................................................... 635,577 717,788 720,788 731,788 ∂96,211 ∂14,000 ∂11,000 Defense nuclear waste disposal ............................................................................ 346,500 388,080 388,080 358,080 ∂11,580 ¥30,000 ¥30,000 
216 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropria- tion Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with 

(∂ or ¥) 

2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................... 16,217,022 15,811,991 15,888,291 15,826,352 ¥390,670 ∂14,361 ¥61,939 

Power Marketing Administrations 

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ........................ 37,930 40,115 53,726 40,115 ∂2,185 .......................... ¥13,611 

Offsetting collection ...................................................................................... ¥32,386 ¥34,392 ¥48,003 ¥34,392 ¥2,006 .......................... ∂13,611 

Subtotal, O&M, Southeastern Power Administration ................................ 5,544 5,723 5,723 5,723 ∂179 .......................... ..........................

Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ....................... 32,834 34,539 45,139 34,539 ∂1,705 .......................... ¥10,600 

Offsetting collection ...................................................................................... ¥2,970 .......................... ¥13,600 .......................... ∂2,970 .......................... ∂13,600 Offsetting collection (Public Law106–377) .................................................. .......................... ¥3,000 .......................... ¥3,000 ¥3,000 .......................... ¥3,000 

Subtotal, O&M, Southwestern Power Administration ............................... 29,864 31,539 31,539 31,539 ∂1,675 .......................... ..........................

Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western Area Power 

Administration ................................................................................................... 511,982 490,770 688,511 490,770 ¥21,212 .......................... ¥197,741 

Offsetting collection ...................................................................................... ¥276,210 .......................... ¥472,593 .......................... ∂276,210 .......................... ∂472,593 Offsetting collection (Public Law 98–381) ................................................... ¥4,120 ¥3,705 ¥3,705 ¥3,705 ∂415 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collection (Public Law 106–377) ................................................. .......................... ¥274,852 .......................... ¥274,852 ¥274,852 .......................... ¥274,852 

Subtotal, O&M, Western Area Power Administration ............................... 231,652 212,213 212,213 212,213 ¥19,439 .......................... ..........................

Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ........................................ 2,665 2,500 2,500 2,500 ¥165 .......................... ..........................

Total, Power Marketing Administrations .................................................. 269,725 251,975 251,975 251,975 ¥17,750 .......................... ..........................

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................... 218,196 230,800 230,800 230,800 ∂12,604 .......................... ..........................Revenues applied ................................................................................................... ¥218,196 ¥230,800 ¥230,800 ¥230,800 ¥12,604 .......................... ..........................
217 

Total, title III, Department of Energy ....................................................... 24,046,772 24,074,717 24,373,489 24,724,966 ∂678,194 ∂650,249 ∂351,477 

Appropriations .................................................................................. (24,031,132 ) (24,277,717 ) (24,630,489 ) (24,774,966 ) (∂743,834 ) (∂497,249 ) (∂144,477 ) Advance appropriations from previous years .................................. (35,640 ) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥35,640 ) .......................... ..........................Rescissions ...................................................................................... (¥20,000 ) (¥203,000 ) (¥257,000 ) (¥50,000 ) (¥30,000 ) (∂153,000 ) (∂207,000 ) 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Appalachian Regional Commission ....................................................................... 64,817 65,472 35,472 65,472 ∂655 .......................... ∂30,000 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ............................................................... 21,812 22,260 22,260 22,260 ∂448 .......................... ..........................Delta Regional Authority ........................................................................................ 11,880 5,940 5,940 12,000 ∂120 ∂6,060 ∂6,060 Denali Commission ................................................................................................ 49,500 2,536 7,536 50,000 ∂500 ∂47,464 ∂42,464 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

Salaries and expenses .................................................................................. 727,032 768,410 808,410 808,410 ∂81,378 ∂40,000 ..........................Revenues ....................................................................................................... ¥611,010 ¥620,328 ¥656,328 ¥656,328 ¥45,318 ¥36,000 ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 116,022 148,082 152,082 152,082 ∂36,060 ∂4,000 ..........................

Office of Inspector General ........................................................................... 8,233 8,144 8,144 8,144 ¥89 .......................... ..........................Revenues ....................................................................................................... ¥7,410 ¥7,330 ¥7,330 ¥7,330 ∂80 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 823 814 814 814 ¥9 .......................... ..........................Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................................... 116,845 148,896 152,896 152,896 ∂36,051 ∂4,000 ..........................

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ................................................................ 3,572 3,670 3,670 3,670 ∂98 .......................... ..........................Tennessee Valley Authority: Office of Inspector General ....................................... .......................... 15,100 .......................... 15,100 ∂15,100 .......................... ∂15,100 

Offset ............................................................................................................. .......................... ¥15,100 .......................... ¥15,100 ¥15,100 .......................... ¥15,100 

Total, title IV, Independent agencies ....................................................... 268,426 248,774 227,774 306,298 ∂37,872 ∂57,524 ∂78,524 Grand total ............................................................................................... 37,299,714 29,980,227 30,526,000 31,238,000 ¥6,061,714 ∂1,257,773 ∂712,000 

Appropriations .................................................................................. (30,683,601 ) (30,271,227 ) (30,871,000 ) (31,288,000 ) (∂604,399 ) (∂1,016,773 ) (∂417,000 ) Emergency appropriations ............................................................... (6,600,473 ) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥6,600,473 ) .......................... ..........................Rescission ........................................................................................ (¥20,000 ) (¥291,000 ) (¥345,000 ) (¥50,000 ) (¥30,000 ) (∂241,000 ) (∂295,000 ) Advance appropriations from previous years .................................. (35,640 ) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥35,640 ) .......................... ..........................

Æ