I
104TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 3592
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 purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JUNE 6, 1996
Mr. SHUSTER (for himself, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. BOEHLERT, and Mr. BORSKI)
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
A BILL
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 1996’’.
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition.
TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Small flood control projects.
Sec. 103. Small bank stabilization projects.
Sec. 104. Small navigation projects.
Sec. 105. Small shoreline protection projects.
Sec. 106. Small snagging and sediment removal project, Mississippi River, Lit-
tle Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 107. Small projects for improvement of the environment.
TITLE II—GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Cost sharing for dredged material disposal areas.
Sec. 202. Flood control policy.
Sec. 203. Feasibility study cost-sharing.
Sec. 204. Restoration of environmental quality.
Sec. 205. Environmental dredging.
Sec. 206. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 207. Recreation policy and user fees.
Sec. 208. Recovery of costs.
Sec. 209. Cost sharing of environmental projects.
Sec. 210. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests.
Sec. 211. Engineering and environmental innovations of national significance.
Sec. 212. Lease authority.
Sec. 213. Collaborative research and development.
Sec. 214. Dam safety program.
Sec. 215. Maintenance, rehabilitation, and modernization of facilities.
Sec. 216. Long-term sediment management strategies.
Sec. 217. Dredged material disposal facility partnerships.
Sec. 218. Obstruction removal requirement.
Sec. 219. Small project authorizations.
Sec. 220. Uneconomical cost-sharing requirements.
Sec. 221. Planning assistance to States.
Sec. 222. Corps of Engineers’ expenses.
Sec. 223. State and Federal agency review period.
Sec. 224. Limitation on reimbursement of non-Federal costs per project.
Sec. 225. Aquatic plant control.
Sec. 226. Sediments decontamination technology.
Sec. 227. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 228. Support of Army Civil Works Program.
Sec. 229. Benefits to navigation.
Sec. 230. Loss of life prevention.
Sec. 231. Scenic and aesthetic considerations.
Sec. 232. Removal of study prohibitions.
Sec. 233. Sense of Congress; requirement regarding notice.
Sec. 234. Reservoir management technical advisory committee.
Sec. 235. Technical corrections.
TITLE III—PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Sec. 301. Mobile Harbor, Alabama.
Sec. 302. Alamo Dam, Arizona.
Sec. 303. Nogales Wash and Tributaries, Arizona.
Sec. 304. Phoenix, Arizona.
Sec. 305. San Francisco River at Clifton, Arizona.
Sec. 306. Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 307. Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, San Pedro Bay, California.
Sec. 308. Oakland Harbor, California.
Sec. 309. Queensway Bay, California.
Sec. 310. San Luis Rey, California.
Sec. 311. Thames River, Connecticut.
Sec. 312. Potomac River, Washington, District of Columbia.
Sec. 313. Canaveral Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 314. Central and southern Florida, Canal 51.
Sec. 315. Central and southern Florida, Canal 111 (C–111).
Sec. 316. Jacksonville Harbor (Mill Cove), Florida.
Sec. 317. Tybee Island, Georgia.
Sec. 318. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 319. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 320. Chicago Lock and Thomas J. O’Brien Lock, Illinois.
Sec. 321. Kaskaskia River, Illinois.
Sec. 322. Locks and Dam 26, Alton, Illinois and Missouri.
Sec. 323. North Branch of Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. 324. Illinois and Michigan Canal.
Sec. 325. Arkansas City, Kansas.
Sec. 326. Halstead, Kansas.
Sec. 327. Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland
River, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia.
Sec. 328. Comite River, Louisiana.
Sec. 329. Grand Isle and Vicinity, Louisiana.
Sec. 330. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.
Sec. 331. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.
Sec. 332. Mississippi River Outlets, Venice, Louisiana.
Sec. 333. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 334. Tolchester Channel, Maryland.
Sec. 335. Saginaw River, Michigan.
Sec. 336. Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan.
Sec. 337. Stillwater, Minnesota.
Sec. 338. New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.
Sec. 339. Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
Sec. 340. St. John’s Bayou—New Madrid Floodway, Missouri.
Sec. 341. Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Park, New Jersey.
Sec. 342. Passaic River, New Jersey.
Sec. 343. Molly Ann’s Brook, New Jersey.
Sec. 344. Ramapo and Mahwah Rivers, New Jersey and New York.
Sec. 345. Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 346. Jones Inlet, New York.
Sec. 347. Kill Van Kull, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 348. Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River, North Carolina.
Sec. 349. Garrison Dam, North Dakota.
Sec. 350. Wister Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 351. Bonneville Lock and Dam, Columbia River, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 352. Columbia River dredging, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 353. Lackawanna River at Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 354. Mussers Dam, Middle Creek, Snyder County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 355. Saw Mill Run, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 356. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 357. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 358. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 359. San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 360. Narragansett, Rhode Island.
Sec. 361. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Sec. 362. Dallas Floodway Extension, Dallas, Texas.
Sec. 363. Upper Jordan River, Utah.
Sec. 364. Haysi Lake, Virginia.
Sec. 365. Rudee Inlet, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 366. Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 367. East Waterway, Washington.
Sec. 368. Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.
Sec. 369. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 370. Kickapoo River, Wisconsin.
Sec. 371. Teton County, Wyoming.
TITLE IV—STUDIES
Sec. 401. Corps capability study, Alaska.
Sec. 402. McDowell Mountain, Arizona.
Sec. 403. Nogales Wash and Tributaries, Arizona.
Sec. 404. Garden Grove, California.
Sec. 405. Mugu Lagoon, California.
Sec. 406. Santa Ynez, California.
Sec. 407. Yolo Bypass, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
Sec. 408. Springfield, Illinois.
Sec. 409. Beauty Creek watershed, Valparaiso City, Porter County, Indiana.
Sec. 410. Grand Calumet River, Hammond, Indiana.
Sec. 411. Indiana Harbor Canal, East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana.
Sec. 412. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 413. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
Sec. 414. Tippecanoe River watershed, Indiana.
Sec. 415. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Hackberry, Louisiana.
Sec. 416. Huron River, Michigan.
Sec. 417. River Des Peres, Saint Louis County, Missouri.
Sec. 418. Saco River, New Hampshire.
Sec. 419. Buffalo River Greenway, New York.
Sec. 420. Port of New York-New Jersey sediment study.
Sec. 421. Port of New York-New Jersey navigation study.
Sec. 422. Chagrin River, Ohio.
Sec. 423. Charleston, South Carolina, estuary.
Sec. 424. Mustang Island, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Sec. 425. Prince William County, Virginia.
Sec. 426. Pacific region.
TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 502. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 503. Continuation of authorization of certain projects.
Sec. 504. Land conveyances.
Sec. 505. Namings.
Sec. 506. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 507. Lakes program.
Sec. 508. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 509. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 510. Great Lakes dredged material testing and evaluation manual.
Sec. 511. Great Lakes sediment reduction.
Sec. 512. Great Lakes confined disposal facilities.
Sec. 513. Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection program.
Sec. 514. Extension of jurisdiction of Mississippi River Commission.
Sec. 515. Alternative to annual passes.
Sec. 516. Recreation partnership initiative.
Sec. 517. Environmental infrastructure.
Sec. 518. Corps capability to conserve fish and wildlife.
Sec. 519. Periodic beach nourishment.
Sec. 520. Control of aquatic plants.
Sec. 521. New England division headquarters facility.
Sec. 522. Lake Superior Center.
Sec. 523. Earthquake Preparedness Center of Expertise Extension.
Sec. 524. Quarantine facility.
Sec. 525. Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas.
Sec. 526. Calaveras County, California.
Sec. 527. Prado Dam safety improvements, California.
Sec. 528. Tampa, Florida.
Sec. 529. Watershed management plan for deep river basin, Indiana.
Sec. 530. Southern and eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 531. Louisiana coastal wetlands restoration projects.
Sec. 532. Southeast Louisiana.
Sec. 533. Restoration projects for Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and
Kentucky.
Sec. 534. Beneficial use of dredged material, Poplar Island, Maryland.
Sec. 535. Erosion control measures, Smith Island, Maryland.
Sec. 536. Beneficial use of dredged material, Worton Point, Kent County,
Maryland.
Sec. 537. Duluth, Minnesota, alternative technology project.
Sec. 538. Redwood River basin, Minnesota.
Sec. 539. Natchez Bluffs, Mississippi.
Sec. 540. Sardis Lake, Mississippi.
Sec. 541. Cocheco River, New Hampshire.
Sec. 542. Durham, New Hampshire.
Sec. 543. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
Sec. 544. Authorization of dredge material containment facility for port of New
York/New Jersey.
Sec. 545. Hudson River habitat restoration, New York.
Sec. 546. New York Bight and Harbor Study.
Sec. 547. New York State Canal System.
Sec. 548. New York City Watershed.
Sec. 549. Northeastern Ohio.
Sec. 550. Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 551. Broad top region of Pennsylvania.
Sec. 552. Hopper Dredge McFarland.
Sec. 553. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 554. Seven Points Visitors Center, Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 555. Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Sec. 556. Blackstone River Valley, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
Sec. 557. East Ridge, Tennessee.
Sec. 558. Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
Sec. 559. Buffalo Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 560. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 561. Pierce County, Washington.
Sec. 562. Huntington, West Virginia.
Sec. 563. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Sec. 564. Evaluation of beach material.
Sec. 565. Ohio River Greenway.
Sec. 566. Sense of Congress regarding St. Lawrence Seaway tolls.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION.
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, described in the respective
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 $5,840,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $4,670,000 and an es-
timated non-Federal cost of $1,170,000.
(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
$16,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
(6) 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
$15,881,000. Operation, maintenance, repair, re-
placement, and rehabilitation shall be a non-Federal
responsibility and the non-Federal interest must as-
sume ownership of the bridge.
(7) 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 $204,000,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $110,000,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $94,000,000. 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 $11,470,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $7,460,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,010,000.
(8) KENTUCKY
LOCK
AND
DAM, TENNESSEE
RIVER, KENTUCKY.—The project for navigation,
Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, Ken-
tucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June
1, 1992, at a total cost of $393,200,000. The costs
of construction of the project are to be paid 1⁄2 from
amounts appropriated from the general fund of the
Treasury and 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(9) POND CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, KEN-
TUCKY.—The project for flood control, Pond Creek,
Jefferson County, Kentucky: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated June 28, 1994, at a total cost of
$16,080,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,993,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$5,087,000.
(10) WOLF
CREEK
DAM
AND
LAKE
CUM-
BERLAND, KENTUCKY.—The project for hydropower,
Wolf Creek Dam and Lake Cumberland, Kentucky:
Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 28,
1994, at a total cost of $53,763,000, with an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $53,763,000. Funds de-
rived by the Tennessee Valley Authority from its
power program and funds derived from any private
or public entity designated by the Southeastern
Power Administration may be used to pay all or part
of the costs of the project.
(11) PORT
FOURCHON, LAFOURCHE
PARISH,
LOUISIANA.—A project for navigation, Belle Pass
and Bayou Lafourche, Louisiana: Report of the
Chief of Engineers, dated April 7, 1995, at a total
cost of $4,440,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $2,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$2,140,000.
(12) WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER,
NEW ORLEANS (EAST OF HARVEY CANAL), LOUISI-
ANA.—The project for hurricane damage reduction,
West Bank of the Mississippi River in the vicinity of
New Orleans (East of Harvey Canal), Louisiana:
Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 1,
1995, at a total cost of $126,000,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $82,200,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $43,800,000.
(13) 
WOOD
RIVER, 
GRAND
ISLAND, 
NE-
BRASKA.—The project for flood control, Wood River,
Grand Island, Nebraska: Report of the Chief of En-
gineers, dated May 3, 1994, at a total cost of
$11,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$6,040,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$5,760,000.
(14) LONG BEACH ISLAND, NEW YORK.—The
project for storm damage reduction, Long Beach Is-
land, New York: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated April 5, 1996, at a total cost of $72,090,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $46,858,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,232,000.
(15) WILMINGTON HARBOR, CAPE FEAR RIVER,
NORTH CAROLINA.—The project for navigation, Wil-
mington Harbor, Cape Fear and Northeast Cape
Fear Rivers, North Carolina: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated June 24, 1994, at a total cost of
$23,953,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$15,032,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$8,921,000.
(16) DUCK
CREEK, CINCINNATI, OHIO.—The
project for flood control, Duck Creek, Cincinnati,
Ohio: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June
28, 1994, at a total cost of $15,947,000, with an es-
timated Federal cost of $11,960,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $3,987,000.
(17) WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CON-
TROL, MCKENZIE SUBBASIN, OREGON.—The project
for environmental restoration, Willamette River
Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon:
Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated February 1,
1996, at a total cost of $38,000,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $38,000,000.
(18) RIO
GRANDE
DE
ARECIBO, 
PUERTO
RICO.—The project for flood control, Rio Grande de
Arecibo, Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of Engi-
neers, dated April 5, 1994, at a total cost of
$19,951,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,557,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$9,394,000.
(19) BIG
SIOUX
RIVER
AND
SKUNK
CREEK,
SIOUX
FALLS, SOUTH
DAKOTA.—The project for
flood control, Big Sioux River and Skunk Creek,
Sioux Falls, South Dakota: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated June 30, 1994, at a total cost of
$34,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$25,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$8,700,000.
(20) 
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
$18,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$13,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$4,800,000.
(21) HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHAN-
NELS, TEXAS.—The project for navigation and envi-
ronmental restoration, Houston-Galveston Naviga-
tion Channels, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engi-
neers, dated May 9, 1996, at a total initial construc-
tion cost of $292,797,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $210,891,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $81,906,000. The project shall in-
clude deferred construction of additional environ-
mental restoration features over the life of the
project, at a total average annual cost of $786,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $590,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $196,000. The con-
struction of berthing areas and the removal of pipe-
lines and other obstructions that are necessary for
the project shall be accomplished at non-Federal ex-
pense. Non-Federal interests shall receive credit to-
ward cash contributions required during construc-
tion and subsequent to construction for design and
construction management work that is performed by
non-Federal interests and that the Secretary deter-
mines is necessary to implement the project.
(22) 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 $229,581,000. 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 with respect to the project, the
Secretary shall give priority consideration to those
individuals who would be directly affected by any
physical displacement due to project design and shall
consider the financial circumstances of such individ-
uals. The Secretary shall proceed with real estate ac-
quisition in connection with the project expedi-
tiously.
SEC. 102. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.
(a) PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS.—The Secretary shall
conduct a study for each of the following projects and,
if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible,
shall carry out the project under section 205 of the Flood
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s):
(1) WARES CREEK, MANATEE COUNTY, FLOR-
IDA.—Project for flood control, Wares Creek, Mana-
tee County, Florida; except that the maximum
amount of Federal funds that may be allotted for
the project shall be $10,385,000.
(2) BIRDS, LAWRENCE
COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—
Project for flood control, Birds, Lawrence County,
Illinois.
(3) BRIDGEPORT, LAWRENCE
COUNTY, ILLI-
NOIS.—Project for flood control, Bridgeport, Law-
rence County, Illinois.
(4) EMBARRAS
RIVER, VILLA
GROVE, ILLI-
NOIS.—Project for flood control, Embarras River,
Villa Grove, Illinois.
(5) FRANKFORT, WILL
COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—
Project for flood control, Frankfort, Will County, Il-
linois.
(6) SUMNER, LAWRENCE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—
Project for flood control, Sumner, Lawrence County,
Illinois.
(7) VERMILLION RIVER, DEMANADE PARK, LA-
FAYETTE, LOUISIANA.—Project for nonstructural
flood control, Vermillion River, Demanade Park, La-
fayette, Louisiana. In carrying out the study and the
project (if any) under this paragraph, the Secretary
shall use relevant information from the Lafayette
Parish feasibility study and expedite completion of
the study under this paragraph.
(8) VERMILLION RIVER, QUAIL HOLLOW SUB-
DIVISION, LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA.—Project for non-
structural flood control, Vermillion River, Quail Hol-
low Subdivision, Lafayette, Louisiana. In carrying
out the study and the project (if any) under this
paragraph, the Secretary shall use relevant informa-
tion from the Lafayette Parish feasibility study and
expedite completion of the study under this para-
graph.
(9) KAWKAWLIN RIVER, BAY COUNTY, MICHI-
GAN.—Project for flood control, Kawkawlin River,
Bay County, Michigan.
(10) WHITNEY DRAIN, ARENAC COUNTY, MICHI-
GAN.—Project for flood control, Whitney Drain,
Arenac County, Michigan.
(11) FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MISSOURI.—
Project for flood control, Festus and Crystal City,
Missouri. In carrying out the study and the project
(if any) under this paragraph, the Secretary shall
use relevant information from the existing reconnais-
sance study and shall expedite completion of the
study under this paragraph.
(12) KIMMSWICK, MISSOURI.—Project for flood
control, Kimmswick, Missouri. In carrying out the
study and the project (if any) under this paragraph,
the Secretary shall use relevant information from
the existing reconnaissance study and shall expedite
completion of the study under this paragraph.
(13) BUFFALO
CREEK, ERIE
COUNTY, NEW
YORK.—Project for flood control, Buffalo Creek,
Erie County, New York.
(14) CAZENOVIA
CREEK, ERIE
COUNTY, NEW
YORK.—Project for flood control, Cazenovia Creek,
Erie County, New York.
(15) CHEEKTOWAGA, 
ERIE
COUNTY, 
NEW
YORK.—Project for flood control, Cheektowaga, Erie
County, New York.
(16) FULMER
CREEK, VILLAGE
OF
MOHAWK,
NEW
YORK.—Project for flood control, Fulmer
Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York.
(17) MOYER CREEK, VILLAGE OF FRANKFORT,
NEW YORK.—Project for flood control, Moyer Creek,
Village of Frankfort, New York.
(18) SAUQUOIT
CREEK, WHITESBORO, NEW
YORK.—Project for flood control, Sauquoit Creek,
Whitesboro, New York.
(19) STEELE CREEK, VILLAGE OF ILION, NEW
YORK.—Project for flood control, Steele Creek, Vil-
lage of Ilion, New York.
(20) WILLAMETTE
RIVER, OREGON.—Project
for nonstructural flood control, Willamette River,
Oregon, including floodplain and ecosystem restora-
tion.
(21) WILLS
CREEK, HYNDMAN, PENNSYLVA-
NIA.—Project for flood control, Wills Creek, Bor-
ough of Hyndman, Pennsylvania. The Secretary
shall reevaluate the project taking into consideration
recent flooding and shall use relevant information
from previous studies to expedite the project. In
evaluating and implementing the project, the Sec-
retary shall allow non-Federal interests to partici-
pate in financing of the project in accordance with
section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 to the extent that the Secretary’s eval-
uation indicates that applying such section is nec-
essary to implement the project.
(22) 
NEABSCO
CREEK
WATERSHED, 
VIR-
GINIA.—Project for flood control, Neabsco Creek
Watershed, Prince William County, Virginia. In
evaluating and implementing the project, the Sec-
retary shall allow the non-Federal interest to partici-
pate in financing of the project in accordance with
section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986, to the extent that the Secretary’s eval-
uation indicates that applying such section is nec-
essary to implement the project.
(23) GREENBRIER
RIVER
BASIN, WEST
VIR-
GINIA.—Project for flood control, consisting of an
early flood warning system, Greenbrier River Basin,
West Virginia.
(b) COST ALLOCATIONS.—
(1) LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA.—The maxi-
mum amount of Federal funds that may be allotted
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948
(33 U.S.C. 701s) for the project for flood control,
Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California, shall be
$7,500,000.
(2) LOST CREEK, COLUMBUS, NEBRASKA.—The
maximum amount of Federal funds that may be al-
lotted under such section 205 for the project for
flood control, Lost Creek, Columbus, Nebraska, shall
be $5,500,000.
(3) 
REVISION
OF
PROJECT
COOPERATION
AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall revise the project
cooperation agreement for the projects referred to in
paragraphs (1) and (2) in order to take into account
the change in the Federal participation in such
projects pursuant to such paragraphs.
(4) COST SHARING.—Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to affect any cost-sharing require-
ment applicable to the project referred to in para-
graph (1) under the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986.
section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33
U.S.C. 577):
(1) AKUTAN, ALASKA.—Project for navigation,
Akutan, Alaska, consisting of a bulkhead and a wave
barrier, including application of innovative tech-
nology involving use of a permeable breakwater.
(2) GRAND
MARAIS
HARBOR
BREAKWATER,
MICHIGAN.—Project for navigation, Grand Marais
Harbor breakwater, Michigan.
(3) DULUTH, MINNESOTA.—Project for naviga-
tion, Duluth, Minnesota.
(4) TACONITE, MINNESOTA.—Project for navi-
gation, Taconite, Minnesota.
(5) TWO
HARBORS, MINNESOTA.—Project for
navigation, Two Harbors, Minnesota.
(6) 
CARUTHERSVILLE
HARBOR, 
PEMISCOT
COUNTY, 
MISSOURI.—Project 
for 
navigation,
Caruthersville Harbor, Pemiscot County, Missouri,
including enlargement of the existing harbor and
bank stabilization measures.
(7) NEW
MADRID
COUNTY
HARBOR, 
MIS-
SOURI.—Project for navigation, New Madrid County
Harbor, Missouri, including enlargement of the ex-
isting harbor and bank stabilization measures.
(8) BROOKLYN, NEW YORK.—Project for navi-
gation, Brooklyn, New York, including restoration of
the pier and related navigation support structures,
at the Sixty-Ninth Street Pier.
(9) BUFFALO INNER HARBOR, BUFFALO, NEW
YORK.—Project for navigation, Buffalo Inner Har-
bor, Buffalo, New York.
(10) UNION SHIP CANAL, BUFFALO AND LACKA-
WANNA, NEW YORK.—Project for navigation, Union
Ship Canal, Buffalo and Lackawanna, New York.
SEC. 105. SMALL SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS.
(a) PROJECT
AUTHORIZATIONS.—The Secretary
shall conduct a study for each of the following projects,
and if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible,
shall carry out the project under section 3 of the Shoreline
Protection Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g):
(1) FAULKNER’S
ISLAND, 
CONNECTICUT.—
Project for shoreline protection, Faulkner’s Island,
Connecticut; except that the maximum amount of
Federal funds that may be allotted for the project
shall be $4,500,000.
(2) FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA.—Project for 1 mile
of additional shoreline protection, Fort Pierce, Flor-
ida.
(3) SYLVAN
BEACH
BREAKWATER, TOWN
OF
VERONA, ONEIDA COUNTY, NEW YORK.—Project for
shoreline protection, Sylvan Beach Breakwater, town
of Verona, Oneida County, New York.
(b) COST SHARING AGREEMENT.—In carrying out
the project authorized by subsection (a)(1), the Secretary
shall enter into an agreement with the property owner to
determine allocation of the project costs.
SEC. 106. SMALL SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL
PROJECT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, LITTLE FALLS,
MINNESOTA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for
snagging and sediment removal, Mississippi River, Little
Falls, Minnesota, and, if the Secretary determines that the
project is feasible, shall carry out the project under section
3 of the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945 (33
U.S.C. 603a; 59 Stat. 23).
SEC. 107. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE
ENVIRONMENT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that
the project is appropriate, shall carry out the project
under section 1135(a) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309(a)):
(1) UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER, EL DORADO COUN-
TY, CALIFORNIA.—Project for environmental restora-
tion, Upper Truckee River, El Dorado County, Cali-
fornia, including measures for restoration of de-
graded wetlands and wildlife enhancement.
(2) UPPER JORDAN RIVER, SALT LAKE COUNTY,
UTAH.—Project for channel restoration and environ-
mental improvement, Upper Jordan River, Salt Lake
County, Utah.
TITLE II—GENERALLY
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. COST SHARING FOR DREDGED MATERIAL DIS-
POSAL AREAS.
(a) CONSTRUCTION.—Section 101(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a);
100 Stat. 4082–4083) is amended—
(1) by striking the last sentence of paragraph
(2) and inserting the following: ‘‘The value of lands,
easements, rights-of-way, and relocations provided
under paragraph (3) and the costs of relocations
borne by the non-Federal interests under paragraph
(4) shall be credited toward the payment required
under this paragraph.’’;
(2) in paragraph (3)—
(A) by inserting ‘‘and’’ after ‘‘rights-of-
way,’’;
(B) by striking ‘‘, and dredged material
disposal areas’’; and
(C) by inserting ‘‘, including any lands,
easements, rights-of-way, and relocations (other
than utility relocations accomplished under
paragraph (4)) that are necessary for dredged
material disposal facilities’’ before the period at
the end of such paragraph; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(5) DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES
FOR PROJECT CONSTRUCTION.—For purposes of this
subsection, the term ‘general navigation features’ in-
cludes constructed land-based and aquatic dredged
material disposal facilities that are necessary for the
disposal of dredged material and for project con-
struction.’’.
(b) 
OPERATION
AND
MAINTENANCE.—Section
101(b) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2211(b); 100 Stat. 4083)
is amended—
(1) by inserting ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—’’ before
‘‘The Federal’’;
(2) by indenting and moving paragraph (1), as
designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection, 2
ems to the right;
(3) by striking ‘‘pursuant to this Act’’ and in-
serting ‘‘by the Secretary pursuant to this Act or
any other law approved after the date of the enact-
ment of this Act’’; and
(4) by adding at the end thereof the following:
‘‘(2) DREDGED
MATERIAL
DISPOSAL
FACILI-
TIES.—The Federal share of the cost of constructing
land-based and aquatic dredged material disposal fa-
cilities that are necessary for the disposal of dredged
material required for the operation and maintenance
of a project and for which a contract for construc-
tion has not been awarded on or before the date of
the enactment of this paragraph shall be determined
in accordance with subsection (a). The Federal share
of operating and maintaining such facilities shall be
determined in accordance with paragraph (1).’’.
(c) AGREEMENT.—Section 101(e)(1) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 2211(e)(1); 100 Stat. 4083) is amended by strik-
ing ‘‘and to provide dredged material disposal areas and
perform’’ and inserting ‘‘including those necessary for
dredged material disposal facilities, and to perform’’.
(d) CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
AND EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT.—Section 101 of such
Act (33 U.S.C. 2211; 100 Stat. 4082–4084) is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(f) CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
AND EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT.—The Secretary shall
ensure, to the extent practicable, that funding necessary
for operation and maintenance dredging of commercial
navigation harbors is provided before Federal funds are
obligated for payment of the Federal share of costs associ-
ated with construction of dredged material disposal facili-
ties in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) and that
funds expended for such construction are equitably appor-
tioned in accordance with regional needs.’’.
(e) ELIGIBLE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE DE-
FINED.—Section 214(2)(A) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2241;
100 Stat. 4108) is amended—
(1) by inserting ‘‘Federal’’ after ‘‘means all’’;
(2) by inserting ‘‘(i)’’ after ‘‘including’’; and
(3) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ‘‘(ii) the construction of dredged material
disposal facilities that are necessary for the oper-
ation and maintenance of any harbor or inland har-
bor; (iii) dredging and disposing of contaminated
sediments which are in or which affect the mainte-
nance of Federal navigation channels; (iv) mitigating
for impacts resulting from Federal navigation oper-
ation and maintenance activities; and (v) operating
and maintaining dredged material disposal facili-
ties’’.
(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section
210 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2238; 100 Stat. 4106) is
amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘(a) TRUST FUND.—’’;
(2) by striking ‘‘1954’’ and inserting ‘‘1986’’;
and
(3) by striking subsection (b).
SEC. 202. FLOOD CONTROL POLICY.
(a) FLOOD CONTROL COST SHARING.—
(1) 
INCREASED
NON-FEDERAL
CONTRIBU-
TIONS.—Subsections (a) and (b) of section 103 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2213(a) and (b)) are each amended by strik-
ing ‘‘25 percent’’ each place it appears and inserting
‘‘35 percent’’.
(2) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made
by paragraph (1) shall apply to projects authorized
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) ABILITY TO PAY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 103(m) of such Act
(33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(m) ABILITY TO PAY.—
‘‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—Any cost-sharing agree-
ment under this section for flood control or agricul-
tural water supply shall be subject to the ability of
a non-Federal interest to pay.
‘‘(2) CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES.—The ability
of any non-Federal interest to pay shall be deter-
mined by the Secretary in accordance with criteria
and procedures in effect on the day before the date
of the enactment of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1996; except that such criteria and pro-
cedures shall be revised within 6 months after the
date of such enactment to reflect the requirements
of paragraph (3).
‘‘(3) REVISION OF PROCEDURES.—In revising
procedures pursuant to paragraph (1), the Sec-
retary—
‘‘(A) shall consider—
‘‘(i) per capita income data for the
county or counties in which the project is
to be located; and
‘‘(ii) the per capita non-Federal cost
of construction of the project for the coun-
ty or counties in which the project is to be
located;
‘‘(B) shall not consider criteria (other than
criteria described in subparagraph (A)) in effect
on the day before the date of the enactment of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996;
and
‘‘(C) may consider additional criteria relat-
ing to the non-Federal interest’s financial abil-
ity to carry out its cost-sharing responsibilities,
to the extent that the application of such cri-
teria does not eliminate areas from eligibility
for a reduction in the non-Federal share as de-
termined under subparagraph (A).
‘‘(4) NON-FEDERAL
SHARE.—Notwithstanding
section 103(a), the Secretary shall reduce or elimi-
nate the requirement that a non-Federal interest
make a cash contribution for any project that is de-
termined to be eligible for a reduction in the non-
Federal share under procedures in effect under
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).’’.
(2) APPLICABILITY.—
(A) GENERALLY.—Subject to subpara-
graph (C), the amendment made by paragraph
(1) shall apply to any project, or separable ele-
ment thereof, with respect to which the Sec-
retary and the non-Federal interest have not
entered into a project cooperation agreement on
or before the date of the enactment of this Act.
(B) 
AMENDMENT
OF
COOPERATION
AGREEMENT.—If requested by the non-Federal
interest, the Secretary shall amend a project co-
operation agreement executed on or before the
date of the enactment of this Act to reflect the
application of the amendment made by para-
graph (1) for any project for which a contract
for construction has not been awarded on or be-
fore such date of enactment.
(C) NON-FEDERAL OPTION.—If requested
by the non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall
apply the criteria and procedures established
pursuant to section 103(m) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 as in effect
on the day before the date of the enactment of
this Act for projects that are authorized before
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT PLANS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 402 of such Act (33
U.S.C. 701b–12; 100 Stat. 4133) is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘SEC. 402. FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.
‘‘(a) COMPLIANCE WITH FLOOD PLAIN MANAGE-
MENT AND INSURANCE PROGRAMS.—Before construction
of any project for local flood protection or any project for
hurricane or storm damage reduction and involving Fed-
eral assistance from the Secretary, the non-Federal inter-
est shall agree to participate in and comply with applicable
Federal flood plain management and flood insurance pro-
grams.
‘‘(b) FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT PLANS.—Within 1
year after the date of signing a project cooperation agree-
ment for construction of a project to which subsection (a)
applies, the non-Federal interest shall prepare a flood
plain management plan designed to reduce the impacts of
future flood events in the project area. Such plan shall
be implemented by the non-Federal interest not later than
1 year after completion of construction of the project.
‘‘(c) GUIDELINES.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Within 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this subsection, the Sec-
retary shall develop guidelines for preparation of
flood plain management plans by non-Federal inter-
ests under subsection (b). Such guidelines shall ad-
dress potential measures, practices and policies to
reduce loss of life, injuries, damages to property and
facilities, public expenditures, and other adverse im-
pacts associated with flooding and to preserve and
enhance natural flood plain values.
‘‘(2) LIMITATION
ON
STATUTORY
CONSTRUC-
TION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed
to confer any regulatory authority upon the Sec-
retary.
‘‘(d) TECHNICAL SUPPORT.—The Secretary is au-
thorized to provide technical support to a non-Federal in-
terest for a project to which subsection (a) applies for the
development and implementation of plans prepared under
subsection (b).’’.
(2) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by
paragraph (1) shall apply to any project or separable
element thereof with respect to which the Secretary
and the non-Federal interest have not entered into
a project cooperation agreement on or before the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) NON-STRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL POLICY.—
(1) REVIEW.—The Secretary shall conduct a re-
view of policies, procedures, and techniques relating
to the evaluation and development of flood control
measures with a view toward identifying impedi-
ments that may exist to justifying non-structural
flood control measures as alternatives to structural
measures.
(2) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall transmit to Congress a report on the findings
on the review conducted under this subsection, to-
gether with any recommendations for modifying ex-
isting law to remove any impediments identified
under such review.
(e) EMERGENCY RESPONSE.—Section 5(a)(1) of the
Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of cer-
tain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control,
and for other purposes’’, approved August 18, 1941 (33
U.S.C. 701n(a)(1)), is amended by inserting before the
first semicolon the following: ‘‘, or in implementation of
nonstructural alternatives to the repair or restoration of
such flood control work if requested by the non-Federal
sponsor’’.
SEC. 203. FEASIBILITY STUDY COST-SHARING.
(a) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—Section 105(a)(1) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2215(a)(1)) is amended—
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘during
the period of such study’’;
(2) by inserting after the first sentence the fol-
lowing: ‘‘During the period of the study, the non-
Federal share of the cost of the study shall be not
more than 50 percent of the estimate of the cost
of the study as contained in the feasibility cost-shar-
ing agreement. The cost estimate may be amended
only by mutual agreement of the Secretary and the
non-Federal interests. The non-Federal share of any
costs in excess of the cost estimate shall, except as
otherwise mutually agreed by the Secretary and the
non-Federal interests, be payable after the project
has been authorized for construction and on the date
on which the Secretary and non-Federal interests
enter into an agreement pursuant to section 101(e)
or 103(j). In the event the project which is the sub-
ject of the study is not authorized within the earlier
of 5 years of the date of the final report of the Chief
of Engineers concerning such study or 2 years of
the date of termination of the study, the non-Fed-
eral share of any such excess costs shall be paid to
the United States on the last day of such period.’’;
and
(3) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘such
non-Federal contribution’’ and inserting ‘‘the non-
Federal share required under this paragraph’’.
(b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub-
section (a) shall apply notwithstanding any feasibility cost-
sharing agreement entered into by the Secretary and non-
Federal interests. Upon request of the non-Federal inter-
est, the Secretary shall amend any feasibility cost-sharing
agreements in effect on the date of enactment of this Act
so as to conform the agreements with the amendments.
(c) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—
Nothing in this section or any amendment made by this
section shall require the Secretary to reimburse the non-
Federal interests for funds previously contributed for a
study.
SEC. 204. RESTORATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
(a) REVIEW OF PROJECTS.—Section 1135(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2309a(a)) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘the operation of’’; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ‘‘and to determine if the operation of such
projects has contributed to the degradation of the
quality of the environment’’.
(b) PROGRAM OF PROJECTS.—Section 1135(b) of
such Act is amended by striking the last 2 sentences of
subsection (b).
(c) RESTORATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.—
Section 1135 of such Act is further amended—
(1) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and
(e) as subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the follow-
ing new subsections:
‘‘(c) RESTORATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.—
If the Secretary determines that construction of a water
resource project by the Secretary or operation of a water
resources project constructed by the Secretary has contrib-
uted to the degradation of the quality of the environment,
the Secretary may undertake measures for restoration of
environmental quality and measures for enhancement of
environmental quality that are associated with the restora-
tion, either through modifications at the project site or
at other locations that have been affected by the construc-
tion or operation of the project, if such measures do not
conflict with the authorized project purposes.
‘‘(d) NON-FEDERAL SHARE; LIMITATION ON MAXI-
MUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The non-Federal share
of the cost of any modifications or measures carried out
or undertaken pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) of this
section shall be 25 percent. Not more than 80 percent of
the non-Federal share may be in kind, including a facility,
supply, or service that is necessary to carry out the modi-
fication. No more than $5,000,000 in Federal funds may
be expended on any single modification or measure carried
out or undertaken pursuant to this section.’’; and
(3) in subsection (f), as so redesignated, by
striking ‘‘program conducted under subsection (b)’’
and inserting ‘‘programs conducted under sub-
sections (b) and (c)’’.
(d) DEFINITION.—Section 1135 of such Act is fur-
ther amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(g) DEFINITION.—In this section the term ‘water
resources project constructed by the Secretary’ includes
a water resources project constructed or funded jointly by
the Secretary and the head of any other Federal agency
(including the Natural Resources Conservation Service).’’.
SEC. 205. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.
Section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1990 (104 Stat. 4639–4640) is amended—
(1) in each of subsections (a), (b), and (c) by
inserting ‘‘and remediate’’ after ‘‘remove’’ each place
it appears;
(2) in subsection (b)(1) by inserting ‘‘and reme-
diation’’ after ‘‘removal’’ each place it appears;
(3) 
in 
subsection 
(b)(2) 
by 
striking
‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$30,000,000’’; and
(4) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the
following:
‘‘(f) In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall
give priority to work in the following areas:
‘‘(1) Brooklyn Waterfront, New York.
‘‘(2) Buffalo Harbor and River, New York.
‘‘(3) Ashtabula River, Ohio.
‘‘(4) Mahoning River, Ohio.
‘‘(5) Lower Fox River, Wisconsin.’’.
SEC. 206. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—The Secretary is author-
ized to carry out aquatic ecosystem restoration and protec-
tion projects when the Secretary determines that such
projects will improve the quality of the environment and
are in the public interest and that the environmental and
economic benefits, both monetary and nonmonetary, of the
project to be undertaken pursuant to this section justify
the cost.
(b) COST SHARING.—Non-Federal interests shall
provide 50 percent of the cost of construction of any
project carried out under this section, including provision
of all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and necessary relo-
cations.
(c) AGREEMENTS.—Construction of a project under
this section shall be initiated only after a non-Federal in-
terest has entered into a binding agreement with the Sec-
retary to pay the non-Federal share of the costs of con-
struction required by this section and to pay 100 percent
of any operation, maintenance, and replacement and reha-
bilitation costs with respect to the project in accordance
with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
(d) COST LIMITATION.—Not more than $5,000,000
in Federal funds may be allotted under this section for
a project at any single locality.
(e) FUNDING.—There is authorized to be appro-
priated not to exceed $25,000,000 annually to carry out
this section.
SEC. 207. RECREATION POLICY AND USER FEES.
(a) RECREATION POLICIES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide
increased emphasis on and opportunities for recre-
ation at water resources projects operated, main-
tained, or constructed by the Corps of Engineers.
(2) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall transmit to Congress a report on specific meas-
ures taken to implement this subsection.
(b) RECREATION USER FEES.—Section 210(b) of the
Flood Control Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 460d–3(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(5) USE OF FEES COLLECTED AT FACILITY.—
Subject to advance appropriations, the Secretary of
the Army shall ensure that at least an amount equal
to the total amount of fees collected at any project
taining all necessary permits for such construction
if the non-Federal interest contracts with the Sec-
retary to furnish the United States funds for the
studies and design activities during the period that
the studies and design activities will be conducted.
(c) COMPLETION OF STUDIES AND DESIGN ACTIVI-
TIES.—In the case of any study or design documents for
a flood control project that were initiated before the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary is authorized
to complete and transmit to the appropriate non-Federal
interests the study or design documents or, upon the re-
quest of such non-Federal interests, to terminate the
study or design activities and transmit the partially com-
pleted study or design documents to such non-Federal in-
terests for completion. Studies and design documents sub-
ject to this subsection shall be completed without regard
to the requirements of subsection (b).
(d) AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT IMPROVEMENT.—
(1) IN
GENERAL.—Any non-Federal interest
which has received from the Secretary pursuant to
subsection (b) or (c) a favorable recommendation to
carry out a flood control project or separable ele-
ment thereof based on the results of completed stud-
ies and design documents for the project or element,
may carry out the project or element if a final envi-