H. R. 1495—9 
Sec. 6002. Pilot projects. 
Sec. 6003. Maximum costs. 
Sec. 6004. Credit. 
Sec. 6005. Outreach and assistance. 
Sec. 6006. Critical restoration projects. 
Sec. 6007. Regional engineering model for environmental restoration. 
TITLE VII—LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA 
Sec. 7001. Definitions. 
Sec. 7002. Comprehensive plan. 
Sec. 7003. Louisiana coastal area. 
Sec. 7004. Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force. 
Sec. 7005. Project modifications. 
Sec. 7006. Construction. 
Sec. 7007. Non-Federal cost share. 
Sec. 7008. Project justification. 
Sec. 7009. Independent review. 
Sec. 7010. Expedited reports. 
Sec. 7011. Reporting. 
Sec. 7012. New Orleans and vicinity. 
Sec. 7013. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet. 
Sec. 7014. Hurricane and storm damage reduction. 
Sec. 7015. Larose to Golden Meadow. 
Sec. 7016. Lower Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. 
TITLE VIII—UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATER-WAY SYSTEM 
Sec. 8001. Definitions. 
Sec. 8002. Navigation improvements and restoration. 
Sec. 8003. Authorization of construction of navigation improvements. 
Sec. 8004. Ecosystem restoration authorization. 
Sec. 8005. Comparable progress. 
TITLE IX—NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAM 
Sec. 9001. Short title. 
Sec. 9002. Definitions. 
Sec. 9003. Committee on Levee Safety. 
Sec. 9004. Inventory and inspection of levees. 
Sec. 9005. Limitations on statutory construction. 
Sec. 9006. Authorization of appropriations. 
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY. 
In this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the 
Army. 
TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES 
PROJECTS 
SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 
Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following 
projects for water resources development and conservation and other 
purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substan-
tially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, 
described in the respective reports designated in this section: 
(1) HAINES, ALASKA.—The project for navigation, Haines, 
Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 
2004, at a total cost of $14,040,000, with an estimated Federal 
cost of $11,232,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$2,808,000. 
(2) PORT LIONS, ALASKA.—The project for navigation, Port 
Lions, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 
14, 2006, at a total cost of $9,530,000, with an estimated 
Federal cost of $7,624,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
of $1,906,000.
H. R. 1495—10 
(3) SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, ARIZONA.— 
The project for environmental restoration, Santa Cruz River, 
Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
March 28, 2006, at a total cost of $97,700,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $63,300,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $34,400,000. 
(4) TANQUE VERDE CREEK, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA.—The 
project for environmental restoration, Tanque Verde Creek, 
Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $5,906,000, with an estimated 
Federal cost of $3,836,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
of $2,070,000. 
(5) SALT
RIVER
(RIO
SALADO
OESTE), MARICOPA
COUNTY, 
ARIZONA.—The project for environmental restoration, Salt River 
(Rio Salado Oeste), Maricopa County, Arizona: Report of the 
Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost 
of $166,650,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $106,629,000 
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $60,021,000. 
(6) SALT RIVER (VA SHLY’AY AKIMEL), MARICOPA COUNTY, 
ARIZONA.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for environmental res-
toration, Salt River (Va Shly’ay Akimel), Arizona: Report 
of the Chief of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a 
total cost of $162,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
of $105,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$56,900,000. 
(B) 
COORDINATION
WITH
FEDERAL
RECLAMATION 
PROJECTS.—The Secretary, to the maximum extent prac-
ticable, shall coordinate the design and construction of 
the project described in subparagraph (A) with the Bureau 
of Reclamation and any operating agent for any Federal 
reclamation project in the Salt River Basin to avoid impacts 
to existing Federal reclamation facilities and operations 
in the Salt River Basin. 
(7) MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS.—The project for 
flood damage reduction, May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas: 
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, 
at a total cost of $30,850,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
of 
$15,010,000 
and 
an 
estimated 
non-Federal 
cost 
of 
$15,840,000. 
(8) HAMILTON
CITY, GLENN
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—The 
project for flood damage reduction and environmental restora-
tion, Hamilton City, Glenn County, California: Report of the 
Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost 
of $52,400,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $34,100,000 
and estimated non-Federal cost of $18,300,000. 
(9) SILVER
STRAND
SHORELINE, IMPERIAL
BEACH, CALI-
FORNIA.—The project for storm damage reduction, Silver Strand 
Shoreline, Imperial Beach, California: Report of the Chief of 
Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of 
$13,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,521,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,179,000, and at an esti-
mated total cost of $42,500,000 for periodic beach nourishment 
over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal 
cost of $21,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$21,250,000.
H. R. 1495—11 
(10) MATILIJA
DAM, VENTURA
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—The 
project for environmental restoration, Matilija Dam, Ventura 
County, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
December 20, 2004, at a total cost of $144,500,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $89,700,000 and an estimated non- 
Federal cost of $54,800,000. 
(11) MIDDLE
CREEK, 
LAKE
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.—The 
project for flood damage reduction and environmental restora-
tion, Middle Creek, Lake County, California: Report of the 
Chief of Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost 
of $45,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $29,500,000 
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,700,000. 
(12) NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for environmental res-
toration, Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa, Cali-
fornia: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 
22, 2004, at a total cost of $134,500,000, with an estimated 
Federal cost of $87,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
cost of $47,000,000. 
(B) ADMINISTRATION.—In carrying out the project 
authorized by this paragraph, the Secretary shall— 
(i) construct a recycled water pipeline extending 
from the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District 
Waste Water Treatment Plant and the Napa Sanitation 
District Waste Water Treatment Plant to the project; 
and 
(ii) restore or enhance Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 
3. 
(13) DENVER COUNTY REACH, SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, DENVER, 
COLORADO.—The project for environmental restoration, Denver 
County Reach, South Platte River, Denver, Colorado: Report 
of the Chief of Engineers dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost 
of $20,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,065,000 
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,035,000. 
(14) CENTRAL
AND
SOUTHERN
FLORIDA, INDIAN
RIVER 
LAGOON, FLORIDA.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out the 
project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood con-
trol, and protection of water quality, Central and Southern 
Florida, Indian River Lagoon, Florida, at a total cost of 
$1,365,000,000, 
with 
an 
estimated 
Federal 
cost 
of 
$682,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$682,500,000, in accordance with section 601 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680) and 
the recommendations of the report of the Chief of Engineers 
dated August 6, 2004. 
(B) DEAUTHORIZATIONS.—The following projects are not 
authorized after the date of enactment of this Act: 
(i) The uncompleted portions of the project for 
the C–44 Basin Storage Reservoir of the Comprehen-
sive Everglades Restoration Plan, authorized by section 
601(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2682), at a total cost of $147,800,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $73,900,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $73,900,000. 
(ii) The uncompleted portions of the Martin 
County, Florida, modifications to the project for Central
H. R. 1495—12 
and Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of 
the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a 
total cost of $15,471,000, with an estimated Federal 
cost of $8,073,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
of $7,398,000. 
(iii) The uncompleted portions of the East Coast 
Backpumping, St. Lucie–Martin County, Spillway 
Structure S–311 modifications to the project for Central 
and Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of 
the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a 
total cost of $77,118,000, with an estimated Federal 
cost of $55,124,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
of $21,994,000. 
(15) COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, CEN-
TRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, PICAYUNE STRAND RESTORATION 
PROJECT, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.—The project for ecosystem 
restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Cen-
tral and Southern Florida, Picayune Strand Restoration Project, 
Collier County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
September 15, 2005, at a total cost of $375,330,000 with an 
estimated Federal cost of $187,665,000 and an estimated non- 
Federal cost of $187,665,000. 
(16) COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, CEN-
TRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, SITE 1 IMPOUNDMENT PROJECT, 
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.—The project for ecosystem res-
toration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central 
and Southern Florida, Site 1 Impoundment Project, Palm Beach 
County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $80,840,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $40,420,000 and an estimated non- 
Federal cost of $40,420,000. 
(17) MIAMI HARBOR, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Miami 
Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida: Report of the Chief 
of Engineers dated April 25, 2005, at a total cost of 
$125,270,000, 
with 
an 
estimated 
Federal 
cost 
of 
$75,140,000 
and 
an 
estimated 
non-Federal 
cost 
of 
$50,130,000. 
(B) GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT.—The non-Federal 
share of the cost of the general reevaluation report that 
resulted in the report of the Chief of Engineers referred 
to in subparagraph (A) shall be the same percentage as 
the non-Federal share of cost of construction of the project. 
(C) AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall enter into a new 
partnership with the non-Federal interest to reflect the 
cost sharing required by subparagraph (B). 
(18) EAST ST. LOUIS AND VICINITY, ILLINOIS.—The project 
for environmental restoration and recreation, East St. Louis 
and Vicinity, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $208,260,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $134,910,000 and an estimated non- 
Federal cost of $73,350,000. 
(19) PEORIA
RIVERFRONT
DEVELOPMENT, ILLINOIS.—The 
project 
for 
environmental 
restoration, 
Peoria 
Riverfront 
Development, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
July 28, 2003, at a total cost of $18,220,000, with an estimated