Sec. 4080. Chartiers Creek watershed, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 4081. Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 4082. North Central Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 4083. Northampton and Lehigh Counties streams, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 4084. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction. 
Sec. 4085. Williamsport, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 4086. Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 4087. Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina. 
Sec. 4088. Broad River, York County, South Carolina. 
Sec. 4089. Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina. 
Sec. 4090. Chattanooga, Tennessee. 
Sec. 4091. Cleveland, Tennessee. 
Sec. 4092. Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee. 
Sec. 4093. Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee. 
Sec. 4094. Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, Memphis Tennessee. 
Sec. 4095. Abilene, Texas. 
Sec. 4096. Coastal Texas ecosystem protection and restoration, Texas. 
Sec. 4097. Fort Bend County, Texas. 
Sec. 4098. Harris County, Texas. 
Sec. 4099. Port of Galveston, Texas. 
Sec. 4100. Roma Creek, Texas. 
Sec. 4101. Walnut Creek, Texas. 
Sec. 4102. Grand County and Moab, Utah. 
Sec. 4103. Southwestern Utah. 
Sec. 4104. Chowan River Basin, Virginia and North Carolina. 
Sec. 4105. James River, Richmond, Virginia. 
Sec. 4106. Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington. 
Sec. 4107. Monongahela River basin, Northern West Virginia. 
Sec. 4108. Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin. 
Sec. 4109. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. 
TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 
Sec. 5001. Maintenance of navigation channels. 
Sec. 5002. Watershed management. 
Sec. 5003. Dam safety. 
Sec. 5004. Structural integrity evaluations. 
Sec. 5005. Flood mitigation priority areas. 
Sec. 5006. Additional assistance for authorized projects. 
Sec. 5007. Expedited completion of reports and construction for certain 
projects. 
Sec. 5008. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects. 
Sec. 5009. Southeastern water resources assessment. 
Sec. 5010. Upper Mississippi River environmental management program. 
Sec. 5011. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project. 
Sec. 5012. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration. 
Sec. 5013. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation. 
Sec. 5014. Great Lakes tributary model. 
Sec. 5015. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins. 
Sec. 5016. Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Pro-
gram. 
Sec. 5017. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration. 
Sec. 5018. Hypoxia assessment. 
Sec. 5019. Potomac River Watershed Assessment and Tributary Strategy Eval-
uation and Monitoring Program.
Sec. 5020. Lock and dam security. 
Sec. 5021. Tallapoosa, Alabama. 
Sec. 5022. Alaska. 
Sec. 5023. Fort Yukon, Alaska. 
Sec. 5024. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska. 
Sec. 5025. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska. 
Sec. 5026. Valdez, Alaska. 
Sec. 5027. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska. 
Sec. 5028. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas. 
Sec. 5029. Des Arc levee protection, Arkansas. 
Sec. 5030. Helena and vicinity, Arkansas. 
Sec. 5031. Loomis Landing, Arkansas. 
Sec. 5032. St. Francis River basin, Arkansas and Missouri. 
Sec. 5033. White River basin, Arkansas. 
Sec. 5034. Cambria, California. 
Sec. 5035. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California; Mallard 
Slough, Pittsburg, California. 
Sec. 5036. Dana Point Harbor, California. 
Sec. 5037. East San Joaquin County, California. 
Sec. 5038. Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, California. 
Sec. 5039. Sacramento deep water ship channel, California. 
Sec. 5040. San Francisco, California. 
Sec. 5041. San Francisco, California, waterfront area. 
Sec. 5042. Santa Venetia, California. 
Sec. 5043. Stockton, California. 
Sec. 5044. Victor V. Veysey Dam, California. 
Sec. 5045. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor, Con-
necticut. 
Sec. 5046. Christina River shipwreck, Delaware. 
Sec. 5047. Florida Keys water quality improvements. 
Sec. 5048. Lake Worth, Florida. 
Sec. 5049. Lake Lanier, Georgia. 
Sec. 5050. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho. 
Sec. 5051. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects. 
Sec. 5052. Kaskaskia River basin, Illinois, restoration. 
Sec. 5053. Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois. 
Sec. 5054. Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, Illinois. 
Sec. 5055. Illinois River basin restoration. 
Sec. 5056. Promontory Point, Lake Michigan, Illinois. 
Sec. 5057. Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana. 
Sec. 5058. Calumet region, Indiana. 
Sec. 5059. Floodplain mapping, Missouri River, Iowa. 
Sec. 5060. Rathbun Lake, Iowa. 
Sec. 5061. Cumberland River basin, Kentucky. 
Sec. 5062. Louisville, Kentucky. 
Sec. 5063. Mayfield Creek and tributaries, Kentucky. 
Sec. 5064. North Fork, Kentucky River, Breathitt County, Kentucky. 
Sec. 5065. Paducah, Kentucky. 
Sec. 5066. Southern and eastern Kentucky. 
Sec. 5067. Winchester, Kentucky. 
Sec. 5068. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 
Sec. 5069. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana. 
Sec. 5070. Cross Lake, Shreveport, Louisiana. 
Sec. 5071. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. 
Sec. 5072. Charlestown, Maryland.
Sec. 5073. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Maryland and Delaware. 
Sec. 5074. Massachusetts dredged material disposal sites. 
Sec. 5075. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan. 
Sec. 5076. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan. 
Sec. 5077. Crookston, Minnesota. 
Sec. 5078. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota. 
Sec. 5079. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 
Sec. 5080. Northeastern Minnesota. 
Sec. 5081. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi. 
Sec. 5082. Mississippi River, Missouri, and Illinois. 
Sec. 5083. St. Louis, Missouri. 
Sec. 5084. Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey. 
Sec. 5085. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey. 
Sec. 5086. Central New Mexico, New Mexico. 
Sec. 5087. Atlantic Coast of New York. 
Sec. 5088. College Point, New York City, New York. 
Sec. 5089. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York. 
Sec. 5090. Hudson River, New York. 
Sec. 5091. Mount Morris Dam, New York. 
Sec. 5092. Onondaga Lake, New York. 
Sec. 5093. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina. 
Sec. 5094. Stanly County, North Carolina. 
Sec. 5095. W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina. 
Sec. 5096. Ohio. 
Sec. 5097. Toussaint River, Ohio. 
Sec. 5098. Eugene, Oregon. 
Sec. 5099. John Day Lock and Dam, Lake Umatilla, Oregon and Washington. 
Sec. 5100. Lowell, Oregon. 
Sec. 5101. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 5102. Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 5103. Northeast Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 5104. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York. 
Sec. 5105. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 
Sec. 5106. Beaufort and Jasper Counties, South Carolina. 
Sec. 5107. Fritz Landing, Tennessee. 
Sec. 5108. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee. 
Sec. 5109. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee. 
Sec. 5110. Tennessee River partnership. 
Sec. 5111. Upper Mississippi Embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mis-
sissippi. 
Sec. 5112. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas. 
Sec. 5113. Harris County, Texas. 
Sec. 5114. Onion Creek, Texas. 
Sec. 5115. Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia. 
Sec. 5116. Eastern Shore and southwest Virginia. 
Sec. 5117. James River, Virginia. 
Sec. 5118. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington. 
Sec. 5119. Hamilton Island campground, Washington. 
Sec. 5120. Puget Island, Washington. 
Sec. 5121. Willapa Bay, Washington. 
Sec. 5122. Bluestone, West Virginia. 
Sec. 5123. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control. 
Sec. 5124. Lower Kanawha River basin, West Virginia. 
Sec. 5125. Central West Virginia. 
Sec. 5126. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 5127. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin. 
Sec. 5128. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests. 
Sec. 5129. Use of Federal hopper dredge fleet. 
TITLE VI—FLORIDA EVERGLADES 
Sec. 6001. Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida. 
Sec. 6002. Pilot projects. 
Sec. 6003. Maximum cost of projects. 
Sec. 6004. Project authorization. 
Sec. 6005. Credit. 
Sec. 6006. Outreach and assistance. 
Sec. 6007. Critical restoration projects. 
Sec. 6008. Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida. 
Sec. 6009. Deauthorizations. 
Sec. 6010. Modified water delivery. 
TITLE VII—LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA 
Sec. 7001. Definitions. 
Sec. 7002. Additional Reports. 
Sec. 7003. Coastal Louisiana ecosystem protection and restoration task force. 
Sec. 7004. Investigations. 
Sec. 7005. Construction. 
Sec. 7006. Non-Federal cost share. 
Sec. 7007. Project justification. 
Sec. 7008. Statutory Construction. 
TITLE VIII—UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY 
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. 
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY. 
In this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Sec-
retary 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 re-
spective reports designated in this section: 
(1) AKUTAN, ALASKA.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for naviga-
tion, Akutan, Alaska: Report of the Chief of 
Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total 
cost of $19,700,000. 
(B) TREATMENT
OF
CERTAIN
DREDG-
ING.—The headlands dredging for the mooring 
basin shall be considered a general navigation 
feature for purposes of estimating the non-Fed-
eral share of the cost of the project. 
(2) HAINES
SMALL
BOAT
HARBOR, HAINES, 
ALASKA.—The project for navigation, Haines Small 
Boat Harbor, Haines, Alaska: Report of the Chief of 
Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total of 
$12,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$9,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$2,500,000. 
(3) TANQUE
VERDE
CREEK, ARIZONA.—The 
project for environmental restoration, Tanque Verde 
Creek, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $4,978,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $3,236,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,742,000. 
(4) VA SHILY’ AY AKIMEL, SALT RIVER RES-
TORATION, ARIZONA.—The project for ecosystem 
restoration, Va Shily’ Ay Akimel, Salt River, Ari-
zona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated Janu-
ary 3, 2005, at a total cost of $138,968,000, with 
an estimated Federal cost of $90,129,000 and an es-
timated non-Federal cost of $48,839,000. 
(5) HAMILTON CITY, CALIFORNIA.—The project 
for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restora-
tion, Hamilton City, California: Report of the Chief 
of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total 
cost of $50,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
of $33,000,000 and estimated non-Federal cost of 
$17,600,000. 
(6) 
IMPERIAL
BEACH, 
CALIFORNIA.—The 
project for storm damage reduction, Imperial Beach, 
California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated 
December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $11,862,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $7,592,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,270,000, and at 
an estimated total cost of $38,004,000 for periodic 
beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the 
project, 
with 
an 
estimated 
Federal 
cost 
of
$19,002,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$19,002,000. 
(7) MATILIJA DAM, VENTURA COUNTY, CALI-
FORNIA.—The project for ecosystem restoration, 
Matilija Dam and Ventura River Watershed, Ven-
tura County, California: Report of the Chief of En-
gineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total cost of 
$130,335,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$78,973,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$51,362,000. 
(8) MIDDLE
CREEK, LAKE
COUNTY, CALI-
FORNIA.—The project for ecosystem restoration and 
flood damage reduction, Middle Creek, Lake County, 
California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
November 29, 2004, at a total cost of $41,793,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $27,256,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $14,537,000. 
(9) NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH, CALIFORNIA.— 
(A) IN
GENERAL.—The project for eco-
system restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh, 
Nap River, California: Report of the Chief of 
Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total 
cost of $100,500,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $64,000,000 and an estimated non- 
Federal cost of $36,500,000.
(B) PROJECT FEATURES.—In carrying out 
the project, the Secretary shall include con-
struction of a recycled water pipeline extending 
from the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation Dis-
trict Waste Water Treatment Plant and the 
Napa Sanitation District Waste Water Treat-
ment Plant as part of the project and restora-
tion and enhancement of Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, 
and 3. 
(10) SOUTH
PLATTE
RIVER, DENVER, COLO-
RADO.—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 $18,824,000, with 
an estimated Federal cost of $12,236,000 and an es-
timated non-Federal cost of $6,588,000. 
(11) MIAMI
HARBOR, MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY, 
FLORIDA.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for naviga-
tion, Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Flor-
ida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
April 25, 2005, at a total cost of $121,127,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $64,843,000 
and 
an 
estimated 
non-Federal 
cost 
of 
$56,284,000.
(B) GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT.— 
The non-Federal share of the cost of the gen-
eral reevaluation report that resulted in the re-
port 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-Fed-
eral interest to reflect the cost sharing required 
by subparagraph (B). 
(12) EAST
ST. LOUIS
AND
VICINITY, ILLI-
NOIS.—The project for ecosystem restoration, East 
St. Louis and vicinity, Illinois: Report of the Chief 
of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total 
cost of $191,158,000, with an estimated Federal 
cost of $123,807,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
cost of $67,351,000. 
(13) PEORIA
RIVERFRONT, 
ILLINOIS.—The 
project for environmental restoration, Peoria River-
front, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
dated July 28, 2003, at a total cost of $16,000,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $10,400,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,600,000.
(14) BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LOUISIANA.—The 
project for navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Lou-
isiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated Janu-
ary 3, 2005, at a total cost of $9,000,000. The costs 
of construction of the project shall 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. 
(15) MORGANZA
TO
THE
GULF
OF
MEXICO, 
LOUISIANA.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for hurri-
cane and storm damage reduction, Morganza to 
the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Reports of the 
Chief of Engineers, dated August 23, 2002, and 
July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $788,000,000 
with an estimated Federal cost of $512,200,000 
and 
an 
estimated 
non-Federal 
cost 
of 
$275,800,000. 
(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit 
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project the cost of design and construction work 
carried out by the non-Federal interest before 
the date of the partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the 
work is integral to the project.
(16) SWOPE
PARK
INDUSTRIAL
AREA, MIS-
SOURI.—The project for flood damage reduction, 
Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri: Report of the 
Chief of Engineers, dated December 30, 2003, at a 
total cost of $15,683,000, with an estimated Federal 
cost of $10,194,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
cost of $5,489,000. 
(17) MANASQUAN TO BARNEGAT INLET, NEW 
JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and storm dam-
age reduction, Manasquan to Barnegat Inlet, New 
Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated De-
cember 30, 2003, at a total cost of $65,800,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $42,800,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $23,000,000, and 
at an estimated total cost of $108,000,000 for peri-
odic beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the 
project, 
with 
an 
estimated 
Federal 
cost 
of 
$54,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$54,000,000. 
(18) SOUTH RIVER, NEW JERSEY.—The project 
for hurricane and storm damage reduction and envi-
ronmental restoration, South River, New Jersey: Re-
port of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 22, 2003, 
at a total cost of $112,623,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $73,205,000 and an estimated non- 
Federal cost of $39,418,000. 
(19) SOUTHWEST VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW 
MEXICO.—The project for flood damage reduction, 
Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico: Report 
of the Chief of Engineers dated November 29, 2004, 
at a total cost of $19,494,000, with an estimated 
Federal cost of $12,671,000 and an estimated non- 
Federal cost of $6,823,000. 
(20) CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, CORPUS 
CHRISTI, TEXAS.—The project for navigation and 
environmental restoration, Corpus Christi Ship 
Channel, Texas, Channel Improvement Project: Re-
port of the Chief of Engineers dated June 2, 2003, 
at a total cost of $172,940,000, with an estimated 
Federal cost of $80,086,000 and an estimated non- 
Federal cost of $92,823,000. 
(21) GULF
INTRACOASTAL
WATERWAY, HIGH 
ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS.—The project for 
navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Sabine 
River to Corpus Christi, Texas: Report of the Chief 
of Engineers, dated April 16, 2004, at a total cost 
of $13,104,000. 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. 
(22) MATAGORDA BAY, TEXAS.—The project for 
navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos 
River to Port O’Connor, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, 
Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated De-
cember 24, 2002, at a total cost of $15,960,000. 
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 appro-
priated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 
(23) 
RIVERSIDE
OXBOW, 
FORT
WORTH, 
TEXAS.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for envi-
ronmental restoration, Riverside Oxbow, Fort 
Worth, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
dated May 29, 2003, at a total cost of 
$25,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$10,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
of $14,800,000. 
(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit 
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project the cost of design and construction work 
carried out on the Beach Street Dam and asso-
ciated features by the non-Federal interest be-
fore the date of the partnership agreement for 
the project if the Secretary determines that the 
work is integral to the project. 
(24) DEEP CREEK, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA.— 
The project for the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 
Bridge Replacement, Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Vir-
ginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated March 
3, 2003, at a Federal cost of $35,573,000. 
(25) CHEHALIS
RIVER, 
CENTRALIA, 
WASH-
INGTON.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood 
damage reduction, Chehalis River, Centralia, 
Washington: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
dated September 27, 2004, at a total cost of 
$109,850,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
of $66,425,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
cost of $43,425,000. 
(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall— 
(i) credit up to $6,500,000 toward the 
non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project for the cost of planning and design 
work carried out by the non-Federal inter-
est in accordance with the project study 
plan dated November 28, 1999; and
(ii) credit toward the non-Federal 
share of the cost of the project the cost of 
design and construction work carried out 
by the non-Federal interest before the date 
of the partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the 
work is integral to the project. 
(C) ADDITIONAL
FLOOD
STORAGE
AT 
SKOOKUMCHUCK DAM.—The Secretary shall in-
tegrate into the project the locally preferred 
plan to provide an additional 9,000 acre-feet of 
storage capacity at Skookumchuck Dam, Wash-
ington, upon a determination by the Secretary 
that providing such additional storage capacity 
is feasible. 
SEC. 1002. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUC-
TION. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a 
study for each of the following projects and, if the Sec-
retary determines that a project is feasible, may carry out 
the project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s): 
(1) HALEYVILLE, ALABAMA.—Project for flood 
damage reduction, Haleyville, Alabama.