†
HR 1495 EAS
Sec. 6011. Muscatine Harbor, Iowa.
Sec. 6012. Big South Fork National River and recreational area, Kentucky and
Tennessee.
Sec. 6013. Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 6014. Hazard, Kentucky.
Sec. 6015. West Kentucky Tributaries, Kentucky.
Sec. 6016. Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries, Louisiana.
Sec. 6017. Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, Louisiana.
Sec. 6018. Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana.
Sec. 6019. Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island, Louisiana.
Sec. 6020. Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur, Lou-
isiana.
Sec. 6021. Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana to Daingerfield, Texas.
Sec. 6022. Casco Bay, Portland, Maine.
Sec. 6023. Northeast Harbor, Maine.
Sec. 6024. Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine.
Sec. 6025. Saint John River Basin, Maine.
Sec. 6026. Tenants Harbor, Maine.
Sec. 6027. Falmouth Harbor, Massachusetts.
Sec. 6028. Island End River, Massachusetts.
Sec. 6029. Mystic River, Massachusetts.
Sec. 6030. Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 6031. Greenville Harbor, Mississippi.
Sec. 6032. Platte River flood and related streambank erosion control, Nebraska.
Sec. 6033. Epping, New Hampshire.
Sec. 6034. New York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal, Jersey
City, New Jersey.
Sec. 6035. Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York.
Sec. 6036. Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, New York.
Sec. 6037. Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 6038. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina.
Sec. 6039. Cleveland Harbor 1958 Act, Ohio.
Sec. 6040. Cleveland Harbor 1960 Act, Ohio.
Sec. 6041. Cleveland Harbor, uncompleted portion of Cut #4, Ohio.
Sec. 6042. Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon.
Sec. 6043. Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 6044. Tamaqua, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 6045. Narragansett Town Beach, Narragansett, Rhode Island.
Sec. 6046. Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island.
Sec. 6047. Arroyo Colorado, Texas.
Sec. 6048. Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas.
Sec. 6049. East Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trin-
ity River, Texas.
Sec. 6050. Falfurrias, Texas.
Sec. 6051. Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas.
Sec. 6052. Lake of the Pines, Texas.
Sec. 6053. Tennessee Colony Lake, Texas.
Sec. 6054. City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington.
Sec. 6055. Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia.
†
HR 1495 EAS
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 fol-
lowing projects for water resources development and con-
servation 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 respec-
tive reports designated in this section:
(1) HAINES HARBOR, ALASKA.—The project for
navigation, Haines Harbor, 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) TANQUE
VERDE
CREEK, 
ARIZONA.—The
project for ecosystem restoration, Tanque Verde Creek,
Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July
22, 2003, at a total cost of $5,906,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $3,836,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $2,070,000.
(3) SALT RIVER (VA SHLYAY AKIMEL), MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA.—
†
HR 1495 EAS
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for ecosystem
restoration, Salt River (Va Shlyay Akimel), Ari-
zona: 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
REC-
LAMATION
PROJECTS.—The Secretary, to the
maximum extent practicable, shall coordinate the
development and construction of the project de-
scribed in subparagraph (A) with each Federal
reclamation project located in the Salt River
Basin to address statutory requirements and the
operations of those projects.
(4) 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.
(5) HAMILTON CITY, CALIFORNIA.—The project
for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration,
Hamilton City, California: Report of the Chief of En-
†
HR 1495 EAS
gineers 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.
(6) IMPERIAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA.—The project
for storm damage reduction, Imperial Beach, Cali-
fornia: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated Decem-
ber 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 estimated
total cost of $42,500,000 for periodic beach nourish-
ment over the 50-year life of the project, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $21,250,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $21,250,000.
(7) MATILIJA
DAM, VENTURA
COUNTY, CALI-
FORNIA.—The project 
for 
ecosystem 
restoration,
Matilija Dam and Ventura River Watershed, 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.
(8) MIDDLE
CREEK, 
LAKE
COUNTY, 
CALI-
FORNIA.—The project for flood damage reduction and
ecosystem restoration, Middle Creek, Lake County,
†
HR 1495 EAS
California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated No-
vember 29, 2004, at a total cost of $45,200,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $29,500,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $15,700,000.
(9) NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH, CALIFORNIA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for ecosystem
restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh, California:
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 es-
timated non-Federal cost of $47,000,000.
(B) ADMINISTRATION.—In carrying out the
project authorized by this paragraph, the Sec-
retary 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.
(10) SOUTH
PLATTE
RIVER, DENVER, COLO-
RADO.—The project for ecosystem restoration, Denver
County Reach, South Platte River, Denver, Colorado:
†
HR 1495 EAS
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May 16, 2003,
at a total cost of $20,100,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $13,065,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $7,035,000.
(11) COMPREHENSIVE
EVERGLADES
RESTORA-
TION PLAN, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, SITE
1.—The project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehen-
sive 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.
(12) INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, SOUTH FLORIDA.—
(A) IN
GENERAL.—The Secretary may
carry out the project for ecosystem restoration,
water supply, flood control, and protection of
water quality, Indian River Lagoon, south Flor-
ida, at a total cost of $1,365,000,000, with an es-
timated first Federal cost of $682,500,000 and
an 
estimated 
first 
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