81–639 PDF 

Calendar No. 101 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 113–47 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2014 

JUNE 27, 2013.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1245] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1245) making appropriations for energy and water development and related 

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for 

other purposes, favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do 

pass. 

New obligational authority 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $34,835,288,000 

Amount of 2013 appropriations 1 2 .......................... 38,687,316,000 

Amount of 2014 budget estimate ............................ 34,972,807,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2013 appropriations .......................................... ¥3,852,028,000 

2014 budget estimate ........................................ ¥137,519,000 1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112– 

25. 2 Includes emergency funding of $1,889,000,000 in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (division A of Public Law 113–2). 
(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 ........................................................................ 34 

Flood Control, Mississippi River, and Tributaries .......................... 41 

Operation and Maintenance, General .............................................. 43 

Regulatory Program ........................................................................... 60 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ......................... 61 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .......................................... 62 

General Expenses ............................................................................... 62 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) .......... 63 

General Provisions—Corps of Engineers—Civil .............................. 63 

Title II: 

Department of the Interior: 

Bureau of Reclamation: 

Water and Related Resources ........................................................... 66 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ......................................... 75 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ...................................................... 75 

Central Utah Project Completion Account .............................................. 76 

Policy and Administration ................................................................. 76 

Indian Water Rights Settlements ..................................................... 77 

San Joaquin Restoration Fund ......................................................... 77 

General Provisions—Department of the Interior .................................... 77 

Title III: 

Department of Energy: 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ............................................... 80 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ............................................ 85 

Nuclear Energy .......................................................................................... 86 

Fossil Energy Research and Development .............................................. 89 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................... 90 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve .................................................................... 90 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ..................................................... 90 

Energy Information Administration ........................................................ 90 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ..................................................... 91 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund .. 92 

Science ........................................................................................................ 92 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ........................................ 96 

Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program .................................. 97 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program ............. 97 

Departmental Administration .................................................................. 97 

Office of the Inspector General ................................................................ 99 

Weapons Activities .................................................................................... 100 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........................................................... 109 

Naval Reactors .......................................................................................... 112 

Office of the Administrator ....................................................................... 113 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................. 114 

Other Defense Activities ........................................................................... 116 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ................................................................................................... 117 

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ................................................................................................... 117 
Page

3 

Title III—Continued 

Department of Energy—Continued 

Power Marketing Administrations—Continued 

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration .................................................... 117 

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund ................. 117 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and Expenses ......... 118 

General Provisions—Department of Energy ........................................... 129 

Title IV: 

Independent Agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission .......................................................... 130 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ................................................. 130 

Delta Regional Authority .......................................................................... 130 

Denali Commission ................................................................................... 131 

Northern Border Regional Commission ................................................... 131 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............................................................. 131 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................ 132 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board .................................................. 132 

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects ........................................................................................ 133 

Title V: General Provisions ..................................................................................... 134 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 135 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 135 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 136 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 145 

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 146 
(4) 

PURPOSE 

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

year 2014 beginning October 1, 2013, and ending September 30, 

2014, 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 2014 budget estimates for the bill total 

$34,972,807,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The recommendation of the Committee totals $34,835,288,000. This is 

$137,519,000 above the budget estimates and $3,852,028,000 below 

the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year. 

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held 

three sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2014 appropriation 

bill. Witnesses included officials and representatives of the Federal 

agencies under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

The recommendations for fiscal year 2014 therefore, have been 

developed after careful consideration of available data. 

VOTES IN THE COMMITTEE

By a vote of 24 to 6 the Committee on June 27, 2013, 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 U.S. Army 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, et cetera); 

—Designing and managing the construction of military facilities 

for the Army and Air Force (Military Construction); and 

—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 290 military officers are responsible for this nationwide mission. 

The Congress through specific authorizations and appropriations 

has provided the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers major Federal responsibilities for supporting flood control activities in communities 

across the Nation; providing navigable channels on the Nation’s 

waterways, ports and harbors; and restoring aquatic ecosystems. 

The Corps also has authorities to provide water supply, shore protection, hydroelectric power, and to provide recreation opportunities 

at Corps projects. The Corps is the Federal Government’s largest 

producer of hydropower, and is the number one Federal provider of 

outdoor recreation. The Corps of Engineers also regulates waters of 

the U.S. through their Regulatory program. 

To meet its responsibilities for these various missions, the Corps 

of Engineers has built incrementally what now comprises an extensive water resources management infrastructure that includes 694 

dams, 12,700 miles of levees in the Federal levee system, and 

25,000 miles of deep draft and inland navigation channels and control structures. This infrastructure has been developed over nearly 
6 

two centuries, most of it on an individual project basis, within 

varying contexts of system planning. Large portions of the Corps’ 

water resources infrastructure were built in the first half of the 

20th century. Ecosystem restoration related to existing projects, 

added as a primary missions area for the Corps in 1996, has been 

a focus of new construction over the last 10–15 years. 

While the Corps Civil Works programs impact all 50 States and 

virtually every citizen of our Nation, they are a relatively minor 

part of the Federal budget. Funding for the Corps comprises less 

than 0.13 percent of the total Federal budget for fiscal year 2014. 

OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Corps of Engineers is composed of $4,826,000,000 in new budget authority. This 

amount includes a rescission of $100,000,000 of previously appropriated funds. 

The tradition of this bill has been that virtually all funding for 

the Corps of Engineers is designated to specific studies/projects. 

The administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2014 continues 

this tradition. The four major study/project accounts (General Investigations, Construction, General, Mississippi River and Tributaries, and Operation and Maintenance) comprise $4,307,000,000 of 

the administration’s overall budget request of $4,826,000,000 for 

the Corps of Engineers; $332,938,000 of the budget request in these 

four accounts is considered as programmatic funding or national 

programs. That is about 7.7 percent of the funding proposed in 

these accounts. The remainder of the $3,974,062,000 proposed in 

the four major accounts is divided among 919 individual line item 

studies or projects proposed by the administration. As the Corps of 

Engineers has no inherent programmatic authorities under which 

the organization was created, all of these individual studies, 

projects and programmatic authorities are specifically authorized 

by Congress and specifically funded through appropriations acts. 

This Committee continues to believe that Members of Congress 

are best positioned to know the unique needs of their individual 

States and Congressional Districts. In past years, Congress, exercising their prerogatives under the Constitution would have added 

projects and studies to the administration’s request to ensure that 

the Nation’s water resource needs were met. As the four major 

study/project accounts in the Corps are comprised of individual line 

items of studies or projects, the Committee usually added line 

items for studies or projects that were not included in the administration’s budget request or, alternatively, increased funding to 

items requested by the administration to accelerate the project delivery process on those items. 

The line items that were added by Congress in previous years 

were authorized and vetted in a public process identical to those 

line items that the administration included in their request. The 

difference between the items added by Congress and those included 

by the administration is that the administration applied a number 

of supplemental criterion for budgeting a study or project that the 

authorizations for these studies or projects does not require. In 

most cases, the criteria used for budgeting was not specifically analyzed when a project was studied prior to authorization. Establish-
7 

ment of budget criteria was, and continues to be, an invention of 

the administration. It should be understood that this criteria is established not necessarily to meet the Nation’s water resource 

needs, but rather to help the administration decide which needs 

they choose to include in their budget request. These are choices 

made by the administration within the context of their priorities. 

History has shown that this criteria is extremely flexible depending 

on what an administration wants to fund in a given year. This 

Committee does not believe that this budget criteria, established by 

the administration without input from the public or Congress, has 

any more validity than the criteria that the Congress has used in 

the past to decide which projects to fund. 

Due to the vagaries of the administration’s budget criteria, the 

Congress has traditionally provided the consistency in funding for 

items within the Corps of Engineers budget. Corps of Engineers 

projects generally have two definitive points where Congress can 

decide the Federal commitment to a water resources development 

project. The first point is when an item is being studied. By providing the initial study funding, the Congress is making a tacit 

commitment that it intends to see the study process through to 

completion. By the same token when a project is authorized for 

construction and receives its initial construction funding, that is a 

commitment that the Congress intends to see the project through 

to completion. That is why so few ‘‘new’’ studies and projects have 

been funded in recent years. Congress has acknowledged the tight 

fiscal environment by not creating tremendous outyear obligations 

for the Corps with new work. 

Nearly all Corps studies and projects are cost shared. That 

means a local sponsor has contractually agreed to provide a proportionate non-Federal share (in most cases, ranging from 25 percent– 

50 percent) to match the Federal funds appropriated. When these 

projects are not provided funding either through the budget or an 

appropriations act, the work is deferred until funding is appropriated. This inconsistent funding increases project costs, defers 

the projects benefits to the national economy and plays havoc with 

the non-Federal entities’ financing plans for projects and studies. 

Traditionally, Congress has provided the consistency for studies 

and projects undertaken by the Corps of Engineers through congressionally directed spending by maintaining the commitments to 

local sponsors and insuring consistent levels of funding for the 

projects or studies that were initiated or funded in appropriation 

acts. 

Overall navigation funding is increased $135,000,000 in this 

budget proposal compared to what the administration proposed in 

fiscal year 2013. The Committee believes this is a positive move by 

the administration. However, Flood Risk Management is down 

$32,000,000 in this budget proposal when compared to fiscal year 

2013. The Committee is puzzled by this cut, particularly after 

record setting floods on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers in 

2011 and the impacts to the Atlantic coast from Superstorm Sandy. 

While $5,350,000,000 in emergency supplemental funding was provided in January 2013 to address repairs to flood control infrastructure damaged by Superstorm Sandy, that funding did not provide for all of the damages to existing infrastructure from other 
8 

natural disasters. The Corps estimates a current backlog of 

$400,000,000 in damages due to natural disasters that have yet to 

be appropriated or budgeted. That means that these damaged 

projects will remain in their potentially weakened condition. However, one would think that flood control funding should have been 

increased in the budget request to address the needs and weaknesses in existing flood control infrastructure as well as the needs 

for new infrastructure that the flooding and other natural disasters 

revealed. 

The General Investigations Program is proposed at $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. This is a decrease of $34,750,000 from the fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before the sequester and supplemental disaster appropriations. This account funds the 

preauthorization studies necessary to determine the Federal interests in a water resource problem or need. The request provides 

funding for 72 studies for a total of $39,297,000 of the request. Of 

that amount, two studies are funded at $8,285,000. The other 70 

studies are funded with the remaining $31,012,000. Six ecosystem 

restoration, two deep-draft navigation, one flood damaged reduction, and one nationwide study are proposed as ‘‘new study starts’’ 

in the request. Nineteen feasibility studies and two preconstruction 

engineering and design studies are proposed for completion within 

the amounts requested in the budget. The Construction, General account is proposed at $1,350,000,000 

for fiscal year 2014. The 74 line items proposed for the Construction, General account can be broken down as follows: 

—Dam safety activities $273,910,000 (20.3 percent); 

—Environmental compliance activities comprise $189,696,000 

(14.1 percent); 

—Ecosystem or environmental restoration activities comprise $198,718,000 (14.7 percent); 

—Flood control and storm damage reduction activities comprise $279,827,000 (20.7 percent); 

—Coastal or deep draft navigation activities comprise 

$100,299,000 (7.4 percent); 

—Inland and shallow draft navigation activities comprise 

$212,690,000 (15.8 percent); and 

—An additional $94,860,000 is proposed for national programs (7 

percent). 

This is a decrease of $320,652,000 from the fiscal year 2013 enacted amount for this account before the sequester and supplemental disaster appropriations. This account funds 

postauthorization studies and physical construction of authorized 

projects. Dam safety assurance and aquatic ecosystem restoration 

appear to have taken the biggest reductions when compared to the 

fiscal year 2013 budget request. One large ecosystem restoration 

project, one flood control/ecosystem restoration project, one nonstructural flood control project, and one deep draft navigation 

project are proposed as ‘‘new construction starts’’ in the request. 

Five projects are projected for completion within the amounts requested in the budget. 

The Mississippi River and Tributaries account is proposed at 

$279,000,000. This account funds studies, construction and operation and maintenance activities along the Mississippi River and 
9 

designated tributaries from Cape Giradeau, Missouri, to the Gulf 

of Mexico. This is an increase of $27,504,000 from the fiscal year 

2013 enacted amount before the sequester. The increase is primarily due to the addition of two agricultural water supply 

projects. 

The Operation and Maintenance account is proposed at 

$2,588,000,000. This is an increase of $180,824,000 from the fiscal 

year 2013 enacted amount before the sequester and supplemental 

disaster appropriations. This account funds post authorization 

studies of operating projects, maintenance of Federal facilities and 

Federal operation of facilities where authorized by law. Recreation 

funding is proposed at $252,000,000. At this same funding level in 

the fiscal year 2013 request, the Corps’ budget estimated that 186 

partial and 57 full recreation area closings would occur and reduced recreational opportunities would occur at one-third of the 

budgeted projects. Similar impacts would likely be expected to 

occur at this funding level for fiscal year 2014. Navigation funding 

from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] is increased to 

an estimated $890,000,000 in the request. This is a $42,000,000 increase over the fiscal year 2013 request. 

The Regulatory Program is proposed at $200,000,000 for fiscal 

year 2014. This is an increase of $7,386,000 over the fiscal year 

2013 enacted amount before the sequester. This program provides 

the funding for the Corps nationwide regulatory roles primarily 

under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 

The Committee is disappointed that funding for the Formerly 

Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] proposed at 

$104,000,000 was cut by $4,782,000 from the fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before the sequester. This program was transferred 

to the Corps from the Department of Energy, because the Committee was concerned with management and cost issues of the program within the Energy Department. This is a program that is 

being well-managed by the Corps and should have stable, adequate 

budget resources to continue these radiological clean-up activities. 

This proposed decrease in funding will further stretch out the 

clean-up of these sites. 

The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account is proposed 

at $28,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. This is an increase of 

$1,054,000 over the fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before the sequester and supplemental disaster appropriations. These funds are 

proposed for readiness and preparedness activities for the Corps of 

Engineers. 

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

is proposed as a separate account for $5,000,000. This is virtually 

the same as provided in fiscal year 2013. The Committee continues 

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

the Defense appropriations bill. However, until such time as this 

account can be reintegrated into that bill, the Committee agrees 

that the office should be funded as a separate account. The Assistant Secretary’s duties encompass much more than the Civil Works 

functions of the Corps of Engineers and the budget needs of the office should be addressed separately. 
10 

The General Expenses [GE] account is proposed at $182,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. This is a $2,630,000 decrease from the fiscal 

year 2013 enacted amount before the sequester and supplemental 

disaster appropriations. The Committee notes that the Corps operates one of the most efficient headquarters staffs in the National 

Capital region. Only about 3.5 percent of their staffing is at headquarters as opposed to 10 percent or more for comparable agencies 

in the National Capital region. 

THE NATION’S WATERWAY SYSTEM

The Nation’s waterway system constructed, operated, and maintained by the Corps is an incredibly versatile and interconnected 

system providing vital linkages to other modes of transportation as 

well as providing benefits to the national economy of more than 

$7,000,000,000 through transportation savings over other available 

modes of transportation. This system has been developed over the 

past 200 years and is showing its age. There are many lock chambers that are long past their design life or that need to be enlarged 

to handle increased traffic. Also, many harbor and channel projects 

need to be deepened or enlarged to handle contemporary vessel 

sizes. A major recapitalization of this infrastructure is needed, particularly if the Nation is to meet the President’s goal of doubling 

exports in the next 5 years. 

In 1986, two trust funds were set up to fund portions of our navigation infrastructure. The HMTF provides for 100 percent of the 

maintenance of eligible navigation projects, and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund [IWTF] provides for one-half of the construction 

cost of designated projects on the Nation’s inland waterways. Both 

of these funds are subject to appropriation. The HMTF does a good 

job of collecting revenues, but appropriations generally lag considerably behind the collections so the fund balance continues to grow. 

The IWTF appropriations match the revenue collection, but the 

revenues collected are insufficient to undertake all of the needed 

work. Therefore the fund balance is essentially zero. 

Past investments have provided adequate, albeit in some cases 

inefficient, infrastructure to deal with current commodity and cargo 

movements. Only about 23 percent of the administration’s proposed 

construction budget is dedicated to navigation projects. The budget 

request for the Corps for improvements and maintenance of the 

waterway system falls woefully short of the needs. Ports are routinely not dredged to their full authorized dimensions. 

The Committee is concerned that there are major changes in 

worldwide shipping and trade occurring and on the horizon that 

our Nation’s water infrastructure is not equipped to handle. One of 

these changes is the enlargement and deepening of the Panama 

Canal that will allow a shift to larger container vessels with a need 

for deeper ports and navigation channels. However, larger vessels 

are also transiting the Suez Canal and more and more will likely 

be attempting to call at the Nation’s ports. If larger ships are unable to dock here, they may be forced to dock in other countries 

with the appropriate infrastructure and then reconfigure ships and 

cargos to accommodate U.S. water infrastructure, leading to increased transportation costs, higher end-unit prices and loss of 

jobs. 
11 

Along with deeper channels to accommodate these larger vessels, 

ports will need efficient dockside infrastructure to handle the 

throughput of this increased trade. Intermodal improvements at 

ports and possibly short sea shipping will also be a part of trade 

movements in and among ports. Without this system, transportation of commodities, exports and imports, would become vastly 

more expensive. For more than 25 years, the current mechanisms 

have been in place. However, how water transportation infrastructure is planned, designed, constructed, maintained, and funded has 

not kept pace with the pace of change in worldwide trade. 

Water transportation infrastructure was and continues to be a 

linchpin of our national economy. It is time to determine if there 

is a better way to develop this infrastructure. The Committee believes it is important for the Congress to rethink the Federal role 

in water transportation to determine if there is a better way to 

plan, build and finance this critical infrastructure. The Committee 

will work with the appropriate authorizing and tax writing committees as well as industry and the administration to determine a 

path forward to provide the water transportation infrastructure 

that will be required for the next 50–100 years. 

INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND

The Committee remains concerned about the Nation’s Inland 

Waterways. This network of waterways moves nearly 600 million 

tons of cargo annually or 16 percent of our domestic freight. That 

is 600 million tons of cargo that are not moved on our already overburdened rail and highway system. 

The Inland Waterways System includes more than 12,000 miles 

of waterways that serve 41 States, including all States east of the 

Mississippi River. The Corps operates 238 lock chambers at 192 

sites. Nearly 140 of these locks have been in operation more than 

50 years. This means that more than one-half of the lock chambers 

that are vital parts of the Inland Waterways System have exceeded 

the economic life of the projects. 

These locks, with associated dam structures, along with other 

waterway features provide other benefits for the Nation’s economy 

such as recreation, hydropower, water supply and in some cases 

flood control. These other project benefits are a direct result of the 

construction of these projects to fulfill their navigation purpose. 

These lock chambers are in various states of deterioration. A 

properly funded maintenance program can stave off the inevitable 

effects of this deterioration. However, it has been a very long time 

since the Corps budget could be considered adequate to properly 

fund maintenance of these structures. Inevitably, these structures 

must be modernized or replaced, depending on the deterioration, if 

they are to continue to serve the purpose for which they were originally constructed. 

Current law provides that maintenance of these structures is 

funded from the general fund of the Treasury. This funding is intended to cover routine maintenance of the structures that maintain the functionality of the projects. Repairs are becoming more 

frequent, extensive and costly. Scheduled and unscheduled lock closures for maintenance purposes have almost doubled in the last 10 

years. 
12 

Whenever improvements to the functionality of the project are 

considered for implementation they are generally cost shared in the 

Construction, General account. These improvements can include a 

major overhaul of the mechanisms that operate the locks to improvements to the foundation or other major structural elements to 

a complete replacement of an antiquated lock facility. These major 

rehabilitations or new construction are cost shared. Half comes 

from the General Treasury and half comes from the IWTF. 

The IWTF is funded through a 20-cent-per-gallon tax on fuel 

used to transit the Inland Waterways System. This tax has remained 20 cents-per-gallon since 1995. Just adjusting the tax for 

inflation would make the fuel tax 30 cents per gallon to provide 

equivalent revenues to what was produced by the tax in 1995. It 

is estimated that more than $340,000,000 has been lost to the 

IWTF since 1996 because this tax has not been adjusted for inflation. 

However, it is clear that construction costs have risen much faster than revenues available in the IWTF even if they had been adjusted for inflation. Lengthening of project construction schedules 

due to inadequate funding has caused project costs to increase, but 

costs have also increased due to other unknown factors. 

The Olmsted lock and dam replacement project is a case in point. 

This one lock and dam is intended to replace the outdated Locks 

and Dams 52 and 53 on the lower Ohio River. The project was authorized for construction in 1988 for a cost of $775,000,000. Construction was initiated in 1992 and nearly $1,700,000,000 has been 

appropriated towards construction since that time. The twin 1,200- 

foot long lock chambers are complete and the Tainter gate section 

of the dam is under construction. 

The administration’s budget request indicates that the cost of this single large project will have to be increased to $3,104,000,000, 

a $5,000,000 increase since the last estimate reported to Congress 

in the fiscal year 2013 budget request. 

Abandoning the Olmsted project is not a viable option because 

Locks and Dams 52 and 53 still would have to be replaced. Replacement costs of the two existing structures could easily exceed 

$3,000,000,000 on top of the nearly $1,700,000,000 that has been 

invested in completing the two replacement lock chambers at 

Olmsted. This would be an even more expensive option than completing the work on Olmsted. The Corps should make every effort 

to expedite the construction schedule for this project and reduce 

any future cost growth. 

With all of the work needed to modernize our Inland Waterways 

System, this funding situation for the inland waterways is intolerable. To make the type of progress necessary to modernize this system in a reasonable period of time, a new financing model must be 

developed and implemented. Simply increasing the fuel tax will not 

supply the necessary revenues without a massive increase that 

would lead to disruptions on the system. A new financing mechanism must be considered, that not only provides the necessary revenues, but has an inflation adjustment factor built into the financing system. 

The HMTF tax offers an instructive model to consider for the 

IWTF. This tax is based on the value of the imports that transit 
13 

specific harbors and waterways. The fees are collected by the customs department and deposited into the HMTF to be utilized for 

the maintenance of these waterways. This tax burden is shared by 

all who utilize these imported items, whereas the Inland Waterways Tax is only contributed based on the tax collected from the 

fuel used by vessels transporting cargo on the Inland Waterways 

System. 

It should be noted that the model used for the HMTF provided 

the bulk of all Federal revenue from 1790 until the eve of World 

War I, financing most Government operations. This seems an inherently fair way to collect revenue to finance waterways utilized 

to transport goods and materials that benefit the national economy. 

Corps projects are justified based on benefits to the national economy, so as the Nation benefits, the Nation should contribute towards the recapitalization of these assets. 

The Inland Waterways System is far too important to allow it to 

continue to languish with inadequate funding and crumbling infrastructure. The Committee has been patiently waiting for six budget 

cycles for a solution to these problems from the administration and 

the appropriate congressional committees. The Senate authorizing 

committee has taken an initial step of attempting to address some 

of these problems through the Water Resources Development Act 

process. Due to the uncertainty of the resolution of these issues 

through the authorizing process, the Committee has decided to 

take action on its own. 

For fiscal year 2014, the Committee has included legislative language directing that no costs for Olmsted Lock and Dam should be 

drawn from the IWTF. This action will ensure that funding for inland navigation will be consistent with the budget request without 

impacting the other missions of the Corps. 

This action was not taken lightly by the Committee. It is a recognition that something has got to change. It should not be looked 

at as a permanent solution. This is a 1-year change in the proportionality of the IWTF/General Treasury split for fiscal year 2014. 

It does not change the ultimate cost sharing for Olmsted. It only 

delays the inevitable day of reckoning when the costs for Olmsted 

will have to be brought back into the proper 50/50 balance. Legislation must be enacted to ensure that sufficient funding is available 

to ensure that this transportation infrastructure will continue to 

function as designed providing benefits to the national economy. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING FOR INLAND WATERWAYS

The administration segregates the Inland Waterways System 

into at least two parts for budgeting purposes. Those that are designated as ‘‘low use’’ are given considerably lower budget priority 

for maintenance dollars than the remainder of the system. While 

these ‘‘low use’’ waterways may not have a significant impact on 

the national economy, they exert a tremendous influence on local 

and regional economies. 

When these projects were analyzed for implementation, the 

maintenance costs for the project’s 50-year economic life was calculated as a part of the benefit to cost ratio. One would assume 

that if the project was constructed, that the project’s benefits to the 

national economy had to exceed the costs (including the mainte-
14 

nance costs) to the national economy. Therefore the budget criterion currently being utilized to determine funding for these 

projects has nothing to do with the actual economics of the project. 

It is a an invention of the administration based solely on the tonnage moved. No consideration is given to the economics of whether 

the project benefits exceed the project costs even though the benefit 

to cost ratio is the rationale of choice behind other administration 

funding decisions in the budget request. 

The ‘‘low use’’ waterways move more than 50 million tons annually. That obviously pales in comparison to the roughly 550 million 

tons moved on the ‘‘high use’’ waterways. However, these 50 million tons of cargo would still have to be moved somehow, if they 

are not moved by water transportation. The only other candidates 

are truck and rail. It would require 2 million trucks or 455,000 rail 

cars to move the same amount of cargo that can be moved on 

33,500 barges. The shipping costs to the national economy to move 

the same commodities to the same destinations would likely increase by at least $500,000,000 by rail or $1,500,000,000 by truck. 

The costs cited do not even begin to include the costs to the economy of the increased pollution, the likely increase in transportation 

fatalities or other costs that would be incurred. If maintenance of 

all ‘‘low use’’ projects were fully funded, the Corps budget would be 

increased by less than $200,000,000. The Committee urges the administration to reconsider this short-sighted budgetary decision in 

future budget submissions. Shortchanging maintenance for these 

projects seems to be ‘‘pennywise but pound foolish.’’ 

HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND

Available revenue from the 0.125 percent tax on the value of im- ports at designated harbors provides roughly $1,500,000,000 annually to this fund. Ten-year projections indicate that these collections could increase as much as $100,000,000 per year. These revenues can be utilized for maintenance on more than 1,500 ports, 

harbors and waterways. The fiscal year 2014 budget proposes 

$890,000,000 for maintenance of commercial waterways and ports 

to be appropriated from the General Treasury and ultimately reimbursed from the HMTF. This imbalance between receipts and appropriations has led to a surplus in the HMTF of some 

$7,900,000,000 which grows annually. 

For illustrative purposes, the Committee has included two tables 

that show the recent history of the HMTF collections (fiscal year 

2008–2012) as well as the recent history of the administration’s 

budget requests for HMTF eligible work (fiscal years 2011–2014). 

The table is listed alphabetically by State. Due to the lag time involved in the reporting of HMT data it is not possible to include 

the fiscal year 2013 and 2014 HMTF collections. For HMTF eligible 

activities proposed by the administration, it should be noted that 

projects that serve multiple States are only budgeted in a single 

State. This fact may distort the amounts proposed to be expended 

in the various States with some States being under-represented 

and some States being over-represented. It should also be noted 

that the columns for the fiscal year 2011–2014 administration 

budget requests only include HMTF eligible work funded through 

the Corps’ O&M account. In a given year about 90 percent of the 
15 

annual HMT expenditures are the result of the Corps’ O&M activities. 
16 

HARBOR MAINTENANCE TAX COLLECTIONS 

State 

Fiscal year 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average 2008–2012 

ALASKA ........................................................................................................................... $902,435 $811,756 $964,509 $1,132,274 $1,467,912 $1,055,777 ALABAMA ........................................................................................................................ 11,001,093 6,593,890 7,620,283 10,344,400 10,839,144 9,279,762 CALIFORNIA .................................................................................................................... 416,603,926 318,284,030 372,335,917 431,738,528 462,867,037 400,365,888 CONNECTICUT ................................................................................................................ 2,414,105 1,600,436 1,669,615 1,930,572 1,834,326 1,889,811 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ................................................................................................ .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. 53 11 DELAWARE ..................................................................................................................... 7,652,443 3,740,850 5,410,192 7,026,436 10,026,534 6,771,291 FLORIDA ......................................................................................................................... 51,199,550 34,596,137 40,351,122 48,518,886 51,858,142 45,304,767 GEORGIA ........................................................................................................................ 51,690,343 40,180,614 50,178,176 62,502,409 68,943,409 54,698,990 HAWAII ........................................................................................................................... 6,900,957 4,033,392 4,822,109 6,050,745 7,087,708 5,778,982 ILLINOIS ......................................................................................................................... 676,320 397,194 568,165 850,001 392,719 576,880 INDIANA .......................................................................................................................... 192,181 290,046 161,060 175,646 516,089 267,004 LOUISIANA ...................................................................................................................... 126,962,832 64,400,843 85,797,854 75,120,837 71,661,826 84,788,838 MASSACHUSETTS ........................................................................................................... 12,268,475 8,788,328 9,824,224 11,546,161 12,168,444 10,919,126 MARYLAND ..................................................................................................................... 36,233,352 24,294,073 31,818,856 37,000,339 40,413,798 33,952,083 MAINE ............................................................................................................................ 3,576,471 2,632,729 2,606,026 3,321,014 3,910,923 3,209,432 MICHIGAN ....................................................................................................................... 875,586 537,136 760,384 993,021 735,845 780,394 MINNESOTA .................................................................................................................... .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ..............................MISSISSIPPI .................................................................................................................... 14,462,209 10,915,579 13,190,389 16,024,985 16,037,378 14,126,108 NORTH CAROLINA .......................................................................................................... 4,902,810 4,924,842 6,049,838 7,661,123 7,511,907 6,210,104 NEW HAMPSHIRE ........................................................................................................... 958,318 671,041 844,091 1,282,499 1,017,902 954,770 NEW JERSEY .................................................................................................................. 18,464,919 8,795,910 6,836,716 7,353,602 9,580,062 10,206,242 NEW YORK ..................................................................................................................... 174,005,325 133,602,251 155,008,501 182,022,489 196,598,965 168,247,506 OHIO ............................................................................................................................... 1,913,360 834,013 1,108,898 1,519,422 1,300,850 1,335,309 OREGON ......................................................................................................................... 14,626,570 8,491,149 9,374,124 9,039,173 10,899,327 10,486,069 PENNSYLVANIA ............................................................................................................... 41,901,235 24,964,078 30,345,168 41,003,717 32,679,858 34,178,811 PUERTO RICO ................................................................................................................. 12,699,338 8,852,039 10,263,781 11,175,861 13,719,366 11,342,077 RHODE ISLAND ............................................................................................................... 6,623,161 4,677,071 6,304,664 8,396,153 9,018,230 7,003,856 SOUTH CAROLINA ........................................................................................................... 49,896,082 35,715,760 38,004,745 44,271,046 49,882,610 43,554,049 TEXAS ............................................................................................................................. 219,754,910 130,386,070 161,248,715 200,311,177 216,463,341 185,632,842 VIRGINIA ......................................................................................................................... 43,163,585 32,510,798 35,110,355 37,506,131 43,621,379 38,382,449 VIRGIN ISLANDS ............................................................................................................. 20,524,649 11,133,342 13,738,664 14,957,337 4,367,137 12,944,226 WASHINGTON .................................................................................................................. 80,361,629 62,494,026 71,937,804 78,373,364 89,576,228 76,548,610 WISCONSIN ..................................................................................................................... 453,192 183,368 297,321 203,823 216,557 270,852 
17 

TOTAL ............................................................................................................... 1,433,861,363 990,332,789 1,174,552,264 1,359,353,171 1,447,215,003 1,281,062,918 

1 The estimated HMT receipts are based on the Customs value for waterborne imports multiplied by the .125% HMT rate. Customs value is generally defined as the price actually paid or payable for merchandise when sold for exportation 

to the U.S. Customs value excludes U.S. import duties, freight, insurance, and other charges incurred in bringing the merchandise to the United States. 

2Many projects span and serve multiple States, but are budgeted under only one State. 
18 

PRESIDENT’S O&M BUDGET REQUESTS 

[Includes coastal O&M only. Excludes MR&T—O&M and Construction for DMDFs, sand mitigation, and beneficial use] 

State 

Fiscal year 

2011 2012 2013 2014 Average 

2011–2014 

ALASKA ................................... $19,450,000 $17,426,000 $17,563,000 $19,683,000 $18,530,500 

ALABAMA ................................ 23,560,000 23,460,000 31,771,000 27,148,000 26,484,750 

CALIFORNIA ............................ 59,343,000 51,973,000 60,970,000 68,584,000 60,217,500 

CONNECTICUT ........................ 3,610,000 1,850,000 3,550,000 9,950,000 4,740,000 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ......... 900,000 940,000 925,000 925,000 922,500 

DELAWARE .............................. 40,915,000 43,413,000 45,170,000 44,268,000 43,441,500 

FLORIDA ................................. 26,740,000 32,072,000 36,358,000 43,898,000 34,767,000 

GEORGIA ................................. 25,661,000 20,729,000 25,351,000 29,644,531 25,346,383 

HAWAII .................................... 604,000 1,181,000 737,000 1,713,000 1,058,750 

ILLINOIS .................................. 7,708,000 6,977,000 6,838,000 8,493,000 7,504,000 

INDIANA .................................. 6,056,000 7,036,000 11,276,000 13,237,000 9,401,250 

LOUISIANA .............................. 96,804,000 97,326,000 113,060,000 117,856,000 106,261,500 

MASSACHUSETTS .................... 15,426,000 16,021,000 7,537,000 8,353,000 11,834,250 

MARYLAND ............................. 20,965,000 16,459,000 18,032,000 24,358,000 19,953,500 

MAINE ..................................... 2,365,000 1,850,000 14,800,000 2,150,000 5,291,250 

MICHIGAN ............................... 38,236,000 34,416,000 30,704,000 39,333,140 35,672,285 

MINNESOTA ............................ 6,987,000 7,403,000 5,683,000 5,750,000 6,455,750 

MISSISSIPPI ............................ 10,872,000 7,603,000 10,960,000 10,598,000 10,008,250 

NORTH CAROLINA ................... 22,357,000 20,945,000 24,960,000 25,960,000 23,555,500 

NEW HAMPSHIRE .................... 275,000 750,000 275,000 250,000 387,500 

NEW JERSEY ........................... 13,031,000 10,483,000 18,164,000 9,022,000 12,675,000 

NEW YORK .............................. 29,014,000 21,084,000 19,751,000 33,993,000 25,960,500 

OHIO ....................................... 22,076,000 18,008,000 18,527,000 20,371,000 19,745,500 

OREGON ................................. 52,251,000 50,254,000 41,321,000 65,654,000 52,370,000 

PENNSYLVANIA ....................... 2,629,000 1,465,000 1,100,000 4,905,000 2,524,750 

PUERTO RICO ......................... 3,700,000 2,700,000 .......................... .......................... 1,600,000 

RHODE ISLAND ....................... 1,750,000 700,000 750,000 350,000 887,500 

SOUTH CAROLINA ................... 17,390,000 20,124,000 21,348,000 21,300,000 20,040,500 

TEXAS ..................................... 66,962,000 68,713,000 76,530,000 87,575,000 74,945,000 

VIRGINIA ................................. 18,793,000 18,038,000 17,794,000 20,881,000 18,876,500 

VIRGIN ISLANDS ..................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

WASHINGTON .......................... 23,896,000 25,896,000 42,992,000 24,820,000 29,401,000 

WISCONSIN ............................. 4,609,000 3,694,000 3,468,000 4,355,000 4,031,500 

TOTAL ........................ 684,935,000 650,989,000 728,265,000 795,377,671 714,891,668 

LEVEE SAFETY

One positive outcome from the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina was 

that the public became more aware of the levees that protect their 

communities. This new awareness resulted in an examination of 

the conditions of these projects. Concurrent with this new awareness was the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 

map modernization program for flood insurance rate maps. With 

this remapping came the issue of certification of existing levees and 

the need to determine how safe these levees are. All of these factors have combined to cause a great deal of uncertainty. 

The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization 

Act was enacted with the intention to alleviate some of these uncertainties. The Committee directs the United States Army Corps 

of Engineers [USACE] and the Department of Homeland Security 

to ensure the plain language of the levee accreditation provisions 

of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization 

Act are met, and that flood maps reflect protection provided by levees included in the Corps Inspection of Completed Works program 

that meet FEMA’s accreditation standards without requiring non- 
19 

Federal sponsors to hire private engineers to fill information gaps 

left by Federal agencies. The Committee expects a July 2013 delivery of the Flood Protection Structure Accreditation Task Force report that was required by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act. 

While the Committee would like to believe that engineered structures will never fail, the reality is that all engineered structures 

have the potential for failure if the right set of circumstances happen at the right time. Risk is inherent in any man-made structure 

and the Corps is charged with balancing that risk with the costs 

of the risk reduction measures. The cost for risk-free protection is 

more than the Nation has been willing to consider for any project. 

There are always trade-offs. This is especially true with flood control structures. There is always a larger flood, or an unknown or 

unaccounted for failure mode that can cause the structure to fail. 

The Committee looks to the Corps to propose and build structures 

to protect people based on the risks that they may face and to communicate the residual risk that people protected by these structure 

still face. It should be understood that while the structures mitigate risk, they do not eliminate it. 

The Committee fully supports the Corps’ efforts on levee safety. 

However, the Committee remains concerned that the costs to repair 

levees may be overwhelming to local interests. The Committee is 

not suggesting that the Corps should back away from its safety culture, only that there should be checks and balances to ensure that 

recommendations are not blindly made in the name of safety without determining if the recommendations actually provide cost effective safety improvements. The Committee encourages the Corps 

when working with communities on levee issues to be cognizant of 

the costs for proposed fixes and the community’s ability to fund the 

repairs. 

LEVEE VEGETATION

The Committee is aware of the Corps’ updated draft policy regarding the consideration of vegetation variances for levees, and 

appreciates the work of Corps Districts and Divisions in working 

with affected levee sponsors and systems. The Committee is aware 

that the Engineer Research and Development Center completed an 

initial research effort to advance the Corps’ knowledge and understanding of the effects of woody vegetation on levees which indicated that minimal data exists on the scientific relationship between woody vegetation and levees. The Committee urges the 

Corps to continue to conduct additional scientific research on this 

topic. The Committee strongly encourages the Corps to take seriously its requirements under the Endangered Species Act and in 

meeting tribal treaty obligations, and to clarify how it will apply 

those considerations in the final vegetation variance policy. 

PLANNING PROGRAM

The Committee is pleased that the Corps continues to review its 

planning program and is trying to make it more responsive to the 

local sponsors and Congress. The Committee is supportive of the 

Corps’ announced 3–3–3 concept to reduce the maximum level of 

cost of completing a feasibility study to 3 years and the sum spent 
20 

to $3,000,000. While better, faster and cheaper sounds desirable, in 

the Committee’s experience only 2 out of those 3 items ultimately 

get delivered. In the pursuit of the 3–3–3 plan the Committee 

would caution the Corps that transferring tasks and costs to either 

the preconstruction engineering and design phase or the construction phase of the project is not really a solution—it just repackages 

the problem. 

The Committee remains concerned about the inconsistent nature 

of the planning process across the Corps. While shortening the 

planning process to 3 years is a laudable goal, the Committee recognizes that some timeframes within the planning process are statutory and cannot be shortened and some studies require a more indepth look. Items such as determining the future without project 

conditions and determining the array of alternatives that should be 

considered require careful evaluation. The bedrock of any Corps 

study remains these assumptions that are made at the beginning 

of the planning process. If they are given short shrift, then the recommendations of the planning study will be suspect. 

There are certain times when speed is truly essential. One such 

case is when an area with a flood control system that currently is 

certified to meet the 100-year standard has a change in estimates 

of river flow conditions. In such a case the communities need to act 

to make improvements quickly to minimize the time they may be 

found out of compliance with the 100-year standard. In such cases, 

where speed is of the essence additional flexibility regarding the requirements should be considered. 

What is clear is that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work 

due to the great variations in problems and needs throughout the 

country. More consistency as to how these problems and needs are 

evaluated should be the goal. The importance of these study reports cannot be overstated. They are the basis from which all of the 

Corps’ work is derived and Congress depends heavily on these 

planning reports to inform the decisionmaking process for authorizing and funding these infrastructure investments. The Committee 

will continue to monitor the progress of improving the consistency 

of the planning process. 

CREDIT FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS

The Committee is aware that on February 17, 2012, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) issued ER 1165–2–208. 

This ER implemented the Secretary’s decision of May 5, 2011, to 

no longer award credit for advance construction performed by nonFederal interests under section 104 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The Committee is concerned that this decision 

may create a disincentive for non-Federal interests to construct urgently needed flood damage reduction projects. The Committee 

urges the Assistant Secretary to consider credits under section 221 

of the Flood Control Act of 1970, even when an associated Federal 

study has not yet reached the milestone required under ER 1165– 

2–208, if a preponderance of the following factors would support 

the issuance of credit: (1) the proposed construction is an improvement or modification to an existing federally authorized levee system; (2) the proposed construction will significantly follow an existing levee alignment, especially in reaches where the existing levee 
21 

alignment protects existing infrastructure; (3) the proposed construction will provide increased flood protection at least 36 months 

sooner than a future federally constructed project is likely to be 

able to; and (4) the proposed construction addresses areas with a 

high degree of flood damage risk or have previously flooded. 

LEVELS OF SERVICE AT LOCKS AND DAMS

The Committee is concerned about the Corps Levels of Service 

proposals at Locks and Dams. Chief among these concerns is the 

direct economic as well as unintended impacts that reduced hours 

of service may have on lower use waterways. One of the tools that 

waterway economic development proponents use in marketing an 

inland waterway to potential businesses is the reliability and 24- 

hour access to dependable navigable depths along the waterway. If 

24-hour access is reduced to 12-hour access, it can be a detriment 

to enticing new business prospects. Businesses will likely believe if 

you can reduce it this much, what will keep it from being further 

reduced. 

The Committee understands that operation and maintenance 

budgets are tight; however, the rationale for reducing hours of operation does not seem to net much in additional maintenance funding—which was the original reason given for reducing levels of 

service. The Committee remains concerned about the limited budgetary resources for infrastructure improvements on the Nation’s 

locks and dams, and encourages the Corps to use all options within 

their statutory authority to collect additional funds. Such efforts 

should include acceptance of contributed funds to maintain robust 

lock operations. Such efforts should also include engaging in private partnerships, which the Committee believes, should be in 

partnership with State agencies, to ensure that locks are safe and 

operational for purposes of economic growth and incentives that 

foster economic and community development. 

Due to the Committee’s concerns about levels of service, the 

Committee believes that it would be prudent for the Corps of Engineers headquarters to suspend any reductions of service at locks 

and dams, except for those having limited commercial traffic with 

no consistent pattern of lockages, and undertake an analysis of 

whether this reduced service is in the best economic interest of the 

Nation. This analysis should include the benefits and impacts of retaining 24-hour service at each individual lock or segment of waterway where reduced hours are proposed. The current ad hoc determinations being undertaken by the individual field operating agencies of the Corps may not be examining the full ramifications of 

these reductions of service. 

Where service levels at locks have been reduced, the Committee 

is aware that the Corps of Engineers is authorized to open locks 

independently of the established levels of service for specific and 

unique activities where such opening and closing will be advantageous to fostering economic and community development. Local 

economies across the country experience economic windfalls by 

using locks and dams for commercial and recreational use, such as 

fishing tournaments which are unrelated to commercial barge traffic. The Committee is encouraged that the Corps has given local 

communities assurances that, within their current statutory au-
22 

thority, they will be sensitive to related impacts on local economies. 

The Committee expects the Corps will consider economic incentives 

unrelated to commercial barge traffic when presented with requests by local communities for specific and unique activities requiring locks to be operated outside of established levels of service. 

CONTINUING CONTRACTS AND REPROGRAMMING

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. 

The Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation provided in the Fiscal Year 2014 Energy and Water Development Act. 

NEW STARTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

The Committee has recommended funding for new starts this 

year. The Committee feels this is prudent since no new starts have 

been provided for the Corps since fiscal year 2010 while 83 studies; 

which includes 34 reconnaissance studies, 39 feasibility studies, 

and 10 preconstruction engineering and design studies; and 37 construction projects have been completed since that time. 

The Committee recognizes that we are in a constrained budget 

environment and that environment will likely continue for the remainder of the decade. However, the Committee believes that new 

investment opportunities should be presented to Congress for consideration. Also, some previously authorized projects should be reviewed to ensure that they are still economically viable, environmentally sustainable and technically sound. For these reasons, the 

Committee has recommended the ten new study starts proposed by 

the administration within the General Investigations Account. 

The Committee is including the following new starts proposed in 

the administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2014: Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia; Englebright and 

Daguerre Point Dams (Yuba River), California; Louisiana Coastal 

Comprehensive Study; Houston Ship Channel, Texas; Coyote Dam, 

California; Dry Creek (Warm Springs), California; Coastal Texas 

Protection and Restoration, Texas; Seattle Harbor, Washington; 

Salton Sea, California; and the Water Resources Priorities Study. 

The Committee also believes that investments in our infrastructure are investments in our economy and that these investments 

should also be continued even during constrained budgets as the 

benefits to the economy from these projects continue for decades. 

The Committee recommends the following four new construction 

starts proposed in the administration budget request: Hamilton 

City, California Flood Protection and Ecosystem Restoration; Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana; Lower Colorado River Basin, Onion 

Creek, Texas; and Columbia River at the Mouth, Oregon and 

Washington. 

In addition, the Secretary is directed to propose a single group 

of new starts to the House and Senate Appropriation Committees 

within 45 days of enactment of this act as a part of the work plan. 
23 

The new starts shall consist of five additional new study starts and 

three additional new construction starts. The majority of the benefits of the selected new starts must be derived from navigation, 

storm damage reduction or the flood control mission areas of the 

Corps. The Committee understands that there are more than ninety potential new studies and more than thirty construction projects 

that meet this criteria. The Committee is recommending this new 

start proposal to provide balance to the ecosystem restoration new 

starts proposed in the administration’s budget request. By allowing 

the administration to select these additional new start studies and 

projects and directing that they come from the navigation and flood 

control mission areas of the Corps the Committee is attempting to 

ensure that the Corps’ future programs will continue to balance the 

various missions of the Corps. 

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE

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 its 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 make sense as a way to accommodate additional projects needs, even if funding is insufficient 

and has been utilized by the Committee for the four major accounts. The Committee directs that the S&S amount in each subaccount initially be applied uniformly across all projects within the 

subaccounts. Upon applying the S&S amounts, normal reprogramming procedures should be undertaken to account for schedule slippages, accelerations, or other unforeseen conditions. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

Congressionally directed spending has become synonymous with 

earmarks in recent debates, even for agencies such as the Corps of 

Engineers where the majority of the budget request is based on individual line item studies and projects. Due to this ongoing debate, 

the Committee has voluntarily refused all congressionally directed 

spending requests for fiscal year 2014. That means that the administration has total discretion as to how the funding that this Committee appropriates will be spent as it relates to individual studies 

and projects. The Committee has retained the traditional tables for 

each of the four major accounts delineating the 919 line items requested by the President in the budget request. Due to inadequacies in the administration’s budget request, the Committee has also 

inserted additional line item funding under the nationwide heading 

for specific categories of studies or projects that the Committee 

feels are underrepresented in the administration’s budget request. 

The Corps has discretion within the guidelines provided in each ac-
24 

count as to which line items this additional funding will be applied 

to. The Committee has not included any congressionally directed 

spending as defined in section 5(a) of rule XLIV of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate. 

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2013 1 2 ......................................................................... $174,750,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 90,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 120,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

2 Includes emergency funding of $50,000,000 in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 

(division A of Public Law 113–2). 

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 amount 

proposed in the budget is generally the same as what has been proposed in previous budgets. Nationwide studies and programs consume almost one-half of the administration’s GI request. This 

budget asserts that the Nation should concentrate scarce resources 

on completing studies but not carrying forward ongoing studies. 

The Committee has provided for a balanced planning program for 

fiscal year 2014 with 15 new study starts—10 from the budget request and an additional five to be selected based on the Corps’ 

prioritization process and included as a part of the General Investigations work plan. 

The Committee has and continues to consider planning as one 

‘‘seamless’’ phase of project development. This phase starts when 

Congress makes an investment decision by funding a ‘‘new start’’ 

reconnaissance level study. If the reconnaissance studies produce a 

recommendation that further studies are warranted, and a nonFederal sponsor is willing and able to share the costs, the Corps 

is expected to expeditiously budget for and continue with a feasibility level study. If the feasibility studies produce a project recommendation, and a non-Federal sponsor is willing and able to 

share the costs, the Corps is expected to expeditiously budget for 

and proceed with preconstruction engineering and design studies 

while awaiting project authorization. It should be understood that 

the only new start decision is whether to start a reconnaissance 

level study. All other studies flow from that decision point through 

the completion of preconstruction engineering and design. There 

should be no other ‘‘new starts’’ considered within this planning 

phase. 

The Committee believes that by segregating the table in this 

manner, more attention can be focused on the various study 

phases, and a more balanced planning program can be developed 

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

shared, they demonstrate the commitment by cost-sharing sponsors 

to be a part of the Federal planning process. By the same token, 
25 

it also shows the level of commitment of the Federal Government 

to these cost-sharing sponsors. The display of the table in this manner should not be interpreted by the administration that Congress 

supports a new start decision for each study phase nor does Congress intend for the administration to budget individual phases as 

new starts. 

The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance 

are shown on the following table: 
26 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

RECON FEAS PED RECON FEAS PED 

ALABAMA 

MOBILE HARBOR, AL ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 600 ................ ................ 600 

ALASKA 

ALASKA REGIONAL PORTS, AK ........................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 750 ................ ................ 750 ................LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK ........................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK ................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................

ARKANSAS 

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RESOURCE ASSESSMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA MS, MO, AND TN ............................................................................................. ................ 99 ................ ................ 99 ................WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR AND MO ......................................................................................................................................... ................ 650 ................ ................ 650 ................

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER PLAN, CA ........................................................................................................................................ ................ 800 ................ ................ 800 ................COYOTE VALLEY DAM RESTORATION, CA .......................................................................................................................................................... 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) RESTORATION, CA ............................................................................................................................................. 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................LOS ANGELES RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA ....................................................................................................................................... ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 800 ................ ................ 800 ................SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN STUDY, CA ............................................................................................................ ................ 466 ................ ................ 466 ................SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA .................................................................................................................................... ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 ................SAC-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ISLANDS AND LEVEES, CA ....................................................................................................................................... ................ 447 ................ ................ 447 ................SALTON SEA RESTORATION, CA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 200 ................ ................ 200 ................ ................SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA .......................................................................................................................................................... ................ 700 ................ ................ 700 ................SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, LOWER SAN JOAQUIN, CA .................................................................................................................................... ................ 751 ................ ................ 751 ................SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHORELINE, CA ........................................................................................................................................................... ................ 1,035 ................ ................ 1,035 ................YUBA RIVER FISH PASSAGE, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................YUBA RIVER, CA ................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

COLORADO 

CACHE LA POUDRE, CO ..................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................

FLORIDA 

FLAGLER COUNTY, FL ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 390 ................ ................ 390 ................
27 

GEORGIA 

SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA ................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 1,280 ................ ................ ................

HAWAII 

ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI ................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................HILO HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, HI ..................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 775 ................ ................ 775 ................WEST MAUI WATERSHED, MAUI, HI ................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 538 ................ ................ 538 ................

ILLINOIS 

ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION , IL ......................................................................................................................................................... ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES—MISSISSIPPI RIVER AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES, IL, IN, OH, AND WI ......................................... ................ 3,000 ................ ................ 3,000 ................

KANSAS 

BRUSH CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO ................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 229 ................ ................ 229 ................MANHATTAN, KS ................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................

KENTUCKY 

GREEN AND BARREN DISPOSITION, KY ............................................................................................................................................................. ................ 150 ................ ................ 150 ................

LOUISIANA 

CALCASIEU LOCK, LA ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 750 ................ ................ 750 ................LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LA .................................................................................................................................... 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA .............................................................................................................................. ................ 3,321 1,964 ................ 3,321 1,964 

MARYLAND 

ANACOSTIA WATERSHED RESTORATION, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD .............................................................................................................. ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 ................ANACOSTIA WATERSHED RESTORATION, PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MD ....................................................................................................... ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 ................BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD ...................................................................................................................................... ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD, PA, AND VA ........................................................................................................................... 250 ................ ................ 250 ................ ................

MASSACHUSETTS 

BOSTON HARBOR DEEP DRAFT, MA .................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 

MINNESOTA 

MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, MN AND SD (MINNESOTA RIVER AUTHORITY) ................................................................................... ................ 350 ................ ................ 350 ................

MISSOURI 

MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION, MO ................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 450 ................ ................ 450 ................
28 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

RECON FEAS PED RECON FEAS PED 

MONTANA 

YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT ............................................................................................................................................................... ................ 750 ................ ................ 750 ................

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

CONNECTICUT RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, NH AND VT ......................................................................................................................... ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH AND MA ...................................................................................................................................... ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................

NEW JERSEY 

DELAWARE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, NJ ............................................................................................................................................................ ................ 375 ................ ................ 375 ................DELAWARE RIVER DREDGE MATERIAL UTILIZATION, NJ .................................................................................................................................... ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ ................................................................................................................................. ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................PASSAIC RIVER MAINSTEM, NJ .......................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 240 ................ ................ 240 ................PECKMAN RIVER BASIN, NJ ............................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 291 ................ ................ 291 ................

NEW MEXICO 

ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE AND TRIBUTARIES, NM ................................................................................................................................. ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO, AND TX .............................................................................................................................................................. ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................

NEW YORK 

HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, NY AND NJ ........................................................................................................................................................... ................ 550 ................ ................ 550 ................WESTCHESTER COUNTY STREAMS, BYRAM RIVER BASIN, NY AND CT ............................................................................................................. ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................

NORTH CAROLINA 

NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC ................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 450 ................ ................ 450 SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC .................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 225 ................ ................ 225 WILMINGTON HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, NC ...................................................................................................................................................... ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 ................

NORTH DAKOTA 

RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, ND, MN, SD, AND MANITOBA, CANADA ..................................................................................................... ................ 433 ................ ................ 433 ................

OREGON 

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA ................................................................................................................. ................ 450 ................ ................ 450 ................WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR ............................................................................................................................................................ ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................
29 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 1,165 ................ ................ 1,165 ................

TEXAS 

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL, TX ................................................................................................................................... ................ 385 ................ ................ 385 ................COASTAL TEXAS PROTECTION AND RESTORATION STUDY, TX .......................................................................................................................... 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................DALLAS FLOODWAY, UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX ..................................................................................................................................... ................ 850 ................ ................ 850 ................FREEPORT HARBOR, TX ..................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 1,200 ................ ................ 1,200 GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX .......................................................................................................................................... ................ 488 ................ ................ 488 ................HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................................................................................................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX .............................................................................................................................................................. ................ 650 ................ ................ 650 ................SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX .............................................................................................................................................................. ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................

VIRGINIA 

NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VA (DEEPENING) ...................................................................................................................................... ................ 800 ................ ................ 800 ................

WASHINGTON 

GRAYS HARBOR, WA .......................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA .................................................................................................................... ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................SEATTLE HARBOR, WA ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 100 ................ ................ 100 ................ ................SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA ........................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 650 ................ ................ 650 ................

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,150 32,028 6,119 1,150 32,028 4,839 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 2,000 ................

FLOOD CONTROL .............................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ 8,000 ................SHORE PROTECTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 5,000 ................

NAVIGATION ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 3,000 ................

COASTAL AND DEEP-DRAFT ............................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ 6,000 ................INLAND ............................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ 4,000 ................SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE ................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 3,000 ................

OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES ................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 2,000 ................

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE .......................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 2,000 ................REMOTE, COASTAL, OR SMALL WATERSHED ................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 3,000 ................

COORDINATION STUDIES WITH OTHER AGENCIES: 

ACCESS TO WATER DATA .......................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 750 ................ ................ 750 ................COMMITTEE ON MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS .............................................................................................................................. ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................
30 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

RECON FEAS PED RECON FEAS PED 

OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS: 

CALFED ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................................................... ................ 75 ................ ................ 75 ................COORDINATION WITH OTHER WATER RESOURCE AGENCIES ........................................................................................................... ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 ................GULF OF MEXICO ............................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ ................ 500 ................ ................ 500 ................INTERAGENCY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................... ................ 955 ................ ................ 955 ................INVENTORY OF DAMS ...................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 400 ................ ................ 400 ................LAKE TAHOE ..................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 100 ................ ................ 100 ................PACIFIC NW FOREST CASE .............................................................................................................................................................. ................ 10 ................ ................ 10 ................SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 1,350 ................ ................ 1,350 ................FERC LICENSING .............................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................

PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES .......................................................................................................................................................... ................ 4,000 ................ ................ 4,000 ................

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA: 

AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI-CADD ...................................................................................................................... ................ 350 ................ ................ 350 ................COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION .......................................................................................................................................................... ................ 1,000 ................ ................ 1,000 ................ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES ............................................................................................................................................................... ................ 75 ................ ................ 75 ................FLOOD DAMAGE DATA ............................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 220 ................ ................ 220 ................FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................... ................ 9,500 ................ ................ 9,500 ................HYDROLOGIC STUDIES .............................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 250 ................ ................ 250 ................INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES .............................................................................................................................................................. ................ 200 ................ ................ 200 ................PRECIPITATION STUDIES ........................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 225 ................ ................ 225 ................REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT .......................................................................................................... ................ 75 ................ ................ 75 ................SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS .............................................................................................................................. ................ 50 ................ ................ 50 ................STREAM GAGING ....................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 550 ................ ................ 550 ................TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 950 ................ ................ 950 ................

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 16,143 ................ ................ 17,923 ................OTHER—MISC: 

INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 300 ................ ................ 300 ................NATIONAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................................... ................ 5,000 ................ ................ 5,000 ................NATIONAL SHORELINE ............................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 675 ................ ................ 675 ................PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 4,000 ................ ................ 4,000 ................
31 

TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM .............................................................................................................................................................. ................ 1,000 ................ ................ 1,000 ................WATER RESOURCES PRIORITIES STUDY ................................................................................................................................................... ................ 1,000 ................ ................ ................ ................NATIONAL FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 1,500 ................

SUBTOTAL ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,150 82,731 6,119 1,150 123,011 4,839 

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ¥9,000 ................

TOTAL ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,150 82,731 6,119 1,150 114,011 4,839 GRAND TOTAL ....................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 90,000 ................ ................ 120,000 ................
32 

Mobile Harbor, Alabama.—The Committee supports the President’s budget request for this study and expects the Corps to conduct the study to account for the full depth as authorized in section 

201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. 

Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.—The Committee has not 

funded this item in the GI account as recommended by the administration. The Committee has transferred the budget request to the 

Construction, General account where the Committee has funded it 

every year since fiscal year 2009. 

Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.—The Committee understands 

that during the 2011 flooding on the Mississippi River that considerable damages were concentrated on the Upper Mississippi River 

Basin where there is no comprehensive flood risk management 

plan. The comprehensive Mississippi River and Tributaries Project 

in the lower basin limited damages incurred despite record stages 

in many locations. The Committee believes that a comprehensive 

plan for the upper basin would provide considerable benefits and 

urges the Corps to provide funding for these efforts. 

Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.—In 

the aftermath of two successive years of management challenges on 

the Missouri River due to flood and drought, the Committee recognizes the importance of developing information to better inform 

public policy decisions. The Committee urges the Corps to reinitiate 

the review of the original project purposes based on the Flood Control Act of 1944, as amended, and other subsequent relevant legislation and judicial rulings to determine if changes to the authorized 

purposes of the existing Federal water resources infrastructure 

may be warranted to provide solutions to these management challenges. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The fiscal year 2014 

budget request does not reflect the extent of need for project studies funding. The Corps has numerous continuing studies that will 

be suspended under the limits of the budget request. These studies 

could lead to projects with significant economic benefits, particularly by increasing national competitiveness through marine transportation improvements and by avoiding damages caused by flooding and coastal storms. The Committee recommends additional 

funds to continue ongoing studies. None of these funds may be used 

for any item where funding was specifically denied. While this additional funding is shown in the feasibility column, the Corps 

should utilize these funds in any applicable phase of work. The intent of these funds is for ongoing work that either was not included 

in the administration’s request or was inadequately budgeted. Ongoing studies that are actively progressing and can utilize the funding in a timely manner are eligible for these additional funds. 

The five new study starts directed as part of the work plan shall 

be funded from the appropriate additional funding line item. It 

should be understood that the Committee intends that there be 

only fifteen new study starts in fiscal year 2014. When considering 

which new study starts to propose, the administration should give 

higher priority to those studies that are regional in scope, have the 

potential to provide greater national benefits, address endangered 
33 

species concerns or provide protection to large numbers of our citizens. Additionally, recognizing the constrained fiscal environment, 

the administration should give careful consideration to the outyear 

budget impacts of the studies that they choose as well as whether 

there appears to be an identifiable local sponsor that will be ready 

and able to provide the necessary cost shares for the feasibility and 

preconstruction engineering and design phases of the study phase. 

These new studies should be conducted utilizing the Corps 3 × 3 

× 3 approach and completed as expeditiously as possible. As all of 

these studies are to be chosen by the administration (either 

through the budget request or through the work plan, it should be 

understood that all are equal and should be appropriately budgeted 

for in future budgets submissions to ensure they meet the 3 × 3 × 

3 approach). 

Funding associated with each category may be allocated to any 

eligible study within that category; funding associated with each 

subcategory may be allocated only to eligible studies within that 

subcategory. The list of subcategories is not meant to be exhaustive. The Committee directs that priority in allocating these funds 

be given to funding the five new starts directed by the Committee, 

completing or accelerating ongoing studies which will enhance the 

Nation’s economic development, job growth, and international competitiveness, are for projects located in areas that have suffered recent natural disasters, or are for areas where revisions to flood frequency flow lines may result in a situation where existing infrastructure no longer meets the requirements under the National 

Flood Insurance program. 

Within 45 days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall provide 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a work 

plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed and in 

which phase the work is to be accomplished. The Committee directs 

that a listing should accompany the work plan showing all the ongoing studies that were considered eligible and could have used 

funding for fiscal year 2014 and the reasons why these items were 

considered as being less competitive for inclusion in the work plan. 

Water Resources Priorities Study.—Rather than fund the Water 

Resources Priorities Study requested in this account or the Reducing Civil Works Vulnerability Study requested in the O&M account, the Committee is funding a study that would be a combination of the two. The Committee believes that the goals of these 

studies are not mutually exclusive and if the study results are 

going to be used to set priorities, then modifications to existing infrastructure should be prioritized along with new infrastructure 

needs. The Committee believes that this study should examine the 

flood risks across the Nation in light of the conditions today and 

projecting the conditions into the future based on the best available 

science. Priority should be given to urban population centers that 

are currently at risk from flooding or are anticipated to be at risk 

based on scientific projections. As current flood control infrastructure continues to age, the viability of that infrastructure should be 

evaluated to determine, based on the best scientific information, 

how and whether that infrastructure will remain effective in the 

future. The report should make recommendations that include not 

only the usual structural measures, where no or inadequate infra-
34 

structure currently exists, but should also include recommendations for modifications of existing infrastructure to allow it to be 

repurposed or deauthorized, as appropriate, to meet projected 

needs. This should be a forward-looking report that could make 

nonstructural recommendations concerning ways to accommodate 

potential sea level rise and its impacts on threatened coastal or 

riverine flood plains. While these are solutions that may necessarily be locally driven, the report recommendations should include ways for the Federal Government to incentivize local jurisdictions to undertake these socially and economically difficult alternatives. The Corps should refer to this study in all future documents as the National Flood Risk Assessment Study. 

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2013 1 2 ......................................................................... $5,131,652,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 1,350,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,542,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

2 Includes emergency funding of $3,461,000,000 in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 

2013 (division A of Public Law 113–2). 

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

projects having navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, 

water supply, hydroelectric, environmental restoration, and other 

attendant benefits to the Nation. The construction and major rehabilitation for designated projects for inland and costal waterways 

will derive one-half of the funding from the Inland Waterways 

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 administration request for the Construction, General account 

is $1,350,000,000, a decrease of $320,652,000 from the fiscal year 

2013 enacted amount before sequester and supplemental disaster 

appropriations. By the Committee’s estimate, less than 60 percent 

of the needed funding is available in this account. Construction will 

slip due to constrained funding and benefits to the national economy will be deferred. As the Committee has noted over the last 8 

years the funding proposed for this account appears to be ‘‘pennywise and pound foolish.’’ As was noted in this report last year, lack 

of investment in this infrastructure has lead to another Katrinastyle disaster along the east coast due to incomplete or damaged 

flood control or shore protection infrastructure. We are again expending billions trying to restore and accelerate the construction of 

the infrastructure that failed at a much greater cost than if the 

work had been planned and budgeted for in a more thoughtful 

manner. 

The Committee recommendation includes $1,542,000,000 in new 

budget authority for this account. The Committee recognizes that 

this is considerably less than the needs in the program but is the 

best that can be accomplished in this constrained fiscal environment. The Committee rejects the $100,000,000 rescission proposed 

in the administration’s budget request. 

The Committee has provided for seven new construction starts in 

fiscal year 2014—four new construction starts proposed in the 
35 

budget request and three to be selected based on the Corps’ 

prioritization process and included as a part of the Construction, 

General work plan. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table: 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

CALIFORNIA 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON FEATURES), CA ..................................................... 2,500 2,500 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODS), CA ..................................................... 66,400 66,400 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM RAISE), CA ..................................................... 3,150 3,150 

HAMILTON CITY, CA ................................................................................................................. 15,000 15,000 

ISABELLA LAKE, CA (DAM SAFETY) ......................................................................................... 28,200 28,200 

NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA ........................................................................ 3,200 3,200 

OAKLAND HARBOR (50-FOOT PROJECT), CA ........................................................................... 100 100 

SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA .......................................................... 3,000 3,000 

SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA ........................................................................................... 42,000 42,000 

YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA ........................................................................................................... 1,800 1,800 

FLORIDA 

FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL ......................................................................................................... 5,200 5,200 

HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL) ................................................................. 86,000 86,000 

NASSAU COUNTY, FL ............................................................................................................... 9,000 9,000 

PINELLAS COUNTY, FL ............................................................................................................. 7,700 7,700 

SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL ..................................................................... 88,000 88,000 

TAMPA HARBOR MAIN CHANNEL, FL ....................................................................................... 3,380 3,380

GEORGIA 

LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, GA ...................................................................................... 50 50 

RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC ............................................................... 880 880 

SAVANNAH HARBOR DISPOSAL AREAS, GA AND SC ............................................................... 8,000 8,000 

SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA ...................................................................................... ........................ 1,280 

TYBEE ISLAND, GA ................................................................................................................... 300 300 

ILLINOIS 

CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR) ............................................... 400 400 

CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL ............................................. 27,600 27,600 

EAST ST. LOUIS, IL .................................................................................................................. 12,855 12,855 

ILLINOIS WATERWAY, LOCKPORT LOCK AND DAM, IL (MAJOR REHAB) ................................... 11,400 11,400 

MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL ............................................................................. 25,500 25,500 

OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY ............................................................. 163,000 163,000 

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO, AND WI ....................................... 31,968 31,968 

WOOD RIVER LEVEE, DEFICIENCY CORRECTION AND RECONSTRUCTION, IL ......................... 20,860 20,860 

INDIANA 

LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN ..................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 

IOWA 

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, ND, AND SD ............ 70,000 70,000 

KANSAS 

TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO ........................................................................................ 6,000 6,000 

KENTUCKY 

ROUGH RIVER, KY (MAJOR REHAB) ........................................................................................ 5,800 5,800 

LOUISIANA 

CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA ............................................................................................ 10,543 10,543 

LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA .................................................... 1,000 1,000 
36 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

MARYLAND 

ASSATEAGUE, MD .................................................................................................................... 1,200 1,200 

CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND VA .............................................................. 5,000 5,000 

POPLAR ISLAND, MD ................................................................................................................ 18,400 18,400 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MUDDY RIVER, MA .................................................................................................................. 8,000 8,000 

MISSOURI 

BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO .............................................................................. 3,012 3,012 

KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS .................................................................................................... 11,000 11,000 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO AND 

IL ......................................................................................................................................... 49,690 49,690 

MONARCH—CHESTERFIELD, MO ............................................................................................. 2,000 2,000 

NEW JERSEY 

CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ ........................................................................... 200 200 

DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA, AND DE ............................................................... 20,000 20,000 

GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ ................................................................. 500 500 

LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ .............................................................. 400 400 

RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ .......................................................... 11,000 11,000 

NEW YORK 

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY .......................................................................... 300 300 

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ ............................................................... 49,000 49,000 

NORTH CAROLINA 

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ...................................................................................................... 6,800 6,800 

WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC ...................................................................................................... 8,000 8,000 

NORTH DAKOTA 

GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND .................................................................................. 4,000 4,000 

OHIO 

BOLIVAR DAM, OH (DAM SAFETY) ........................................................................................... 32,500 32,500 

DOVER DAM, MUSKINGUM RIVER, OH (DAM SAFETY) ............................................................. 3,750 3,750 

OKLAHOMA 

CANTON LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................... 16,300 16,300 

OREGON 

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA ...................................................................... 1,000 1,000 

COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, OR AND WA .................................................... 250 250 

ELK CREEK LAKE, OR .............................................................................................................. 1,183 1,183 

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA ....................................... 7,080 7,080 

PENNSYLVANIA 

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA ............................................................................... 21,500 21,500 

LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3, AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ................................................... 1,960 1,960 

WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING) ................................................................................. 1,000 1,000 

PUERTO RICO 

RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR .......................................................................................................... 17,250 17,250 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ...................................................................................................... 226 226 

TENNESSEE 

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN ............................................................................................................ 36,500 36,500 
37 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

TEXAS 

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX .................................................................................................. 2,500 2,500 

LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN (WHARTON/ONION), TX ....................................................... 3,000 3,000 

VIRGINIA 

ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA ....................................................... 300 300 

WASHINGTON 

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR, AND ID ............................................................ 101,553 101,553 

DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA ............................................................................. 8,500 8,500 

LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA ............................................ 2,000 2,000 

MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ................................................................... 600 600 

WEST VIRGINIA 

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................. 30,000 30,000 

WISCONSIN 

GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ......................................................................................................... 1,900 1,900 

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ............................................................................. 1,255,140 1,256,420 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION ...................................................................... ........................ 20,000 

FLOOD CONTROL ................................................................................................... ........................ 50,000 

SHORE PROTECTION .............................................................................................. ........................ 30,000 

NAVIGATION .................................................................................................................... ........................ 30,000 

INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND PROJECTS ....................................................... ........................ 40,000 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES ..................................................................... ........................ 10,000 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE ................................................ ........................ 5,000 

ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCURE PROJECTS ...................................................... ........................ 50,000 

HYDROPOWER PROJECTS ...................................................................................... ........................ 2,000 

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

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROJECTS NOT REQUIRING SPECIFIC LEGISLATION:.

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206) ..................................................... 6,100 8,000 

BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTIONS 204, 207, 933) ........................ 5,000 7,000 

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) .................................................................. 7,900 13,000 

NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111) ........................................................ 500 1,300 

NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107) .......................................................................... ........................ 3,700 

PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (SECTION 

1135) ......................................................................................................................... 9,500 10,500 

SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103) .............................................................................. ........................ 2,500 

DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM ............................................ 45,000 45,000 

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION .................................................................................................. 19,000 19,000 

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—BOARD EXPENSE ........................................................ 60 60 

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—CORPS EXPENSE ........................................................ 800 800 

ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC LAW 106–457) .................................................. 1,000 1,000 

RESTORATION OF ABANDONED MINES .................................................................................... ........................ 1,000 

SUBTOTAL ................................................................................................................... 94,860 357,860 

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .......................................................................................................... ........................ ¥72,280 

TOTAL ......................................................................................................................... 1,350,000 1,542,000 

Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.—The administration 

budget request for this item that was proposed in the GI account 

has been moved to this account where it has been funded since fiscal year 2009. 
38 

Muddy River, Massachusetts.—Funds recommended for this 

project may be used for both flood risk management and environmental restoration. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Corps has ongoing, 

authorized construction projects that would cost tens of billions of 

dollars to complete, yet the administration continues to request a 

mere fraction of the funding necessary to complete those projects. 

The Committee recommends additional funds to continue ongoing 

projects and activities to enhance the Nation’s economic growth 

and international competitiveness. The intent of these funds is for 

ongoing work that either was not included in the administration’s 

request or was inadequately budgeted. None of these funds shall be 

used for projects in the Continuing Authorities Program. Ongoing 

construction projects that are actively progressing and can utilize 

the funding in a timely manner are eligible for these additional 

funds. This includes periodic beach renourishments. 

Funding associated with each category may be allocated to any 

eligible project within that category; funding associated with each 

subcategory may be allocated only to eligible projects within that 

subcategory. The list of subcategories is not meant to be exhaustive. Priority in allocating additional funding should consider the 

following: number of jobs created directly by the funded activity; 

the benefits of the funded work to the national economy; ability to 

obligate the funds allocated within the fiscal year, including consideration of the ability of the non-Federal sponsor to provide any required cost-share; ability to complete the project, separable element, or project phase within the funds allocated; for flood and 

storm damage reduction, population at risk and economic activity 

or public infrastructure at risk; and for navigation, number of jobs 

or level of economic activity to be supported by completion of the 

project, separable element, or project phase. A major factor to be 

considered for prioritizing inland waterway funding is the economic 

impact on the local, regional, and national economy if the project 

is not funded. In addition, priority should be given to discrete elements of work that can be completed within the funding provided 

in this line item. 

For environmental infrastructure assistance the Committee recognizes that these authorities were originally created to assist communities that were unable to compete well in the State-wide revolving fund authorities under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency. While the Committee believes it appropriate to prioritize those projects with the greater economic impact, 

it recognizes that such rigid criteria may exclude rural underserved 

communities with greater needs. The Committee encourages the 

Corps to reserve at least 15 percent of these funds for communities 

that are rural by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s definition 

and in counties or parishes where the average family income is 

below the national poverty level. 

The three new project starts directed as part of the work plan 

shall be funded from the appropriate additional funding line-item. 

The Committee intends only seven new construction starts in fiscal 

year 2014. 

It should be understood that the administration may substitute 

new starts from their budget request if it appears they cannot or 
39 

don’t meet the criteria above or the additional criteria below. The 

administration shall select the three new construction projects from 

the primary mission areas of navigation, flood risk management 

and shore protection. When considering which new starts to include 

in the work plan, the applicable criteria previously discussed 

should be considered. Additional factors that should be considered 

for all new starts include: the outyear budget impacts of the proposed new starts; the cost sharing sponsor’s ability and willingness 

to promptly provide their cash contribution (if any) as well as required lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations and disposal 

areas; the sponsor’s willingness and ability to execute a project 

partnership agreement during the fiscal year period covered by this 

act; and the benefits of the project to the local population. 

Within 45 days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall provide 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a work 

plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed. The Committee directs that a listing should accompany the work plan showing all the ongoing construction projects that were considered eligible and could have used funding for fiscal year 2014 and the reasons why these items were considered as being less competitive for 

inclusion in the work plan. 

Aquatic Plant Control Program.—The Committee has recommended funding for this program which is the only nationwide 

R&D program to address invasive aquatic plants. The Committee 

urges the Corps to continue to support cost-shared aquatic plant 

management programs. 

Continuing Authorities Program [CAP].—The Continuing Authorities Program (projects which do not require specific authorizing legislation) 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 Committee 

has chosen to fund eight of the nine sections of the CAP program 

rather than only the five sections proposed in the budget request. 

The Committee has not funded section 208 as it believes these 

projects can easily be accommodated under the authority of section 

205. The Committee believes that CAP funds should be expended 

for the CAP sections for which they were appropriated and should 

be executed as quickly as possible. The Committee continues to believe that the various sections of the CAP program provide a useful 

tool for the Corps to undertake small localized projects without 

being encumbered by the lengthy study and authorization phases 

typical of most Corps projects. 

The Committee has included a total of $50,000,000 spread over 

the eight CAP sections for work in fiscal year 2014. The Committee 

urges the administration to execute the program laid out by the 

Committee and include funding for this program in future budgets. 

Continuing Authorities Program Direction.—For each CAP section, available funds shall be allocated utilizing this sequence of 

steps until the funds are exhausted: 
40 

—capability-level funds for ongoing projects that have executed 

cost-sharing agreements for the applicable phase; 

—capability-level funds for projects that are ready for execution 

of new cost-sharing agreements for the applicable phase and 

for which Corps headquarters authorizes execution of the 

agreements; 

—funds, as permitted by Corps policies, for other projects previously funded for the applicable phase but not ready for execution of new cost-sharing agreements; and 

—funds as permitted by Corps policies, for projects not previously funded for the applicable phase. 

Funds shall be allocated by headquarters to the appropriate 

Field Operating Agency [FOA] for projects requested by that FOA. 

If the FOA finds that the study/project for which funds were requested cannot go forward, the funds are to be returned to Corps 

headquarters to be reallocated based on the nationwide priority 

listing. In no case should the FOA retain these funds for use on 

a different project than the one for which the funds were requested 

without the explicit approval of the Corps’ headquarters. 

Within the step at which available funds are exhausted for each 

CAP section, funds shall be allocated to the projects in that section 

that rank high according to the following factors: high overall performance based on outputs; high percent fiscally complete; and 

high unobligated carry-in. Section 14 funds shall be allocated to the 

projects that address the most significant risks and adverse consequences, irrespective of phase or previous funding history. 

The Corps shall continue the ongoing process for suspending and 

terminating inactive projects. Suspended projects shall not be reactivated or funded unless the sponsor reaffirms in writing its support for the project and establishes its willingness and capability 

to execute its project responsibilities. 

In order to provide a mix of studies, design and construction 

within each CAP section, the Corps is directed to divide the funding generally 80/20 between the Design and Implementation and 

the Feasibility phases within each authority. The Chief of Engineers shall provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations 

within 30 days of enactment of this act detailing how funds will be 

distributed to the individual items in the various CAP sections for 

the fiscal year. The Chief shall also provide an annual report at the 

end of each fiscal year detailing the progress made on the backlog 

of projects. The report should include the completions and terminations as well as progress of ongoing work. 

The Corps may initiate new continuing authorities projects in all 

sections as funding allows. New projects may be initiated after an 

assessment is made that such projects can be funded over time 

based on historical averages of the appropriation for that section 

and after prior approval by the Committees on Appropriations. 

Restoration of Abandoned Mines.—The Corps is directed to work 

closely with those Federal land management agencies, Western 

States and tribes with abandoned non-coal mine sites so that the 

greatest number of those sites presenting threats to public health 

and safety can be addressed in a cost-effective manner. 
41 

FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ARKANSAS, IL- LINOIS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, AND TEN- NESSEE

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $251,496,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 279,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 300,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

This appropriation funds planning, construction, and operation 

and maintenance activities associated with water resource projects 

located in the lower Mississippi River Valley from Cape Girardeau, 

Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table: 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

INVESTIGATIONS 

MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, TN ....................................... 100 100 

SUBTOTAL, INVESTIGATIONS ...................................................................................... 100 100 

CONSTRUCTION 

BAYOU METO BASIN, AR ......................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 

GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR ................................................................................................... 22,000 22,000 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN ................................................... 58,015 58,015 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN ............................................... 22,829 22,829 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ......................................................................................................... 3,500 3,500 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ....................................................................... 1,750 1,750 

SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................... 113,094 113,094 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN ................................................... 76,978 76,978 

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ................................................................................ 33 33 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................................................ 250 250 

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR .......................................................................... 287 287 

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR .......................................................................... 193 193 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN ............................................... 8,479 8,479 

ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO ............................................................................................ 5,900 5,900 

TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR AND LA ..................................................... 1,839 1,839 

WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR ................................................................................................ 1,142 1,142 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ................................................................................. 170 170 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................................................ 100 100 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ......................................................................................................... 9,747 9,747 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ....................................................................... 1,521 1,521 

BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA ........................................................................... 69 69 

BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA ............................................................................... 48 48 

BONNET CARRE, LA ................................................................................................................. 2,188 2,188 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................................................ 1,007 1,007 

LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA ....................................................................... 456 456 

MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA .............................................................................................. 472 472 

OLD RIVER, LA ......................................................................................................................... 8,118 8,118 

TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA .......................................................................... 2,414 2,414 

GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS ....................................................................................................... 24 24 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ............................................................................... 130 130 

VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS ........................................................................................................ 42 42 

YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ..................................................................................... 5,354 5,354

YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS ........................................................................... 185 185 

YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS ................................................................................................ 4,777 4,777 
42 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS ............................................................................................ 788 788 

YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS ......................................................................................... 5,164 5,164 

YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS ............................................................................................... 1,273 1,273 

YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS ............................................................................................ 6,493 6,493 

YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS ............................................................................................ 944 944

YAZOO BASIN, WILL M. WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS ........................................................... 375 375 

YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS ........................................................................ 526 526 

YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS .............................................................................................. 714 714 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ............................................................................... 200 200 

WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO ........................................................................................................... 4,760 4,760 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ................................................................................ 80 80 

MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN ............................................................................... 1,803 1,803 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .............................................................. 155,043 155,043 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

DREDGING ....................................................................................................................... ........................ 5,000 

FLOOD CONTROL ............................................................................................................ ........................ 11,000 

WATER SUPPLY AND RELATED AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ............................................... ........................ 13,000 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ..................................................................................... ........................ 5,000 

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA ............................................................................... 9,700 9,700 

MAPPING .................................................................................................................................. 1,063 1,063 

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ................................................................................... 10,763 44,763 

REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .............................................................................. ........................ ¥13,000 

TOTAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ........................................................... 279,000 300,000 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee recommendation includes additional funds above the budget request to 

continue ongoing studies, projects or maintenance. The Committee 

recommends that these funds be used for flood control, navigation, 

water supply, ground water protection, waterfowl management, 

bank stabilization, erosion and sedimentation control, and environmental restoration work. The intent of these funds is for ongoing 

work primarily along the Mississippi River tributaries that either 

was not included in the administration’s request or was inadequately budgeted. While this additional funding is shown under 

remaining items, the Corps should utilize these funds in any applicable phase of work. None of these funds may be used to start new 

projects or activities. 

The Committee directs that priority in allocating these funds be 

given to completing or accelerating ongoing work which will enhance the region and Nation’s economic development, job growth 

and international competitiveness, or is located in areas that have 

suffered recent natural disasters. Within 45 days of enactment of 

this act, the Corps shall provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a work plan delineating how these funds 

are to be distributed. The Committee directs that a listing should 

accompany the work plan showing all the studies and construction 

projects that were considered eligible and could have used funding 

for fiscal year 2013 and the reasons why these items were considered as being less competitive for inclusion in the work plan. 
43 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2013 1 2 ......................................................................... $3,228,176,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 2,588,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,700,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

2 Includes emergency funding of $821,000,000 in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 

(division A of Public Law 113–2). 

This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and related activities at the water resources projects that the Corps operates and 

maintains. Work to be accomplished consists of dredging, repair, 

and operation of structures and other facilities, as authorized in 

the various river and harbor, flood control, and water resources development acts. Related activities include aquatic plant control, 

monitoring of completed projects where appropriate, removal of 

sunken vessels, and the collection of domestic waterborne commerce statistics. 

Maintenance of our aging water infrastructure inventory gets 

more expensive every year; however, it is consistently underfunded. 

If this trend continues, the Corps will not be able to maintain expected levels of service at all of its projects. The Committee is 

pleased that the budget request increases spending from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund by $42,000,000 over the fiscal year 

2013 budget request. The Committee has increased funding in this 

account in order to provide $1,000,000,000 in expenditures from 

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for fiscal year 2014. 

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 Committee understands 

that the O&M budget fluctuates from year to year due to periodic 

maintenance dredging requirements, however, the general trend 

should be for this budget to increase. Nearly 75 percent of the 

O&M budget consists of labor and dredging costs in most years. 

Labor costs rarely decrease for the Corps as it takes roughly the 

same amount of manpower to operate Corps projects on a yearly 

basis. That means that when the budget request is reduced, the 

only areas available to reduce are dredging and maintenance items. 

The Corps is to be commended for managing to keep as much of 

their infrastructure operable as they have with the O&M budgets 

that have been put forward and enacted. 

The budget request and the Committee recommendation are 

shown on the following table: 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

ALABAMA 

ALABAMA-COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL .......................................................... 250 250 

ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL ..................................................................................................... 16,327 16,327 

BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL ...................................................................... 25,436 25,436 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL ...................................................................................... 5,469 5,469

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL ................................................................................ 100 100 

MOBILE HARBOR, AL ............................................................................................................... 27,000 27,000 
44 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL ......................................................................................... 148 148 

TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL AND MS ............................... 1,820 1,820 

TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS .................................................................. 23,431 23,431 

WALTER F. GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA .................................................................. 8,562 8,562 

ALASKA 

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK ....................................................................................................... 9,431 9,431 

CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK ......................................................................................................... 2,921 2,921 

COOK INLET SHOALS, AK ......................................................................................................... 6,188 6,188 

DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK ....................................................................................................... 1,080 1,080 

HOMER HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................... 487 487 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK ................................................................................ 155 155 

LOWELL CREEK TUNNELL (SEWARD) AK ................................................................................. 150 150 

NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK ........................................................................................................... 400 400 

NOME HARBOR, AK .................................................................................................................. 1,244 1,244 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK ......................................................................................... 853 853 

ARIZONA 

ALAMO LAKE, AZ ...................................................................................................................... 1,103 1,103 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ ................................................................................ 101 101 

PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ .......................................................................................................... 907 907 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ ............................................................................ 53 53 

WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ ...................................................................................................... 319 319 

ARKANSAS 

BEAVER LAKE, AR .................................................................................................................... 7,187 7,187 

BLAKELY MT. DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR ................................................................................ 7,938 7,938 

BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ...................................................................................................... 1,909 1,909 

BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR .......................................................................................................... 11,564 11,564 

DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR .......................................................................................... 7,750 7,750 

DEGRAY LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................... 5,637 5,637 

DEQUEEN LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................. 1,902 1,902 

DIERKS LAKE, AR ..................................................................................................................... 1,586 1,586 

GILLHAM LAKE, AR .................................................................................................................. 1,735 1,735 

GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR ........................................................................................................ 7,405 7,405 

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ................................................................................ 26 26 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................................................ 517 517 

MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR ............................................. 28,558 28,558 

MILLWOOD LAKE, AR ............................................................................................................... 2,706 2,706 

NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR ...................................................................................... 5,841 5,841 

NIMROD LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................... 2,016 2,016 

NORFORK LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................. 8,148 8,148 

OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR ............................................................................................................ 15 15 

OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA ........................................................................... 9,786 9,786 

OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR .............................................................................. 6,287 6,287 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR ......................................................................................... 2 2 

WHITE RIVER, AR ..................................................................................................................... 31 31 

YELLOW BEND PORT, AR ......................................................................................................... 3 3 

CALIFORNIA 

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA .......................................................................................................... 2,564 2,564 

BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA ............................................................................... 2,052 2,052 

COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA ........................................................................ 3,277 3,277 

DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA ........................................................ 5,151 5,151 

FARMINGTON DAM, CA ............................................................................................................ 490 490 

HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA ........................................................................................... 2,067 2,067 

HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA ......................................................................................... 2,730 2,730

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, CA ............................................... 10 10 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA ................................................................................ 3,987 3,987 

ISABELLA LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................. 1,282 1,282 

LOS ANGELES—LONG BEACH HARBORS, CA ......................................................................... 4,809 4,809 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA .......................................................................... 6,440 6,440 
45 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA ............................................................................................. 400 400 

MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA .......................................................................................................... 353 353 

MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA ....................................................................................................... 2,353 2,353 

NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA ............................................................................................................. 2,593 2,593 

NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA ............................................................... 1,937 1,937 

OAKLAND HARBOR, CA ............................................................................................................ 22,069 22,069 

OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA ......................................................................................................... 1,600 1,600 

PINE FLAT LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................ 3,593 3,593 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA ......................................................................................... 1,663 1,663 

REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA .................................................................................................. 2,750 2,750 

RICHMOND HARBOR, CA ......................................................................................................... 7,000 7,000 

SACRAMENTO RIVER (30-FOOT PROJECT), CA ........................................................................ 1,500 1,500 

SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA ........................................... 1,437 1,437 

SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA ............................................................. 200 200 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA ............................................................ 864 864 

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL) ................................................... 3,100 3,100 

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................. 3,025 3,025 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON, CA ....................................................................... 5,573 5,573 

SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA .................................................................... 750 750 

SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA .................................................................................................. 3,865 3,865 

SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................ 2,665 2,665 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA ............................................................................ 1,435 1,435 

SUCCESS LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................. 2,563 2,563 

SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA ...................................................................................................... 2,026 2,026 

TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA ........................................................................................ 2,417 2,417 

VENTURA HARBOR, CA ............................................................................................................ 4,071 4,071 

YUBA RIVER, CA ...................................................................................................................... 301 301 

COLORADO 

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO ........................................................................................................... 912 912 

CHATFIELD LAKE, CO ............................................................................................................... 1,847 1,847 

CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO ....................................................................................................... 1,947 1,947 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, CO ............................................... 10 10 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO ............................................................................... 322 322 

JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO ................................................................................................ 2,668 2,668 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO ............................................................................ 608 608 

TRINIDAD LAKE, CO ................................................................................................................. 1,680 1,680 

CONNECTICUT 

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT ............................................................................................................ 666 666 

COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT .................................................................................................. 744 744 

HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT ..................................................................................................... 411 411 

HOP BROOK LAKE, CT ............................................................................................................. 1,067 1,067 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, CT ............................................... 15 15 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT ................................................................................ 268 268 

LONG ISLAND SOUND DMMP, CT ............................................................................................ 500 500 

MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT ................................................................................................ 1,081 1,081 

NEW HAVEN HARBOR, CT ........................................................................................................ 8,600 8,600 

NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT ................................................................................................ 434 434 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT ......................................................................................... 850 850 

STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT ..................................................................................... 679 679 

THOMASTON DAM, CT .............................................................................................................. 821 821 

WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT ..................................................................................................... 678 678 

DELAWARE 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DE ................................................................................ 40 40 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY .................................... 18,918 18,918 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE ......................................................................................... 200 200 

WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE ...................................................................................................... 5,405 5,405 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC ............................................................................... 115 115 
46 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL) .................................................... 875 875 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC ........................................................................................ 25 25 

WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC ..................................................................................................... 25 25

FLORIDA 

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ......................................................................................................... 4,398 4,398 

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL .................................................................................. 14,791 14,791

ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL AND AL ...................................................................... 34 34 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL ................................................................................ 1,500 1,500 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL ...................................................... 250 250 

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ..................................................................................................... 9,014 9,014 

JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL, AND GA ....................................... 8,117 8,117 

MANATEE HARBOR, FL ............................................................................................................. 3,365 3,365 

MIAMI HARBOR, FL .................................................................................................................. 4,355 4,355 

OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL .................................................................................................. 2,467 2,467 

PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL ...................................................................................................... 2,500 2,500 

PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL ...................................................................................................... 2,070 2,070 

PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL ............................................................................................. 300 300 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL ......................................................................................... 1,465 1,465 

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL ....................................................................................... 3,500 3,500

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL ............................................................................. 35 35 

SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL ..................................................................... 9,053 9,053 

TAMPA HARBOR, FL ................................................................................................................. 10,400 10,400 

GEORGIA 

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA .............................................................................................................. 8,165 8,165 

APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL, AND FL ................................. 1,324 1,324 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA ............................................................................... 164 164 

BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA ....................................................................................................... 5,311 5,311 

BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA ......................................................................... 8,971 8,971 

CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA ................................................................................................. 8,128 8,128 

HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC .................................................................................................. 10,728 10,728 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, GA ............................................... 15 15 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA ................................................................................ 180 180 

J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC ................................................................................. 9,939 9,939 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA ......................................................................................... 161 161 

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC ................................................................ 8,707 8,707 

SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA .......................................................................................................... 24,065 24,065 

SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA ................................................................................. 202 202 

WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL ............................................................................... 7,518 7,518 

HAWAII 

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI .................................................................................................. 434 434 

HILO HARBOR, HI .................................................................................................................... 206 206 

HONOLULU HARBOR, HI .......................................................................................................... 206 206 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI ................................................................................. 885 885 

KAHULUI HARBOR, HI .............................................................................................................. 206 206 

NAWILIWILI HARBOR, HI .......................................................................................................... 206 206 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI .......................................................................................... 683 683 

IDAHO 

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID ............................................................................................................ 1,244 1,244 

DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID .................................................................................... 4,802 4,802 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID ................................................................................. 358 358 

LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID ............................................................................................................. 2,383 2,383 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID ............................................................................. 580 580 

ILLINOIS 

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN ............................................................................. 4,912 4,912 

CARLYLE LAKE, IL .................................................................................................................... 5,542 5,542 

CHICAGO HARBOR, IL .............................................................................................................. 2,264 2,264 

CHICAGO RIVER, IL .................................................................................................................. 680 680 
47 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL ................................................................................................. 312 312 

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND IN .................................................................... 39,581 39,581 

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND IN .................................................................... 3,891 3,891 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, IL ................................................. 50 50 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ................................................................................. 2,556 2,556 

KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL ........................................................................................... 1,928 1,928 

LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL ............................................................................................... 739 739 

LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL ............................................................................................................. 5,711 5,711 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION), IL ....... 63,739 63,739 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION), IL ........ 26,319 26,319 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL .......................................................................................... 106 106 

REND LAKE, IL ......................................................................................................................... 5,581 5,581 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL .......................................................... 706 706 

WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL ........................................................................................................... 472 472 

INDIANA 

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN .............................................................................................................. 1,791 1,791 

BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN ............................................................................................. 2,079 2,079 

CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN ............................................................................................................ 1,175 1,175 

CECIL M. HARDEN LAKE, IN .................................................................................................... 1,798 1,798 

INDIANA HARBOR, IN ............................................................................................................... 10,973 10,973 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN ................................................................................. 1,008 1,008 

J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN .................................................................................................... 1,310 1,310 

MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN .......................................................................................................... 1,466 1,466 

MONROE LAKE, IN ................................................................................................................... 1,148 1,148 

PATOKA LAKE, IN ..................................................................................................................... 1,140 1,140 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN .......................................................................................... 185 185 

SALAMONIE LAKE, IN ............................................................................................................... 1,241 1,241 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN ......................................................... 135 135 

IOWA 

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA .............................................................................................................. 4,368 4,368 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA ................................................................................. 656 656 

MISSOURI RIVER—SIOUX CITY TO THE MOUTH, IA, KS, MO, AND NE ................................... 8,384 8,384 

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, ND, AND SD ............ 2,200 2,200 

RATHBUN LAKE, IA .................................................................................................................. 3,192 3,192 

RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA .............................................................................. 4,721 4,721 

SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA ............................................................................................................. 11,330 11,330 

KANSAS 

BRUSH CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO ......................................................................................... ........................ ........................

CLINTON LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................... 2,453 2,453 

COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS ...................................................................................................... 1,859 1,859 

EL DORADO LAKE, KS .............................................................................................................. 1,011 1,011 

ELK CITY LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................. 1,107 1,107 

FALL RIVER LAKE, KS .............................................................................................................. 1,192 1,192 

HILLSDALE LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................ 1,129 1,129 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS ................................................................................ 983 983 

JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS ............................................................................ 1,565 1,565 

KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS ............................................................................................................... 1,431 1,431 

MARION LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................... 2,081 2,081 

MELVERN LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................. 2,173 2,173 

MILFORD LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................. 2,375 2,375 

PEARSON—SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS ................................................................................ 1,382 1,382 

PERRY LAKE, KS ...................................................................................................................... 2,323 2,323 

POMONA LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................... 2,004 2,004 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS ............................................................................ 355 355 

TORONTO LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................. 896 896 

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS ......................................................................................................... 2,093 2,093 

WILSON LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................... 2,343 2,343 
48 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

KENTUCKY 

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN .................................................................... 9,828 9,828 

BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY ........................................................................................................ 2,671 2,671 

BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY ......................................................................................................... 1,829 1,829 

BUCKHORN LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................... 1,712 1,712 

CARR CREEK LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................ 1,861 1,861 

CAVE RUN LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................ 1,025 1,025 

DEWEY LAKE, KY ..................................................................................................................... 1,754 1,754 

ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY .................................................................................... 15 15 

FALLS OF THE OHIO NATIONAL WILDLIFE, KY AND IN ............................................................. 19 19 

FISHTRAP LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................. 2,019 2,019 

GRAYSON LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................. 1,498 1,498 

GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY ........................................................................................... 2,055 2,055 

GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY ........................................................................................................... 2,733 2,733 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................................................ 1,033 1,033 

KENTUCKY RIVER, KY .............................................................................................................. 10 10 

LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY ......................................................................................................... 1,940 1,940 

MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY ......................................................................................................... 1,089 1,089 

MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY ..................................................................... 250 250 

NOLIN LAKE, KY ....................................................................................................................... 2,781 2,781 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN, AND OH .............................................................. 43,435 43,435 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN, OH, PA, AND WV .......................................... 5,500 5,500 

PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................. 1,179 1,179 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY ......................................................................................... 2 2 

ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY .......................................................................................................... 2,693 2,693 

TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY .......................................................................................................... 1,344 1,344 

WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY ........................................................................... 8,467 8,467 

YATESVILLE LAKE, KY .............................................................................................................. 1,135 1,135 

LOUISIANA 

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, LA ...................................... 8,912 8,912 

BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA ............................................................................................. 264 264 

BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA ............................................................................................. 1,204 1,204 

BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA .................................................. 1,053 1,053 

BAYOU PIERRE, LA .................................................................................................................. 23 23 

BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA ........................................................................................... 63 63 

BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA ............................................................................. 15 15 

BAYOU TECHE, LA ................................................................................................................... 165 165 

CADDO LAKE, LA ...................................................................................................................... 207 207 

CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA ............................................................................................ 16,240 16,240 

FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA ......................................................................................................... 1,695 1,695 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA ...................................................................................... 24,524 24,524 

HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA .............................................................................................. 1,467 1,467 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................................................ 1,174 1,174 

J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA ................................................................................... 8,795 8,795 

LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA ............................................................................................. 15 15 

MADISON PARISH PORT, LA ..................................................................................................... 4 4

MERMENTAU RIVER, LA ........................................................................................................... 1,370 1,370 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA .......................................................................... 2,177 2,177 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LA ......................................... 84,074 84,074 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA ......................................................................................... 59 59 

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA ....................................................................................... 200 200 

WALLACE LAKE, LA .................................................................................................................. 222 222 

WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA .......................................................................... 17 17 

WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO BAYOU DULAC, LA .................................... 66 66 

MAINE 

DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME .......................................................................................... 1,050 1,050 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, ME ............................................... 15 15 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME ............................................................................... 95 95 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME ........................................................................................ 1,100 1,100 
49 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME ........................................................ 25 25 

MARYLAND 

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD ............................................................ 22,083 22,083 

BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL) .......................................................................... 325 325 

CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV .................................................................................. 150 150 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD ............................................................................... 135 135 

JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV ............................................................................... 1,913 1,913 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD ........................................................................................ 450 450 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD ........................................................................... 62 62 

WICOMICO RIVER, MD ............................................................................................................. 1,500 1,500 

MASSACHUSETTS 

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA ........................................................................................................... 785 785 

BIRCH HILL DAM, MA .............................................................................................................. 788 788 

BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA .......................................................................................................... 600 600 

CAPE COD CANAL, MA ............................................................................................................. 9,834 9,834 

CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA ......................................................... 301 301 

CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA ...................................................................................................... 315 315 

EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA ..................................................................................................... 549 549 

HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA ..................................................................................................... 629 629 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, MA ............................................... 15 15 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA ............................................................................... 306 306 

KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA ............................................................................................................ 673 673 

LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA ............................................................................................................. 762 762 

NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER, ....................................... 434 434 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA ........................................................................................ 900 900 

TULLY LAKE, MA ...................................................................................................................... 793 793 

WEST HILL DAM, MA ................................................................................................................ 700 700 

WESTVILLE LAKE, MA ............................................................................................................... 606 606 

MICHIGAN 

CHANNELS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI .......................................................................................... 173 173

DETROIT RIVER, MI .................................................................................................................. 5,814 5,814 

GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI .................................................................................................... 658 658 

HOLLAND HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................. 1,800 1,800 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI ................................................................................ 230 230 

KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI ..................................................................................................... 50 50

MONROE HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................. 1,000 1,000 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI ......................................................................................... 670 670 

SAGINAW RIVER, MI ................................................................................................................. 3,837 3,837 

SEBEWAING RIVER, MI ............................................................................................................ 25 25 

ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI ............................................................................................................... 649 649 

ST. MARYS RIVER, MI .............................................................................................................. 29,403 29,403 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI ......................................................... 2,653 2,653 

MINNESOTA 

BIGSTONE LAKE—WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD ............................................................... 242 242 

DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI .............................................................................. 5,987 5,987 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN ............................................................................... 484 484 

LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ..................................................................... 622 622 

MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ........................................................................................................... 232 232 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION), MN ..... 53,014 53,014 

ORWELL LAKE, MN ................................................................................................................... 441 441 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN ........................................................................................ 87 87 

RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN ..................................................................................................... 149 149 

RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN .................................................... 3,344 3,344 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN ....................................................... 462 462 

MISSISSIPPI 

CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS ............................................................................................... 1 1 

EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS ....................................................................................... 255 255 
50 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

GULFPORT HARBOR, MS .......................................................................................................... 3,082 3,082 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ............................................................................... 135 135 

MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS ................................................................................................. 34 34 

OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS .............................................................................................................. 1,650 1,650 

PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS ..................................................................................................... 7,294 7,294 

PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA ....................................................................................................... 162 162 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS ........................................................................................ 154 154 

ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS .......................................................................................................... 10 10 

YAZOO RIVER, MS ................................................................................................................... 23 23 

MISSOURI 

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO .............................................................................................. 12 12 

CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO ......................................................... 6,501 6,501 

CLEARWATER LAKE, MO .......................................................................................................... 3,579 3,579 

HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO ....................................................................... 9,165 9,165 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ............................................................................... 1,557 1,557 

LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO ............................................................................................... 927 927 

LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO ........................................................................................................ 1,007 1,007 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO AND 

IL ......................................................................................................................................... 40,303 40,303 

NEW MADRID COUNTY HARBOR, MO ...................................................................................... 23 23 

POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO .................................................................................................. 2,297 2,297 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO ........................................................................................ 14 14 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO ........................................................................... 205 205 

SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO ............................................................................................................. 1,587 1,587 

SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MO ........................................................... 1 1 

STOCKTON LAKE, MO ............................................................................................................... 4,609 4,609 

TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR ............................................................................................. 8,585 8,585 

MONTANA 

FT. PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT ................................................................................................. 5,540 5,540 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT ............................................................................... 177 177 

LIBBY DAM, MT ....................................................................................................................... 1,812 1,812 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT ............................................................................ 243 243 

NEBRASKA 

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE AND SD .................................................... 9,352 9,352 

HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE ..................................................................................................... 12,609 12,609 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE ................................................................................ 449 449 

MISSOURI RIVER—KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA ................................................. 92 92 

PAPILLION CREEK, NE ............................................................................................................. 938 938 

SALT CREEKS AND TRIBUTARIES, NE ...................................................................................... 1,075 1,075 

NEVADA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV ................................................................................ 73 73 

MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA ........................................................................................... 1,061 1,061 

PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV ............................................................................. 337 337 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

BLACKWATER DAM, NH ............................................................................................................ 733 733 

EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH ............................................................................................. 572 572 

FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH ...................................................................................................... 863 863 

HOPKINTON—EVERETT LAKES, NH ......................................................................................... 1,402 1,402

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH ............................................................................... 61 61 

OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH ......................................................................................................... 664 664 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH ........................................................................................ 250 250 

SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH ................................................................................................... 663 663 

NEW JERSEY 

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ............................................................................................................... 420 420 

COLD SPRING INLET, NJ .......................................................................................................... 375 375 

DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ .......................................................................................... 15 15 
51 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA, AND DE ........................................... 19,745 19,745 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, NJ ................................................ 5 5 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ ................................................................................ 466 466 

MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ ........................................................................................................... 315 315 

NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ .......................................................................... 260 260 

NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ .......................................................... 5,000 5,000 

PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ ...................................................................... 605 605 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ ......................................................................................... 1,797 1,797 

RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT–OFF, NJ ...................................................................... 220 220 

RARITAN RIVER, NJ .................................................................................................................. 100 100 

SHARK RIVER, NJ ..................................................................................................................... 500 500 

SHOAL HARBOR AND COMPTON CREEK, NJ ............................................................................ 20 20 

NEW MEXICO 

ABIQUIU DAM, NM ................................................................................................................... 2,772 2,772 

COCHITI LAKE, NM ................................................................................................................... 3,241 3,241 

CONCHAS LAKE, NM ................................................................................................................ 2,143 2,143 

GALISTEO DAM, NM ................................................................................................................. 822 822 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, NM .............................................. 30 30 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM ............................................................................... 676 676 

JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM ....................................................................................................... 1,533 1,533 

RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM, NM .................................. 2,500 2,500 

SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM ........................................................................................... 1,280 1,280 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM ........................................................................... 547 547 

TWO RIVERS DAM, NM ............................................................................................................ 735 735 

UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY, NM ............................................... 1,438 1,438 

NEW YORK 

ALMOND LAKE, NY ................................................................................................................... 576 576 

ARKPORT DAM, NY .................................................................................................................. 434 434 

BAY RIDGE AND RED HOOK CHANNELS, NY ........................................................................... 300 300 

BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY ......................................................... 1,770 1,770 

BUFFALO HARBOR, NY ............................................................................................................. 1,420 1,420 

BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY ..................................................................................................... 400 400 

EAST RIVER, NY ....................................................................................................................... 100 100 

EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY .................................................................................................... 220 220 

EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY ........................................................................................................... 682 682 

HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY ................................................................................................. 250 250 

HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT) ................................................................................................... 2,100 2,100 

HUDSON RIVER, NY (O AND C) ............................................................................................... 2,100 2,100 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, NY ............................................... 15 15 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY ................................................................................ 1,526 1,526 

JAMAICA BAY, NY .................................................................................................................... 100 100 

MATTITUCK HARBOR, NY ......................................................................................................... 20 20 

MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY ....................................................................................................... 4,014 4,014 

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY ........................................................................ 5,869 5,869 

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ ............................................................... 100 100 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY .......................................................................................................... 6,740 6,740 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL) ............................................................... 9,300 9,300 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) .................................... 1,100 1,100 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY ......................................................................................... 2,089 2,089 

SHINNECOCK INLET, NY ........................................................................................................... 20 20 

SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY ........................................................ 800 800 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY ........................................................ 590 590 

WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY ....................................................................................................... 710 710 

NORTH CAROLINA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC .............................................................................. 1,600 1,600 

B. EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC ............................................................................... 1,647 1,647 

CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC ........................................................................... 485 485 

FALLS LAKE, NC ....................................................................................................................... 1,767 1,767 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC ............................................................................... 261 261 
52 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC ........................................................................................... 1,200 1,200 

MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC .......................................................... 150 150 

MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC ................................................................................................ 5,357 5,357 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC ........................................................................................ 700 700 

ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC ....................................................................................................... 300 300 

SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC ...................................................................................................... 300 300 

W. KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC ............................................................................ 3,372 3,372 

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ...................................................................................................... 17,803 17,803 

NORTH DAKOTA 

BOWMAN HALEY, ND ............................................................................................................... 224 224 

GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND .................................................................................. 12,327 12,327

HOMME LAKE, ND .................................................................................................................... 236 236 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND ............................................................................... 384 384 

LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND ............................................................................ 1,233 1,233 

PIPESTEM LAKE, ND ................................................................................................................ 1,186 1,186 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND ............................................................................ 247 247 

SOURIS RIVER, ND .................................................................................................................. 344 344 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND ........................................................ 32 32 

OHIO 

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................... 1,508 1,508 

ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH ........................................................................................................ 1,030 1,030 

BERLIN LAKE, OH .................................................................................................................... 1,925 1,925 

CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH ....................................................................................................... 1,781 1,781 

CLARENCE J. BROWN DAM, OH ............................................................................................... 1,847 1,847 

CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ........................................................................................................ 7,345 7,345 

CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH ......................................................................................................... 1,030 1,030 

DEER CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................... 1,696 1,696 

DELAWARE LAKE, OH ............................................................................................................... 1,693 1,693 

DILLON LAKE, OH ..................................................................................................................... 1,513 1,513 

FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH ........................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH ............................................................................... 694 694 

LORAIN HARBOR, OH ............................................................................................................... 1,350 1,350 

MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ....................................................................... 41 41 

MICHAEL J. KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH ..................................................................... 1,127 1,127 

MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH ................................................................................................... 1,126 1,126 

MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH ............................................................................................... 8,639 8,639 

NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH .......................................................................... 301 301 

OHIO–MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH ................................................................................ 1,849 1,849 

PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................... 1,446 1,446 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH ........................................................................................ 305 305 

ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ........................................................................ 35 35 

SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH .......................................................................................................... 1,440 1,440 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH ........................................................ 249 249 

TOLEDO HARBOR, OH .............................................................................................................. 5,871 5,871 

TOM JENKINS DAM, OH ............................................................................................................ 995 995 

WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH ................................................................................... 939 939 

WILLIAM H. HARSHA LAKE, OH ................................................................................................ 1,226 1,226 

OKLAHOMA 

ARCADIA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................. 623 623 

BIRCH LAKE, OK ...................................................................................................................... 725 725 

BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK .......................................................................................................... 5,704 5,704 

CANTON LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................... 2,193 2,193 

COPAN LAKE, OK ..................................................................................................................... 869 869 

EUFAULA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................. 6,496 6,496 

FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................... 6,560 6,560 

FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................... 883 883 

GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK ................................................................................................ 376 376 

HEYBURN LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................. 596 596 

HUGO LAKE, OK ....................................................................................................................... 2,866 2,866 
53 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

HULAH LAKE, OK ...................................................................................................................... 875 875 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK ................................................................................ 180 180 

KAW LAKE, OK ......................................................................................................................... 3,463 3,463 

KEYSTONE LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................ 4,890 4,890 

MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK ............................................. 5,374 5,374 

OOLOGAH LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................. 4,946 4,946 

OPTIMA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................... 44 44 

PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK ....................................................... 146 146 

PINE CREEK LAKE, OK ............................................................................................................. 1,279 1,279 

ROBERT S. KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIR, OK ........................................................ 7,442 7,442 

SARDIS LAKE, OK ..................................................................................................................... 1,412 1,412 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK ............................................................................ 1,000 1,000 

SKIATOOK LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................. 1,866 1,866 

TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK .................................................................................................... 9,395 9,395 

WAURIKA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................. 1,340 1,340 

WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK ..................................................................................... 5,026 5,026 

WISTER LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................... 1,800 1,800 

OREGON 

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR .............................................................................................................. 1,250 1,250 

BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................. 571 571 

BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA ............................................................................. 7,477 7,477 

CHETCO RIVER, OR ................................................................................................................. 21 21 

COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS BELOW VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLAND, 

OR ....................................................................................................................................... 34,517 34,517 

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA ...................................................................... 18,217 18,217 

COOS BAY, OR ......................................................................................................................... 6,069 6,069 

COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR ..................................................................................................... 1,470 1,470 

COUGAR LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................... 2,002 2,002 

DETROIT LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................... 1,083 1,083 

DORENA LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................... 1,070 1,070 

FALL CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................. 2,259 2,259 

FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................ 1,999 1,999 

GREEN PETER—FOSTER LAKES, OR ....................................................................................... 2,392 2,392 

HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR ........................................................................................................... 1,327 1,327 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OR ............................................... 20 20 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR ............................................................................... 578 578 

JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA ................................................................................. 4,502 4,502 

LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR ...................................................................................................... 9,345 9,345 

LOST CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................ 3,156 3,156 

MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA ................................................................................... 6,909 6,909 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR ........................................................................................ 400 400 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR ............................................................................ 104 104 

SIUSLAW RIVER, OR ................................................................................................................ 32 32 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR ........................................................ 5,794 5,794 

WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR ..................................................................... 60 60 

WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR ........................................................................... 81 81 

WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR ....................................................................................................... 681 681 

YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR ............................................................................................. 2,000 2,000 

PENNSYLVANIA 

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA ............................................................................................................ 4,892 4,892 

ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA .......................................................................................................... 699 699 

AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA ............................................................................................... 274 274

BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA .............................................................................................................. 1,250 1,250 

BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA ........................................................................................................... 2,841 2,841 

CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA ................................................................................................. 1,393 1,393 

COWANESQUE LAKE, PA .......................................................................................................... 1,970 1,970 

CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA ..................................................................................................... 1,352 1,352 

CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA ........................................................................................................ 803 803 

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ ......................................................... 4,735 4,735 

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA ............................................................................... 1,194 1,194 
54 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA .......................................................................................... 814 814 

FRANCIS E. WALTER DAM, PA ................................................................................................. 954 954 

GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA .............................................................. 320 320 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, PA ............................................... 5 5 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA ................................................................................ 1,213 1,213 

JOHNSTOWN, PA ....................................................................................................................... 64 64 

KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA ...................................................................... 1,325 1,325 

LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................ 2,723 2,723 

MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA ................................................................................................... 1,168 1,168 

MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ....................................................................................................... 11,035 11,035 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH AND WV ................................................................... 30,905 30,905 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH AND WV ............................................................ 359 359 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA ......................................................................................... 170 170 

PROMPTON LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................... 475 475 

PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA ................................................................................................................ 34 34 

RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................... 3,717 3,717 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA ............................................................................ 45 45 

SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA .................................................................................................... 1,718 1,718 

STILLWATER LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................. 425 425 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA ........................................................ 103 103 

TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA ................................................................................................... 2,199 2,199 

TIONESTA LAKE, PA ................................................................................................................. 1,939 1,939 

UNION CITY LAKE, PA .............................................................................................................. 450 450 

WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA .................................................................................................. 1,102 1,102 

YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA .................................................................................................. 723 723 

YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD .............................................................................. 2,147 2,147 

RHODE ISLAND 

FOX POINT BARRIER, NARRANGANSETT BAY, RI ..................................................................... 1,750 1,750 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, RI ................................................ 15 15 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI ................................................................................. 45 45 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI .......................................................................................... 350 350 

WOONSOCKET, RI ..................................................................................................................... 759 759 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ...................................................................................................... 14,825 14,825 

COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ........................................................................... 5,600 5,600 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC ................................................................................ 66 66 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC ......................................................................................... 875 875 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD ......................................................................................... 10,165 10,165 

COLD BROOK LAKE, SD ........................................................................................................... 377 377 

COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD ........................................................................................... 1,116 1,116 

FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD ...................................................................... 10,405 10,405 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD ................................................................................ 146 146 

LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN ................................................................................................. 554 554 

OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND ...................................................................................... 12,796 12,796 

TENNESSEE 

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN ............................................................................................................ 7,285 7,285 

CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN .............................................................................................. 7,011 7,011 

CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ............................................................................. 6,992 6,992 

DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN .......................................................................................................... 7,295 7,295 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ................................................................................ 96 96 

J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ........................................................................... 4,822 4,822 

NORTHWEST TENNESSEE REGIONAL HARBOR, LAKE COUNTY, TN .......................................... 10 10 

OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN ......................................................................................... 9,845 9,845 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN ......................................................................................... 2 2 

TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ............................................................................................................ 22,675 22,675 

WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN ....................................................................................................... 219 219 
55 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

TEXAS 

AQUILLA LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................... 1,285 1,285 

ARKANSAS—RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL—AREA VI ......................................... 1,591 1,591 

BARDWELL LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................ 1,850 1,850 

BELTON LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................... 3,613 3,613 

BENBROOK LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................... 2,774 2,774 

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX .................................................................................................. 3,200 3,200 

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX ................................................................................. 2,884 2,884 

CANYON LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................... 2,978 2,978 

CEDAR BAYOU, TX ................................................................................................................... 100 100 

CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX ............................................................................................. 400 400

CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ...................................................................................... 7,250 7,250 

DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX ........................................................................................... 11,227 11,227 

ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX ................................................................. 43 43 

FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O’ THE PINES, TX ................................................................... 3,400 3,400 

FREEPORT HARBOR, TX ........................................................................................................... 8,300 8,300 

GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX ................................................................................ 6,300 6,300 

GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX .......................................................................................... 3,200 3,200 

GIWW, CHOCOLATE BAYOU, TX ............................................................................................... 2,800 2,800 

GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX ................................................................................................. 2,133 2,133 

GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................... 2,641 2,641 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX ...................................................................................... 28,885 28,885 

HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX .......................................................................................................... 1,652 1,652 

HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX .................................................................................................. 30,150 30,150 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX ................................................................................ 1,813 1,813 

JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX ........................................................................................................... 1,758 1,758 

JOE POOL LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................. 1,008 1,008 

LAKE KEMP, TX ........................................................................................................................ 285 285 

LAVON LAKE, TX ...................................................................................................................... 3,114 3,114 

LEWISVILLE DAM, TX ............................................................................................................... 3,277 3,277 

MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................. 5,200 5,200 

NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX ....................................................................................................... 3,153 3,153 

NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX ....................................................... 2,271 2,271 

O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX ............................................................................................. 957 957

PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................... 1,004 1,004 

PROCTOR LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................. 2,438 2,438 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX ......................................................................................... 325 325 

RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX .......................................................................................................... 1,412 1,412 

SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX ............................................................................................. 16,050 16,050 

SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX .............................................................................. 7,020 7,020 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX ............................................................................. 224 224 

SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................. 3,090 3,090 

STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX ................................................................................................ 2,013 2,013 

TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................... 4,300 4,300 

TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX ......................................................................... 100 100 

TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX ...................................................................... 3,093 3,093 

WACO LAKE, TX ....................................................................................................................... 3,404 3,404 

WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................. 2,306 2,306 

WHITNEY LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................... 8,557 8,557 

WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX ..................................................................................... 4,511 4,511 

UTAH 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT ................................................................................ 52 52 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT ............................................................................ 541 541 

VERMONT 

BALL MOUNTAIN, VT ................................................................................................................ 1,003 1,003 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT ................................................................................ 220 220 

NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT AND NY .......................................................................... 30 30 

NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT .................................................................................................... 895 895 

NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT ................................................................................................ 800 800 
56 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT ............................................................................................................. 804 804 

UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT ......................................................................................................... 870 870 

VIRGINIA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—ACC, VA .................................................................... 2,160 2,160 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—DSC, VA .................................................................... 1,170 1,170 

CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA ....................................................................................................... 710 710 

GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA .............................................................................. 2,262 2,262 

HAMPTON ROADS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS HARBOR, VA (DRIF ................................. 1,458 1,458 

HAMPTON ROADS, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) ......................................... 88 88 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, VA ............................................... 15 15 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA ................................................................................ 359 359 

JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA .................................................................................................... 3,801 3,801 

JOHN H. KERR LAKE, VA AND NC ........................................................................................... 10,895 10,895 

JOHN W. FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA .................................................................... 2,128 2,128 

LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA ............................................................................................................. 400 400 

NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ............................................................................................................ 12,426 12,426 

NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA ............................................................................... 547 547 

PHILPOTT LAKE, VA .................................................................................................................. 5,190 5,190 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA ......................................................................................... 1,368 1,368 

RUDEE INLET, VA ..................................................................................................................... 400 400 

WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, VA .......................................................................... 130 130 

WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA .......................................................................... 100 100 

WASHINGTON 

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA .......................................................................................................... 637 637 

COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, OR .................................... 878 878 

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR, AND ID ............................................................ 3,350 3,350 

EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA ..................................................................... 1,749 1,749 

GRAYS HARBOR, WA ................................................................................................................ 9,965 9,965 

HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA .................................................................................................... 3,296 3,296 

ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA .......................................................................................... 4,574 4,574 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WA ............................................... 53 53 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA ............................................................................... 1,093 1,093 

LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ...................................................................................... 9,416 9,416

LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA ........................................................................................ 2,710 2,710 

LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA .................................................................................... 9,621 9,621 

LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................................................ 2,480 2,480 

MILL CREEK LAKE, WA ............................................................................................................ 2,423 2,423 

MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ................................................................... 260 260 

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA ....................................................................................................... 3,543 3,543 

OLYMPIA HARBOR, WA ............................................................................................................ 603 603 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA ........................................................................................ 606 606 

PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA ......................................................................... 1,075 1,075 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA ............................................................................ 500 500 

SEATTLE HARBOR, WA ............................................................................................................. 110 110 

STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA ..................................................................................................... 280 280 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA ........................................................ 78 78 

TACOMA HARBOR, WA ............................................................................................................. 1,894 1,894 

TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA .............................................................................................. 148 148

THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR ............................................................................. 3,150 3,150 

WEST VIRGINIA 

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV ........................................................................................................... 1,472 1,472 

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................. 1,914 1,914 

BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................ 2,564 2,564 

EAST LYNN LAKE, WV .............................................................................................................. 2,310 2,310 

ELKINS, WV .............................................................................................................................. 56 56 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV ............................................................................... 461 461 

KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV ................................................................................ 11,528 11,528 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY, AND OH .................................................................. 32,046 32,046 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY, AND OH ........................................................... 3,113 3,113 
57 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

R D BAILEY LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................. 2,457 2,457 

STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV ............................................................................................. 1,184 1,184 

SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV ....................................................................................................... 3,348 3,348 

SUTTON LAKE, WV ................................................................................................................... 2,328 2,328 

TYGART LAKE, WV .................................................................................................................... 1,839 1,839 

WISCONSIN 

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI .................................................................................................... 734 734 

FOX RIVER, WI ......................................................................................................................... 2,005 2,005 

GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ......................................................................................................... 3,367 3,367 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI ................................................................................ 61 61 

MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI ......................................................................................................... 700 700 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI ......................................................................................... 288 288 

STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI ........................................... 20 20 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI ......................................................... 540 540 

WYOMING 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WY ............................................... 10 10 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY ............................................................................... 123 123 

JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY .................................................................................................... 2,374 2,374 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY ............................................................................ 121 121 

SUBTOTAL, .................................................................................................................. 2,411,388 2,411,388 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:.

NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................ ........................ 10,000 

DEEP-DRAFT HARBOR AND CHANNEL ................................................................... ........................ 95,000 

INLAND WATERWAYS ............................................................................................. ........................ 23,000 

SMALL REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE NAVIGATION ................................................... ........................ 30,000 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ..................................................................................... ........................ 5,000 

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH .............................................................................. 690 690 

ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT .......................................... 4,750 4,750 

BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M BUSINESS PROGRAMS:.

STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM ............................................................................... 1,000 1,000 

PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM .............................................. 4,000 4,000 

RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM .......................................................... 1,650 1,650 

OPTIMIZATION TOOLS FOR NAVIGATION ......................................................................... 392 392 

COASTAL AND OCEAN DATA SYSTEM ...................................................................................... 3,000 5,000 

COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM .................................................................................... 2,700 2,700 

RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AT CORPS PROJECTS ......................................................... 5,000 5,000 

CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION) ......................................................................... 4,500 4,500 

DREDGE MCFARLAND READY RESERVE .................................................................................. 11,840 11,840 

DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE ...................................................................................... 12,000 12,000

DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM ....................................... 1,150 1,150 

DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH [DOER] ....................................... 6,450 6,450 

DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM [DOTS] .......................................... 2,820 2,820 

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM ...................................................................... 270 270 

FACILITY PROTECTION [CISP] .................................................................................................. 5,500 5,500 

FERC HYDROPOWER COORDINATION ....................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 

FISH & WILDLIFE OPERATING FISH HATCHERY REIMBURSEMENT .......................................... 4,700 4,700 

GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL ........................................................................................... 600 600 

INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS ............................................................................... 3,000 3,000 

INTERAGENCY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TASK FORCE/HURRICANE ................................... 8,125 8,125 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS ...................................... 30,000 30,000 

MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS ............................................................ 6,920 6,920 

NATIONAL (LEVEE) FLOOD INVENTORY .................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 

NATIONAL (MULTIPLE PROJECT) NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT .................................. 8,673 8,673 

NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM ................................................................................ 6,300 8,300 

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM (PORTFOLIO RISK ASSESSMENT) ...................................... 10,000 10,000 

NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM [NEPP] ................................................... 6,750 6,750 

NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR REALLOCATIONS ..................................................... 571 571 
58 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT ..................................................................... 300 300 

PROTECT, CLEAR AND STRAIGHTEN CHANNELS ...................................................................... 50 50 

REDUCING CIVIL WORKS VULNERABILITY ............................................................................... 1,000 ........................

REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS .............................................................................................. 500 500 

WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS ................................................................................... 4,771 4,771 

HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION ..................................................................... 825 825 

RECREATIONONESTOP [R1S] NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION ...................................... 215 215 

REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................................... 1,800 4,000 

RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHAB ............................................................. 300 300 

WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT [WOTS] ................................................................ 500 500 

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ................................................................................... 176,612 344,812 

REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .............................................................................. ........................ ¥56,200 

TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ..................................................................... 2,588,000 2,700,000 

Perdido Pass, Alabama.—The Committee encourages the Corps 

to conduct an updated survey of the need for maintenance dredging 

of Perdido Pass. 

Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.—The Calcasieu Ship Channel connects the city of Lake Charles, Louisiana, with the Gulf of 

Mexico. The Port of Lake Charles is the 11th largest seaport in the 

United States due to the tonnage handled for various industries via 

the Channel. The channel is highly important to the U.S. and local 

economy and is often busy with a variety of industrial and recreational traffic. The Committee recognizes that the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers has done a significant amount of work to 

dredge the channel, but more work still needs to be done to increase the width of the waterway to accommodate the size and 

number of vessels the channel can handle. The Committee urges 

the Corps to make dredging of the Calcasieu Ship Channel a priority in order to maintain its fine safety record and allow the importation/exportation of materials so valuable to the local and global economy. 

Beneficial Use of Dredge Material.—The Secretary is urged to 

conduct a pilot disposal and sediment project to determine the costeffectiveness of pump-out disposal operations for hopper dredges involving the transportation of material to established disposal sites. 

A non-Federal sponsor must fund the additional cost in excess of 

the least cost method of dredge material disposal. No more than 1 

year after the date of the selection of this pilot project, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that provides a comparison of the cost effectiveness of operations described above compared 

to the least cost disposal method generally used when and where 

the pilot project is selected. The report must describe the resultant 

environmental benefits of the operations, including ecosystem enhancement, wave attenuation, sediment retention, and storm surge 

reduction. The report must also provide a comparison of operations 

described above and district-wide operation and maintenance 

dredging activities, including an analysis of means, methods, quantities, and costs both cumulatively and for beneficial use. 
59 

Zebra and Quagga Mussels.—The Committee understands the 

challenges posed by the invasion of quagga and zebra mussels in 

various places across the country, and that invasion has not yet occurred in the Pacific Northwest and Lake Tahoe. Given the significant Federal assets in the region, it would seem prudent to determine the vulnerabilities of the infrastructure. The Committee recognizes the work that is underway, but believes more can and 

should be done to prevent invasion. Portions of the country are already dealing with these invasive species and the lessons learned 

should be applied to developing a strategy of minimizing the impacts to vulnerable infrastructure in this region. The Committee 

encourages the Corps of Engineers in partnership with the Bonneville Power Administration, to continue its efforts to develop 

invasive mussel vulnerability assessments for federally owned hydropower projects, in the Pacific Northwest, including an estimate 

of the annual cost of protection and maintenance of this infrastructure, if applicable. Further, the Committee urges the Corps, where 

appropriate, to assist the States in their efforts to prevent the 

spread of invasive mussels to Federal projects in the region. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The fiscal year 2014 

budget request does not fund operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of our Nation’s aging infrastructure sufficiently to ensure 

continued competitiveness in a global marketplace. Federal navigation channels maintained at only a fraction of authorized dimensions, and navigation locks and hydropower facilities well beyond 

their design life result in economic inefficiencies and risks infrastructure failure, which cause substantial economic losses. The 

Committee believes that investing in operation, maintenance, and 

rehabilitation of infrastructure today will save taxpayers money in 

the future. 

The Committee recommendation includes additional funds to 

continue ongoing projects and activities including periodic dredging 

of ports and harbors. None of these funds may be used for any item 

where funding was specifically denied. The intent of these funds is 

for ongoing work that either was not included in the administration’s request or was inadequately budgeted. The Committee directs that priority in allocating these funds be given to completing 

ongoing work maintaining authorized depths and widths of harbors 

and shipping channels, including where contaminated sediments 

are present, and for addressing critical maintenance backlog. Particular emphasis should be placed on projects where there is a U.S. 

Coast Guard or other water safety/police force presence; that will 

enhance national, regional, or local economic development; or that 

will promote job growth or international competitiveness. 

The Committee is concerned that the administration’s criteria for 

navigation maintenance does not allow small, remote, or subsistence harbors and waterways to properly compete for scarce navigation maintenance funds. The Committee urges the Corps to revise 

the criteria used for determining which navigation maintenance 

projects are funded in order to develop a reasonable and equitable 

allocation under this account. The criteria should include the economic impact that these projects provide to local and regional 

economies, in particular, those with national defense or public 

health and safety importance. 
60 

Funding associated with each category may be allocated to any 

eligible project within that category; funding associated with each 

subcategory may be allocated only to eligible projects within that 

subcategory. The list of subcategories is not meant to be exhaustive. Priority in allocating these funds should consider the following: number of jobs created directly by the funded activity; benefits to the local, regional, or national economy; ability to obligate 

the funds allocated within the fiscal year; ability to complete the 

project, separable element, or project phase within the funds allocated; and risk of imminent failure or closure of the facility. 

Within 45 days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall provide 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a work 

plan delineating how these funds are to be distributed. The plan 

should include: (1) the ratings system developed and used to evaluate projects; (2) a summary of the work to be accomplished with 

each allocation; and (3) a list and description of each discrepancy 

between the results of the project evaluations and the allocations 

made. No funds shall be obligated for any project in the work plan 

which has not been justified in such a report. The Committee directs that a listing should accompany the work plan showing all 

the ongoing projects that were considered eligible and could have 

used funding for fiscal year 2013 and the reasons why these items 

were considered as being less competitive for inclusion in the work 

plan. 

Reducing Civil Works Vulnerability.—No funding is included for 

this new item. However, the Committee has combined the intent of 

this study within the Water Resources Priority Study funded in the 

General Investigations account and changed the name to the National Flood Risk Assessment Study. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $192,614,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 200,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 200,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

An appropriation of $200,000,000 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 believes compensatory mitigation is appropriate 

for a permitted activity when that activity damages or destroys the 

value of wetlands. However, the Committee is concerned about the 

rigid application of the Modified Charleston Method [MCM] in the 

Lower Mississippi River Valley and the associated adverse impacts 

it is having on essential public works projects along existing and 

established flood protection alignments. It is the Committee’s belief 

that the six factor categories which determine compensatory miti-
61 

gation requirements under MCM provide the requisite flexibility to 

reduce mitigation requirements for vital levee and related flood 

control projects. However, the significant increase in mitigation 

costs resulting from MCM have dramatically and negatively affected property values and economic development initiatives in the 

Lower Mississippi River Valley. The Corps is directed to report to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 90 

days of enactment of this act the ways in which compensatory mitigation is calculated for critical infrastructure projects that have 

sought to avoid and minimize all impacts to adjacent wetlands. 

This report should also include proposals for alternative mitigation 

strategies and recommendations for increasing supply-side mitigation opportunities that would make compensatory mitigation activities more cost competitive. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $108,782,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 104,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 195,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $195,000,000 to 

continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 

Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 2014. 

The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites under 

the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was transferred from the Department of Energy 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 Corps is directed to prioritize sites that are nearing completion. Within the funds provided in accordance with the budget request, the Corps is directed to complete the Remedial Investigation/ 

Feasibility Study of the former Sylvania nuclear fuel site at Hicksville, New York, and, as appropriate, to proceed expeditiously to a 

Record of Decision and initiation of any necessary remediation in 
62 

accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA]. 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2013 1 2 ......................................................................... $1,034,996,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 28,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

2 Includes emergency funding of $1,008,000,000 in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 

2013 (division A of Public Law 113–2). 

The Committee has recommended $28,000,000 for the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies 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. 

GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013 1 2 ......................................................................... $194,630,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 182,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 182,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

2 Includes emergency funding of $10,000,000 in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 

(division A of Public Law 113–2). 

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 $182,000,000. 

Executive Direction and Management.—The Office of the Chief of 

Engineers and 8 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 

and 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 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. 
63 

The Corps is reminded that General Expense funds are appropriated solely for the executive management and oversight of the 

Civil Works Program under the direction of the Director of Civil 

Works. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $4,992,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee has recommended $5,000,000 for the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works [OASA[CW]]. As 

has been previously stated, the Committee believes that this office 

should be funded through the Defense appropriations bill and directs the administration to budget for this office under the Department of Defense, Operation and Maintenance—Army account in future budget submissions. It is the Committee’s opinion that the traditional role of the ASA[CW] is to provide the Chief of Engineers 

advice about policy matters and generally be the political spokesperson for the administration’s policies; however, the Chief of Engineers is responsible for carrying out the program. This is underscored by the administration’s budget documents that state that 

the OASA[CW] provides policy direction and oversight for the civil 

works program and the Headquarters of the Corps provides executive direction and management of the civil works program. 

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 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. The 

Committee does not agree that these costs should be funded in this 

bill and therefore has only provided funding for salaries and expenses as in previous years. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

Section 101. The bill includes language concerning reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 102. The bill includes language concerning continuing 

contracts and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

Section 103. The bill includes a provision requested by the administration providing the Corps of Engineers authorization for 
64 

emergency measures to exclude Asian Carp from the Great Lakes. 

It should be noted that when considering this language for inclusion in this bill that the Committee did not consider hydrologic separation of the Great Lakes Basin from the Mississippi River Basin 

to be an emergency measure. The Committee believes that the 

issue of hydrologic separation should be fully studied by the Corps 

of Engineers and vetted by the appropriate congressional authorizing committees and specifically enacted into law rather than have 

implementation be attempted through this limited provision. 

Section 104. The bill includes language concerning funding transfers requested by the administration related to fish hatcheries. 

Section 105. The bill includes language concerning a project cost 

increase requested by the administration for the Olmsted Lock and 

Dam Project. 

Section 106. The bill includes language concerning a project deauthorization in Massachusetts. 

Section 107. The bill includes language concerning a project deauthorization in Illinois. 

Section 108. The bill includes language concerning the deauthorization of a portion of a project in Rhode Island. 

Section 109. The bill contains language concerning a project cost 

increase requested by the administration for the Little Calumet, 

Indiana, project. 

Section 110. The bill contains language concerning the combining 

of two projects and the sharing of credits between two projects in 

Florida. 

Section 111. The bill contains language concerning a technical fix 

for a project in Florida requested by the administration. 

Section 112. The bill contains language concerning the Cape 

Arundel disposal site in Maine. 

Section 113. The bill contains language concerning the Little 

Rock district of the Corps of Engineers. 

Section 114. The bill contains language concerning the Chicago 

District of the Corps of Engineers. The Committee is concerned by 

recent proposals by the Corps of Engineers to relocate and consolidate administrative staff from the Chicago District of the Corps of 

Engineers to other Districts in the Great Lakes region. The Committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 

to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

a report detailing any proposals to relocate and consolidate administrative staff among Corps Districts, including plans impacting the 

Chicago District. This report should be submitted prior to relocating or consolidating administrative staff and include estimated 

cost savings derived from proposed relocations, consolidations, and 

transfers of functions, timelines for accomplishing proposals, impact on jobs in each affected city and plans to ensure that critical 

functions are not diminished by implementation of such proposals. 
(65) 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Reclamation was established in 1902 with the primary mission of harnessing the western rivers that led to homesteading and the economic development in the West. Today, Reclamation has evolved into a contemporary water management 

agency. In addition to the traditional missions of bringing water 

and power to the West, Reclamation has developed and continues 

to develop programs, initiatives, and activities that will help the 

Western States, Native American tribes, and others meet new 

water needs and balance the multitude of competing uses of water 

in the West. 

While Reclamation only has projects in the 17 Western States, 

its programs impact the entire Nation. Reclamation is the largest 

wholesaler of water in the country, operating 348 reservoirs with 

a total storage capacity of 245 million acre-feet. Reclamation 

projects deliver 10 trillion gallons of water to more than 31 million 

people each year, and provide 1 out of 5 Western farmers (140,000) 

with irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland that produce 

60 percent of the Nation’s vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits 

and nuts. Reclamation manages, with partners, 289 recreation sites 

that have 90 million visits annually. 

OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Bureau of Reclama- tion is composed of $1,049,584,000 in new budget authority. The 

budget request is $3,881,000 more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before sequester. Accounting for the Central Utah 

Project, the Department of the Interior’s request for this bill is 

$17,077,000 less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before 

sequester. The budget request for Reclamation includes $3,500,000 for the 

Central Utah Project that the administration has proposed to integrate under Reclamation’s jurisdiction as a separate account. The 

Committee has accepted this proposal. The administration’s request for Indian water rights settlements ($78,661,000) and the 

San Joaquin River Restoration Fund ($26,000,000) are requested as 

separate accounts. 

The Committee believes that the budget request, particularly for 

the Water and Related Resources account, is inadequate to fund 

the water and power needs in the West. Aging infrastructure continues to be a major concern as to whether projects will continue 

to provide the benefits to the economy for which they were con-
66 

structed. New stresses on water supplies from population growth to 

drought require innovative ways to wring every bit of efficiency 

that is possible out of the existing infrastructure. While rural water 

funding is increased over last year’s request, it is still inadequate 

to allow any of these projects to make substantial progress towards 

completion. 

The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund is proposed at $53,288,000 for fiscal year 2014. This is an increase of $247,000 

from the fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before sequester. This account is primarily funded from revenues collected from water and 

power customers. Levels of funding in this account are based on a 

3-year rolling average of revenues collected. 

The California Bay-Delta Restoration account is proposed at $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. This is down $2,572,000 from the 

fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before sequester. 

The Policy and Administration account is requested at $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. This is an increase of $120,000 

from the fiscal year 2013 enacted amount before sequester. 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $893,210,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 791,135,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 945,796,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

An appropriation of $945,796,000 is recommended by the Committee for the Bureau of Reclamation. This includes the budget request for Water and Related Resources. Also included within this 

amount are the proposed funding levels for Indian Water Rights 

Settlements and the San Joaquin River Restoration under this account. 

The Water and Related Resources account supports the development, management, and restoration of water and related natural 

resources in the 17 Western States. The account includes funds for 

operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest 

overall level of benefits, to protect public safety, and to conduct 

studies on ways to improve the use of water and related natural 

resources. Work will be done in partnership and cooperation with 

non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies. 

The Committee has divided underfinancing between the Resources Management subaccount and the Facilities Operation and 

Maintenance subaccount. The Committee directs that the underfinancing amount in each subaccount initially be applied uniformly 

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. 

FEDERAL PREFERENCE POWER FOR RECLAMATION PROJECTS

The Committee recognizes that in some areas, power prices have 

increased significantly, increasing costs to Reclamation projects 

that lack power supplies. The Committee directs the Bureau of 

Reclamation to work with the Federal power marketing administrations, state utility regulators, and private utilities to find ways 

to supply Federal preference power for pumping project water at 
67 

authorized Reclamation irrigation projects that lack power supplies, and the Committee requests that the Bureau report to the 

Committee on the progress of such efforts within 180 days. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

The budget for the Bureau of Reclamation consists of individual 

line-items of projects. As presented by the President, the budget 

contains 195 specific line-item requests for directed spending by the 

administration. An additional 46 line-item requests for funding by 

the administration are for nationwide line-items. All of these lineitems were specific requests by the administration to be funded in 

fiscal year 2014. The administration did not request these funds 

programmatically, but rather requested them for a specific project 

in a specific location for a specific purpose. 

Congressionally directed spending has become synonymous with 

earmarks in recent debates, even for agencies such as the Bureau 

of Reclamation where the majority of the budget request is based 

on individual line-item studies and projects. Due to this ongoing 

debate, the Committee has voluntarily refused all congressionally 

directed spending requests for fiscal year 2014. Accordingly, the administration has total discretion as to how the funding that this 

Committee appropriates will be spent as it relates to individual 

studies and projects. The Committee has retained the traditional 

table for the Water and Related Resources account delineating the 

line-items requested by the President in the budget request. Due 

to inadequacies in the administration’s budget request, the Committee has also inserted some additional line-item funding under 

the Regional Programs heading for specific categories of studies or 

projects that the Committee feels are underrepresented in the administration’s budget request. Reclamation has discretion within 

the guidelines provided as to which line-items this additional funding will be applied to. The Committee has not included any congressionally directed spending as defined in section 5(a) of rule 

XLIV of the standing rules of the Senate. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

ARIZONA 

AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ............... .................. 12,375 .................. 12,375 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN—CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT ..................... 8,602 436 8,602 436 

COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM .......................... 2,990 .................. 2,990 ..................

SALT RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................ 704 230 704 230 

SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ........ 52 .................. 52 ..................

SIERRA VISTA SUBWATERSHED FEASIBILITY STUDY ............................. 10 .................. 10 ..................

YUMA AREA PROJECTS .......................................................................... 1,412 22,430 1,412 22,430 

CALIFORNIA 

CACHUMA PROJECT ............................................................................... 672 674 672 674 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT: 

AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, FOLSOM DAM UNIT/MORMON ISLAND (SOD) ............................................................................. 1,789 9,169 1,789 9,169 

AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT .................................................... 35 2,285 35 2,285 
68 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

DELTA DIVISION ............................................................................ 6,468 5,511 6,468 5,511 

EAST SIDE DIVISION ..................................................................... 1,332 2,730 1,332 2,730 

FRIANT DIVISION .......................................................................... 2,292 3,426 2,292 3,426 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT ............... .................. .................. 26,000 ..................

MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS ........................................ 9,246 454 9,246 454 

REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM .................................................................... .................. 17,351 .................. 17,351 

SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION ..................................................... 3,246 1,026 3,246 1,026 

SAN FELIPE DIVISION ................................................................... 397 75 397 75 

SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION ................................................................ 52 .................. 52 ..................

SHASTA DIVISION ......................................................................... 430 8,195 430 8,195 

TRINITY RIVER DIVISION .............................................................. 14,353 4,233 14,353 4,233 

WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS ................................................ 4,359 7,423 4,359 7,423 

WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT ............................ 40,150 6,518 40,150 6,518 

ORLAND PROJECT .................................................................................. .................. 910 .................. 910 

SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT ........................................................ 300 .................. 300 ..................

SOLANO PROJECT .................................................................................. 1,407 2,367 1,407 2,367 

VENTURA RIVER PROJECT ..................................................................... 338 33 338 33 

COLORADO 

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT .................................................................. 891 1,313 891 1,313 

COLLBRAN PROJECT .............................................................................. 262 1,691 262 1,691 

COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT ................................................... 251 12,883 251 12,883 

FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT ............................................................. 122 117 122 117 

FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT ........................................................... 349 8,526 349 8,526 

FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT—ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT ......... 1,000 .................. 1,000 ..................

GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ............................................... 638 1,362 638 1,362 

LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT ............................... .................. 2,254 .................. 2,254 

MANCOS PROJECT ................................................................................. 110 124 110 124 

PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ........................................... 106 2,574 106 2,574 

PINE RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................ 204 288 204 288 

SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT ................................................................... 294 3,608 294 3,608 

CONEJOS, CO ............................................................................... 26 33 26 33 

UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT ...................................................................... 770 185 770 185 

UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ............................... 270 .................. 270 ..................

IDAHO 

BOISE AREA PROJECTS ......................................................................... 3,019 3,269 3,019 3,269 

COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT .............. 18,000 .................. 18,000 ..................

LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS .......................................................... 664 30 664 30 

MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS ................................................................... 2,283 6,783 2,283 6,783 

PRESTON BENCH PROJECT ................................................................... 4 8 4 8 

KANSAS 

WICHITA PROJECT—CHENEY DIVISION ................................................. 79 472 79 472 

WICHITA PROJECT—EQUUS BEDS DIVISION ......................................... 50 .................. 50 ..................

MONTANA 

FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM ......... 4,300 .................. 4,300 ..................

HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT ..................................................................... .................. 795 .................. 795 

HUNTLEY PROJECT ................................................................................ 32 64 32 64 

LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT ........................................................... 364 22 364 22 

MILK RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................ 548 1,358 548 1,358 

ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MT RURAL WATER SYSTEM ................. 5,400 .................. 5,400 ..................

SUN RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................. 53 263 53 263 

NEBRASKA 

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT ....................................................................... 15 132 15 132 
69 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

NEVADA 

HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY .......................................................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT ................................................................... 5,759 4,042 5,759 4,042 

LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ............................... 115 .................. 115 ..................

LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM ............................................. 775 .................. 775 ..................

NEW MEXICO 

CARLSBAD PROJECT .............................................................................. 2,556 1,017 2,556 1,017 

EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY ................................... 649 .................. 649 ..................

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT ............................................................. 13,252 12,682 13,252 12,682 

RIO GRANDE PROJECT .......................................................................... 885 3,871 885 3,871 

RIO GRANDE PEUBLOS PROJECT .......................................................... 250 .................. 250 ..................

TUCUMCARI PROJECT ............................................................................ 14 20 14 20 

NORTH DAKOTA 

PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN—GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT ............... 17,698 6,417 17,698 6,417 

OKLAHOMA 

ARBUCKLE PROJECT .............................................................................. 67 186 67 186 

MCGEE CREEK PROJECT ....................................................................... 89 788 89 788 

MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT .................................................................... 25 576 25 576 

NORMAN PROJECT ................................................................................. 48 410 48 410 

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT ...................................................................... 129 1,300 129 1,300 

W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT ........................................................................... 58 614 58 614 

OREGON 

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT .................................................................... 253 514 253 514 

DESCHUTES PROJECT ............................................................................ 301 190 301 190 

EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS ............................................................... 639 232 639 232 

KLAMATH PROJECT ................................................................................ 15,975 2,025 15,975 2,025 

ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION ................................ 1,704 436 1,704 436 

TUALATIN PROJECT ................................................................................ 94 209 94 209 

UMATILLA PROJECT ............................................................................... 574 2,814 574 2,814 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM .......................................... 3,200 .................. 3,200 ..................

MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT .................................................. .................. 15 .................. 15 

MNI WICONI PROJECT ........................................................................... .................. 12,000 .................. 12,000 

RAPID VALLEY PROJECT ........................................................................ .................. 92 .................. 92 

TEXAS 

BALMORHEA PROJECT ........................................................................... 25 15 25 15 

CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT ................................................................... 82 86 82 86 

LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 50 .................. 50 ..................

NUECES RIVER PROJECT ....................................................................... 74 649 74 649 

SAN ANGELO PROJECT .......................................................................... 56 529 56 529 

UTAH 

HYRUM PROJECT ................................................................................... 289 160 289 160 

MOON LAKE PROJECT ............................................................................ 102 79 102 79 

NEWTON PROJECT ................................................................................. 32 89 32 89 

OGDEN RIVER PROJECT ........................................................................ 232 252 232 252 

PROVO RIVER PROJECT ......................................................................... 1,243 438 1,243 438 

SANPETE PROJECT ................................................................................ 60 11 60 11 

SCOFIELD PROJECT ............................................................................... 372 77 372 77 

STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT ............................................................ 708 83 708 83 

WEBER BASIN PROJECT ........................................................................ 1,130 1,075 1,130 1,075 

WEBER RIVER PROJECT ........................................................................ 79 79 79 79 
70 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

WASHINGTON 

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT ................................................................... 3,761 5,755 3,761 5,755 

WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS .............................................................. 436 70 436 70 

YAKIMA PROJECT ................................................................................... 804 6,616 804 6,616 

YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT ....................... 8,016 .................. 8,016 ..................

WYOMING 

KENDRICK PROJECT .............................................................................. 108 7,293 108 7,293 

NORTH PLATTE PROJECT ....................................................................... 209 1,298 209 1,298 

SHOSHONE PROJECT ............................................................................. 76 776 76 776 

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ........................................... 223,793 231,885 249,793 231,885 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

RURAL WATER .............................................................................. .................. .................. 25,000 ..................

FISH PASSAGE AND FISH SCREENS ............................................. .................. .................. 5,000 ..................

WATER CONSERVATION AND DELIVERY ....................................... .................. .................. 10,000 ..................

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND COMPLIANCE ..................... .................. .................. 5,000 ..................

FACILITIES OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REHABILITATION .... .................. .................. .................. 9,000 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I .......... .................. 12,158 .................. 12,158 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I .......... 6,100 .................. 6,100 ..................

COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT [CRSP], SECTION 5 .................. 3,360 5,283 3,360 5,283 

COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT [CRSP], SECTION 8 .................. 3,923 .................. 3,923 ..................

COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ............... 537 .................. 537 ..................

DAM SAFETY PROGRAM: 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DAM SAFETY PROGRAM ............ .................. 1,300 .................. 1,300 

INITIATE SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION ........................ .................. 66,500 .................. 66,500 

SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS ..................................... .................. 20,284 .................. 20,284 

DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ................................... .................. .................. 500 ..................

EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM ............ .................. 1,400 .................. 1,400 

ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM ......... 21,207 .................. 21,207 ..................

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ...................................... 1,717 .................. 1,717 ..................

EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ............................................. .................. 9,491 .................. 9,491 

FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM .................................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES ............................................................ 2,000 .................. 2,000 ..................

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS: 

AAMODT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT ACT ........................................ .................. .................. 4,664 ..................

CROW TRIBE WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT OF 2010 ........... .................. .................. 7,500 ..................

NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT .................................. .................. .................. 60,497 ..................

TAOS PUEBLO INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT ............ .................. .................. 4,000 ..................

WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE WATER RIGHTS QUANTIFICATION ACT OF 2010 .................................................................. .................. .................. 2,000 ..................

LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ........................................ 10,684 .................. 10,684 ..................

LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM .............................. 27,839 .................. 27,839 ..................

MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS .................................. .................. 848 .................. 848 

NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM ................................................. 7,412 .................. 7,412 ..................

NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING ............... 2,376 .................. 2,376 ..................

OPERATION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ........................................... 768 1,446 768 1,446 

PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM—OTHER PICK SLOAN .......... 3,320 37,647 3,320 37,647 

POWER PROGRAM SERVICES ................................................................ 2,083 307 2,083 307 

PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM .............................................. 662 206 662 206 

RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION ................................................... 2,331 .................. 2,331 ..................

RECREATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION .... 2,391 .................. 2,391 ..................

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: 

DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM ................. 2,016 1,285 2,016 1,285 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ....................................... 13,265 .................. 13,265 ..................

SITE SECURITY ACTIVITIES ........................................................... .................. 27,800 .................. 27,800 
71 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES—TECHNICAL SUPPORT ...... 90 .................. 90 ..................

WATERSMART PROGRAM: 

WATERSMART GRANTS ................................................................. 12,000 .................. 20,000 ..................

WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM .................... 3,437 .................. 3,437 ..................

COOPERATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ................................... 250 .................. 250 ..................

SHARED INVESTMENT WATER INNOVATION PROGRAM ................. 1,000 .................. 1,000 ..................

BASIN STUDIES ............................................................................ 4,734 .................. 4,734 ..................

TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM 

COMMISSONER’S OFFICE TITLE XVI ......................................... 14,000 .................. 22,000 ..................

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ............................................ 149,502 185,955 289,663 194,955 

UNDERFINANCING .................................................................................. .................. .................. ¥11,759 ¥8,741 

TOTAL ....................................................................................... 373,295 417,840 527,697 418,099 

GRAND TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES ................. .................. 791,135 .................. 945,796 

Central Valley Project, Friant Division, San Joaquin Restoration.—The Committee has chosen not to include a separate account 

for this item. Rather it is being funded as a sub-element under the 

Friant Division of the Central Valley Project. The Committee believes that this is prudent to keep these funds within the Water 

and Related Resources account maximizing the flexibility of the 

funding. 

Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico, Water Acquisition Program.— The Committee recognizes that the Middle Rio Grande basin is 

fully appropriated and that any change in use of native water—to 

benefit the Rio Grande, Bosque habitat and species protected under 

the Endangered Species Act—must come from some current existing use. To date, the needs of the Middle Rio Grande Endangered 

Species Collaborative Program [Program] have been met through 

the short-term acquisition of water, primarily from leasing San 

Juan-Chama water from willing lessors. Due to the increased demand on San Juan-Chama water, the development of an additional 

long-term water supply of native Rio Grande water is necessary to 

meet the needs and goals of the Program. The Committee urges the 

Program to—(a) update existing studies or complete additional 

studies regarding the feasibility of an agricultural water leasing 

program in the middle Rio Grande; (b) work cooperatively with the 

Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District [District] to implement 

metering and the annual allocation of water to facilitate a water 

leasing program within the District; (c) create a geospatial database of pre-1907 water right owners within the District along with 

a map of the location in relationship to the water conveyance system of the District; (d) increase outreach to irrigators in the District to identify willing lessors or sellers; and (e) determine the fair 

market value of leasehold and fee simple interests in native Rio 

Grande water rights. The Committee encourages the Bureau of 

Reclamation to develop and implement a long-term pilot water acquisition program by lease, purchase, dry-year optioning, rotational 
72 

fallowing, or dedication of water or water rights within the Rio 

Grande Basin in New Mexico, including water and water rights native Rio Grande and from the San Juan-Chama Project under its 

current Middle Rio Grande Supplemental Water Acquisition Program. Water and/or water rights acquired through the Middle Rio 

Grande Supplemental Water Acquisition Program will be acquired 

only from willing lessors or sellers and designed to benefit the Rio 

Grande, Bosque habitat and species protected under the Endangered Species Act. 

Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico, San Acacia Reach—Physical 

Habitat Restoration and Management.—The Committee is aware of 

the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program’s [Program] existing habitat restoration and improvement activities in the Albuquerque and Isleta reaches of the Middle Rio 

Grande including physical manipulations of the Rio Grande channel (riverine restoration) and adjacent bosque (riparian restoration). The Committee recognizes that the Program has completed 

habitat restoration projects with a focus on the aforementioned 

reaches to date, however, further recognizes that the improvement 

in the San Acacia reach of the Middle Rio Grande from San Acacia 

Dam to the delta of Elephant Butte Reservoir is a critical component for the recovery of the species. Because of the ecological importance of the San Acacia reach and likelihood of increased water 

shortfalls, the Committee urges the Program to conduct a comprehensive study of the infrastructure of the San Acacia reach including but not limited to the alternate configurations and/or altered management scenarios of the Low Flow Conveyance Channel, 

and conduct a feasibility analysis of a one-channel river system. 

Mni Wiconi Project, South Dakota.—Within the funds provided 

for the operation and maintenance of the project, Reclamation may 

use the funds for upgrading existing community water systems 

that have always been intended as part of the project. 

Indian Water Rights Settlements Account.—The Committee has 

chosen not to include a separate account for this work. The Committee recognizes that these are legal settlements with the affected 

tribes, however, believe it is prudent to keep these items within the 

Water and Related Resources account. Beyond the actual water 

rights settlement funding, many of these settlements included construction components very similar to rural water projects funded 

elsewhere in this account. The Committee understands that, due to 

the way the settlements were structured, some of the discretionary 

funding may not be obligated in fiscal year 2014 and will be carried 

over into later years. The Committee urges Reclamation to minimize this practice to the extent practicable and within the confines 

of these settlements. To maintain the visibility of these projects, 

the Committee has included the five projects under the Regional 

Programs heading with a subheading called Indian Water Rights 

Settlements. 

Buried Metallic Water Pipe.—Reclamation is again reminded that 

the fiscal year 2012 conference report was very specific that Reclamation should not use Technical Memorandum 8140–CC–2004–1 

(‘‘Corrosion Considerations for Buried Metallic Water Pipe’’) as the 

sole basis to deny funding or approval of a project or to disqualify 

any material from use in highly corrosive soils. The Committee con-
73 

tinues to be concerned about how Reclamation is following the 

guidance from the fiscal year 2012 Energy and Water Conference 

Report, title II of division B of House Report 112–331. The concern 

stems from the Committee direction that Reclamation assemble 

data on pipeline reliability for all types of pipe specified in table 

2 of Technical Memorandum 8140–CC–2004–1 along with the specified corrosion protection applied in the various soil types and to 

conduct an analysis of the performance of these types of pipe installed in the same or similar conditions. It has come to the Committee’s attention that Reclamation may be requiring different reliability standards for different pipe materials. The Committee directs Reclamation to report to the Committee within 30 days of enactment of this Act as to the reliability standards that are being 

utilized for the analysis required in the fiscal year 2012 conference 

report. Reclamation should understand that the Committee intends 

for Reclamation to analyze the reliability standards in as near as 

possible to the exact same conditions so that there is no bias towards any particular pipe material. Before finalizing the analysis, 

Reclamation shall contract with the National Academies to review 

the draft analysis to ensure that the uniform reliability standard, 

in addition to the analysis of economics, cost-effectiveness, and lifecycle costs, is accurate and consistent across all referenced materials. 

Rural Water.—The Committee understands that Reclamation is 

using the amount of non-Federal funds provided by a sponsor in excess of the authorized non-Federal cost share as a criteria to determine how a project will be budgeted. The Committee views this as 

improper pressuring of local sponsors in an attempt to get them to 

contribute more than the authorized cost share for a project. If a 

sponsor is willing to provide excess funds, Reclamation should obviously accept those excess funds, but they should not try to compel 

excess non-Federal funds as a means of prioritizing a sponsor’s 

project for Federal funds. Therefore, the Committee directs that 

Reclamation should not use the level of excess non-Federal funding 

as a criteria for budgeting rural water projects. 

Zebra and Quagga Mussels.—The Committee understands the 

challenges posed by the invasion of quagga and zebra mussels in 

various places across the country, and that invasion has not yet occurred in the Pacific Northwest and Lake Tahoe. Given the significant Federal assets in the region, it is prudent to determine the 

vulnerabilities of the infrastructure. The Committee recognizes the 

work that is underway, but believes more can and should be done 

to prevent invasion. Portions of the country are already dealing 

with these invasive species and the lessons learned should be applied to develop a strategy of minimizing the impacts to vulnerable 

infrastructure in this region. The Committee encourages the Bureau of Reclamation, in partnership with the Bonneville Power Administration, to continue its efforts to develop invasive mussel vulnerability assessments for federally owned hydropower projects, in 

the Pacific Northwest, including an estimate of the annual cost of 

protection and maintenance of this infrastructure, if applicable. 

Further, the Committee urges Reclamation to assist the States, 

where appropriate, in their efforts to prevent the spread of invasive 

mussels to Federal projects in the region. 
74 

Additional Funding for Water and Related Resources Work.—The 

Committee recommendation includes additional funds above the 

budget request for Water and Related Resources studies, projects, 

and activities. The Committee recommends that priority in allocating these funds should be given to complete ongoing work, improve water supply reliability, improve water deliveries, tribal and 

nontribal water settlement studies and activities, ecosystem restoration, enhance national, regional, or local economic development, 

promote job growth and for critical backlog maintenance activities, 

and activities related to projects that need to reduce water demand 

as a part of a comprehensive program for environmental restoration and settlement of water rights claims. 

For rural water projects, Reclamation shall not use the ability of 

a non-Federal sponsor to contribute funds in excess of the authorized non-Federal cost share as a criteria for prioritizing these 

funds. 

The intent of these funds is for work that either were omitted 

from the budget request or were inadequately budgeted. Within 30 

days of enactment, Reclamation shall provide the House and Senate Appropriations Committees a work plan delineating how these 

funds are to be distributed and in which phase the work is being 

accomplished. 

WaterSmart Program, Title XVI Water Reclamation/Reuse 

Projects.—The Committee believes there is an opportunity to enhance the program’s effectiveness through the advancement of regional-scale projects that include multiple jurisdictions and generate environmental as well as water supply benefits to be competitive. These regional projects can require longer planning and construction timeframes than other more narrowly focused projects. 

Accordingly, the Committee believes that the Bureau of Reclamation should consider allocating a portion of the funds within the 

overall title XVI program in future budget requests for advancing 

regional-scale water reclamation and reuse projects by providing 

planning and construction assistance grants that can each be used 

over longer periods of time. 

Additionally, the Committee is concerned that constrained budgets impact the research and development initiatives vital to improvements in water recycling and desalination technologies development and applications. The Committee believes that only 

through enhanced Federal and non-Federal research partnerships 

can research and development vital to much needed improvements 

in water recycling and desalination technologies development and 

applications be accomplished. Within the amounts appropriated, 

the Committee has included the requested $1,000,000 in funds for 

the Bureau of Reclamation’s WaterSMART program to fund the 

Shared Investment Water Innovation Program to provide for extramural cost-shared research grants to fund high-priority research 

and development initiatives by non-governmental organizations, including not-for-profit organizations who often partner with the Bureau of Reclamation, to advance next-generation water management technologies, including water reuse, recycling, and desalination. 
75 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $53,041,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 53,288,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 53,288,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $53,288,000 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 uses revenues from payments by project beneficiaries and donations for habitat restoration, improvement and 

acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the 

Central Valley project area of California. 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. 

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act, enacted into law in 

October 1992, established 34 activities to restore and enhance fish 

and wildlife habitats in California’s Central Valley and Trinity Basins. The act established a Restoration Fund for the deposit of contributions from CVP water and power users to pay for those activities, along with contributions from the State of California, Federal 

appropriations, and other contributors. Unfortunately, a number of 

sources envisioned to contribute to this fund never materialized or 

funding is no longer available from those sources. 

Power users, in particular, are paying a much greater share than 

anyone anticipated. This has resulted in high CVP power costs, and 

unpredictable fee assessments on power agencies. The fees imposed 

on power users are unpredictable, since in low water years the 

water users pay very little and the power users make up the difference. 

Since the fund was established in 1992 more than $1,400,000,000 

has been spent for restoration activities, but there has been little 

accountability on how effectively it has been used. There is very little assurance that the goals of the Restoration Fund will be met 

in the near future, such that the fees could be reduced under the 

statute. Therefore, the Committee urges the Commissioner to continue to work with power users to determine a more predictable 

payment stream for power users and to develop measures to provide more accountability and transparency to the restoration process. Further, a report covering the previous fiscal year activities 

should be submitted by March 1, 2014, and every year thereafter. 

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $39,572,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 37,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 37,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of 

$37,000,000 for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 
76 

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. 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $20,958,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 3,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,500,000 

1The fiscal year 2013 funds were provided as a separate account under the Department of 

the Interior. 

The fiscal year 2014 budget request recommended funding for 

the Central Utah Project Completion Act as a separate account 

under the Bureau of Reclamation so that the priority of the Central 

Utah Project can be evaluated in the context of other water programs. The Committee recommendation provides the budget request level of funding as a separate account with the same funding 

control points as when it was carried as a separate account under 

the Department of Interior. 

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2014 to carry out 

the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act totals 

$3,500,000. An appropriation of $1,200,000 has been provided for 

Central Utah project construction; $1,000,000 for deposit into the 

Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation account for fish, 

wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation. The Committee recommendation provides $1,300,000 for program administration and oversight. 

Legislative language is included which allows up to $1,500,000 of 

the funds provided to be used for administrative costs. 

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. 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $59,880,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 60,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 60,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommendation for general administrative expenses is $60,000,000. 
77 

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. 

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS

Appropriations, 2013 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... $78,661,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Committee recommends no appropriation for the Indian 

Water Rights Settlements Account. 

This account was proposed as a part of the administration request to cover expenses associated with four Indian water rights 

settlements contained in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public 

Law 111–291), title X of the Omnibus Public Lands Management 

Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–11), and the White Mountain Apache 

Tribe Rural Water System Loan Authorization Act (Public Law 

110–390). Rather than create a new account as proposed, the Committee has provided this funding request under the Regional Programs section of the Water and Related Resources account as similar work and funding has been previously provided in that account. 

SAN JOAQUIN RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2013 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... $26,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Committee recommends no appropriation for the San Joaquin Restoration Fund account. 

This account was proposed to implement the provisions described 

in the Stipulation of Settlement for the National Resources Defense 

Council et al. v. Rodgers lawsuit. Rather than provide discretionary 

funding in this account as proposed, the Committee has provided 

this funding request under the Central Valley Project, Friant Division of the Water and Related Resources account as similar work 

and funding has been previously provided in that account. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Section 201. The bill includes language regarding Bureau of Reclamation Reprogramming. 

Section 202. The bill includes language regarding the San Luis 

Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California. 

Section 203. The bill includes language concerning groundwater 

banking requested by the administration. 

Section 204. The bill includes language concerning water transfers requested by the administration. 

Section 205. The bill includes language extending the Drought 

Act requested by the administration and raising the appropriation 

ceiling. 

Section 206. The bill includes language extending the CALFED 

Bay-Delta authorization requested by the administration. 
78 

Section 207. The bill includes language increasing the cost ceiling 

of the Secure Water Act requested by the administration. 

Section 208. The bill includes language extending the Water Desalination Act requested by the administration. 

Section 209. The bill includes language that allows Joint Powers 

Authorities to participate in water storage studies. The Secretary 

of the Interior shall complete and issue the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement [DEIS] and draft feasibility study associated 

with any storage project authorized under Public Law 108–361, no 

later than July 15, 2014 and ensure the completion and issuance 

of the Final Environmental Impact Statement [FEIS] and final feasibility study associated with any such water storage project no 

later than September 30, 2015. Within 60 days of enactment of this 

act, the Secretary shall report to the Committee whether the Bureau of Reclamation will meet the DEIS, FEIS and feasibility deadlines independently or through cooperative agreements with local 

partners to ensure their completion. 

Section 210. This provision concerns the Friant prepayment for 

the San Joaquin River Settlement currently authorized for disbursement starting in 2019. The provision advances disbursement 

of these prepaid funds to 2014 and limits expenditure of these authorized mandatory funds to $40,000 per year. The section changes 

no other provisions of the San Joaquin River Settlement. 

Section 211. The bill includes language concerning the Central 

Utah Project requested by the administration. 

Section 212. The bill includes language concerning the Fort Peck/ 

Dry Prairie, Montana project. 
(79) 

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

EXASCALE INITIATIVE

The Committee recommends $150,000,000, which includes 

$81,000,000 for the Office of Science and $69,000,000 for the 

NNSA, to support the Department’s initiative to deploy the first 

exascale system by 2022. The Committee continues to support this 

research, development, and engineering effort to develop a new 

generation of high performance computers that can accelerative scientific discoveries, improve U.S. economic competitiveness, and 

maintain confidence in the safety, security, and reliability of the 

country’s nuclear weapons deterrent. 

The Committee believes the United States must remain the 

world leader in high performance computing. To achieve this ambitious goal of deploying a computing system 1,000 times faster than 

today’s supercomputers requires a coordinated effort between the 

Office of Science and NNSA. The Committee supports the shared 

responsibilities laid out in a Memorandum of Understanding between NNSA and the Office of Science which assigns primary responsibility for systems engineering to NNSA and long-lead research and development in advanced architectures and system software to the Office of Science. 

The Committee recommends that the Secretary assign an advisor 

on exascale computing to coordinate efforts across the Department 

and would report directly to the Secretary on the status of efforts 

to implement the exascale strategic plan. 

SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTING

The Committee is concerned about the Department’s plans to 

change the way it manages small business contracts to achieve the 

agency’s small business prime contracting goal. The Department’s 

plans would increase costs to the Federal Government without 

helping small businesses. For example, converting Management 

and Operating subcontracts to Department prime contracts would 

increase the Department’s administrative costs by up to 

$50,000,000 to hire 260 additional FTEs with contracting expertise. 

The Department’s plans may also adversely disrupt existing subcontracts with small businesses and prevent the integration of critical safety and security functions at its sites and facilities. The 

Committee bill allows the Department to count subcontracts 

awarded by its Management and Operating contractors toward the 

agency and government-wide goals for procurement contracts 

awarded to small businesses. 
80 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Department of Energy is directed to operate in a manner 

fully consistent with the following reprogramming guidelines. A reprogramming request must be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations for consideration before any implementation of a reorganization proposal which includes moving previous appropriations 

between appropriation accounts. The Department is directed to inform the Committees promptly and fully when a change in program 

execution and funding is required during the fiscal year. To assist 

the Department in this effort, the following guidance is provided 

for programs and activities funded in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The Department 

is directed to follow this guidance for all programs and activities 

unless specific reprogramming guidance is provided for a program 

or activity. 

Definition.—A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds 

from one activity to another within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a program, project, activity, or organization 

described in the agency’s budget justification as presented to and 

approved by Congress. For construction projects, a reprogramming 

constitutes the reallocation of funds from one construction project 

identified in the justifications to another project or a significant 

change in the scope of an approved project. 

Any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority or prior 

year deobligations must be submitted to the Committees in writing 

and may not be implemented prior to approval by the Committees 

on Appropriations. 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $1,810,463,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 2,775,700,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,280,985,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommendation is $2,280,985,000 for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

Quadrennial Technology Review.—Based on the results of the 

Department’s Quadrennial Technology Review, and the Nation’s 

many urgent energy challenges, the Committee recommends that 

the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy consider applying more funding toward near-term commercialization efforts in 

partnership with the private sector. 

Hydrogen Technology.—The Committee continues to support fuel 

cell and hydrogen energy systems for stationary, vehicle, motive 

and portable power applications. The Committee recommends 

$100,000,000 for the Fuel Cell Technologies program. Within this 

total funding, $10,000,000 is for Technology Validation focused on 

passenger vehicle and hydrogen infrastructure applications where 

vehicles will be deployed, $42,000,000 is for hydrogen fuels R&D, 

and $10,000,000 is for Market Transformation for cost-shared advanced demonstration and deployment of early market stationary 
81 

power and motive applications including material handling equipment, ground support equipment, refrigerated trucks, auxiliary 

power units and the associated hydrogen infrastructure. 

The Committee is encouraged by the collaborative approach reflected in the H2USA Letter of Agreement and sees it as an important step toward commercialization of fuel cell vehicles and the 

supply chain. With regard to infrastructure, DOE should analyze, 

research and make suitable investments in order to transform the 

size, cost, scalability, and interoperability of new stations, including modular stations, in order to meet the needs of the initial, commercial market beginning in 2015, while having the ability to increase the station capacity as commercialization develops. Additionally, DOE should continue to support efforts to finalize codes 

and standards to promote fuel cell and infrastructure commercialization, to establish a national template for emergency responder training programs, and to ensure metering and quality 

standards that can be met and verified by State and local measurement standards agencies. 

Bioenergy Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$245,000,000 for biomass and biorefinery systems R&D. Within the 

available funds, the Department is encouraged to direct a total of 

$30,000,000 for algae biofuels. The Committee is concerned the Department is interpreting biomass too narrowly and failing to consider promising noncellulosic forms of biomass energy technology 

projects. For purposes of allocating resources, the Department is directed to include biosolids derived from the municipal wastewater 

treatment process and other similar renewables within the definition of noncellulosic. In funding biomass and biofuels refinery systems, the Department is encouraged to provide funding to projects 

that utilize regionally available and appropriate wood and agricultural biomass feedstock for thermal heating applications. The Committee recognizes that quality and reliability of supplies will be key 

in acceptance of advanced drop-in biofuels into the supply chain 

once they are demonstrated at a convincing scale. To that end, the 

Committee is supportive of the collaboration between the Navy, Department of Agriculture and DOE to develop innovative technologies for jet and diesel fuels for military uses. With the Department of Defense as an early adopter of these alternative fuels, the 

wider marketplace will be more likely to follow. The Committee has 

provided the requested $45,000,000 to support this effort. The Committee urges the Department to provide funds to projects that utilize regionally available and appropriate wood and agricultural biomass feedstock for thermal heating applications. 

Solar Energy.—The Committee recommends $310,000,000 for 

solar energy. The Committee supports the increase to $61,081,000 

for solar balance of system soft cost reduction and directs the Department to engage with State and local governments to reduce 

costs and timelines associated with permitting, interconnection, 

and inspection; to create technical and professional standards for 

solar installers to eliminate overlapping inspections; and to encourage innovative business models that reduce soft costs to consumers. 

Further, the Committee supports the grid integration activities 

proposed in the budget request. 
82 

Wind Energy.—The recommendation is $110,000,000 for wind energy. The Committee directs use of offshore wind technologies funding to include freshwater, deepwater, shallow water, and transitional depth installations. The Committee understands that the Department is making resources available on a competitive basis for 

offshore wind advanced technology demonstration projects and expects that such funds continue to be awarded for new and innovative technologies. 

Geothermal Technology.—The recommendation for geothermal technology is $60,000,000. The funds made available by this section 

shall be disbursed to the full spectrum of geothermal technologies 

as authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007 (Public Law 110–140) and the Department of Energy shall 

continue its support of comprehensive programs that support academic and professional development initiatives. The Committee 

continues to have concerns about the level of funding devoted to 

low-temperature geothermal research and development and directs 

the Department to provide funding to this geothermal area of research and development. The U.S. Geological Survey has identified 

more than 120,000 MW of untapped potential at these temperatures. 

Water Power Energy R&D.—The Committee recommends 

$59,000,000 for water power, including $43,500,000 for marine and 

hydrokinetic technology research, development and deployment, 

and $15,500,000 for conventional hydropower. The Committee directs the Department to provide not less than $20,000,000 for competitive demonstrations of marine and hydrokinetic technologies. 

The Committee recommends the Department review its universitybased National Marine Renewable Energy Centers and determine 

if these activities should be consolidated into one existing Center. 

The Committee is concerned with the Department’s proposal to 

construct a new deep-water wave tank testing facility in fiscal year 

2014 and then to immediately turn to constructing an off-shore 

testing facility in fiscal year 2015. The Committee directs the Department to consult with industry to determine if the deep-wave 

tank testing facility is a priority for industry. The Department is 

directed to share the out-come of the industry consultation with 

Congress before taking any action. None of the funding may be 

used for the proposed advanced manufacturing initiative for MHK 

devices. The Committee recommends that the Department coordinate with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Bureau 

of Ocean Energy Management, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, other relevant agencies and industry to reduce the amount of time to permit MHK test and demonstration 

projects. The Committee also recommends that the Water Power 

Program, in coordination with the Fossil Energy Program, demonstrate the ability of marine and hydrokinetic technologies to reduce emissions and improve energy efficiencies related to offshore 

oil and gas production. 

Vehicle Technologies.—The Committee recommends $415,000,000 

for vehicle technologies. The Committee acknowledges the progress 

toward the Super Truck program’s goals, anticipates continued 

progress in fiscal year 2014 with the $10,100,000 requested in the 

budget, and supports continued fulfillment of existing contracts to 
83 

support commercialization of truck technologies demonstrated by 

industry partners. The Committee further encourages the Department to identify additional measures to leverage the success of the 

current program toward additional fuel economy gains to incorporate alternatives to petroleum fuels in commercial vehicles. The 

Committee notes that class 8 heavy-duty trucks account for 25 percent of commercial trucks, yet consume 75 percent of the total 

amount of petroleum used for all commercial trucks. The Committee recommends that a portion of the funds appropriated to the 

Vehicle Technology Program be used to research, develop, and demonstrate the most promising class 8 heavy-duty long-haul truck 

technologies (such as alternative fuel or dual fuel technologies), capable of significantly reducing air pollution emissions and petroleum consumption in a cost effective manner. The Committee believes that such work will leverage existing Federal investments 

and help put our heavy-duty truck fleet on the path to reduced petroleum usage. The Committee supports the grid integration activities proposed in the budget request. Further, within available 

funds, $10,000,000 is provided to continue funding of section 131 

of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. Lastly, 

$10,000,000 is provided for competitive demonstrations of electric 

vehicle deployment programs. Grants made available with this 

funding should focus on a limited number of awards in order to 

maximize large-scale deployment. 

Building Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$224,000,000 for building technologies. The Committee supports 

the grid integration activities proposed in the budget request. 

These activities hold particular promise for the Building Technologies Program, where new control paradigms at the building/ 

grid interface promise near-term efficiency gains, as well as additional operational flexibility and resilience for electric distribution 

systems. The Committee notes that television set-top boxes cost 

consumers $3,000,000,000 in electricity charges in 2011, with 

$2,000,000,000 wasted when televisions are not in use. The Committee commends industry for its commitments to utilize more efficient equipment. The Committee encourages the Department of Energy to work with industry and stakeholders to develop and deploy 

widely equipment that meets Energy Star 4 specifications and powers down or off when not in use as soon as feasible. Further, the 

Committee urges the Department to consider establishing a Geothermal Heat Pump Technology Office within the Buildings Technology Program to promote developing innovative geothermal heat 

pump technologies and enhancing their use in both residential and 

commercial buildings. The Department is to report back within 6 

months of enactment of this act on the progress for the Geothermal 

Heat Pump Technology Office. 

The Committee recommends no funding for the Energy Efficient 

Buildings Hub, and directs the Department to terminate the Hub. 

The Department may use the remainder of prior year balances provided to the Hub for research and development activities within the 

program. After $80,000,000 in appropriations and spending 

$55,000,000 over the last 4 years, the Committee has seen no 

measurable benefit from this investment. The purpose of the Hubs 

is to accelerate the discovery of transformational energy tech-
84 

nologies within 5 years that are likely to be commercialized by the 

private sector. Unlike the other Hubs, which have clear goals and 

timeframes, the Energy Efficient Buildings Hub never established 

key deliverables within the 5 year award period. The Hub was 

more focused on the economic development of the Philadelphia area 

rather than developing a national program to improve the energy 

efficiency of commercial and residential buildings across the United 

States. In addition, most of the activities described in the Hub’s 

program plan are already being addressed by core programs in the 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Last year, an 

independent review team found that this Hub was poorly managed 

and lacked measurable goals. Despite efforts by the Department to 

help improve management of the Hub and establish key 

deliverables within the 5 year award period, the Committee has 

seen no improvement. The Committee is frustrated that the Department did not exercise sufficient oversight of the Hub at its inception to avoid these mistakes and expects the Department to 

take faster action when programs are not meeting management or 

scientific goals. It appears that part of the Department’s problem 

in exercising control of the Hub stems from the Hub’s organizational structure, which involves several Federal agencies and other 

non-Federal partners which have changed since the Hub was created. In proposing future Hubs, the Department should incorporate 

the lessons learned from this Hub to provide the greatest opportunity for success. If the Department again seeks to propose a Hub 

jointly with any other Federal agency it will have to detail how the 

Department is going to exercise oversight and control in such a 

structure. The Department should work to minimize duplication 

and overlap between any Hub and the Department’s program offices. 

Advanced Manufacturing.—The Committee recognizes the importance of the manufacturing sector to the U.S. economy, directly 

generating 12 percent of U.S. GDP and employing nearly 12 million 

people. The Committee recommends $215,985,000 for advanced 

manufacturing. Within this total funding, $5,000,000 is for the 

joint additive manufacturing pilot institute with the Department of 

Defense, $10,000,000 is for development of additive manufacturing 

processes, low cost carbon fiber, and other manufacturing technologies at the existing Manufacturing Demonstration Facility, 

$25,000,000 is for the Critical Materials Hub aimed at improving 

critical material supply chains that are prone to disruption, 

$56,000,000 is for the wide bandgap semiconductor institute. The 

Committee supports the President’s vision to strengthen domestic 

manufacturing and improve U.S. competitiveness through a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, however, the Committee would like to see analysis to identify and prioritize investments in clean energy manufacturing. The Committee encourages 

the Department to conduct this analysis to justify requests for 

more substantial increases for institutes in clean energy manufacturing. 

Federal Energy Management Program.—The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for the Federal Energy Management Program. 
85 

Facilities and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$46,000,000 for facilities and infrastructure. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $185,000,000 

for program direction. 

Strategic Programs.—The Committee recommends $28,000,000 

for strategic programs. 

Weatherization Assistance Program.—The Committee provides 

$190,000,000. The Committee notes that the Inspector General has 

found instances where weatherized homes have failed state inspections or fell short of minimum efficiency standards. The committee 

encourages the Weatherization Program to raise standards by (1) 

requiring crew laborers, crew leaders, contractors, energy auditors 

and QC inspectors to meet minimum training requirements and to 

meet or exceed current industry standards for home performance 

accreditation programs as determined by the Secretary; (2) ensuring that each retrofit for which weatherization assistance is provided meets or exceeds the standards in applicable building energy 

codes and quality of work standards after the work is completed; 

and (3) increasing third party inspection to ensure compliance with 

building energy codes and quality of work standards. The Committee notes, however, the important role that weatherization plays 

in permanently reducing energy costs for low-income families, lessening our dependence on foreign oil, and training a skilled workforce. 

Intergovernmental Activities.—The Committee provides 

$53,000,000 for State Energy Programs and $10,000,000 for Tribal 

Energy Activities. 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $139,219,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 169,015,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 149,015,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $149,015,000 for Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability. The Department should support or implement accelerated deployment of new renewable electricity generation by developing best practices and providing the necessary funds 

for States seeking to form interstate compacts for integrating largescale renewable energy into their transmission system. 

The Committee supports the Department’s proposed research on 

advanced modeling capabilities to improve electric planning and 

operations. Advances in big data analytic capabilities and modeling 

and visualization technologies offer potential for improving efficient 

operations of the electric grid particularly when incorporating 

power from variable renewable energy sources such as wind and 

solar energy. Within funds provided for the Clean Energy Transmission and Reliability Program, the Committee urges the department to consider applications beyond response to energy supply 

disruption, and to include university/industry teams. The Committee directs the Department to report on the need for workforce 

education as a necessary element for the successful and rapid transition of advanced modeling and simulation solutions developed 

under this program. 
86 

Because of recent natural disasters and other interruptions to 

power and energy sources, the Committee generally supports the 

Department’s desire to create new capabilities for emergency response and monitoring. The Committee, however, also has the responsibility to ensure that the limited taxpayer dollars that are 

available to the Department are allocated in the most cost-efficient 

manner possible. The Committee has evaluated the Department’s 

restructuring proposal and is concerned that instead of replacing 

lower priority activities with new, higher priority activities, the Department is simply adding work scope and not achieving the types 

of efficiencies that are expected in these tight budgets. The Committee is concerned that the Department would create significant 

out-year mortgages and an unsustainable new number of Federal 

jobs. The Committee understands, for example, that as part of the 

proposed Operational Energy and Resilience program, the Department is seeking to create 17 new Federal FTES, and will, in future 

budget years, propose a total of 70 permanent FTEs to operate this 

program at its peak. This more than doubles the current number 

of FTEs currently in this office, and will have a significant effect 

on future funding decisions. The Department is directed, within 90 

days after the enactment of this Act, to provide the Committee a 

report on the proposed Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration program, including funding requirements for future years, proposed staff levels, a detailed justification of the duties and responsibilities of Federal staff proposed to be located in each State, and 

any other detail that is relevant to the Committee’s consideration 

in evaluating the program. 

The Committee does not include funding for the proposed Electricity Systems Hub. In proposing new hubs, the Department 

should model its approach after the successful hubs, each of which 

addresses a well-defined grand energy challenge and has a focused 

mission. An energy innovation hub should not be proposed for work 

that could otherwise be conducted within an office’s research and 

development programs if sufficient resources could be freed 

through prioritization. In this case, the Department has not made 

a strong argument that the proposed work warrants establishing a 

new hub. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $757,482,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 735,460,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 735,460,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $735,460,000 for Nuclear Energy, 

including $94,000,000 for safeguards and security at Idaho National Laboratory. In addition, the Committee recommends use of 

prior year balances in the amount of $5,000,000. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support.—The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support. The Committee understands that due to the 

issuance of a second funding opportunity announcement for more 
87 

innovative designs, the program has been extended from five to six 

years but will remain subject to the original $452,000,000 cap. 

Prior to making any additional awards, the Department should 

conduct an economic assessment to determine whether favorable 

market and other economic considerations justify supporting additional reactor designs. The Committee directs any new awardees to 

be selected only after a full competitive process. 

Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration.— The Committee recommends $62,500,000 for Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration. The Committee directs 

the Nuclear Energy Program to focus funding for Reactor Concepts 

Research, Development and Demonstration, which includes funding 

for Advanced SMRs and Advanced Reactor Concepts, on technologies that show clear potential to be safer, less waste producing, 

more cost competitive, and more proliferation-resistant than existing nuclear power technologies. 

The Committee supports the termination of the Next Generation 

Nuclear Plant demonstration project, and accordingly recommends 

no funds for this activity. Although high temperature gas reactors 

may present significant potential benefits in the future, there is little to no likelihood of such reactors being built in the United States 

in the mid-term. The low price of natural gas will continue to undermine the economic case for using nuclear reactors for process 

heat. 

The Committee recommends $21,000,000 for Advanced Reactor 

Concepts. The Committee is encouraged by the Department’s efforts to develop enhanced accident tolerant fuels which will significantly improve the ability of nuclear reactors to cope with beyonddesign-basis accidents. The Committee supports a continued and 

strengthened program leveraging its significant applied materials 

science resources embodied in the national laboratory complex with 

the domestic commercial nuclear sector. The Committee supports 

focused development on concepts that target reduced heat and hydrogen production from reactions under loss of coolant conditions, 

and which provide additional barriers to fission product release, 

thus limiting the possibility of offsite contamination in the event of 

catastrophic accidents. Specific encouraging examples include accelerated development of advanced self-protecting steel cladding and 

the ceramic-based microencapsulated fuel. The Committee also directs the Department to engage in a rigorous analysis utilizing its 

recently integrated high-speed computing and modeling activities 

to underpin the benefit of these new enhanced accident tolerant 

fuels. 

The Committee notes that significant developments in the nuclear energy field have occurred since the Department issued its 

Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap [Roadmap] in 

2010. These new developments, such as, lessons learned from 

Fukushima, advances in small modular reactor technologies, and 

DOE path forward on the BRC recommendations, should inform 

the Department’s research and development priorities in the future. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department to update 

the Roadmap to ensure that its research and development priorities reflect the most current and emerging needs of the nuclear energy field to allow the United States to maintain a strong world 
88 

leadership role in nuclear technologies. Further, the Committee directs the Department to identify how it will integrate the missions 

and expertise of our unique national laboratories to help meet 

these long-term goals. The Department is directed to submit the 

updated Roadmap to Congress no later than 180 days after the enactment of this act. 

Fuel Cycle Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $175,100,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and Development. 

The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for used nuclear fuel disposition, consistent with the budget request. 

The Committee notes that nearly 18 months have passed since 

the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future submitted its final recommendations to the Secretary of Energy. The 

Committee continues to strongly support these recommendations, 

and again provides funding for research and development activities 

which support efforts to move forward on a new nuclear waste 

management program, regardless of the location of storage or disposal facilities. The Committee again includes a general provision 

in section 309 of this bill which allows the Department of Energy 

to develop a pilot program for a consolidated storage facility, pending enactment of more comprehensive legislation. The Committee recommends $57,100,000 for the Advanced Fuels 

program. The Committee directs the Department to continue implementation of the accident tolerant fuels development program, the 

goal of which is development of meltdown-resistant nuclear fuels 

leading to in-reactor testing and utilization in 10 years. The Committee is concerned that the proposed reduction for the Advanced 

Fuels program does not support continued engagement of private 

industry and universities as the process of evaluating and selecting 

promising technologies for accident tolerant fuel for further development in the United States moves into reactor testing and fuel licensing work. In addition to continuation of the industry and university cost shared program initiated in fiscal year 2012, 

$3,000,000 is recommended to advance promising and innovative 

research, including ceramic cladding and other technologies, emanating from qualified and competitively selected small business research task awards that complement the three major industry and 

university projects and are focused on the development and testing 

of accident tolerant fuels. Further, the Committee is concerned that 

the Department has not yet provided to the Committee the plan for 

development of meltdown-resistant fuels leading to in-reactor testing and utilization by 2020 as required in the Fiscal Year 2012 

Consolidated Appropriations Act (Report 112–75). The Committee 

directs the Department to provide this report to the Committee no 

later than 30 days after enactment of this act. 

Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.—The Committee recommends $62,300,000 for Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $12,563,000 

for the National Scientific User Facility. 

The Committee recommends $24,300,000 for the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation, which represents the fifth 

fiscal year of funding for this Hub. The Committee recognizes the 

accomplishments of this Hub, whose centerpiece is a virtual model 

of an operating pressurized water reactor. Research and data from 
89 

this Hub has, and will continue, to provide a basis for improving 

the safety and economic cases for approximately two-thirds of the 

Nation’s operating commercial reactors. Allowing researchers and 

engineers to examine real-time operations in this virtual reactor 

provides opportunities to address issues in nuclear reactors that 

have not been possible until now. The Department is encouraged 

to apply lessons learned from this Hub to any new Hubs it proposes in the future. 

Radiological Facilities Management.—The Committee provides 

$20,000,000 for Radiological Facilities Management. Within this 

funding, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 for hot cells at 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The Committee recommends 

$5,000,000 for Research Reactor Infrastructure. 

Idaho Facilities Management.—The Committee recommends 

$166,560,000 for Idaho Facilities Management. 

International Nuclear Energy Cooperation.—The Committee provides $2,500,000 for International Nuclear Energy Cooperation, the 

same as the request. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $87,500,000 for 

Program Direction to be available until September 30, 2015. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $532,932,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 420,575,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 420,575,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $420,575,000 for Fossil Energy Research and Development. 

CCS and Power Systems.—The Committee recommends 

$268,631,000 for CCS and Power Systems. Within the available 

funding, Advanced Energy Systems is funded at $40,000,000. Within Gasification Systems, a subprogram of Advanced Energy Systems, the recommendation includes $8,000,000 to continue activities improving advanced air separation technologies. 

Funds recommended for Carbon Capture and Storage, and Power 

Systems shall be available to continue to advance the full scope of 

technologies for the reduction of carbon emissions conducted at the 

Department of Energy’s National Carbon Capture Center, including direct carbon capture and technologies or methods to reduce 

the cost of or advance the efficiency or reliability of post-combustion capture technologies, pre-combustion capture technologies, and 

oxy-combustion systems. 

The United States is experiencing a significant increase in natural gas production and use in the United States. The Committee 

is aware that some of the research and development work being 

conducted within the CCS and Power Systems programs for coal 

are also potentially applicable to natural gas. The Department is 

directed to use funds from this program for both coal and natural 

gas research and development as it determines to be merited. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $115,753,000 

for program direction. 
90 

Other Programs.—The Committee recommends $13,294,000 for 

Plant and Capital Equipment; $5,897,000 for Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration; and $700,000 for Special Recruitment Programs. Within available funds, the Committee directs the Department to continue the Risk Based Data Management System. The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for natural gas tech- nologies. Of this amount, $12,000,000 is for interagency research 

and development initiatives and $8,000,000 is for ongoing methane 

hydrates research and development. 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $14,879,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 20,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for Naval Petroleum 

and Oil Shale Reserves, the same as the budget request. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $192,319,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 189,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 189,400,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $189,400,000 for the operation of 

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

The Committee notes that the Department has continued to ignore the statutory directive in Public Law 111–8 to submit a report 

to Congress regarding the effects of expanding the Reserve on the 

domestic petroleum market by April 27, 2009. The Department has 

not yet submitted the report, and continues to fail to meet other 

congressionally mandated deadlines without explanation or cause. 

Although now nearly 41⁄2 years delayed, the information requested 

in the report continues to be pertinent to policy decisions, and the 

Secretary is directed to submit the report as expeditiously as possible to the Committee. The Committee is concerned with the Department’s seeming unwillingness or inability to implement a law 

enacted in 2009. 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $4,099,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 8,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the Northeast Home 

Heating Oil Reserve as requested. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $104,790,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 117,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 117,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 
91 

The Committee recommends $117,000,000 for the Energy Information Administration. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $235,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 212,956,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 232,956,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee’s recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup is $232,956,000. 

Reprogramming Control Levels.—In fiscal year 2014, the Environmental Management program may transfer funding between operating expense funded projects within the controls listed below 

using guidance contained in the Department’s budget execution 

manual (DOE M 135.1–1A, chapter IV). All capital construction 

line item projects remain separate controls from the operating 

projects. The Committees on Appropriations in the House and Senate must be formally notified in advance of all reprogrammings, except internal reprogrammings, and the Department is to take no financial action in anticipation of congressional response. The Committee recommends the following reprogramming control points for 

fiscal year 2013: 

—Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning; 

—Gaseous Diffusion Plants; 

—Small Sites; and 

—West Valley Demonstration Project. 

Internal Reprogramming Authority.—Headquarters Environ- mental Management may transfer up to $2,000,000, one time, between accounts listed above to reduce health and safety risks, gain 

cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a program or project 

is not increased or decreased by more than $2,000,000 in total during the fiscal year. 

The reprogramming authority—either formal or internal—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 

the internal reprogramming authority. 

Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning.—The Committee recommends $2,545,000. 

Gaseous Diffusion Plants.—The Committee recommends 

$96,222,000. 

Small Sites.—The Committee recommends $70,189,000. In response to a lack of progress on addressing existing contamination 

and seismic deficiencies within buildings that are located in heavily 

used areas at some Department national laboratories, the Department is directed to use additional funding to improve health and 

safety by cleaning up existing contamination and improving seismic 

standards of buildings within Department laboratory grounds. 

The Committee also encourages the Department to explore remediation efforts at small sites which can demonstrate new models for 

cleanup performed by private sector and third party organizations, 

such as laboratories and universities, which could save substantial 
92 

resources compared to the traditional agency-led cleanup model 

and result in faster cleanup without compromising public safety. 

The Committee urges the Department to budget for such cleanup 

models. 

West Valley Demonstration Project.—The Committee recommends 

$64,000,000. 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $471,984,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 554,823,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 554,823,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $554,823,000 for Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning activities, the same 

as the budget request. 

SCIENCE

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $4,866,248,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 5,152,752,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,152,752,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $5,152,752,000 as requested for the 

Office of Science. The Committee continues to support the three 

highest priorities for the Office of Science: (1) the discovery and design of new materials for the generation, storage, and use of energy, (2) better understanding of microorganisms and plants for improved biofuels production, and (3) the development and deployment of more powerful computing capabilities to take advantage of 

modeling and simulation to advance energy technologies and maintain U.S. economic competitiveness. 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $1,805,162,000, a decrease of 

$57,249,000 below the request, for Basic Energy Sciences. Of these 

funds, the Committee recommends up to $100,000,000 for Energy 

Frontier Research Centers and $24,237,000 each for the Fuels from 

Sunlight and Batteries and Energy Storage Hubs. 

Within these funds, the Committee also recommends $20,000,000 

for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 

[EPSCoR] program, which was created by Congress over concerns 

about the uneven distribution of Federal research and development 

grants. The Committee encourages the Department to continue 

funding to support research and development needs of graduate 

and post-graduate science programs at Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $625,347,000 as requested for Biological and Environmental Research. Within these funds, the Committee recommends $321,066,000 for biological systems science and 

$304,281,000 for climate and environmental sciences. 
93 

Within the funds for biological systems science, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 for nuclear medicine research for human 

application. Within the funds provided for climate and environmental sciences, the Committee recommends $46,700,000 as requested for the operation of the Environmental Molecular Sciences 

Laboratory at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The Committee also recommends $74,000,000 for climate and Earth systems 

modeling of which $500,000 is to be used to engage universities 

more directly in climate analysis. 

The Committee is aware that the program is engaged in a collaborative process focused on adaptation to climate change. Specifically, the program has engaged other Federal agencies, climate 

modelers, and end users in an evaluation of how best to advance 

model development in service of adaptation given a rapidly evolving climate. The Committee encourages a continuation of this effort 

and would urge that it focus on recommendations to ‘‘downscale’’ 

global models to a level of resolution which facilitates informed decisionmaking at the local, state and regional level. Given the significant computing power needs and massive volumes of statistical 

data associated with this effort the Committee would note the critical role that the national laboratories can play through their 

science expertise and computing resources. The Committee would 

urge further involvement by the national laboratories in development of climate models which can facilitate development of high 

resolution, regionally focused climate projections. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $493,773,000, an increase of 

$28,180,000 above the request, for Advanced Scientific Computing 

Research. The Committee believes its recommendation would allow 

the Department to develop and maintain world-class computing 

and network facilities for science and deliver the necessary research in applied mathematics, computer science, and advanced 

networking to support the Department’s missions. 

Within these funds, the Committee recommends $81,000,000, an 

increase of $12,500,000 above the request, for the exascale initiative to spur U.S. innovation and increase the country’s ability to 

address critical national challenges. The Committee supports the 

Department’s plan to deploy the first exascale system by 2022 that 

is energy efficient with a peak power not to exceed 20 megawatts 

based on marketable technology and have real-world, mission-critical applications ready to use on exascale platforms with 

computationally efficient and reliable system software. 

Since few companies have the resources or expertise to develop 

and maintain their own modeling, simulation, and analytics software, the Committee is concerned that it is becoming increasingly 

difficult for small, medium, and even large businesses to take advantage of powerful, new computing capabilities. The Committee 

directs the Office of Science to submit a plan to this Committee by 

May 1, 2014 that would (1) simplify access to computing resources 

at the labs, especially for small- and medium-sized businesses, (2) 

establish a few primary points-of-contact to help industry learn 

about advanced computing capabilities and resources available 

within the Department and national laboratories, and (3) engage 
94 

relevant and qualified independent software vendors to partner 

with the laboratories to help bridge the gap between the research 

capabilities at the labs and the commercial needs of companies by 

adapting and customizing lab-developed software for use by industry. The Committee also recommends $93,000,000 for the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, $67,000,000 for the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, and $65,605,000 for the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center facility at Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Computational 

Science Graduate Fellowship program to maintain a healthy pipeline of computational scientists equipped and trained to address 

the Department’s mission needs, including advances in exascale 

computing. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $806,590,000, an increase of 

$30,069,000 above the request, for High Energy Physics. Within 

these funds, the Committee recommends $35,000,000 as requested 

for construction of the Muon to Electron Conversion Experiment. 

The Committee also recommends $30,000,000 for the Long Baseline 

Neutrino Experiment, which includes $10,000,000 for research and 

development and $20,000,000 for project engineering and design. 

Research in neutrinos represents the next frontier of particle physics and this experiment remains a top priority for the U.S. and 

international physics communities. The Committee restores funding for this project to mature the design, develop better cost estimates, and encourage international collaborators to make financial 

contributions. Within the funds for High Energy Physics, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 to support minimal, sustaining operations at the Homestake Mine in South Dakota. 

Within the funds for High Energy Physics, the Committee also recommends $20,000,000 for Accelerator Stewardship. The Committee recognizes the critical role accelerator technology can play 

in addressing many of the economic and societal issues confronting 

the country. The Committee supports the Office of Science’s efforts 

to make unique test facilities available to U.S. industry to accelerate applications of accelerator technology. Testing accelerator 

technology, such as at beam facilities, is the only, unambiguous 

way to demonstrate the operational efficacy of a new technology 

and represents the final step in validating a design concept. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $569,938,000 as requested for Nuclear Physics. Within these funds, the Committee recommends 

$25,500,000 in construction funds for the upgrade to the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, which the Nuclear 

Science Advisory Committee reaffirmed was the highest priority for 

the nations’ nuclear physics program. The Committee also recommends $55,000,000 for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, 

$17,255,000 for operations of the Argonne Tandem Linac Accelerator System, and $165,200,000 for the Relativistic Heavy Ion 

Collider for 22 weeks of operations. 
95 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $458,324,000 as requested for Fusion Energy Sciences. Within these funds, the Committee recommends no less than $75,000,000 for the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory to maintain core expertise in plasma theory and 

simulation, general plasma science, and tokamak research. The 

Committee also recommends no less than $77,000,000 for the DIII– 

D fusion reactor, which includes $10,264,000 for upgrades to the 

reactor, $16,000,000 to support critical scientific staff, and 

$904,000 to support university students and post-docs. The Committee provides no funding for the Alcator C–Mod fusion reactor at 

MIT. The Committee commends the Office of Science for making a 

difficult choice to shut down the facility to fund higher priority activities within the fusion energy sciences program. 

The Committee also recommends $14,773,000 for High Energy 

Density Laboratory Plasmas, which includes $6,575,000 as requested for experiments on the Matter in Extreme Conditions instrument at the Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC and 

$8,198,000 for academic grants to study the behavior of matter and 

radiation at extreme temperatures and pressures to match funding 

available at NNSA for this joint program. The Committee also recommends $2,500,000 for heavy ion fusion science research at the 

Neutralized Drift Compression Experiment-II at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to take advantage of an $11,000,000 Recovery Act upgrade to the facility. 

The Committee also recommends $12,000,000 for the Fusion 

Simulation program to provide experimentally validated predictive 

simulation capabilities that are critical for ITER and other current 

and planned toroidal fusion devices. The Committee is concerned 

that the fusion energy program is not taking full advantage of high 

performance computing to address scientific and technical challenges on the path to fusion energy. Given current and future 

budget constraints, the Committee views this initiative as critical 

to maintain U.S. world leadership in fusion energy sciences in a 

cost-effective manner. The Committee directs the Office of Science 

to develop a plan on the use of these simulation capabilities based 

on the results of a 2-year planning effort recently funded by the 

Department. 

The Committee is concerned by the lack of a strategic vision, 

which includes research and future facility needs, to advance the 

domestic fusion energy sciences program. The Committee directs 

the Secretary to submit a 10-year plan, not later than 12 months 

after enactment of this act, on the Department’s proposed research 

and development activities in magnetic fusion. The report shall (1) 

identify specific areas of fusion energy research and enabling technology development in which the United States can and should establish or solidify a lead in the global fusion energy development 

effort and (2) identify priorities for facility construction and facility 

decommissioning. 

The Committee recommends $183,502,000 for the U.S. contribution to ITER. No funding shall be made available for the U.S. contribution until the Secretary submits to this Committee a baseline 

cost, schedule, and scope estimate consistent with project manage-
96 

ment principles in DOE Order 413.3B of the U.S. contribution 

needed for completing all construction activities. 

The Committee is concerned by the rising costs of the ITER 

project and the impact to the domestic program. The cost range for 

the U.S. contribution for construction activities was between 

$1,450,000,000 and $2,200,000,000. The most recent estimate is 

$2,400,000,000 and this estimate only fulfills U.S. obligations for 

first plasma, rather than all construction activities. The Committee 

is further concerned that the latest cost estimate does not properly 

account for the technical risk of building the most complicated engineering facility in the world. The most recent cost range was developed when the design for ITER was less than 40 percent complete. 

The Committee also directs the Office of Science to include a 

project data sheet with details of all project costs until the completion of the project for ITER in the fiscal year 2015 budget submission. The Committee understands that the Department provides 

funding for ITER as a Major Item of Equipment rather than a line 

item construction project, which would be consistent with DOE 

Order 413.3B. However, the Committee feels that a multi-billion 

dollar project, especially of this scale and complexity, should be 

treated as a construction project and follow DOE Order 413.3B 

guidance. 

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS

The Committee recommends $16,500,000 as requested. The Committee directs the Office of Science to provide this Committee with 

a cost assessment and evaluation of the impact to existing workforce development activities of establishing the Distinguished Scientist program authorized in the America COMPETES bill. The 

Committee believes this program has merit and should be priority 

for workforce development. 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY—ENERGY

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $264,470,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 379,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 379,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $379,000,000 as requested for the 

Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy [ARPA–E]. The Committee supports ARPA–E’s efforts to advance energy technologies in 

transportation and stationary power systems, including advanced 

vehicle designs and materials and stationary energy storage systems. The Committee is encouraged by ARPA–E’s early indicators 

of success. For example, 17 projects, which received $70,000,000 in 

ARPA–E funding, have now secured more than $450,000,000 in 

outside private capital investment to further develop these technologies. In addition, 12 new companies have been formed to bring 

new technologies to market. 

With dozens of projects nearing the end of their 3-year grants, 

the Committee directs ARPA–E to submit a report to this Committee by March 1, 2014, that evaluates the success of the first set 

of projects. The report should include whether the projects achieved 
97 

their technical milestones, how many projects received follow on 

funding from the private sector or other government agencies, how 

many new companies have been formed, and whether any technologies have been deployed in the marketplace. 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $38,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 48,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 42,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

OFFSETTING RECEIPTS

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... ¥$38,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... ¥22,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥22,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2013 1 2 ......................................................................... ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... $26,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $42,000,000 in funding for the Loan 

Guarantee Program. This funding is offset by $22,000,000 in receipts from loan guarantee applicants. The Committee does not recommend any additional loan authority in fiscal year 2014. 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN

PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $5,988,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 6,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $237,370,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 226,580,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 234,637,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... ¥$111,623,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... ¥108,188,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥108,188,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 
98 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $125,747,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 118,392,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 126,449,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $126,449,000 for Department Administration. The Committee notes that the Department has not 

yet satisfied its outstanding obligation under the Final Elk Hills 

Agreement, and urges the Secretary to act as soon as practicable 

to comply with the terms of this agreement. The Committee notes 

that the Secretary may reduce or eliminate the research and development match requirement established in section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, where necessary and appropriate. The 

Committee encourages the Secretary to consider the use of this discretion if the research goals of the Department of Energy would be 

advanced by reducing or eliminating the match requirement for 

nonprofit organizations and institutions. 

Energy Policy and Systems Analysis.—The Committee supports 

the consolidation of the Department’s energy policy analysis functions. Consistent with direction in the Energy and Water Development fiscal year 2010 conference report, consolidation will reduce 

redundancy across the Department and enable enterprise-wide orchestration of analytical capabilities across all areas relevant to the 

Nation’s energy sector. As part of this effort, the Committee shifts 

funding for policy functions from elsewhere in the Department into 

the Energy Policy and Systems Analysis office within Departmental Administration. This accounts for the $5,852,000 increase 

in Department Administration funding. 

The Office of the Secretary of Energy shall ensure that it is a full 

participant in the administration’s efforts to identify the best locations to site interstate transmission lines to maximize access to the 

Nation’s most significant renewable energy resources. Additionally, 

the Department is directed to collect, compile, and maintain data 

on the efforts of the tax code on meeting the Nation’s energy challenges, such as improving energy security, pollution reduction, and 

improving energy technology innovation and competitiveness, in a 

manner that will be useful during the tax reform debates. 

The Committee is concerned that the Department has not made 

a concerted effort to reduce contractor international travel costs. 

According to a recent DOE Inspector General [IG] audit, while the 

Department implemented a mandatory 30 percent reduction in 

Federal employee travel, parallel actions have not been taken to 

manage or control foreign travel by contractors. According to the 

IG, a 30 percent reduction to international travel costs incurred by 

its 100,000 contractor workforce could save millions of dollars each 

year. Based on the IG’s findings, this Committee estimates, at minimum, $7,000,000 in savings in fiscal year 2014 to offset the costs 

of appropriated non-security funding for the Department by avoiding unnecessary contractor travel costs and direct the total amount 

appropriated for these activities be reduced by that amount to address budget shortfalls for critical missions. 
99 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $41,916,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 42,120,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 42,120,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $42,120,000 for the Office of the Inspector General. 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

The Committee recommends $11,758,469,000, an increase of 

$106,000,000 above the request, for the National Nuclear Security 

Administration. The Committee restores funding to critical nonproliferation activities that reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism— 

one of the Nation’s most important national security priorities. The 

Committee supports accelerated efforts to secure and permanently 

eliminate remaining stockpiles of nuclear and radiological materials overseas and in the United States that can be used for nuclear or radiological weapons. The Committee also continues to 

support efforts to modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile to sustain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal without testing. 

However, the Committee is concerned that NNSA will not be able 

to execute multiple, highly complex life extension projects and construction projects concurrently under ambitious schedules. NNSA’s 

inability to complete projects on time and on budget adds significant risk to its modernization plans. 

Report on Changes to Cost, Schedule, and Scope of Major 

Projects.—The Committee is concerned that NNSA is not communicating changes in cost, schedule, and scope in a transparent and 

timely manner. The Committee directs NNSA to submit a report 

every 6 months on December 1 and June 1, with the first report 

due on December 1, 2013, on the status of major projects, such as 

construction projects and life extension programs, which are estimated to cost a minimum of $750,000,000. The report shall include, 

among other things, the name of the project, a brief description of 

the mission need, a brief summary of project status, the baseline 

cost or expected cost range and contingencies, expected completion 

date, scope of work, and an explanation of changes, if any, to cost, 

schedule, scope, or contingencies. 

Improving the NNSA Budget Structure.—NNSA was established 

in 2000, less than a decade after the cessation of nuclear testing. 

The budget structure that was developed to suit the mission at the 

time has mostly remained the same while NNSA’s mission has matured and evolved. The Committee believes the budget structure 

should change to improve transparency and flexibility and reflect 

NNSA’s new programmatic focus on life extension programs, infrastructure modernization, and a science, technology, and engineering capability to assess the stockpile without underground testing. 

The Committee directs NNSA to submit recommendations to this 

Committee for a new budget structure by March 1, 2014, that improves transparency and reflects new priorities and mission needs 

without unduly limiting the flexibility of the agency. The Com-
100 

mittee plans to work with NNSA to develop a new budget structure 

for the fiscal year 2016 budget submission. 

Strengthening Assessments of Alternatives.—The Committee is 

concerned about NNSA’s ability to assess alternatives, which may 

significantly reduce cost, at the preliminary planning stages of a 

project. Two major projects have recently been terminated or deferred after NNSA spent hundreds of millions of dollars on design 

and engineering work, including a plutonium facility at Los Alamos 

National Laboratory and a plutonium pit disposition facility at Savannah River National Laboratory. NNSA has since concluded existing facilities can meet mission needs. The Committee believes 

this wasteful spending could have been avoided had NNSA better 

assessed alternatives. The Committee also believes NNSA should 

more rigorously and thoroughly assess alternatives to construction 

projects with an estimated cost over $100,000,000. The Committee 

directs NNSA to submit a plan to this Committee by March 1, 

2014, on ways it will strengthen its ability to assess alternatives, 

including potential workforce needs and timescales to implement a 

more rigorous alternatives assessment capability. 

Academic Programs.—The Committee recognizes that the foundation of NNSA’s ability to successfully execute its unique mission 

of ensuring a strong nuclear deterrent and preventing nuclear proliferation is the highly trained workforce at the national laboratories and production plants. The Committee acknowledges that developing the next generation of a specialized workforce is also 

NNSA’s responsibility. The Committee encourages NNSA to continue to support investments in academic programs in fields of research important to its unique mission, especially in focus areas 

that receive little funding from other government agencies or private entities 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $7,574,916,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 7,868,409,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,868,409,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $7,868,409,000 as requested for 

Weapons Activities. The Committee’s recommendation represents 

an increase of $1,483,978,000, or 23 percent, compared to fiscal 

year 2010 to support nuclear modernization activities. 

Management Efficiencies and Workforce Restructuring.—The 

Committee is concerned by NNSA’s decision to make the successful 

execution of complex nuclear projects, including life extension 

projects for five weapons systems and a multi-billion dollar construction project, contingent on unidentified and ambiguous management efficiency and workforce restructuring savings. In fiscal 

year 2014, the Weapons Activities budget assumes savings of 

$320,000,000, but NNSA has not completed any assessments to determine the reasonableness, feasibility, or source of those savings. 

A failure to achieve those savings may impact critical programs. 

The Committee directs NNSA to submit to the Committee within 

30 days of completion its Workforce Management and Governance 

Studies that identify the source of management efficiency and 

workforce restructuring savings. 
101 

Assessment on Insensitive High Explosives.—The Committee understands that the Nuclear Posture Review promotes exploring options for enhancing the safety of nuclear warheads. Nuclear weapon designs include fundamental safety features intended to prevent 

accidental weapon detonation or the scatter of radioactive material. 

One important safety feature NNSA is considering is the use of insensitive high explosives for all future weapons undergoing life extension activities, which would include repurposing plutonium pits 

that have traditionally used conventional high explosives. The 

Committee has not received sufficient information from NNSA and 

the Department of Defense on the need for insensitive high explosives in all nuclear weapons given the increased cost and risk of 

design changes required to use insensitive high explosives. NNSA 

has used conventional high explosives safely over the last 60 years 

and the W76 warhead which is currently being refurbished will use 

conventional high explosives for another 30 years. The Committee 

directs NNSA to submit a report to this Committee by March 1, 

2014 that explains the benefits of using insensitive high explosives 

in all systems, the certification strategy for repurposing pits from 

conventional to insensitive high explosive systems, the costs associated with converting systems to insensitive high explosives, and 

changes in safety vulnerability assessments, if any, that would justify this approach. 

Plutonium Capability.—With the deferral of a Chemistry and 

Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility, the Committee 

supports efforts to maintain pit manufacturing capabilities using 

existing facilities. NNSA assessments have concluded that existing 

infrastructure is sufficient to meet pit requirements for the stockpile until fiscal year 2030 and the Committee continues to provide 

sufficient funding to modify existing buildings to meet those pit requirements. The Committee recommends $311,067,000 for plutonium sustainment and manufacturing capabilities, which includes 

$143,685,000 for plutonium sustainment activities at Los Alamos, 

$11,368,000 to purchase and install new manufacturing equipment 

to help achieve a pit production capacity of 30 pits a year by 2021, 

$1,894,000 to begin pit certification testing to certify that newly 

manufactured pits can be used in the stockpile, $30,679,000 to complete Phase 2 safety upgrades to the main plutonium manufacturing facility, known as PF–4, at Los Alamos, $10,000,000 for additional seismic upgrades at PF–4, $26,722,000 to continue construction of the Transuranic Waste Facility at Los Alamos, 

$55,719,000 to begin construction of the Radioactive Liquid Waste 

Facility at Los Alamos, and $31,000,000 to continue material stabilization, repackaging, and de-inventory of the PF–4 vault. 

JASON Study on Technical Hedge.—The fiscal year 2014 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan proposes a strategy to consolidate the number of nuclear weapons variants from 12 to 5 over 

the next four decades. A stated advantage of the strategy is to ultimately reduce the size of the stockpile hedge—the portion of the 

stockpile that is maintained to mitigate against possible weapons 

and delivery platform reliability issues, transportation and surveillance logistics, and geopolitical changes. Since hedge weapons must 

be maintained in the same state of readiness as non-hedge weapons, significant costs are incurred to maintain the hedge. The Com-
102 

mittee believes that potential reductions to the hedge made possible by the proposed strategy must be thoroughly evaluated up 

front since these strategies require billions of dollars of near- and 

medium-term investments in the name of reduced long-term costs. 

The Committee directs the JASON group of scientific advisers to 

submit to the Committee by April 1, 2014 an assessment of the requirement to maintain a significant hedge to address potential 

technical surprises and the extent to which NNSA uses quantifiable metrics associated with margins of uncertainties to determine 

the appropriate hedge size. The assessment should determine 

whether NNSA’s requirements and methodology are mature 

enough to definitively inform the size of the technical hedge and, 

if not, provide recommendations on what steps should be taken to 

appropriately mature them. 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

The Committee recommends $2,258,468,000, a decrease of 

$170,048,000 below the request, for Directed Stockpile Work. 

Life Extension Programs.—The Committee recommends 

$846,560,000, a decrease of $168,044,000 below the request, for life 

extension programs. 

W76 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$235,382,000 as requested for the W76 Life Extension Program. 

Completing the W76 Life Extension Program, which makes up the 

largest share of the country’s nuclear weapon deterrent on the 

most survivable leg of the Triad, is this Committee’s highest priority for life extension programs. 

B61 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$369,000,000, a decrease of $168,044,000 below the request, for the 

B61 Life Extension Program. The recommended funding will allow 

NNSA to continue design, engineering, and testing of critical nonnuclear components, such as the radar, neutron generator, power 

source, and gas transfer system, that are reaching the end of their 

lives and would affect the long-term reliability of this weapon system. 

The Committee is concerned that NNSA’s proposed scope of work 

for extending the life of the B61 bomb is not the lowest cost, lowest 

risk option that meets military requirements and replaces aging 

components before they affect weapon performance. NNSA’s cost 

estimate for the B61 Life Extension Program has doubled in the 

past two years as work scope has increased—from $4,500,000,0000 

to $8,168,000,000. An independent cost review by the Department 

of Defense’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office estimates that the actual cost will be $10,100,000,000. With a projected scope of only several hundred bombs, NNSA would be paying 

tens of millions of dollars per bomb. In addition to cost increases, 

the schedule for manufacturing the first production unit, or the 

first refurbished bomb, has already slipped 2 years—from fiscal 

year 2017 to fiscal year 2019. NNSA will face additional delays as 

it applies the sequester cuts to its major programs. 

The Committee encourages NNSA to reconsider the option it selected for the B61 life extension program and develop a scope of 

work that can be successfully executed within known budget constraints and replaces critical non-nuclear components as soon as 
103 

possible to address end-of-life issues. The Committee also directs 

NNSA to submit to the Committee within 30 days of enactment of 

this Act its analysis of reduced life cycle costs for the proposed Option 3b for the B61 life extension program, including cost savings 

from consolidating the different B61 variants. 

W78/W88–1 Life Extension Study.—The Committee recommends 

$72,691,000 as requested to continue the W78 life extension study. 

The Committee is concerned about projected costs for an integrated 

warhead that would provide the same nuclear warhead for both the 

Minuteman III and Trident II delivery systems. The fiscal year 

2014 stockpile stewardship and management plan projects the cost 

of an integrated warhead for the W78 and W88 systems at 

$14,000,000,000. Given NNSA’s poor cost estimating practices, the 

cost is likely to be much higher. 

The Committee directs NNSA, in coordination with the Nuclear 

Weapons Council, to not preclude a separate W78 life extension 

program similar to the W76 life extension program, which did not 

require significant design changes. The Committee is concerned 

that an integrated warhead may be unnecessarily complex and expensive, increase uncertainty about certification and meeting the 

full range of military characteristics and stockpile-to-target sequences needed for submarine and intercontinental ballistic missile 

systems, and fail to address aging issues in a timely manner. When 

NNSA completes its study, the Committee expects a detailed assessment of the expected cost savings from an integrated warhead 

compared to separate life extension programs for the W78 and W88 

and differences, if any, in reducing the hedge. 

W88 Alt 370.—The Committee recommends $169,487,000 as requested for the W88 Alt 370 arming, fuzing, and firing system. The 

Committee supports efforts to make the new W88 arming, fuzing, 

and firing system adaptable for use on other systems, such as the 

W78 and W87, to reduce design and engineering costs as those systems are upgraded. The Committee also encourages NNSA to meet 

the first production unit target date of December 2018 to match the 

limited life component exchange cycle for the W88 neutron generators and gas transfer systems to reduce transport and handling of 

this weapon. 

Stockpile Systems.—The Committee recommends $282,809,000 

for stockpile systems. The Committee has removed congressional 

budgetary control points for each individual weapon system to provide NNSA greater flexibility in addressing unexpected technical 

issues. The Committee expects NNSA to continue to provide the 

same level of detail on each individual weapon system in yearly 

budget justifications. The Committee has moved funding requested 

for surveillance activities under stockpile systems to a new surveillance budget line. 

Surveillance.—The Committee recommends $234,647,000 for surveillance. The Committee consolidated requested funds for surveillance activities from Stockpile Systems and Stockpile Services into 

a new budget line. A new budget line will provide greater transparency into critical surveillance activities. The stockpile surveillance program provides information on the status of the Nation’s 

nuclear weapons stockpile. Through a variety of tests, the surveillance program ensures that weapon systems function as expected 
104 

and detects defects due to handling, aging, manufacturing, or design. The test results are used to help support NNSA’s annual assessment of the reliability, safety, and security of the stockpile. The 

Committee wants to avoid budget shortfalls that hamper the ability 

of the nuclear weapons laboratory directors to complete all scheduled tests necessary to detect potential aging issues. 

Weapons Dismantlement.—The Committee recommends 

$56,000,000, an increase of $6,736,000 above the request, for weapons dismantlement and disposition activities. The increased funding shall be used to reduce the backlog in dispositioning nuclear 

components from dismantled nuclear weapons. The Committee supports NNSA’s goal of dismantling all weapons retired prior to fiscal 

year 2009 by the end of fiscal year 2022. The Committee directs 

NNSA to notify the Committee if it cannot meet this goal. 

Stockpile Services.—The Committee recommends $838,452,000 

for stockpile services. Funding for Tritium Readiness in the Readiness Campaign has been moved to this account under a newly 

named Tritium Production program. Funding associated with component development under research and development certification 

and safety has been moved to a new Technology Maturation Campaign. Funding associated with surveillance activities has been 

moved to a new surveillance budget line. 

The Committee is concerned about the Administration’s lack of 

awareness of the vital role that the Tennessee Valley Authority 

plays in our Nation’s nuclear weapons enterprise. TVA is the Department’s only supplier of tritium, which is a vital component in 

weapons production. If TVA were to stop supplying the Department 

with tritium the Department would incur significant costs to initiate a production process due to private utilities unwillingness to 

assume tritium production responsibilities. That is why it is particularly troubling that the Administration chose to include a recommendation to privatize TVA in the President’s budget request to 

Congress. The inclusion of the recommended sale of TVA caused a 

massive drop in value of TVA’s bonds, did senseless damage to the 

financial holdings of TVA bond holders, and prevented TVA from 

being able to issue bonds in the 30 year bond market; all of which 

will result in higher electricity rates for TVA ratepayers. The Administration not only created massive turmoil with its ill advised 

recommendation to privatize TVA but the Administration also 

failed to address the fundamental question about how it would acquire tritium. The Committee directs the Department to submit a 

tritium acquisition plan to this Committee and the Office of Management and Budget, no later than May 1, 2014. The plan should 

detail the costs to the Department should TVA no longer be a viable tritium supplier. 

CAMPAIGNS

The Committee recommends $1,847,365,000, an increase of 

$136,400,000 above the request, for NNSA Campaigns. The Committee supports efforts to improve models of weapon performance 

using experimental data, underground test data, and advanced 

computer simulations to better understand the effects of aging and 

provide solutions for potential stockpile issues. However, the Committee is concerned about the increased scope of work and planned 
105 

experiments to develop improved intrinsic safety and security options. The Committee believes planned experiments related to new 

safety and security options should be tied to military requirements 

and changes in risk assessments or weapon vulnerabilities that 

would justify exploring new surety features. Experiments related to 

new surety features should also be weighed against extrinsic features already available or being developed that may be less costly 

and more effective to prevent unauthorized access. The Committee 

also encourages NNSA to use the campaigns to reduce the complexity and costs of life extension programs. 

Science Campaign.—The Committee recommends $374,723,000, a 

decrease of $23,179,000 below the request, for the Science Campaign. Within these funds, $34,000,000 shall be used at Sandia’s Z 

facility to continue critical plutonium and other physics experiments to support the stockpile stewardship program. The Committee encourages NNSA to prioritize fundamental and focused hydrodynamic and subcritical experiments over large-scale, integral 

experiments, as recommended by the JASON group of scientific advisors. The Committee supports strengthening predictive capabilities by obtaining critical data from focused and fundamental experiments that measure key dynamic properties of plutonium and 

other relevant materials and that study the interaction of radiation 

with matter. Given the cost of integral scaled subcritical experiments, the Committee encourages NNSA to prioritize scaled experiments that inform decisions for future life extension programs. The 

Committee also directs NNSA to provide a clear justification if it 

decides to increase the frequency of these experiments more than 

once every 18 months. 

Engineering Campaign.—The Committee recommends 

$90,043,000 for the engineering campaign. Funding for enhanced 

surety and funding associated with advanced diagnostics under Enhanced Surveillance has been moved to a new Technology Maturation Campaign. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield Campaign.—The Committee recommends $528,376,000, an increase of 

$127,333,000 above the request, for the inertial confinement fusion 

ignition and high-yield campaign. The increase reflects a movement 

of $113,333,000 for the National Ignition Facility [NIF] operations 

in the Site Stewardship Site Operations account to the Facility Operations and Target Production account in this campaign to improve transparency of NIF operating costs. The Committee recommends that no funds within Site Operations and Maintenance 

shall be used for NIF. Within the funds for inertial confinement fusion, $329,000,000, $66,950,000, $54,000,000, and $6,000,000 shall 

be used for inertial confinement fusion activities at the NIF, the 

University of Rochester’s Omega facility, Sandia National Laboratory’s Z facility, and the Naval Research Laboratory, respectively. 

Within the $329,000,000 available for NIF, $30,000,000 is for the 

Advanced Radiographic Capability. 

The Committee supports NNSA’s approach as laid out in the December 2012 Path Forward Report to Congress on the use of the 

National Ignition Facility, which involves more focused experiments to understand fundamental physics and improve the predictability of simulation codes for indirect drive ignition while also sup-
106 

porting polar drive and magnetically driven ignition experiments as 

alternative approaches to ignition. However, the Committee is concerned that NNSA has not developed clear metrics to measure 

NIF’s progress in achieving ignition and supporting stockpile stewardship. This Committee’s support for the National Ignition Facility will continue to be contingent on the unique contributions the 

facility makes to advance fundamental understanding of weapons 

physics. The Committee directs NNSA to provide the Committee 

within 60 days of enactment of this Act a 3-year plan that lays out 

significant milestones NIF plans to achieve on the path to ignition 

and critical experiments needed to support the stockpile stewardship program. 

The Committee is also concerned by the operating costs of NIF, 

which is currently the most expensive experimental facility at the 

Department of Energy and NNSA. The Committee has seen little 

effort by NNSA to find operating efficiencies without significantly 

reducing the shot rate or laser energies. The Committee directs 

NNSA to submit to the Committee within 120 days of enactment 

of this Act a plan to increase the shot rate at NIF over the next 

3 years with a budget of $329,000,000 over the next 3 years. 

Consistent with NNSA’s other inertial confinement fusion facilities, the conferees direct that no less than 50 percent of the facility 

time on the NIF shall be dedicated to non-ignition stockpile stewardship experiments. The conferees further direct that Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory follow the advice of the High Energy Density Planning and Facility Coordination Council, which is 

made up of nuclear weapons physics experts from all three NNSA 

laboratories, to determine which non-ignition stockpile stewardship 

experiments shall be conducted on NIF that meet the highest priorities of the stockpile stewardship program. 

Advanced Simulation and Computing.—The Committee recommends $600,569,000, an increase of $36,240,000 above the request, for advanced simulation and computing. Within these funds, 

the Committee recommends $69,000,000 for activities associated 

with the exascale initiative, such as advanced system architecture 

design contracts with vendors and codesign and advanced weapons 

code development to effectively use new high performance computing platforms. 

Technology Maturation.—The Committee has replaced the Readiness Campaign with the Technology Maturation Campaign. The 

Committee recommends $253,654,000 for the Technology Maturation Campaign, which includes funding from Stockpile Services and 

the Engineering and Readiness Campaigns. Funding for tritium activities has been moved to Stockpile Services. The Technology Maturation Campaign’s goal will be to develop and deploy multi-system 

weapons component manufacturing capabilities needed to replace 

or upgrade technologies in nuclear weapons systems. The Committee supports efforts to modernize and increase the cost efficiency of manufacturing processes for the production of neutron 

generators, tritium reservoirs, detonators, and other critical technologies. 
107 

NUCLEAR OPERATIONS AND CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION

The Committee recommends $688,031,000, a decrease of 

$56,419,000 below the request, for Nuclear Operations and Capital 

Construction. The Committee supports NNSA’s efforts to restructure the former Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities [RTBF] 

account. The Committee has renamed the two new accounts that 

encompass previous RTBF functions to provide greater clarity: (1) 

Nuclear Operations and Capital Construction and (2) Site Operations and Maintenance. The Committee provides no funds for a 

new plutonium metal processing activity. Without a plutonium 

strategy and a requirement to manufacture new pits, the Committee does not support efforts to stockpile refined metal. 

Corporate Project Management.—The Committee recommends no 

funds for Corporate Project Management. The Committee supports 

efforts to improve NNSA’s project management but the functions 

funded under this account should be funded under the Office of the 

Administrator. 

Pit Environmental Testing Capabilities.—The Committee is concerned about the costs and security of shipping nuclear weapons 

primaries to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. With the 

successful de-inventory of Superblock and the removal of all Category I and II special nuclear materials, the security designation 

at Livermore was reduced to Category III. To adjust to these less 

stringent security requirements, Livermore reduced the number of 

highly trained security personnel and removed some physical security equipment to save about $40,000,000 a year. NNSA has proposed a surge in physical security when needed to protect primaries that are transported to Livermore for environmental testing 

on the unique diagnostics that reside at Superblock. The Committee directs NNSA to submit a report to this Committee by February 1, 2014 that explains whether this capability is needed to 

support stockpile stewardship. If this capability is still needed, the 

report shall include the results of a cost and benefit analysis of 

maintaining the capability at Livermore and surging physical security forces and defenses when the capability must be used as opposed to moving the capability to the Pantex site, which was the 

recommended option in a 2008 assessment that found moving the 

capability to Pantex was feasible and cost effective. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $438,955,000 as requested for major capital construction projects. 

Project 06–D–141, PED, Uranium Processing Facility, Y–12, Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee.—The Committee recommends $325,835,000 as 

requested to continue design and engineering work as well as site 

readiness and site preparation projects. The Committee is concerned about project management and oversight of contractors for 

the UPF project. Most recently, a space fit issue that required raising the roof of the building by 13 feet to fit critical equipment resulted in more than $500,000,000 in additional costs to U.S. taxpayers. The Committee is concerned that NNSA will not be able to 

complete the first phase of the project within the current cost range 

of $4,200,000,000 to $6,500,000,000. According to a recent GAO assessment, the space fit issue used approximately 45 percent of 

NNSA’s contingency and NNSA contingency planning did not ac-
108 

count for such a large sum of money being needed to address design risk. Several identified project risks, including all risks related 

to construction activities, remain but there is significantly less 

funding available to mitigate those risks. The Committee emphasizes the need for NNSA to improve project management of major 

projects and hold contractors accountable for increased costs and 

schedule delays. 

NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE

The Committee recommends $260,181,000 for Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response. The Committee does not approve 

the transfer of this account to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

and has restored funds in Nuclear Weapons Activities. Within 

these funds, $190,181,000 shall be used for Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response and $70,000,000 for Nuclear Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation. Within the funds available for 

Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response, the Committee recommends using the funds above the budget request to equip two 

additional cities under the joint NNSA and Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] Stabilization Program, which can help cities delay 

or impede threats from nuclear and radiological dispersal devices 

until specialized national teams can respond. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY

The Committee recommends $678,981,000 as requested for nuclear security activities at NNSA sites. The Committee recommends no funding for the Device Assembly Facility Argus Installation Project at the Nevada National Security Site unless NNSA 

provides the Committee a detailed explanation of the significant 

cost growth—from about $5,000,000 to about $25,000,000—for this 

project. The Committee understands that NNSA’s contract structure for safeguards and security was a significant factor in the July 

29, 2012 Y–12 security incident. NNSA had the Management and 

Operating contractor managing security systems and a separate 

prime contractor managing security personnel, which led to conflicting priorities and a lack of effective communication between the 

two contractors. However, the Committee is concerned that shifting 

protective force services at Y–12 away from a separate prime contractor to the Management and Operating contractor may not have 

been the most cost effective means of improving physical security 

at Y–12. All internal and independent reviews of the security 

breach at Y–12 conclude that the security failure was due to poor 

management and oversight, not a lack of protective forces, training, 

equipment, or funding. Despite these findings, the budget request 

includes an increase of $57,255,000 for protective forces. The increase is primarily due to shifting protective force services to the 

Management and Operating contractor, which has higher overhead 

rates than the previous contractor. The Committee questions 

whether NNSA’s decision to pay $57,255,000 more for the same 

protective force services has resulted in any improvements in security. The Committee directs NNSA to submit a report to this Committee within 30 days of enactment of this act. with an explanation 

as to why the protective force contract was not competed, plans for 

future protective force services at Y–12 that offer the best protec-
109 

tive services at the lowest cost, and why overhead rates are significantly higher than the previous contractor. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $2,433,524,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 2,140,142,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,180,142,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $2,180,142,000, an increase of 

$40,000,000 above the request, for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. The Committee commends NNSA for making significant 

progress in meeting the goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials within 4 years. Since April 2009, when President Obama 

announced the 4 year goal, NNSA has removed over 1,500 kilograms of highly enriched uranium and plutonium—enough material for approximately 60 nuclear weapons. As part of this effort, 

in less than 4 years, NNSA has removed all highly enriched uranium from 10 countries—for a cumulative total of 23 countries 

where a terrorist can no longer access dangerous nuclear materials. 

Further, NNSA has completed security upgrades at dozens of additional buildings in Russia and other countries to reduce the threat 

of theft of weapons usable nuclear material. 

Despite the success of securing and permanently removing dangerous nuclear materials over the last 4 years that significantly reduces the threat of nuclear terrorism, the Committee is frustrated 

that the NNSA budget request does not make nonproliferation activities a top priority and fails to provide the necessary resources 

to complete critical nonproliferation efforts. Rather, the budget request would let critical milestones slip. For example, shutting down 

or converting 200 research reactors that use highly enriched uranium, which is a critical step in permanently removing highly enriched uranium from the remaining countries around the world, 

would take 8 years longer and would not be completed until 2030. 

The Committee believes significant quantities of nuclear and radiological materials are still unsecure and vulnerable to theft. More 

than 1,000 kilograms of highly enriched uranium are still sitting 

in a handful of countries, large quantities of plutonium are still at 

risk, and over a hundred reactors still need to be converted to low 

enriched uranium or shut down. Further, thousands of radiological 

sources at medical facilities in the United States and overseas are 

not well protected and could be used for radiological dispersal devices, which could cause serious economic, psychological, and social 

disruption. 

To address these concerns, the Committee has restored funding 

to critical nonproliferation programs that keep America safe from 

nuclear terrorism and dispose of dangerous nuclear and radiological materials. 

The Committee directs NNSA to submit by May 1, 2014 a new 

4-year strategic plan with metrics, goals, and needed funds to secure and dispose of the remaining vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials that present the greatest terrorism risk to the 

United States. The plan should describe how and in what timeframe NNSA plans to remove all highly enriched uranium [HEU] 

and plutonium from the remaining countries around the world and 
110 

secure the highest risk nuclear and radiological materials at civilian sites by the end of the decade. 

GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

The Committee recommends $497,487,000, which is $73,000,000 

above the request. Within these funds, the Committee recommends 

$166,000,000 for the HEU reactor conversion program, 

$160,000,000 for nuclear and radiological material removal, and 

$171,487,000 for nuclear and radiological material protection. 

Within the funds available for the HEU reactor conversion pro- gram, the Committee recommends $52,000,000 as requested to continue supporting NNSA’s efforts in developing a capability which 

does not currently exist in the U.S. to produce Moly–99—a medical 

isotope used in 16 million nuclear medicine procedures in the U.S. 

each year—with low enriched uranium by 2016. 

The Committee is frustrated by NNSA’s failure to provide sufficient funding in the preceding 3 fiscal years to meet the target goal 

of converting or shutting down 200 research reactors that use highly enriched uranium [HEU] around the world by 2022. HEU-fueled 

research reactors have some of the world’s weakest security measures and a determined terrorist could use HEU reactor fuel for a 

nuclear device. The Committee believes permanently eliminating 

supplies of HEU as quickly as possible around the world significantly reduces the threat of nuclear terrorism. Because each reactor conversion takes approximately 2 to 5 years, depending on a variety of factors, such as time needed to modify facilities to accept 

low enriched uranium fuel, funding is needed in advance to prepare 

for these conversions. Because of insufficient planning and funding, 

the goal of converting or shutting down HEU-fueled research reactors has slipped by 8 years—to 2030. The Committee encourages 

NNSA to provide sufficient funding in the outyears to avoid any 

further delays in this program. 

Within the funds available for nuclear and radiological material removal, the Committee recommends $23,000,000, which is 

$5,000,000 above the request, for domestic radiological material removal. The Committee recommends additional funds to eliminate 

the existing backlog of orphaned or unused radiological sources in 

the United States and dispose of the remaining orphaned or unused radiological sources that present the greatest risk of use in a 

radiological dispersal device by 2020. 

Within the funds available for nuclear and radiological material protection, the Committee recommends $100,000,000, which is 

$49,000,000 above the request, for international material protection 

and $71,487,000, which is $15,000,000 above the request, for domestic material protection. The Committee is concerned by a lack 

of sufficient funding in the budget request to secure 8,500 buildings 

in the United States and overseas which legitimately use nuclear 

and radiological sources but, if stolen, could be used as effective improvised nuclear devices or radiological dispersal devices. Radiological materials in particular are used at hospitals and universities to treat diseases and for other medical purposes but they 

have little or no security. As the only government program that 

provides physical protection upgrades for civilian sites with nuclear 

and radiological materials, GTRI has only installed security up-
111 

grades at 1,500 civilian buildings, or about 18 percent, that have 

high-priority, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials. Instead of accelerating efforts to secure these facilities to address the 

known risk, the budget request would have abandoned the goal of 

securing 8,500 buildings by 2025 and would have delayed the completion of these activities by close to 20 years—to 2044. The Committee believes that leaving these nuclear and radiological materials unsecure for an additional 20 years does not serve the national security interests of the United States. For this reason, the 

Committee’s recommendation would allow GTRI to meet its original goal of securing 8,500 buildings by 2025. 

INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

The Committee recommends $419,625,000, which is $50,000,000 

above the request. Within these funds, the Committee recommends 

$190,000,000 for Second Line of Defense [SLD]. The Committee 

supports NNSA’s efforts to reassess and evaluate the effectiveness 

of its efforts to deter, detect, and interdict illicit trafficking in nuclear and radiological material across international borders and 

through the global maritime shipping system. The Committee encourages the SLD program to continue training foreign law enforcement and customs officials on the use, repair, and maintenance of 

portal monitors and other detection equipment to transition full 

operational responsibility and costs for the equipment to the host 

country as quickly as possible. The Committee also supports SLD 

efforts to complete installation of fixed detection equipment at vulnerable border crossings and expand the use of mobile radiation detection systems. The Committee recommends additional funding to 

accelerate efforts to install and deploy fixed and mobile radiation 

detection systems at border crossings, airports, and seaports. 

The Committee is concerned about the effectiveness and longterm sustainability of the Megaports initiative. The Committee directs NNSA to provide this Committee a plan by March 1, 2014, 

on the Megaports initiative, which shall describe how NNSA will 

ensure the sustainability, including future upgrades, of Megaports 

operations after NNSA transfers radiation detection equipment to 

partner countries, the performance measures NNSA uses to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of this initiative, how many additional ports NNSA plans to install radiation detection equipment, 

and the extent to which NNSA will rely on industry to provide radiation detection equipment at key seaports. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $408,838,000, an increase of 

$20,000,000, to support investments in developing advanced nuclear detection technologies. Within these funds, the Committee 

recommends $177,861,000 for nuclear detonation detection to meet 

production requirements of satellite sensors. 

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The Committee recommends $669,191,000, which is $166,634,000 

above the request, to support plutonium and uranium disposition 
112 

activities and construction of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility [MFFF]. 

Within these funds, the Committee recommends $113,000,000 for 

MOX Irradiation, Feedstock, and Transportation to resume testing 

for boiling and pressurized water reactor qualifications and other 

activities associated with MOX fuel packaging and transport. Within these funds, the Committee also recommends $430,634,000, an 

increase of $110,634,000 above the request, to continue construction of MFFF. The Committee is very concerned about the rising 

costs and schedule delays for building this facility. The cost estimate to complete construction has increased by $2,800,000,000, or 

by 57 percent—from $4,900,000,000 to $7,700,000,000. The date for 

completing construction has also slipped by 3 years—from 2017 to 

2020. Cost increases and schedule delays are attributable to poor 

project management by the prime contractor and weak oversight by 

Federal officials. For example, construction began before a baseline 

design for the facility was significantly complete, which is contrary 

to best practices, and the cost of equipment and supplies was higher than anticipated, even though the prime contractor and Federal 

officials should have anticipated the lack of expertise by suppliers 

and subcontractors to fabricate and install equipment than met 

stringent requirements for nuclear facilities. 

Despite these cost increases, NNSA has not presented a better 

alternative to dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons grade plutonium in the United States and encourage Russia to dispose of an 

equivalent amount, which combined would be enough material for 

17,000 nuclear weapons. The Committee generally supports efforts 

to find less expensive alternatives to meet nuclear modernization 

and nonproliferation goals, but NNSA’s budget request only calls 

for slowing down the construction of MFFF while it conducts an assessment of alternative plutonium disposition strategies. NNSA 

has not provided this Committee with any information that would 

suggest a less expensive alternative may be available and the results of an alternatives assessment would not be completed in time 

to influence the fiscal year 2015 budget request. The Committee is 

concerned that a pause in construction for MFFF will only result 

in higher costs and further schedule delays. For these reasons, the 

Committee restores construction funds for MFFF. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The Committee recommends $128,000,000, a decrease of 

$13,675,000 below the request. The Committee provides no funds 

for the Global Security Through Science Partnerships because of a 

lack of measurable outcomes. 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $1,079,654,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 1,246,134,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,312,134,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $1,312,134,000, an increase of 

$66,000,000 above the request, for Naval Reactors. Within these 

funds, the Committee recommends $154,000,000, an increase of 
113 

$9,600,000 above the request, and $134,800,000, an increase of 

$8,400,000 above the request, for the land-based prototype refueling overhaul and the development of a new reactor core for the 

Ohio-class replacement submarine, respectively. These additional 

funds will help Naval Reactors meet schedule and cost goals for 

these two critical projects. Within the funds for Naval Reactors, the 

Committee also recommends $468,740,000, an increase of 

$13,000,000 above the request, for Naval Reactors Operations and 

Infrastructure. The increased funding will help replace aging 

equipment needed for the land-based prototype refueling overhaul 

and provide additional high performance computing capabilities to 

avoid more expensive physical testing of components. Within funds 

for Naval Reactors, the Committee also recommends $104,773,000, 

an increase of $35,000,000 above the request, for construction 

projects. These additional funds will help mitigate delays to the 

construction of the radiological and prototype staff buildings needed to support the land-based prototype refueling overhaul and train 

sailors for nuclear operations. Additional funding will also accelerate efforts to upgrade aging security infrastructure at Naval Reactors sites. 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $409,869,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 397,784,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 397,784,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $397,784,000 as requested. Within these funds, the Committee recommends $67,373,000 to support 

nuclear nonproliferation activities and the expanded scope of work 

to secure and remove nuclear and radiological materials recommended by this Committee. 

The Committee is concerned about the effectiveness of Federal 

site office staff in providing the necessary oversight of management 

and operating contractors. Recent studies, reviews, and audits have 

revealed weak Federal oversight at site offices that contributed to 

lapses in safety and security and completing construction projects 

on time and on budget at the national security labs and sites. The 

Committee believes the site offices, given their proximity and 

knowledge of the labs’ and sites’ operations, can be effective tools 

in managing contractors and identifying management issues early. 

However, the Committee is concerned that the site offices may not 

have the necessary skills or authority to conduct the appropriate 

level of oversight. The Committee directs NNSA to submit a report 

to this Committee by May 1, 2014 on ways it plans to strengthen 

site office oversight of safety, security, and project execution activities at the labs and sites, including strategies to hire staff with the 

necessary skills and changes, if needed, to roles, responsibilities, 

and authorities for site office staff to exercise better oversight. 

The Committee is also concerned about increasing indirect costs, 

such as management, administrative, and facility costs, at the nuclear weapons laboratories. A recent GAO review found that management and operating contractors for the NNSA labs differ in how 

they classify and allocate indirect costs, which makes it difficult to 

compare indirect costs across the labs and even at each lab over 
114 

time. Without consistent and reliable information about indirect 

costs, NNSA cannot determine their reasonableness and whether 

there are opportunities to reduce costs so more dollars go toward 

mission critical activities. As a result, the Committee directs NNSA 

to submit a plan to this Committee by June 1, 2014 that would establish a standardized and consistent indirect cost reporting system for the NNSA labs to be able to compare indirect costs across 

the labs, assess the reasonableness of indirect costs, and establish 

incentives to reduce those costs. 

Further, the Committee is concerned about award term extensions for NNSA sites that do not meet minimum threshold requirements for performance. The Committee believes award term extensions should be based on performance that exceeds expectations 

with goals and metrics set by NNSA and the management and operating contractor. Minimum threshold requirements create an incentive for the contractor to at a minimum meet, if not exceed, 

safety, security, programmatic, and operational requirements. 

Award term extensions create a long term financial liability for the 

Federal Government and should be awarded based on merit. The 

Committee believes NNSA must provide an explanation if at-risk 

award fees are adjusted and award term extensions granted that 

differ from field office recommendations. This Act includes a provision that requires a 30-day advance notification to this Committee 

with a detailed explanation of any waiver or adjustment made by 

NNSA’s fee determining official to at-risk award fees for management and operating contractors that result in award term extensions. 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $5,012,954,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 4,853,909,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,146,536,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental 

Cleanup is $5,146,536,000. Within the total provided, the Department is directed to fund the Hazardous Waste Worker Training 

Program. 

Reprogramming Control Levels.—In fiscal year 2014, the Environmental Management program may transfer funding between operating expense funded projects within the controls listed below 

using guidance contained in the Department’s budget execution 

manual (DOE M 135.1–1A, chapter IV). All capital construction 

line item projects remain separate controls from the operating 

projects. The Committees on Appropriations in the House and Senate must be formally notified in advance of all reprogrammings, except internal reprogrammings, and the Department is to take no financial action in anticipation of congressional response. The Committee recommends the following reprogramming control points for 

fiscal year 2014: 

—Closure Sites; 

—Hanford Site; 

—Idaho National Laboratory; 

—NNSA Sites; 

—Oak Ridge Reservation; 
115 

—Office of River Protection; 

—Savannah River Site; 

—Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; 

—Program Direction; 

—Program Support; 

—Technology Development and Deployment; 

—Safeguards and Security; and 

—All Capital Construction Line Items, regardless of site. 

Internal Reprogramming Authority.—The new reprogramming 

control points above obviates, in most cases, the need for internal 

reprogramming authority. However, at the few sites to which the 

internal reprogramming statute still applies, Environmental Management site managers may transfer up to $5,000,000, one time, 

between accounts listed above to reduce health and safety risks, 

gain cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a program or 

project is not increased or decreased by more than $5,000,000 in 

total during the fiscal year. 

The reprogramming authority—either formal or internal—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 

the internal reprogramming authority. 

Closure Sites.—The Committee recommends $4,702,000 for Closure Sites activities. 

Hanford Site.—The Committee recommends $961,785,000 for 

Richland Operations. Additional funding is provided for work related to the deconstruction of the Plutonium Finishing Plant, K 

basin sludge removal, and community and regulatory support. 

Within available funds in the River Corridor control point, the Department is directed to carry out maintenance and public safety efforts at the B Reactor, and the Hazardous Materials Management 

and Emergency Response [HAMMER] facilities. 

Idaho National Laboratory.—The Committee recommends 

$380,010,000 for Idaho National Laboratory. 

NNSA Sites.—The Committee recommends $344,676,000 for 

NNSA sites, of which $250,000,000 is for work at Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommends 

$214,936,000 for Oak Ridge Reservation. 

Building 3019.—The Committee recommends $40,229,000 for the 

cleanup of Building 3019. This project will result in saving some 

$6,000,000 in annual security costs at Oak Ridge National Laboratory once complete. The Committee directs the Department to provide an updated plan within 60 days of enactment of this act that 

keeps the project on a 5-year schedule. 

Oak Ridge Reservation Mercury Containment.—Remediation of 

mercury contamination at the Oak Ridge Reservation from work 

performed at the Y–12 site is a high priority for the Environmental 

Management program. Full site remediation is a multiyear large 

scale cleanup endeavor that the Environmental Management program cannot afford to undertake at this time. However given the 

significant risk to public health the Committee urges the Department to continue to pursue efforts to prevent mercury from escap-
116 

ing into the environment. The Committee recommends $16,000,000 

to continue planning, engineering and construction of the water 

treatment facility to be located at outfall 200 at the Y–12 site, 

which will reduce the mercury being released into the East Fork 

of Poplar Creek. 

Office of River Protection.—The Committee recommends 

$1,210,216,000 for the Office of River Protection. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommends 

$1,194,261,000 for the Savannah River site. This includes an increase of $106,000,000 for tank waste activities. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.—The Committee recommends 

$222,390,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The increase in 

funding is to address the maintenance backlog which could threaten WIPP operations. 

Technology Development and Deployment.—The Committee recommends $24,091,000 for technology development and deployment. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $821,717,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 749,080,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 762,080,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $762,080,000, an increase of 

$13,000,000 above the request, for Other Defense Activities. Within 

these funds, $205,900,000 is for Specialized Security Activities. 

Within the funds for Other Defense Activities, the Committee recommends $255,339,000, an increase of $3,422,000 above the request, for the Office of Health, Safety, and Security. The increase 

is to support additional security reviews of Category I special nuclear material sites, which should include no notice and limited notice performance testing. A recent assessment of NNSA’s oversight 

of security operations after the Y–12 security incident found that 

the Office of Health, Safety, and Security, which is responsible for 

independent oversight, had been directed as part of governance reform to reduce the frequency and rigor of its security reviews of 

NNSA. As NNSA implements needed security reforms, the Committee encourages the Office of Health, Safety, and Security, 

through its independent reviews, to monitor and assess whether 

NNSA’s security reforms, including changes in organizational 

structure and Federal oversight of contractors’ security measures 

and performance assessments, has improved security of the labs 

and sites. 

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 
117 

and California. The Committee recommends no new borrowing authority for BPA during fiscal year 2014. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

For the Southeastern Power Administration, the Committee recommends a net appropriation of $0 as the appropriations are offset 

by collections. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $11,868,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 11,892,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,892,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

For the Southwestern Power Administration, the Committee recommends a net appropriation of $11,892,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, 

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $133,920,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 95,930,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 95,930,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

For the Western Area Power Administration, the Committee recommends a net appropriation of $95,930,000, the same as the 

budget request. In cooperation with its customers, the Western 

Area Power Administration [WAPA] shall continue its efforts to 

build a more secure and sustainable electricity grid by leading the 

utility sector in efforts to maximize the use and integration of energy efficiency, renewable energy, distributed generation, and demand response, as well as improving transmission access between 

regions and interconnections, in a manner consistent with the core 

responsibility of WAPA to deliver power as inexpensively as possible to the preference customers. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $220,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 420,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 420,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

For the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund, 

the Committee recommends a net appropriation of $420,000. 
118 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $304,600 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 304,600 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 304,600 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... ¥$304,600 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... ¥304,600 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥304,600 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget estimate Committee 

recommendation 

Committee 

recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy RDD&D: 

Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies .......................................... 100,000 100,000 ..........................

Bioenergy technologies ............................................................... 282,000 245,000 ¥37,000 

Solar energy ................................................................................ 356,500 310,000 ¥46,500 

Wind energy ................................................................................ 144,000 110,000 ¥34,000 

Geothermal technologies ............................................................. 60,000 60,000 ..........................

Water power ................................................................................ 55,000 59,000 ∂4,000 

Vehicle technologies ................................................................... 575,000 415,000 ¥160,000 

Building technologies ................................................................. 300,000 224,000 ¥70,000 

Advanced manufacturing ............................................................ 365,000 215,985 ¥149,015 

Federal energy management program ........................................ 36,000 30,000 ¥6,000 

Facilities and infrastructure: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] ................. 46,000 46,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Facilities and infrastructure .......................... 46,000 46,000 ..........................

Program direction ....................................................................... 185,000 185,000 ..........................

Strategic programs ..................................................................... 36,000 28,000 ¥8,000 

Subtotal, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

RDD&D ............................................................................... 2,540,500 2,033,985 ¥506,515 

Weatherization and intragovernmental: 

Weatherization: 

Weatherization assistance ................................................. 181,000 187,000 ..........................

Training and technical assistance .................................... 3,000 3,000 ..........................

Subtotal ......................................................................... 184,000 190,000 ..........................

Other: 

State energy program grants ............................................ 57,000 53,000 ¥4,000 

Tribal energy activities ...................................................... 7,000 10,000 ∂3,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................... 64,000 63,000 ¥1,000 

Subtotal, Weatherization and intragovernmental ......... 248,000 247,000 ¥1,000 

Subtotal, Energy efficiency and renewable energy ....... 2,788,500 2,280,985 ¥507,515 

Rescission ............................................................................................ ¥12,800 .......................... ∂12,800 

TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ......... 2,775,700 2,280,985 ¥494,715 
119 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY 

Research and development: 

Electricity systems hub ............................................................... 20,000 .......................... ¥20,000 

Clean energy transmission and reliability ................................. 32,000 32,000 ..........................

Smart grid research and development ....................................... 14,400 14,400 ..........................

Energy storage ............................................................................ 15,000 15,000 ..........................

Cyber security for energy delivery systems ................................ 38,000 38,000 ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................. 119,400 99,400 ¥20,000 

National electricity delivery ................................................................. 6,000 6,000 ..........................

Infrastructure security and energy restoration .................................... 16,000 16,000 ..........................

Program direction ................................................................................ 27,615 27,615 ..........................

Subtotal, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability .............. 169,015 149,015 ¥20,000 

TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY .... 169,015 149,015 ¥20,000 

NUCLEAR ENERGY 

Research and development: 

Nuclear energy enabling technologies ........................................ 62,300 62,300 ..........................

Small modular reactor licensing technical support ................... 70,000 70,000 ..........................

Reactor concepts RD&D .............................................................. 72,500 62,500 ¥10,000 

Fuel cycle research and development ........................................ 165,100 175,100 ∂10,000 

International nuclear energy cooperation ................................... 2,500 2,500 ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................. 372,400 372,400 ..........................

Infrastructure: 

Radiological facilities management: 

Space and defense infrastructure ..................................... .......................... 15,000 ∂15,000 

Research reactor infrastructure ......................................... 5,000 5,000 ..........................

Subtotal ......................................................................... 5,000 20,000 ∂15,000 

INL facilities management: 

INL operations and infrastructure ..................................... 165,162 150,162 ¥15,000 

Construction: 

13–D–905 RHLLW disposal project .......................... 16,398 16,398 ..........................

Subtotal, Construction .......................................... 16,398 16,398 ..........................

Subtotal, INL facilities management ................... 181,560 166,560 ¥15,000 

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security .................................... 94,000 94,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Infrastructure .......................................................... 280,560 280,560 ..........................

Program direction ................................................................................ 87,500 87,500 ..........................

Use of prior year balances .................................................................. ¥5,000 ¥5,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Nuclear Energy ........................................................ 735,460 735,460 ..........................

TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY ...................................................... 735,460 735,460 ..........................

Race to the top for energy efficiency and grid modernization ........... 200,000 .......................... ¥200,000 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

CCS and power systems: 

Carbon capture ........................................................................... 112,000 112,000 ..........................

Carbon storage ........................................................................... 61,095 61,095 ..........................

Advanced energy systems ........................................................... 48,000 40,000 ¥8,000 
120 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

Cross-cutting research ............................................................... 20,525 20,525 ..........................

NETL coal research and development ........................................ 35,011 35,011 ..........................

Subtotal, CCS and power systems ......................................... 276,631 268,631 ¥8,000 

Natural gas technologies ..................................................................... 17,000 20,000 ∂3,000 

Unconventional fossil energy technologies from petroleum—oil 

technologies ..................................................................................... .......................... 5,000 ∂5,000 

Program direction ................................................................................ 115,753 115,753 ..........................

Plant and capital equipment .............................................................. 13,294 13,294 ..........................

Fossil energy environmental restoration .............................................. 5,897 5,897 ..........................

Special recruitment programs ............................................................. 700 700 ..........................

Use of prior year balances .................................................................. ¥8,700 ¥8,700 ..........................

Subtotal, Fossil Energy Research and Development ............. 420,575 420,575 ..........................

TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ....... 420,575 420,575 ..........................

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES .................................. 20,000 20,000 ..........................

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE ....................................................... 189,400 189,400 ..........................

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve .................................................. 8,000 8,000 ..........................

TOTAL, NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE ................. 8,000 8,000 ..........................

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION ............................................. 117,000 117,000 ..........................

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA) ................................................... 2,545 2,545 ..........................

Gaseous diffusion plants ..................................................................... 96,222 96,222 ..........................

Small sites ........................................................................................... 50,189 70,189 ∂20,000 

West Valley demonstration project ...................................................... 64,000 64,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Non-defense environmental cleanup ...................... 212,956 232,956 ∂20,000 

TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP ................. 212,956 232,956 ∂20,000 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING 

FUND 

Oak Ridge ............................................................................................ 177,064 177,064 ..........................

Paducah ............................................................................................... 262,057 262,057 ..........................

Portsmouth ........................................................................................... 91,818 91,818 ..........................

Pension and community and regulatory support ................................ 23,884 23,884 ..........................

Subtotal, UED&D Fund ........................................................... 554,823 554,823 ..........................

TOTAL, UED&D FUND .............................................................. 554,823 554,823 ..........................

SCIENCE 

Advanced scientific computing research ............................................ 465,593 493,773 ∂28,180 

Basic energy sciences: 

Research ..................................................................................... 1,741,111 1,683,862 ¥57,249 

Construction: 

07–SC–06 Project engineering and design [PED] National Synchrotron light source II [NSLS–II] ................. 26,300 26,300 ..........................

13–SC–10 LINAC coherent light source, II [SLAC] ........... 95,000 95,000 ..........................

Subtotal ......................................................................... 121,300 121,300 ..........................
121 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

Subtotal, Basic energy sciences ................................... 1,862,411 1,805,162 ¥57,249 

Biological and environmental research ............................................... 625,347 625,347 ..........................

Fusion energy sciences ........................................................................ 458,324 458,324 ..........................

High-energy physics: 

Research ..................................................................................... 741,521 751,590 ∂10,069 

Construction: 

11–SC–40 Project engineering and design [PED] long 

baseline neutrino experiment, FNAL .............................. .......................... 20,000 ∂20,000 

11–SC–41 Project engineering and design [PED] muon 

to electron conversion experiment, FNAL ...................... 35,000 35,000 ..........................

Subtotal ..................................................................... 35,000 55,000 ∂20,000 

Subtotal, High-energy physics .................................. 776,521 806,590 ∂30,069 

Nuclear physics: 

Operations and maintenance ..................................................... 544,438 544,438 ..........................

Construction: 

06–SC–01 Project engineering and design [PED] 12 GeV 

continuous electron beam accelerator facility upgrade, 

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator facility (was 

project 07–SC–001), Newport News, VA ....................... 25,500 25,500 ..........................

Subtotal, Nuclear physics ......................................... 569,938 569,938 ..........................

Workforce development for teachers and scientists ........................... 16,500 16,500 ..........................

Science laboratories infrastructure: 

Infrastructure support: 

Payment in lieu of taxes ................................................... 1,385 1,385 ..........................

Facilities and infrastructure .............................................. 900 900 ..........................

Oak Ridge landlord ............................................................ 5,951 5,951 ..........................

Subtotal ......................................................................... 8,236 8,236 ..........................

Construction: 

13–SC–70 Utilities upgrade, FNAL .................................... 34,900 34,900 ..........................

13–SC–71 Utility infrastructure modernization at 

TJNAF ............................................................................. 29,200 29,200 ..........................

12–SC–70 Science and user support building, SLAC ...... 25,482 25,482 ..........................

Subtotal ......................................................................... 89,582 89,582 ..........................

Subtotal, Science laboratories infrastructure ............... 97,818 97,818 ..........................

Safeguards and security ...................................................................... 87,000 87,000 ..........................

Science program direction ................................................................... 193,300 192,300 ¥1,000 

Subtotal, Science .................................................................... 5,152,752 5,152,752 ..........................

TOTAL, SCIENCE ...................................................................... 5,152,752 5,152,752 ..........................

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY 

ARPA–E projects .................................................................................. 344,890 344,890 ..........................

Program direction ................................................................................ 34,110 34,110 ..........................

TOTAL, ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY–ENERGY ....................................................................................... 379,000 379,000 ..........................

TITLE 17—INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM 

Administrative expenses ...................................................................... 48,000 42,000 ¥6,000 
122 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

Offsetting collection ............................................................................. ¥22,000 ¥22,000 ..........................

TOTAL, TITLE 17—INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ................................................................ 26,000 20,000 ¥6,000 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN 

PROGRAM 

Administrative expenses ...................................................................... 6,000 6,000 ..........................

TOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING 

LOAN PROGRAM ................................................................. 6,000 6,000 ..........................

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION 

Administrative operations: 

Salaries and expenses: 

Office of the Secretary: 

Program direction ..................................................... 5,008 5,008 ..........................

Chief Financial Officer ....................................................... 51,204 47,825 ¥3,379 

Management ...................................................................... 55,699 57,599 ∂1,900 

Human capital management ............................................. 24,488 24,488 ..........................

Chief Information Officer ................................................... 35,401 35,401 ..........................

Congressional and intergovernmental affairs: 

Program direction ..................................................... 4,700 4,700 ..........................

Economic impact and diversity ......................................... 7,047 6,197 ¥850 

General counsel ................................................................. 33,053 33,053 ..........................

Policy and international affairs ......................................... 20,518 .......................... ¥20,518 

Energy policy and systems analysis .................................. .......................... 16,181 ∂16,181 

International affairs ........................................................... .......................... 12,518 ∂12,518 

Public affairs ..................................................................... 3,597 3,597 ..........................

Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs ................... 2,506 2,506 ..........................

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ................................... 243,221 249,073 ∂5,852 

Program support: 

Economic impact and diversity ......................................... 2,759 2,759 ..........................

Policy analysis and system studies .................................. 441 441 ..........................

Environmental policy studies ............................................. 520 520 ..........................

Climate change technology program (program support) .. 5,482 5,482 ..........................

Cybersecurity and secure communications ....................... 30,795 30,795 ..........................

Corporate IT program support [CIO] .................................. 15,866 15,866 ..........................

Subtotal, Program support ............................................ 55,863 55,863 ..........................

Subtotal, Administrative operations .............................. 299,084 304,936 ∂5,852 

Cost of work for others ............................................................... 48,537 48,537 ..........................

Subtotal, Departmental administration ................................. 347,621 353,473 ∂5,852 

Funding from other defense activities ................................................ ¥118,836 ¥118,836 ..........................

Total, Departmental administration (gross) .......................... 228,785 234,637 ∂5,852 

Miscellaneous revenues ....................................................................... ¥108,188 ¥108,188 ..........................

TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net) ...................... 120,597 126,449 ∂5,852 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .................................................. 42,120 42,120 ..........................

TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS ................................................... 11,129,398 10,434,535 ¥694,863 
123 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES 

Directed stockpile work: 

B61 Life extension program ....................................................... 537,044 369,000 ¥168,044 

W76 Life extension program ....................................................... 235,382 235,382 ..........................

W78 Life extension study ............................................................ 72,691 72,691 ..........................

W88 Alt 370 ................................................................................ 169,487 169,487 ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................. 1,014,604 846,560 ¥168,044 

Stockpile systems ....................................................................... .......................... 282,809 ∂282,809 

B61 Stockpile systems ....................................................... 83,536 .......................... ¥83,536 

W76 Stockpile systems ...................................................... 47,187 .......................... ¥47,187 

W78 Stockpile systems ...................................................... 54,381 .......................... ¥54,381 

W80 Stockpile systems ...................................................... 50,330 .......................... ¥50,330 

B83 Stockpile systems ....................................................... 54,948 .......................... ¥54,948 

W87 Stockpile systems ...................................................... 101,506 .......................... ¥101,506 

W88 Stockpile systems ...................................................... 62,600 .......................... ¥62,600 

Subtotal ......................................................................... 454,488 282,809 ¥171,679 

Surveillance ................................................................................. .......................... 234,647 ∂234,647 

Weapons dismantlement and disposition: 

Operations and maintenance ............................................ 49,264 56,000 ∂6,736 

Stockpile services: 

Production support ............................................................. 321,416 321,416 ..........................

Research and development support .................................. 26,349 24,928 ¥1,421 

R&D certification and safety ............................................. 191,259 80,824 ¥110,435 

Management, technology, and production ........................ 214,187 162,640 ¥51,547 

Plutonium infrastructure sustainment .............................. 156,949 156,949 ..........................

Tritium production ............................................................. .......................... 91,695 ∂91,695 

Subtotal ......................................................................... 910,160 838,452 ¥71,708 

Subtotal, Directed stockpile work ................................. 2,428,516 2,258,468 ¥170,048 

Campaigns: 

Science campaign: 

Advanced certification ....................................................... 54,730 59,747 ∂5,017 

Primary assessment technologies ..................................... 109,231 93,000 ¥16,231 

Dynamic materials properties ............................................ 116,965 105,000 ¥11,965 

Advanced radiography ....................................................... 30,509 30,509 ..........................

Secondary assessment technologies ................................. 86,467 86,467 ..........................

Subtotal ......................................................................... 397,902 374,723 ¥23,179 

Engineering campaign: 

Enhanced surety ................................................................ 51,771 .......................... ¥51,771 

Weapons system engineering assessment technology ...... 23,727 23,727 ..........................

Nuclear survivability .......................................................... 19,504 19,504 ..........................

Enhanced surveillance ....................................................... 54,909 46,812 ¥8,097 

Subtotal ......................................................................... 149,911 90,043 ¥59,868 

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high-yield campaign: 

Ignition ............................................................................... 80,245 80,245 ..........................

Support of other stockpile programs ................................. 15,001 15,001 ..........................

Diagnostics, cryogenics, and experimental support .......... 59,897 59,897 ..........................

Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion ......................... 5,024 5,024 ..........................

Joint program in high-energy density laboratory plasmas ................................................................................ 8,198 8,198 ..........................
124 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

Facility operations and target production ......................... 232,678 360,011 ∂127,333 

Subtotal ......................................................................... 401,043 528,376 ∂127,333 

Advanced simulation and computing .................................................. 564,329 600,569 ∂36,240 

Technology maturation campaign ....................................................... .......................... 253,654 ∂253,654 

Readiness campaign: 

Component manufacturing development .................................... 106,085 .......................... ¥106,085 

Tritium readiness ........................................................................ 91,695 .......................... ¥91,695 

Subtotal .................................................................................. 197,780 .......................... ¥197,780 

Subtotal, Campaigns .............................................................. 1,710,965 1,847,365 ∂136,400 

Nuclear programs: 

Nuclear operations capability ..................................................... 265,937 .......................... ¥265,937 

Capabilities based investments ................................................. 39,558 .......................... ¥39,558 

Nuclear operations and capital construction: 

Nuclear operations ...................................................................... .......................... 209,518 ∂209,518 

Nuclear facility upgrades ........................................................... .......................... 39,558 ∂39,558 

Construction: 

12–D–301 TRU waste facilities, LANL ....................................... 26,722 26,722 ..........................

11–D–801 TA–55 Reinvestment project Phase 2, LANL ............ 30,679 30,679 ..........................

07–D–220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility upgrade 

project, LANL .......................................................................... 55,719 55,719 ..........................

06–D–141 PED/Construction, Uranium capabilities replacement project, Y–12 ................................................................ 325,835 325,835 ..........................

Subtotal .............................................................................. 744,450 688,031 ¥56,419 

Secure transportation asset: 

Operations and equipment ......................................................... 122,072 122,072 ..........................

Program direction ....................................................................... 97,118 97,118 ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................. 219,190 219,190 ..........................

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response ........................................ .......................... 260,181 ∂260,181 

Site stewardship .................................................................................. 1,706,007 .......................... ¥1,706,007 

Site operations and maintained .......................................................... .......................... 1,535,893 ∂1,535,893 

Defense nuclear security ..................................................................... 664,981 664,981 ..........................

Construction: 

08–D–701 Nuclear materials S&S upgrade project Los 

Alamos National Laboratory .......................................... 14,000 14,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Defense nuclear security ........................... 678,981 678,981 ..........................

Information technology and cyber security ......................................... 148,441 148,441 ..........................

Legacy contractor pensions ................................................................. 279,597 279,597 ..........................

Use of prior year balances .................................................................. ¥47,738 ¥47,738 ..........................

Subtotal, Weapons activities .................................................. 7,868,409 7,868,409 ..........................

TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES .................................................. 7,868,409 7,868,409 ..........................

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION 

Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D ................................................ 388,838 408,838 ∂20,000 

Domestic uranium enrichment research, development, nonproliferation, and international security ...................................................... 141,675 128,000 ¥13,675 

International materials protection and cooperation ............................ 369,625 419,625 ∂50,000 

Fissile materials disposition: 

U.S. plutonium disposition ......................................................... 157,557 213,557 ∂56,000 
125 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

U.S. uranium disposition ............................................................ 25,000 25,000 ..........................

Construction: 

MOX fuel fabrication facilities: 

99–D–143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah River, SC ................................................. 320,000 430,634 ∂110,634 

Subtotal, Construction ..................................... 320,000 430,634 ∂110,634 

Total, Fissile materials disposition ................. 502,557 669,191 ∂166,634 

Global threat reduction initiative ........................................................ 424,487 497,487 ∂73,000 

Legacy contractor pensions ................................................................. 93,703 93,703 ..........................

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response system ........................... 181,293 .......................... ¥181,293 

Counterterrorism and counterproliferation programs .......................... 74,666 .......................... ¥74,666 

Use of prior year balances .................................................................. ¥36,702 ¥36,702 ..........................

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........................... 2,140,142 2,180,142 ∂40,000 

TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION .................... 2,140,142 2,180,142 ∂40,000 

NAVAL REACTORS 

Naval reactors development ................................................................ 419,400 419,400 ..........................

OHIO replacement reactor systems development ................................ 126,400 134,800 ∂8,400 

S8G Prototype refueling ....................................................................... 144,400 154,000 ∂9,600 

Naval reactors operations and infrastructure ..................................... 455,740 468,740 ∂13,000 

Construction: 

14–D–902 KL Materials characterization laboratory expansion, 

KAPL ........................................................................................ 1,000 1,000 ..........................

14–D–901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, NRF ... 45,400 45,400 ..........................

13–D–905 Remote-handled low-level waste facility, INL .......... 21,073 21,073 ..........................

13–D–904 KS Radiological work and storage building, KSO .... 600 2,600 ∂2,000 

08–D–190, Project engineering and design, Expended Core 

Facility M–290 recovering discharge station, Naval Reactor 

Facility, ID .............................................................................. 1,700 1,700 ..........................

Other construction costs ............................................................. .......................... 33,000 ∂33,000 

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................ 69,773 104,773 ∂35,000 

Program direction ................................................................................ 44,404 44,404 ..........................

Use of prior year balances .................................................................. ¥13,983 ¥13,983 ..........................

TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS ....................................................... 1,246,134 1,312,134 ∂66,000 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR .......................................................... 397,784 397,784 ..........................

TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ....... 11,652,469 11,758,469 ∂106,000 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

Closure sites ........................................................................................ 4,702 4,702 ..........................

Hanford site: 

Central plateau remediation ....................................................... 513,450 533,450 ∂20,000 

River corridor and other cleanup operations ............................. 393,634 408,634 ∂15,000 

Richland community and regulatory support ............................. 14,701 19,701 ∂5,000 

Total, Hanford site ................................................................. 921,785 961,785 ∂40,000 

Idaho National Laboratory: 

Idaho cleanup and waste disposition ........................................ 362,100 377,100 ∂15,000 

Idaho community and regulatory support .................................. 2,910 2,910 ..........................
126 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget estimate Committee 

recommendation 

Committee 

recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

Total, Idaho National Laboratory ............................................ 365,010 380,010 ∂15,000 

NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites ........................................................ 309,676 344,676 ∂35,000 

Oak Ridge Reservation: 

OR Nuclear facility D&D ............................................................. 73,716 89,716 ∂16,000 

OR cleanup and disposition ....................................................... 115,855 120,855 ∂5,000 

OR reservation community and regulatory support ................... 4,365 4,365 ..........................

Total, Oak Ridge Reservation ................................................. 193,936 214,936 ∂21,000 

Office of River Protection: 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant: 

01–D–416 A–E/ORP–0060/Major construction ................. 690,000 690,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant .. 690,000 690,000 ..........................

Tank Farm activities: 

Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ........ 520,216 520,216 ..........................

Total, Office of River Protection .................................... 1,210,216 1,210,216 ..........................

Savannah River site: 

Savannah River community and regulatory support .................. 11,210 11,210 ..........................

SR site risk management operations ......................................... 432,491 432,491 ..........................

Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition .... 552,560 658,560 ∂106,000 

Construction: 

05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah 

River .............................................................................. 92,000 92,000 ..........................

Subtotal ..................................................................... 92,000 92,000 ..........................

Total, Savannah River site ....................................... 1,088,261 1,194,261 ∂106,000 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant .................................................................. 203,390 222,390 ∂19,000 

Program direction ................................................................................ 280,784 320,784 ∂40,000 

Program support .................................................................................. 17,979 17,979 ..........................

Safeguards and security ...................................................................... 234,079 250,706 ∂16,627 

Technology development ...................................................................... 24,091 24,091 ..........................

Subtotal, Defense environmental clean up ............................ 4,853,909 5,146,536 ∂292,627 

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP ........................ 4,853,909 5,146,536 ∂292,627 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP (LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL) ......... 463,000 .......................... ¥463,000 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

Health, safety, and security: 

Health, safety, and security ....................................................... 143,616 147,038 ∂3,422 

Program direction ....................................................................... 108,301 108,301 ..........................

Total, Health, safety and security .......................................... 251,917 255,339 ∂3,422 

Specialized security activities ............................................................. 196,322 205,900 ∂9,578 

Office of Legacy Management: 

Legacy management ................................................................... 163,271 163,271 ..........................

Program direction ....................................................................... 13,712 13,712 ..........................

Total, Office of Legacy Management ..................................... 176,983 176,983 ..........................

Defense related administrative support .............................................. 118,836 118,836 ..........................

Office of hearings and appeals .......................................................... 5,022 5,022 ..........................
127 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget estimate Committee 

recommendation 

Committee 

recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ....................................... 749,080 762,080 ∂13,000 

TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ....................... 17,718,458 17,667,085 ¥51,373 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS 1

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Purchase power and wheeling ........................................... 93,284 93,284 ..........................

Program direction .............................................................. 7,750 7,750 ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance .......................... 101,034 101,034 ..........................

Less alternative financing [PPW] ............................................... ¥15,203 ¥15,203 ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................. ¥85,831 ¥85,831 ..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION .................. .......................... .......................... ..........................

SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Operating expenses ............................................................ 13,598 13,598 ..........................

Purchase power and wheeling ........................................... 52,000 52,000 ..........................

Program direction .............................................................. 29,939 29,939 ..........................

Construction ....................................................................... 6,227 6,227 ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance .......................... 101,764 101,764 ..........................

Less alternative financing .......................................................... ¥14,308 ¥14,308 ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................. ¥75,564 ¥75,564 ..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION ................. 11,892 11,892 ..........................

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Construction and rehabilitation ......................................... 122,437 122,437 ..........................

Operation and maintenance .............................................. 82,843 82,843 ..........................

Purchase power and wheeling ........................................... 407,109 407,109 ..........................

Program direction .............................................................. 217,709 217,709 ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance .......................... 830,098 830,098 ..........................

Less alternative financing .......................................................... ¥293,349 ¥293,349 ..........................

Offsetting collections (Public Law 108–477, Public Law 109– 

103) ........................................................................................ ¥230,738 ¥230,738 ..........................

Offsetting collections (Public Law 98–381) ............................... ¥6,092 ¥6,092 ..........................

Offsetting collections (for program direction) ............................ ¥168,193 ¥168,193 ..........................

Offsetting collections (for O&M) ................................................. ¥35,796 ¥35,796 ..........................

TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION .................. 95,930 95,930 ..........................

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND 

Operation and maintenance ....................................................... 6,196 6,196 ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................. ¥4,911 ¥4,911 ..........................

Less alternative financing .......................................................... ¥865 ¥865 ..........................

TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD O&M FUND ............................. 420 420 ..........................

TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS ...................... 108,242 108,242 ..........................
128 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Budget estimate Committee 

recommendation 

Committee 

recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ..................................... 304,600 304,600 ..........................

FERC revenues ............................................................................ ¥304,600 ¥304,600 ..........................

GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY .............................. 28,956,098 28,209,862 ¥746,236 

(Total amount appropriated) ......................................... (28,968,898 ) (28,209,862 ) (¥759,036 ) 

(Rescissions) ................................................................. (¥12,800 ) .......................... (∂12,800 ) 

SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTS 

Energy efficiency and renewable energy ............................................. 2,775,700 2,280,985 ¥494,715 

Electricity delivery and energy reliability ............................................ 169,015 149,015 ¥20,000 

Nuclear energy ..................................................................................... 735,460 735,460 ..........................

Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................... 420,575 420,575 ..........................

Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves ............................................. 20,000 20,000 ..........................

Strategic petroleum reserves ............................................................... 189,400 189,400 ..........................

Northeast home heating oil reserve .................................................... 8,000 8,000 ..........................

Energy Information Administration ...................................................... 117,000 117,000 ..........................

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup .................................................. 212,956 232,956 ∂20,000 

Uranium enrichment D&D fund ........................................................... 554,823 554,823 ..........................

Science ................................................................................................. 5,152,752 5,152,752 ..........................

Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ....................................... 379,000 379,000 ..........................

Title 17 Innovative technology loan guarantee program .................... 26,000 20,000 ¥6,000 

Advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loan program ............. 6,000 6,000 ..........................

Departmental administration ............................................................... 120,597 126,449 ∂5,852 

Office of the Inspector General ........................................................... 42,120 42,120 ..........................

Atomic energy defense activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons activities ............................................................. 7,868,409 7,868,409 ..........................

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ....................................... 2,140,142 2,180,142 ∂40,000 

Naval reactors .................................................................... 1,246,134 1,312,134 ∂66,000 

Office of the Administrator ................................................ 397,784 397,784 ..........................

Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration ..... 11,652,469 11,758,469 ∂106,000 

Defense environmental cleanup ................................................. 4,853,909 5,146,536 ∂292,627 

Defense environmental cleanup (legislative proposal) .............. 463,000 .......................... ¥463,000 

Other defense activities .............................................................. 749,080 762,080 ∂13,000 

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................ 17,718,458 17,667,085 ¥51,373 

Power marketing administrations:1

Southwestern Power Administration ........................................... 11,892 11,892 ..........................

Western Area Power Administration ........................................... 95,930 95,930 ..........................

Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ............. 420 420 ..........................

Total, Power Marketing Administrations ................................ 108,242 108,242 ..........................

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................ 304,600 304,600 ..........................

Revenues ..................................................................................... ¥304,600 ¥304,600 ..........................

Travel efficiencies ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... ..........................

Total Summary of Accounts, Department of Energy .............. 28,756,098 28,209,862 ¥546,236 

1 Totals include alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting collection totals reflect funds collected for annual expenses, including power purchase and wheeling. 
129 

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 on unexpended balances. 

Section 302. Language is included specifically authorizing intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 2014 Intelligence Authorization Act. 

Section 303. Language is included related to transfer authority. 

Section 304. The Committee has included a provision related to 

nuclear safety requirements. 

Section 305. The Committee has included language related to 

independent cost estimates. 

Section 306. Language is included related to the provision of uranium. 

Section 307. The Committee has included a provision modifying 

an annual review. 

Section 308. The Committee has included a provision on appointments. 

Section 309. The Committee has included a provision on a pilot 

program related to consolidated storage of spent nuclear fuel. 

Section 310. The Committee has included a provision to repeal 

a reporting requirement. 

Section 311. The Committee has included a provision amending 

a reporting requirement. 

Section 312. The Committee has included language regarding 

New Brunswick Laboratory. 

Section 313. The Committee has included language reducing contractor foreign travel. 

Section 314. The Committee has included language on first tier 

subcontracts. 

Section 315. The Committee has included language on a laboratory commission. 

Section 316. The Committee has included language on waiver or 

adjustment notification. 
(130) 

TITLE IV 

The Committee believes it is the mission of all the regional commissions to maximize spending on programs rather than personnel. 

Given the budget cuts the regional commissions have experienced 

in recent years, the Committee directs the regional commissions to 

provide a detailed accounting of all personnel costs, including an 

accounting for employees who are designated as non-Federal employees, in their annual budget request to Congress. If the regional 

commissions are to continue to be successful they need to show 

they are maximizing the public good and making sound personnel 

management decisions. 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $68,126,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 64,618,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 68,200,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission 

[ARC] is an economic development agency composed of 13 Appalachian States and a Federal co-chair appointed by the President. 

For fiscal year 2014, the Committee recommends $68,200,000 for 

the ARC. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $29,072,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 29,915,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 29,915,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $29,915,000 for the Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board. 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $11,654,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 11,319,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

For the Delta Regional Authority, the Committee recommends 

$12,000,000. The Delta Regional Authority was established to assist the eight State Mississippi Delta Region in obtaining basic infrastructure, transportation, skills training, and opportunities for 

economic development. 
131 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $10,658,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 7,396,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

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 2014, the Committee recommends 

$10,000,000. 

NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $1,494,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 1,355,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Northern Border 

Regional Commission. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $1,025,186,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 1,043,937,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,043,937,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... ¥$899,726,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... ¥920,721,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥920,721,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2013 1 2 ......................................................................... $125,460,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 123,216,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 123,216,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission for fiscal year 2014 is $1,043,937,000. This amount is 

offset by estimated revenues of $920,721,000 resulting in a net appropriation of $123,216,000. 

The Committee is concerned about the security of high-risk radiological sources at hospitals and other medical facilities. Radiological materials are commonly found in equipment used by U.S. 

medical facilities to treat, among other things, cancer patients, but 

could also be used to construct a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb attack 

in the United States would have serious economic and psychological consequences. It is therefore in the interest of the Federal 

Government to ensure that all high-risk radiological materials in 

U.S. hospitals and medical facilities are secured as quickly as possible from potential theft or sabotage. 
132 

A September 2012 GAO report found that the NRC’s requirements for medical facilities to secure radiological sources are not 

adequate. NRC’s security controls do not prescribe specific measures that licensees should take to secure their sources, such as specific direction on the use of cameras, alarms, and other physical security measures. GAO visited medical facilities that implemented 

NRC’s security controls and found that radiological sources were 

vulnerable to possible theft or sabotage. The Committee is encouraged by NRC’s recent efforts to strengthen security training of inspectors and develop a best practices guide by November 1, 2013, 

that would help licensees determine how best to adequately secure 

equipment containing high-risk radiological sources and conduct 

trustworthiness and reliability determinations. However, the Committee does not believe these efforts are sufficient to secure these 

radiological materials and meet the intent of GAO’s recommendations. The Committee therefore directs NRC to submit a plan to 

this Committee by March 1, 2014, that would strengthen NRC’s security requirements, including new rulemaking if necessary, to provide hospitals and medical facilities with specific measures they 

must take to develop and sustain a more effective security program, including specific direction on the use of cameras, alarms, 

and other relevant security measures. The Committee believes the 

new requirements should be more prescriptive and establish minimum security measures each facility must take to address the risk 

posed by radiological sources. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $10,838,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 11,105,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,105,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2013 1 2 ......................................................................... ¥$9,754,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... ¥9,994,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥9,994,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $1,084,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 1,111,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,111,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $1,111,000. 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $3,393,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 3,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,400,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established to 

evaluate the scientific and technical validity of the Department of 
133 

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 2014, the Committee recommends $3,400,000. 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR ALASKA NATURAL GAS

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Appropriations, 2013 1 ........................................................................... $998,000 

Budget estimate, 2014 ........................................................................... 1,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000 

1Does not reflect the March 1, 2013, sequester of funds under Public Law 112–25. 

The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Projects was established as an independent agency 

in the executive branch on December 13, 2006. The Committee recommends $1,000,000. The Committee notes that the Office of the 

Federal Coordinator is legally allowed to receive funding from the 

companies for its work. The Committee urges the agency to take 

advantage of this potential funding source as the work of the agency directly benefits the companies. 

GENERAL PROVISION 

Section 401. The Committee has included a provision related to 

the Denali Commission. 
(134) 

TITLE V 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The following list of general provisions are recommended by the 

Committee. 

Section 501. The provision prohibits the use of any funds provided in this bill from being used to influence congressional action. 

Section 502. The provision addresses transfer authority under 

this act. 

Section 503. The provision relates to conferences by any agency 

funded in the bill. 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

In fiscal year 2014, for purposes of the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177), as 

amended, the following information provides the definition of the 

term ‘‘program, project or activity’’ for departments and agencies 

under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Development Appropriation bill. The term ‘‘program, project or activity’’ shall include the most specific level of budget items identified in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2014 and the report accompanying the bill. 

If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any percentage 

reduction required for fiscal year 2014 pursuant to the provisions 

of Public Law 99–177 to all items specified in the report accompanying the bill by the Senate Committee on Appropriations in 

support of the fiscal year 2014 budget estimates as modified by 

congressional action. 
(135) 

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 is filing an original bill, which is not covered 

under this rule, but reports this information in the spirit of full disclosure. 

The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 

or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2014: 

Corps of Engineers.—Individual studies and projects proposed for 

appropriations within this bill are specifically authorized by law. 

The appropriation accounts where the funding for the studies and 

projects are recommended are not considered to be authorized as 

there is no originating act providing for these appropriation accounts. 

Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply Activities: 

Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal, Naval 

Petroleum and Oil Shale Research; 

Health, Safety and Security; 

Non-Defense Environmental Management; 

Office of Science; 

Department of Administration; 

National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons Activities; 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval Reactors; Office of the Administrator; 

Defense Environmental Management, Defense Site Acceleration 

Completion; 

Other Defense Activities; 

Defense Nuclear Waste Fund; 

Office of Security and Performance Assurance; 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; 

Power Marketing Administrations: Southeastern, Southwestern, 

Western Area; and 

Energy Information Administration. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 27, 2013, the 

Committee ordered favorably reported an original bill (S. 1245) 

making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and 

for other purposes, provided, that the bill be subject to amendment 
136 

and that the bill be consistent with its spending allocations, by a 

recorded vote of 24–6, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairwoman Mikulski Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Leahy Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Harkin Mr. Coats 

Mrs. Murray Mr. Blunt 

Mrs. Feinstein Mr. Johanns 

Mr. Durbin Mr. Boozman 

Mr. Johnson 

Ms. Landrieu 

Mr. Reed 

Mr. Pryor 

Mr. Tester 

Mr. Udall 

Mrs. Shaheen 

Mr. Merkley 

Mr. Begich 

Mr. Coons 

Mr. Cochran 

Mr. Alexander 

Ms. Collins 

Ms. Murkowski 

Mr. Graham 

Mr. Kirk 

Mr. Moran 

Mr. Hoeven 

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.’’ 

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. 
137 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

CHAPTER 84—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

SUBCHAPTER II—ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT 

§ 7135. Energy Information Administration. 

(a) Establishment; appointment of Administrator; compensation; qualifications; duties 

* * * * * * * 

(i) Manufacturers energy consumption survey 

(1) The Administrator shall conduct and publish the results of 

a survey of energy consumption in the manufacturing industries in 

the United States at least øonce every two years¿ once every four 

years and in a manner designed to protect the confidentiality of individual responses. In conducting the survey, the Administrator 

shall collect information, including— 

* * * * * * * 

(k) Survey procedure 

* * * * * * * 

(1) conduct surveys of residential and commercial energy use 

at least øonce every 3 years¿ once every four years, and make such 

information available to the public; 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 109B—SECURE WATER 

§ 10361. Findings 

* * * * * * * 

§ 10364. Water management improvement 

(a) Authorization of grants and cooperative agreements 

* * * * * * * 

(e) Authorization of appropriations 

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

ø$200,000,000¿ 250,000,000, to remain available until expended. 

TITLE 43—PUBLIC LANDS 

CHAPTER 40—RECLAMATION STATES 

SUBCHAPTER I—DROUGHT PROGRAM 

§ 2214. Applicable period of drought program 

(a) In general 

* * * * * * * 

(c) Termination of authority 
138 

The authorities established under this subchapter shall terminate on September 30, ø2012¿ 2017. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER III—GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS 

PROVISIONS 

§ 2241. Authorization of appropriations 

Except as otherwise provided in section 2243 of this title (relating to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam, California), 

there is authorized to be appropriated not more than ø$90,000,000¿ 

$100,000,000 in total for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 

ø2012¿ 2017. 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1988, PUBLIC 

LAW 100–676 

SEC. 3. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(1) LOWER MISSION CREEK, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA.— 

* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(6) LOWER OHIO RIVER, ILLINOIS AND KENTUCKY.—The 

project for navigation, Lower Ohio River, Locks and Dams 52 

and 53, Illinois and Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 20, 1986, at a total cost of ø$775,000,000¿ 

$2,918,000,000, with a first Federal cost of ø$775,000,000¿ 

$2,918,000,000, and with the costs of construction of the 

project to be paid one-half 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, 1992, PUBLIC 

LAW 102–575 

SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOR THE COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT. 

(a) INCREASE IN CRSP AUTHORIZATION.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) SECRETARIAL RESPONSIBILITY.—The Secretary is responsible 

for carrying out the responsibilities as specifically identified in this 

title and the Act of April 11, 1956 (Chapter 203; 70 Stat. 110 et 

seq.), popularly known as the Colorado River Storage Project Act, 

relating to the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project including oversight for all phases of the Bonneville Unit, the administration of all prior and future contracts, operation and maintenance 

of previously constructed facilities øand may not delegate such responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation except through the pilot 

management program hereby authorized. The pilot management 

program will exist for a period not to exceed 5 years and shall pro-
139 

vide a mechanism for the Secretary and the District to create a 

mutually acceptable organization within the Bureau of Reclamation 

to assist the Secretary in his responsibilities for the long-term 

management of the Bonneville Unit. Such pilot management program may be extended indefinitely by mutual agreement between 

the Secretary and the District. The District at its sole option may 

use the technical services of the Bureau of Reclamation for engineering and construction work on any project features. These provisions shall not affect the responsibilities of the Bureau of Reclamation and Western Area Power Administration regarding all matters 

relating to all Colorado River Storage Project power functions, including all matter affecting the use of power revenues, power rates 

and ratemaking¿. 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1992, PUBLIC 

LAW 102–580 

SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

* * * * * * * 

(1) SOUTHEAST ALASKA HARBORS OF REFUGE, ALASKA.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(8) KISSIMMEE RIVER RESTORATION, FLORIDA.—The project 

for the ecosystem restoration of the Kissimmee River, Florida: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated March 17, 1992, øat a 

total cost of $426,885,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$139,943,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$286,942,000. The Secretary is further authorized to construct¿ 

and the Kissimmee River headwaters revitalization project in 

accordance with the report prepared under section 1135 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4251– 

4252) for such headwaters project and any modifications as are 

recommended by the Secretary based on the benefits derived 

for the environmental restoration of the Kissimmee River 

basinø, at a total cost of $92,210,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $46,105,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$46,105,000.¿. The total cost of the ecosystem restoration and 

headwaters revitalization projects is $519,095,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $186,048,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $333,047,000. The Secretary shall take such action 

as may be necessary to ensure that implementation of the 

project to restore the Kissimmee River will maintain the same 

level of flood protection as is provided by the current flood control project. 

WATER DESALINATION ACT, 1996, PUBLIC LAW 104–298 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) SECTION 3.—There are authorized to be appropriated to 

carry out section 3 of this Act $5,000,000 per year for fiscal years 
140 

1997 through ø2013¿ 2018. Of these amounts, up to $1,000,000 in 

each fiscal year may be awarded to institutions of higher education, 

including United States-Mexico binational research foundations 

and interuniversity research programs established by the two countries, for research grants without any cost-sharing requirement. 

(b) SECTION 4.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 4 of this Act $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

ø2012 through 2013¿ 2014 through 2018. 

WATER SUPPLY, RELIABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPROVEMENT ACT, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 108–361 

TITLE I—CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT 

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 103. BAY DELTA PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 

* * * * * * * 

(e) NEW AND EXPANDED AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FEDERAL AGEN- CIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The heads of the Federal agencies described in this subsection are authorized to carry out the activities described in subsection (f) during each of fiscal years 

2005 through ø2014¿ 2018, in coordination with the Governor. 

* * * * * * * 

(f) DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES UNDER NEW AND EXPANDED AUTHORIZATIONS.— 

(1) CONVEYANCE.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) LEVEE STABILITY.— (A) IN GENERAL.— * * * 

(B) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to 

the appropriate authorizing and appropriating committees of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives a report that describes the levee stability reconstruction projects and priorities 

that will be carried out under this title during each of fiscal 

years 2005 through ø2014¿ 2018. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 107. FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta Program for fiscal years 2005 

through ø2014¿ 2018 in the aggregate, as set forth in the Record 

of Decision, shall not exceed 33.3 percent. 

* * * * * * * 
141 

SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION. 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary and 

the heads of the Federal agencies to pay the Federal share of the 

cost of carrying out the new and expanded authorities described in 

subsections (e) and (f) of section 103 $389,000,000 for the period of 

fiscal years 2005 through ø2014¿ 2018, to remain available until 

expended. 

FORT PECK RESERVATION RURAL WATER SYSTEM ACT, 

2000, PUBLIC LAW 106–382 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX RURAL WATER SYSTEM.—There are 

authorized to be appropriated— 

(1) to the Bureau of Reclamation through fiscal year 

ø2015¿ 2020, $124,000,000 for the planning, design, and construction of the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water System; 

and 

* * * * * * * 

(b) DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated, through fiscal year ø2015¿ 2020, $51,000,000 

for the planning, design, and construction of the Dry Prairie Rural 

Water System. 

REVISED CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 

2007, PUBLIC LAW 110–5 

‘‘DIVISION B—CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 

2007 

‘‘TITLE II—ELIMINATION OF EARMARKS, ADJUSTMENTS IN 

FUNDING, AND OTHER PROVISIONS 

‘‘CHAPTER 3—ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

‘‘SEC. 20320. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘(c) The Secretary of Energy shall enter into an arrangement 

with an independent auditor for annual evaluations of the program 

under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In addition to 

the independent audit, the Comptroller General shall conduct øan 

annual review¿ a review every three years of the Department’s execution of the program under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. The results of the independent audit and the Comptroller 

General’s review shall be provided directly to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate. 
142 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2007, PUBLIC 

LAW 110–114 

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES 

PROJECTS 

SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following 

projects for water resources development and conservation and 

other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary 

substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the respective reports designated in this section: 

(1) HAINES, ALASKA.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

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

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

ø$125,270,000¿ $152,510,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of ø$75,140,000¿ $92,007,000 and an estimated nonFederal cost of ø$50,130,000¿ $60,503,000. 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT, 2007, 

PUBLIC LAW 110–140 

TITLE VIII—IMPROVED MANAGEMENT 

OF ENERGY POLICY 

Subtitle A—Management Improvements 

øSEC. 804. COORDINATION OF PLANNED REFINERY OUTAGES. 

ø(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

ø(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means 

the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration. 

ø(2) PLANNED REFINERY OUTAGE.— 

ø(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘planned refinery outage’’ 

means a removal, scheduled before the date on which the 

removal occurs, of a refinery, or any unit of a refinery, 

from service for maintenance, repair, or modification. 

ø(B) EXCLUSION.—The term ‘‘planned refinery outage’’ 

does not include any necessary and unplanned removal of 

a refinery, or any unit of a refinery, from service as a result of a component failure, safety hazard, emergency, or 

action reasonably anticipated to be necessary to prevent 

such events. 

ø(3) REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCT.—The term ‘‘refined petroleum product’’ means any gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel oil, lubricating oil, liquid petroleum gas, or other petroleum distillate 
143 

that is produced through the refining or processing of crude oil 

or an oil derived from tar sands, shale, or coal. 

ø(4) REFINERY.—The term ‘‘refinery’’ means a facility used 

in the production of a refined petroleum product through distillation, cracking, or any other process. 

ø(b) REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION.—The 

Administrator shall, on an ongoing basis— 

ø(1) review information on refinery outages that is available from commercial reporting services; 

ø(2) analyze that information to determine whether the 

scheduling of a refinery outage may nationally or regionally 

substantially affect the price or supply of any refined petroleum product by— 

ø(A) decreasing the production of the refined petroleum product; and 

ø(B) causing or contributing to a retail or wholesale 

supply shortage or disruption; 

ø(3) not less frequently than twice each year, submit to the 

Secretary a report describing the results of the review and 

analysis under paragraphs (1) and (2); and 

ø(4) specifically alert the Secretary of any refinery outage 

that the Administrator determines may nationally or regionally substantially affect the price or supply of a refined petroleum product. 

ø(c) ACTION BY SECRETARY.—On a determination by the Secretary, based on a report or alert under paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (b), that a refinery outage may affect the price or supply of 

a refined petroleum product, the Secretary shall make available to 

refinery operators information on planned refinery outages to encourage reductions of the quantity of refinery capacity that is out 

of service at any time. 

ø(d) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section shall alter any existing legal obligation or responsibility of a refinery operator, or create any legal right of action, nor shall this section authorize the 

Secretary— 

ø(1) to prohibit a refinery operator from conducting a 

planned refinery outage; or 

ø(2) to require a refinery operator to continue to operate 

a refinery.¿ 
144 

OMNIBUS PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT, 2009, 

PUBLIC LAW 111–11 

TITLE X—WATER SETTLEMENTS 

Subtitle A—San Joaquin River Restoration 

Settlement 

PART I—SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION 

SETTLEMENT ACT 

SEC. 10009. APPROPRIATIONS; SETTLEMENT FUND. 

(a) IMPLEMENTATION COSTS.— 

* * * * * * * 

(c) FUND.— (1) IN GENERAL.— * * * 

(2) AVAILABILITY.—All funds deposited into the Fund pursuant to subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1) are 

authorized for appropriation to implement the Settlement and 

this part, in addition to the authorization provided in subsections (a) and (b) of section 10203, except that $88,000,000 

of such funds are available for expenditure without further appropriation; provided that after øOctober 1, 2019, all funds in 

the Fund shall be available for expenditure without further appropriation.¿ October 1, 2014, all funds in the Fund shall be 

available for expenditure on an annual basis in an amount not 

to exceed $40,000,000 without further appropriation. 

SMALL BUSINESS JOBS ACT, 2010, PUBLIC LAW 111–240 

TITLE I—SMALL BUSINESSES 

Subtitle C—Small Business Contracting 

PART III—ACQUISITION PROCESS 

SEC. 1335. REPEAL OF SMALL BUSINESS COMPETITIVENESS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–656) is amended by striking title 

VII (15 U.S.C. 644 note). 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY.—The amendment 

made by this section— 

(1) shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act; 

and 

(2) * * * 

(3) First tier subcontracts that are awarded by Management and Operating contractors sponsored by the Department 

of Energy to small business concerns, small businesses concerns 

owned and controlled by service disabled veterans, qualified 
145 

HUBZone small business concerns, small business concerns 

owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, and small business concerns owned and controlled by women, shall be considered toward the annually established agency and Governmentwide goals for procurement 

contracts awarded. 

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 

guidance 1

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

guidance 

Amount 

of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee guidance to 

its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution for 

2014: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development: 

Mandatory ............................................................................ NA .................... NA ....................

Discretionary ........................................................................ 34,773 34,773 NA 2 39,996 

Security ....................................................................... 18,012 18,012 NA NA 

Nonsecurity ................................................................. 16,761 16,761 NA NA 

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2014 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3 20,504 

2015 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 9,684 

2016 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3,111 

2017 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 683 

2018 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 652 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2014 ......................................................................................... NA 83 NA 18 

1 There is no section 302(a) allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2014. 

2 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

3 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
146 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2013 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2013 

appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Corps of Engineers—Civil 

Investigations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 124,750 90,000 120,000 ¥4,750 ∂30,000 

Supplemental (Public Law 113–2) (emergency) ......................................................................................................... 50,000 .......................... .......................... ¥50,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 174,750 90,000 120,000 ¥54,750 ∂30,000 

Construction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,670,652 1,350,000 1,542,000 ¥128,652 ∂192,000 

Supplemental (Public Law 113–2) ............................................................................................................................. 3,461,000 .......................... .......................... ¥3,461,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 5,131,652 1,350,000 1,542,000 ¥3,589,652 ∂192,000 

Mississippi River and Tributaries ........................................................................................................................................ 251,496 279,000 300,000 ∂48,504 ∂21,000 Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................................................................................... 2,407,176 2,588,000 2,700,000 ∂292,824 ∂112,000 

Supplemental (Public Law 113–2) (emergency) ......................................................................................................... 821,000 .......................... .......................... ¥821,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 3,228,176 2,588,000 2,700,000 ¥528,176 ∂112,000 

Regulatory Program .............................................................................................................................................................. 192,614 200,000 200,000 ∂7,386 ..........................Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] ............................................................................................... 108,782 104,000 195,000 ∂86,218 ∂91,000 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .............................................................................................................................. 26,946 28,000 28,000 ∂1,054 ..........................

Supplemental (Public Law 113–2) (emergency) ......................................................................................................... 1,008,000 .......................... .......................... ¥1,008,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,034,946 28,000 28,000 ¥1,006,946 ..........................

Expenses ............................................................................................................................................................................... 184,630 182,000 182,000 ¥2,630 ..........................

Supplemental (Public Law 113–2) (emergency) ......................................................................................................... 10,000 .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 194,630 182,000 182,000 ¥12,630 ..........................

Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ..................................................................................................... 4,992 5,000 5,000 ∂8 ..........................
147 

Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥100,000 .......................... .......................... ∂100,000 

Total, title I, Department of Defense—Civil .......................................................................................................... 10,322,038 4,726,000 5,272,000 ¥5,050,038 ∂546,000 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (8,433,038 ) (4,826,000 ) (5,272,000 ) (¥3,161,038 ) (∂446,000 ) Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................................................. (1,889,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥1,889,000 ) ..........................Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... .......................... (¥100,000 ) .......................... .......................... (∂100,000 ) 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Central Utah Project Completion Account 

Central Utah Project construction ........................................................................................................................................ 18,463 .......................... .......................... ¥18,463 ..........................Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation ................................................................................................ 1,198 .......................... .......................... ¥1,198 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 19,661 .......................... .......................... ¥19,661 ..........................

Program oversight and administration ................................................................................................................................ 1,297 .......................... .......................... ¥1,297 ..........................

Total, Central Utah project completion account .................................................................................................... 20,958 .......................... .......................... ¥20,958 ..........................

Bureau of Reclamation 

Water and Related Resources .............................................................................................................................................. 893,210 791,135 945,796 ∂52,586 ∂154,661 Central Valley Project restoration fund ................................................................................................................................ 53,041 53,288 53,288 ∂247 ..........................California Bay-Delta restoration .......................................................................................................................................... 39,572 37,000 37,000 ¥2,572 ..........................Policy and administration .................................................................................................................................................... 59,880 60,000 60,000 ∂120 ..........................Indian water rights settlements .......................................................................................................................................... .......................... 78,661 .......................... .......................... ¥78,661 San Joaquin restoration fund ............................................................................................................................................... .......................... 26,000 .......................... .......................... ¥26,000 Central Utah Project completion .......................................................................................................................................... .......................... 3,500 3,500 ∂3,500 ..........................

Total, Bureau of Reclamation ................................................................................................................................. 1,045,703 1,049,584 1,099,584 ∂53,881 ∂50,000 Total, title II, Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................... 1,066,661 1,049,584 1,099,584 ∂32,923 ∂50,000 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Energy Programs 

Energy efficiency and renewable energy .............................................................................................................................. 1,810,463 2,775,700 2,280,985 ∂470,522 ¥494,715 Electricity delivery and energy reliability ............................................................................................................................. 134,231 154,015 134,015 ¥216 ¥20,000 

Defense function ......................................................................................................................................................... 4,988 15,000 15,000 ∂10,012 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 139,219 169,015 149,015 ∂9,796 ¥20,000 
148 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2013 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2013 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Nuclear energy ...................................................................................................................................................................... 757,482 635,460 635,460 ¥122,022 ..........................

Defense function ......................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 100,000 100,000 ∂100,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 757,482 735,460 735,460 ¥22,022 ..........................

Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................................................................................................... 532,932 420,575 420,575 ¥112,357 ..........................Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................................................................................................ 14,879 20,000 20,000 ∂5,121 ..........................Strategic Petroleum Reserve ................................................................................................................................................ 192,319 189,400 189,400 ¥2,919 ..........................Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ................................................................................................................................... 10,099 8,000 8,000 ¥2,099 ..........................

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... ¥6,000 .......................... .......................... ∂6,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 4,099 8,000 8,000 ∂3,901 ..........................

Energy Information Administration ...................................................................................................................................... 104,790 117,000 117,000 ∂12,210 ..........................Non-defense environmental cleanup .................................................................................................................................... 235,250 212,956 232,956 ¥2,294 ∂20,000 Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund .................................................................................. 471,984 554,823 554,823 ∂82,839 ..........................Science ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4,866,248 5,152,752 5,152,752 ∂286,504 ..........................Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ........................................................................................................................ 264,470 379,000 379,000 ∂114,530 ..........................Race to the Top for Energy Efficiency and Grid Modernization .......................................................................................... .......................... 200,000 .......................... .......................... ¥200,000 Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee program ................................................................................................... 38,000 48,000 42,000 ∂4,000 ¥6,000 

Offsetting collection .................................................................................................................................................... ¥38,000 ¥22,000 ¥22,000 ∂16,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 26,000 20,000 ∂20,000 ¥6,000 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans program ........................................................................................... 5,988 6,000 6,000 ∂12 ..........................Departmental administration ............................................................................................................................................... 237,370 226,580 234,637 ¥2,733 ∂8,057 

Miscellaneous revenues ............................................................................................................................................... ¥111,623 ¥108,188 ¥108,188 ∂3,435 ..........................

Net appropriation .................................................................................................................................................... 125,747 118,392 126,449 ∂702 ∂8,057 

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................ 41,916 42,120 42,120 ∂204 ..........................
149 

Total, Energy programs ........................................................................................................................................... 9,567,786 11,127,193 10,434,535 ∂866,749 ¥692,658 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National Nuclear Security Administration 

Weapons activities ............................................................................................................................................................... 7,574,916 7,868,409 7,868,409 ∂293,493 ..........................Defense nuclear nonproliferation ......................................................................................................................................... 2,433,524 2,140,142 2,180,142 ¥253,382 ∂40,000 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 2,433,524 2,140,142 2,180,142 ¥253,382 ∂40,000 

Naval reactors ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,079,654 1,246,134 1,312,134 ∂232,480 ∂66,000 Office of the Administrator .................................................................................................................................................. 409,869 397,784 397,784 ¥12,085 ..........................

Total, National Nuclear Security Administration .................................................................................................... 11,497,963 11,652,469 11,758,469 ∂260,506 ∂106,000 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities 

Defense environmental cleanup ........................................................................................................................................... 5,012,954 4,853,909 5,146,536 ∂133,582 ∂292,627 

Defense environmental cleanup (legislative proposal) ............................................................................................... .......................... 463,000 .......................... .......................... ¥463,000 

Other Defense activities ....................................................................................................................................................... 821,717 749,080 762,080 ¥59,637 ∂13,000 

Total, Environmental and Other Defense Activities ............................................................................................... 5,834,671 6,065,989 5,908,616 ∂73,945 ¥157,373 Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................................................................................. 17,332,634 17,718,458 17,667,085 ∂334,451 ¥51,373 

Power Marketing Administrations 1

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ...................................................................................... 8,428 7,750 7,750 ¥678 ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥8,428 ¥7,750 ¥7,750 ∂678 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ..................................................................................... 44,986 45,456 45,456 ∂470 ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥33,118 ¥33,564 ¥33,564 ¥446 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 11,868 11,892 11,892 ∂24 ..........................

Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western Area Power Administration ........................................ 290,529 299,919 299,919 ∂9,390 ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥156,609 ¥203,989 ¥203,989 ¥47,380 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 133,920 95,930 95,930 ¥37,990 ..........................

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund ...................................................................................................... 4,169 5,331 5,331 ∂1,162 ..........................
150 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2013 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2013 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥3,949 ¥4,911 ¥4,911 ¥962 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 220 420 420 ∂200 ..........................Total, Power Marketing Administrations ................................................................................................................. 146,008 108,242 108,242 ¥37,766 ..........................

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 304,000 304,600 304,600 ∂600 ..........................Revenues applied ................................................................................................................................................................. ¥304,000 ¥304,600 ¥304,600 ¥600 ..........................

Total, title III, Department of Energy ..................................................................................................................... 27,046,428 28,953,893 28,209,862 ∂1,163,434 ¥744,031 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (27,052,428 ) (28,953,893 ) (28,209,862 ) (∂1,157,434 ) (¥744,031 ) Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥6,000 ) .......................... .......................... (∂6,000 ) ..........................

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Appalachian Regional Commission ...................................................................................................................................... 68,126 64,618 68,200 ∂74 ∂3,582 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board .............................................................................................................................. 29,072 29,915 29,915 ∂843 ..........................Delta Regional Authority ...................................................................................................................................................... 11,654 11,319 12,000 ∂346 ∂681 Denali Commission ............................................................................................................................................................... 10,658 7,396 10,000 ¥658 ∂2,604 Northern Border Regional Commission ................................................................................................................................ 1,494 1,355 5,000 ∂3,506 ∂3,645 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .......................................................................................................................... 250 .......................... .......................... ¥250 ..........................Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 1,025,186 1,043,937 1,043,937 ∂18,751 ..........................Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥899,726 ¥920,721 ¥920,721 ¥20,995 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 125,460 123,216 123,216 ¥2,244 ..........................

Office of Inspector General ......................................................................................................................................... 10,838 11,105 11,105 ∂267 ..........................Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥9,754 ¥9,994 ¥9,994 ¥240 ..........................
151 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,084 1,111 1,111 ∂27 ..........................Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................................................................................................................... 126,544 124,327 124,327 ¥2,217 ..........................

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ............................................................................................................................... 3,393 3,400 3,400 ∂7 ..........................Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects ........................................................... 998 1,000 1,000 ∂2 ..........................

Total, title IV, Independent agencies ..................................................................................................................... 252,189 243,330 253,842 ∂1,653 ∂10,512 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (252,189 ) (243,330 ) (253,842 ) (∂1,653 ) (∂10,512 ) 

Grand total .............................................................................................................................................................. 38,687,316 34,972,807 34,835,288 ¥3,852,028 ¥137,519 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (36,804,316 ) (35,072,807 ) (34,835,288 ) (¥1,969,028 ) (¥237,519 ) Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................................................. (1,889,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥1,889,000 ) ..........................Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥6,000 ) (¥100,000 ) .......................... (∂6,000 ) (∂100,000 ) 

1 Totals adjusted to net out alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting collection totals only reflect funds collected for annual expenses, excluding power purchase 

wheeling. 

Æ