103D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 4460
AN ACT
To provide for conservation and development of water and
related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army
to construct various projects for improvements to rivers
and harbors of the United States, and for other pur-
poses.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the
‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 1994’’.
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Project modifications.
Sec. 103. Small flood control projects.
Sec. 104. Small bank stabilization projects.
Sec. 105. Small navigation projects.
Sec. 106. Small shoreline protection projects.
Sec. 107. Small bank stabilization and beach erosion control project, Watson
Island Park, Miami, Florida.
Sec. 108. Small snagging and sediment removal project, Mississippi River, Lit-
tle Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 109. Upper Truckee River, El Dorado County, California.
Sec. 110. Muskingum River, Ohio.
Sec. 111. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 112. Continuation of authorization of certain projects.
Sec. 113. Reuse of waste water.
Sec. 114. Studies.
Sec. 115. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 116. Namings.
TITLE II—GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Recreation policy and user fees.
Sec. 202. Recovery of costs.
Sec. 203. Cost sharing of environmental projects.
Sec. 204. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests.
Sec. 205. Collaborative research and development.
Sec. 206. National inventory of dams.
Sec. 207. Maintenance, rehabilitation, and modernization of facilities.
Sec. 208. Federal lump-sum payments for Federal operation and maintenance
costs.
Sec. 209. Long-term sediment management strategies.
Sec. 210. Emergency response.
Sec. 211. Obstruction removal requirement.
Sec. 212. Small project authorizations.
Sec. 213. Aquatic plant control.
Sec. 214. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 215. Sediments decontamination technology.
Sec. 216. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 217. Foreign travel.
Sec. 218. Support of Army civil works program.
Sec. 219. Hopper dredge fleet.
Sec. 220. Restoration of environmental quality.
Sec. 221. Cost sharing for creation of dredged material disposal areas.
Sec. 222. Loss of life prevention.
Sec. 223. Sense of Congress; requirement regarding notice.
Sec. 224. Reservoir Management Technical Advisory Committee.
Sec. 225. Technical corrections.
TITLE III—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 302. Lakes program.
Sec. 303. Environmental infrastructure.
Sec. 304. Environmental dredging.
Sec. 305. Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection program.
Sec. 306. Saint Lawrence Seaway collection of tolls.
Sec. 307. River basin plan for lower Mississippi.
Sec. 308. Extension of jurisdiction of Mississippi River Commission.
Sec. 309. Great Lakes dredged material testing and evaluation manual.
Sec. 310. Great Lakes sediment reduction.
Sec. 311. Confined disposal facilities.
Sec. 312. Alternative to annual passes.
Sec. 313. Recreation partnership initiative.
Sec. 314. Water quality projects.
Sec. 315. New England Division headquarters facility.
Sec. 316. Quarantine facility.
Sec. 317. Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas.
Sec. 318. Calaveras County, California.
Sec. 319. Lake Elsinore, California.
Sec. 320. Beneficial use of dredged material, Montezuma, California.
Sec. 321. Prado Dam safety improvements.
Sec. 322. San Jose, California.
Sec. 323. Tampa, Florida.
Sec. 324. Kankakee River Basin, Illinois.
Sec. 325. Watershed management plan for Deep River Basin, Indiana.
Sec. 326. Restoration projects for Maryland, West Virginia, and Kentucky.
Sec. 327. Beneficial use of dredged material, Poplar Island, Maryland.
Sec. 328. Erosion control measures, Smith Island, Maryland.
Sec. 329. Beneficial use of dredged material, Worton Point, Kent County,
Maryland.
Sec. 330. Massachusetts coastal saltmarsh restoration authorization.
Sec. 331. Boston, Massachusetts, alternative technology project.
Sec. 332. Lake St. Claire, Michigan.
Sec. 333. Duluth, Minnesota.
Sec. 334. St. John’s Bayou—New Madrid Floodway.
Sec. 335. Durham, New Hampshire.
Sec. 336. New York Bight and Harbor study.
Sec. 337. New York State canal system.
Sec. 338. New York City watershed.
Sec. 339. Northeastern Ohio.
Sec. 340. Ohio River.
Sec. 341. Removal or remediation of contaminated sediments, Mahoning River,
Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Sec. 342. Columbia River Basin, Oregon.
Sec. 343. South central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 344. Broad top region of Pennsylvania.
Sec. 345. Hopper dredge McFarland.
Sec. 346. Seven Points Visitors Center, Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 347. Blackstone River Valley, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.
Sec. 348. Earthquake Preparedness Center of Expertise extension.
Sec. 349. Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
Sec. 350. Repeal of termination date for construction of Virgin Islands projects
by the Secretary.
Sec. 351. Huntington, West Virginia.
Sec. 352. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 353. Removal or remediation of contaminated sediments, Lower Fox River,
Wisconsin.
Sec. 354. Savings clause.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’
means the Secretary of the Army.
TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
Except as 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, recommended in the respec-
tive reports designated in this section:
(1) SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.—
The project for navigation, Santa Barbara Harbor,
California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated
April 26, 1994, at a total cost of $5,530,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $4,420,000 and an es-
timated non-Federal cost of $1,110,000.
(2) SAN LORENZO RIVER, SANTA CRUZ, CALI-
FORNIA.—The project for flood control, San Lorenzo
River, Santa Cruz, California: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated June 30, 1994, at a total cost of
$15,670,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$7,910,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$7,760,000.
(3) MARIN COUNTY SHORELINE, SAN RAFAEL,
CALIFORNIA.—The project for storm damage reduc-
tion, Marin County shoreline, San Rafael, California:
Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 28,
1994, at a total cost of $26,300,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $17,100,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $9,200,000.
(4) ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, DIS-
TRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND.—The project
for environmental restoration, Anacostia River and
Tributaries, District of Columbia and Maryland: Re-
port of the Chief of Engineers, dated October 1994,
at a total cost of $18,820,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $14,120,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $4,700,000.
(5) ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, ST.
JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA.—The project for naviga-
tion, Atlantic intracoastal waterway, St. Johns
County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated June 24, 1994, at a total Federal cost of
$15,083,000. Operation, maintenance, repair, re-
placement, and rehabilitation shall be a local respon-
sibility and the local interest must assume ownership
of the bridge.
(6) LAKE
MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS.—The project
for storm damage reduction and shoreline erosion
protection, Lake Michigan, Illinois, from Wilmette,
Illinois, to the Illinois-Indiana State line: Report of
the Chief of Engineers, dated April 14, 1994, at a
total cost of $192,251,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $104,435,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $87,816,000. The project shall in-
clude the breakwater near the South Water Filtra-
tion Plant described in the report as a separate ele-
ment of the project, at a total cost of $8,169,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $5,310,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,859,000.
(7) WHITE RIVER, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA.—
The project for flood control and recreation, White
River, Indianapolis, Indiana, at a total cost of
$52,700,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of
$32,425,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost
of $20,275,000, is authorized to be prosecuted by
the Secretary in accordance with a final report of
the Chief of Engineers and with such modifications
as are recommended by the Secretary. No construc-
tion on the project may be initiated until such a re-
Engineers, dated June 30, 1994, at a total cost of
$30,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$22,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$7,800,000.
(18) 
WATERTOWN, 
SOUTH
DAKOTA.—The
project for flood control, Watertown and Vicinity,
South Dakota: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated August 31, 1994, at a total cost of
$16,092,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$11,835,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$4,257,000.
(19) ATLANTIC
INTRACOASTAL
WATERWAY,
CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA.—The project for naviga-
tion, Atlantic intracoastal waterway, Great Bridge,
Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engi-
neers, dated July 1, 1994, at a total cost of
$23,007,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$19,771,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$3,236,000.
(20) MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WEST
VIRGINIA.—The project for navigation, Marmet
Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia: Report of the
Chief of Engineers, dated June 24, 1994, at a total
cost of $261,000,000. The costs of construction of
the project are to be paid 1⁄2 from amounts appro-
priated from the general fund of the Treasury and
1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Wa-
terways Trust Fund. In conducting any real estate
acquisition activities, the Secretary shall give prior-
ity consideration to those individuals who would be
directly affected by any physical displacement due to
project design and shall consider the financial cir-
cumstances of such individuals. The Secretary shall
proceed with real estate acquisition in connection
with the project expeditiously.
SEC. 102. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.
(a) NOGALES WASH AND TRIBUTARIES, ARIZONA.—
The project for flood control, Nogales Wash and tribu-
taries, Arizona, authorized by section 101(a)(4) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat.
4606), is modified to direct the Secretary to permit the
non-Federal contribution for the project to be determined
in accordance with sections 103(k) and 103(m) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and to direct
the Secretary to enter into negotiations with non-Federal
interests pursuant to section 103(l) of such Act concerning
the timing of the initial payment of the non-Federal con-
tribution.
(b) OAKLAND INNER HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.—The
project for deep-draft navigation, authorized by section
202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4092), is modified to authorize the Secretary
to construct the project at a total cost of $57,000,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $35,900,000, and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $21,100,000.
(c) POTOMAC RIVER, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.—The project for flood protection, Potomac
River, Washington, District of Columbia, authorized by
section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (74
Stat. 1574), is modified to provide for completion of the
project substantially in accordance with the General De-
sign Memorandum dated May 1992, the General Design
Memorandum Supplement dated May 1994, and a letter
report dated August 9, 1994, at a Federal cost of
$1,800,000.
(d) CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, CANAL 51
(C–51).—The project for flood protection of West Palm
Beach, Florida (C–51), authorized by section 203 of the
Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1183), is modified
to provide for the construction of an enlarged stormwater
detention area, Storm Water Treatment Area 1 East, gen-
erally in accordance with the plan of improvements de-
scribed in the February 15, 1994, report entitled ‘‘Ever-
glades Protection Project, Palm Beach County, Florida,
Conceptual Design’’, with such modifications as are ap-
proved by the Secretary. The additional work authorized
by this subsection shall be accomplished at Federal ex-
pense. Operation and maintenance of the stormwater de-
tention area shall be consistent with regulations prescribed
by the Secretary for the Central and Southern Florida
project, and all costs of such operation and maintenance
shall be provided by non-Federal interests.
(e) CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, CANAL 111
(C–111).—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The project for Central and
Southern Florida, authorized by the Flood Control
Act of June 30, 1948, and modified by section 203
of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740–
741), is modified to authorize the Secretary to im-
plement the recommended plan of improvement con-
tained in a report entitled ‘‘Central and Southern
Florida Project, Final Integrated General Reevalua-
tion Report and Environmental Impact Statement,
Canal 111 (C–111), South Dade County, Florida’’,
dated May 1994, including acquisition of such por-
tions of the Frog Pond and Rocky Glades areas as
are needed for the project.
(2) COST SHARING.—
(A) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share
of the cost of implementing the plan of im-
provement shall be 50 percent.
(B) DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR RESPON-
SIBILITY.—The Department of the Interior
shall pay 25 percent of the cost of acquiring
such portions of the Frog Pond and Rocky
Glades areas as are needed for the project. The
amount paid by the Department of the Interior
shall be included as part of the Federal share
of the cost of implementing the plan.
(C) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The
non-Federal share of operation and mainte-
nance costs of the improvements undertaken
pursuant to this subsection shall be 100 per-
cent; except that the Federal Government shall
reimburse the non-Federal project sponsor 60
percent of the costs of operating and maintain-
ing pump stations that pump water into Taylor
Slough in the Everglades National Park.
(f) TYBEE ISLAND, GEORGIA.—The project for beach
erosion control, Tybee Island, Georgia, authorized pursu-
ant to section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 1962d–5), is modified to include as part of the
project the portion of the ocean shore of Tybee Island lo-
cated south of the extension of 9th Street.
(g) CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.—The project for flood con-
trol, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, Illinois, authorized by
section 3(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), is modified to limit the capacity
of the reservoir project not to exceed 11,000,000,000 gal-
lons or 32,000 acre-feet, to provide that the reservoir
project may not be located north of 55th Street or west
of East Avenue in the vicinity of McCook, Illinois, and
to provide that the reservoir project may only be con-
structed on the basis of a specific plan that has been eval-
uated by the Secretary under the provisions of the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
(h) NORTH BRANCH
OF CHICAGO RIVER, ILLI-
NOIS.—The project for flood protection, North Branch of
the Chicago River, Illinois, authorized by section 401(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4115), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
carry out the project in accordance with the Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated March 1994, at a total cost of
$34,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$20,774,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$14,026,000.
(i) REND LAKE, ILLINOIS.—The project for flood
control, Rend Lake, Illinois, authorized by section 203 of
the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1189), is modified
to direct the Secretary to correct the design deficiency in
the Rend Lake Subimpoundment, Benton, Jefferson
County, Illinois, at full Federal expense, with an estimated
cost of $5,300,000.
(j) ARKANSAS CITY, KANSAS.—The project for flood
control, Arkansas City, Kansas, authorized by section
401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4116), is modified to authorize the Secretary
to construct the project at a total cost of $35,700,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $26,600,000 and an es-
timated non-Federal cost of $9,100,000.
(k) HALSTEAD, KANSAS.—The project for flood con-
trol, Halstead, Kansas, authorized by section 401(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4116), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out
the project in accordance with the Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated March 19, 1993, at a total cost of
$11,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$8,325,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$2,775,000.
(l) LEVISA AND TUG FORKS OF THE BIG SANDY
RIVER AND CUMBERLAND RIVER, KENTUCKY, WEST VIR-
GINIA, AND VIRGINIA.—The project for flood control,
Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cum-
berland River, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia, au-
thorized by section 202(a) of the Energy and Water Devel-
opment Appropriation Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339), is modi-
fied to provide that the minimum level of flood protection
to be afforded by the project shall be the level required
to provide protection from a 100-year flood or from the
flood of April 1977, whichever level of protection is
greater.
(m) WEST BANK HURRICANE PROTECTION LEVEE,
JEFFERSON PARISH, LOUISIANA.—The project for hurri-
cane protection, West Bank Hurricane Protection Levee,
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, authorized by section 401(b)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4128), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
carry out the project in accordance with the Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated November 1994, at a total cost
of $119,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$77,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$41,900,000.
(n) MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS, VENICE, LOUISI-
ANA.—The project for navigation, Mississippi River Out-
lets, Venice, Louisiana, authorized by section 101 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), is modified
to provide for the extension of the 16-foot deep by 250-
foot wide Baptiste Collette Bayou entrance channel to ap-
proximately Mile 8 of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet
navigation channel, at a total estimated Federal cost of
$80,000.
(o) BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, COLUMBIA RIVER,
OREGON AND WASHINGTON.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The project for Bonneville
Lock and Dam, Columbia River, Oregon and Wash-
ington, authorized by the Act of August 20, 1937
(50 Stat. 731), and modified by section 83 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat.
35), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to
convey to the city of North Bonneville, Washington,
at no further cost to the city, all right, title and in-
terest of the United States in and to the following:
(A) Any municipal facilities, utilities fix-
tures, and equipment for the relocated city, and
any remaining lands designated as open spaces
or municipal lots not previously conveyed to the
city, specifically, Lots M1 through M15, M16
(the ‘‘community center lot’’), M18, M19, M22,
M24, S42 through S45, and S52 through S60.
(B) The ‘‘school lot’’ described as Lot 2,
block 5, on the plat of relocated North Bonne-
ville.
(C) Parcels 2 and C, but only upon the
completion of any environmental response ac-
tions required under applicable law.
(D) That portion of Parcel B lying south
of the existing city boundary, west of the sew-
age treatment plant, and north of the drainage
ditch that is located adjacent to the northerly
limit of the Hamilton Island landfill, provided
the Secretary determines, at the time of the
proposed conveyance, that the Army has taken
all action necessary to protect human health
and the environment.
(E) Such portions of Parcel H which can
be conveyed without a requirement for further
investigation, inventory or other action by the
Department of the Army under the provisions
of the National Historic Preservation Act.
(F) Such easements as the Secretary
deems necessary for—
(i) sewer and water line crossings of
relocated Washington State Highway 14;
and
(ii) reasonable public access to the Co-
lumbia River across those portions of
Hamilton Island that remain under the
ownership of the United States.
(2) TIME
PERIOD
FOR
CONVEYANCES.—The
conveyances referred to in paragraphs (1)(A),
(1)(B), (1)(E), and (1)(F)(i) shall be completed
within 180 days after the United States receives the
release referred to in paragraph (4). All other con-
veyances shall be completed expeditiously, subject to
any conditions specified in the applicable subsection.
(3) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the conveyances
authorized by paragraph (1) is to resolve all out-
standing issues between the United States and the
city of North Bonneville.
(4) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
OF
PAYMENT; RE-
LEASE
OF
CLAIMS
RELATING
TO
RELOCATION
OF
CITY.—As a prerequisite to such conveyances, the
city of North Bonneville shall execute an acknowl-
edgement of payment of just compensation and shall
execute a release of any and all claims for relief of
any kind against the United States growing out of
the relocation of the city of North Bonneville, or any
prior Federal legislation relating thereto, and shall
dismiss, with prejudice, any pending litigation, if
any, involving such matters.
(5) RELEASE BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.—Upon
receipt of the city’s acknowledgment and release re-
ferred to in paragraph (4), the Attorney General of
the United States shall dismiss any pending litiga-
tion, if any, arising out of the relocation of the city
of North Bonneville, and execute a release of any
and all rights to damages of any kind under the
February 20, 1987, judgment of the United States
Claims Court, including any interest thereon.
(6) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ENTITLEMENTS; RE-
LEASE
BY
CITY
OF
CLAIMS
UNDER
THIS
SUB-
SECTION.—Within 60 days after the conveyances au-
thorized by paragraph (1) (other than subparagraph
(F)(ii)) have been completed, the city shall execute
an acknowledgement that all entitlements under
such paragraph have been completed and shall exe-
cute a release of any and all claims for relief of any
kind against the United States arising out of this
subsection.
(7) EFFECTS ON CITY.—Beginning on the date
of the enactment of this Act, the city of North Bon-
neville, or any successor in interest thereto, shall—
(A) be precluded from exercising any juris-
diction over any lands owned in whole or in
part by the United States and administered by
the United States Army Corps of Engineers in
connection with the Bonneville project; and
(B) be authorized to change the zoning
designations of, sell, or resell Parcels S35 and
S56, which are presently designated as open
spaces.
(p) FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS
AND
RHODE ISLAND.—The project for navigation, Fall River
Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, authorized by
section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat.
731), is modified to provide that alteration of the
drawspan of the Brightman Street Bridge to provide a
channel width of 300 feet shall not be required after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(q) MANISTIQUE HARBOR, SCHOOLCRAFT COUNTY,
MICHIGAN.—The project for navigation, Manistique Har-
bor, Schoolcraft County, Michigan, authorized by the Riv-
ers and Harbors Appropriations Act of March 3, 1905 (33
Stat. 1136), is modified to provide for an authorized
project depth of 12 feet.
(r) SAGINAW RIVER, MICHIGAN.—The project for
flood protection, Saginaw River, Michigan, authorized by
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat.
311) is modified to include as part of the project the de-
sign and construction of an inflatable dam on the Flint
River, Michigan, at a total cost of $800,000.
(s) SAULT SAINTE MARIE, CHIPPEWA COUNTY,
MICHIGAN.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation,
Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan, au-
thorized by section 1149 of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254–4255), is
modified as provided by this subsection.
(2) PAYMENT OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The
non-Federal share of the cost of the project referred
to in paragraph (1) shall be paid as follows:
(A) That portion of the non-Federal share
which the Secretary determines is attributable
to use of the lock by vessels calling at Canadian
ports shall be paid by the United States.
(B) The remaining portion of the non-Fed-
eral share shall be paid by the Great Lakes
States pursuant to an agreement entered into
by such States.
(3) PAYMENT TERM OF ADDITIONAL PERCENT-
AGE.—The amount to be paid by non-Federal inter-
ests pursuant to section 101(a) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2211(a)) and this subsection with respect to the
project referred to in paragraph (1) may be paid
over a period of 50 years or the expected life of the
project, whichever is shorter.
(4) GREAT LAKES STATES DEFINED.—For the
purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘Great Lakes
States’’ means the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michi-
gan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin.
(t) NEW MADRID HARBOR, MISSOURI.—The project
for navigation, New Madrid Harbor, Missouri, authorized
pursuant to section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of
1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and modified by section 102(n) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
4807), is further modified to direct the Secretary to as-
sume responsibility for maintenance of the existing Fed-
eral channel referred to in such section 102(n) in addition
to maintaining New Madrid County Harbor.
(u) CAPE GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI.—The project for
flood control, Cape Girardeau, Jackson Metropolitan Area,
Missouri, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4118–4119),
is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the
project, including implementation of nonstructural meas-
ures, at a total cost of $44,200,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $32,300,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $11,900,000.
(v) JONES INLET, NEW YORK.—The project for navi-
gation, Jones Inlet, New York, authorized by section 2 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat.
13), is modified to direct the Secretary to place
uncontaminated 
dredged 
material 
on 
beach 
areas
downdrift from the federally maintained channel for the
purpose of mitigating the interruption of littoral system
natural processes caused by the jetty and continued dredg-
ing of the federally maintained channel.
(w) RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, NEW JERSEY
AND NEW YORK.—The project for flood control, Ramapo
and Mahwah Rivers, New Jersey and New York, author-
ized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4120), is modified to author-
ize the Secretary to carry out the project in accordance
with the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May
1994, at a total cost of $10,800,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $8,120,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $2,680,000.
(x) WILMINGTON HARBOR-NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR
RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA.—The project for navigation,
Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River, North
Carolina, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4095), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the
project substantially in accordance with the General De-
sign Memorandum dated April 1990 and the General De-
sign Memorandum Supplement dated February 1994, at
a total cost of $43,900,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $20,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $23,800,000.
(y) GARRISON DAM, NORTH DAKOTA.—The project
for flood control, Garrison Dam, North Dakota, author-
ized by section 9 of the Flood Control Act of December
22, 1944 (58 Stat. 891), is modified to authorize the Sec-
retary to acquire permanent flowage and saturation ease-
ments over the lands in Williams County, North Dakota,
extending from the riverward margin of the Buford-Tren-
ton Irrigation District main canal to the north bank of
the Missouri River, beginning at the Buford-Trenton Irri-
gation District pumping station located in the northeast
quarter of section 17, township 152 north, range 104
west, and continuing northeasterly downstream to the land
referred to as the East Bottom, and any other lands out-
side of the boundaries of the Buford-Trenton Irrigation
District which have been adversely affected by rising
ground water and surface flooding. Any easement acquired
by the Secretary pursuant to this subsection shall include
the right, power, and privilege of the Government to sub-
merge, overflow, percolate, and saturate the surface and
subsurface of the land. The cost of acquiring such ease-
ments shall not exceed 90 percent, or be less than 75 per-
cent, of the unaffected fee value of the lands. The project
is further modified to authorize the Secretary to provide
a lump sum payment of $60,000 to the Buford-Trenton
Irrigation District for power requirements associated with
operation of the drainage pumps and to relinquish all
right, title, and interest of the United States to the drain-
age pumps located within the boundaries of the Irrigation
District.
(z) WISTER LAKE, OKLAHOMA.—The flood control
project for Wister Lake, LeFlore County, Oklahoma, au-
thorized by section 4 of the Flood Control Act of June
28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218), is modified to increase the level
of the conservation pool by 1 foot and to adjust the sea-
sonal pool operation to accommodate the change in the
conservation pool elevation.
(aa) SAW MILL RUN, PENNSYLVANIA.—The project
for flood control, Saw Mill Run, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), is modified to
authorize the Secretary to carry out the project in accord-
106
(1) CERTIFICATION.—A project shall be eligible
for financial assistance under this section only if the
State director for the project certifies to the Sec-
retary that the project will contribute to the protec-
tion and enhancement of the quality or quantity of
the New York City water supply.
(2) SPECIAL
CONSIDERATION.—In certifying
projects to the Secretary, the State director shall
give special consideration to those projects imple-
menting plans, agreements, and measures which pre-
serve and enhance the economic and social character
of the watershed communities.
(3) PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS.—Projects eligible
for assistance under this section shall include the
following:
(A) Implementation of intergovernmental
agreements for coordinating regulatory and
management responsibilities.
(B) Acceleration of whole farm planning to
implement best management practices to main-
tain or enhance water quality and to promote
agricultural land use.
(C) Acceleration of whole community plan-
ning to promote intergovernmental cooperation
in the regulation and management of activities