IIA
103D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 4460
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER 3 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994
Received
OCTOBER 4 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works
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-
port of the Chief of Engineers is issued and ap-
proved by the Secretary.
(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
4, 1992, at a total cost of $490,000,000. 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
$16,374,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$11,039,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$5,335,000.
(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 $49,200,000, with an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $49,200,000. 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 for all or part of
any cost sharing requirements for 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 December 1994, at a total
cost of $3,313,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $2,211,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,102,000.
(12) 
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
$10,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$5,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$5,100,000.
(13) 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
$22,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$14,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$7,300,000.
(14) DUCK
CREEK, CINCINNATI, OHIO.—The
project for flood control, Duck Creek, Cincinnati,
Ohio: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July
28, 1994, at a total cost of $14,817,000, with an es-
timated Federal cost of $11,113,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $3,704,000.
(15) COOS BAY, OREGON.—The project for deep
draft navigation, Coos Bay, Oregon: Report of the
Chief of Engineers, dated June 30, 1994, at a total
cost of $13,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $8,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$4,900,000.
(16) 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
$18,857,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$9,913,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$8,944,000.
(17) 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
$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.