WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in House section
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
(House of Representatives - July 30, 1996)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H8693-H8756]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (
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, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3592
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 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, Little Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 107. Small projects for improvement of the environment.
Sec. 108. Project to mitigate shore damage.
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. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 208. Recreation policy and user fees.
Sec. 209. Recovery of costs.
Sec. 210. Cost sharing of environmental projects.
Sec. 211. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal
interests.
Sec. 212. Engineering and environmental innovations of national
significance.
Sec. 213. Lease authority.
Sec. 214. Collaborative research and development.
Sec. 215. Dam safety program.
Sec. 216. Maintenance, rehabilitation, and modernization of facilities.
Sec. 217. Long-term sediment management strategies.
Sec. 218. Dredged material disposal facility partnerships.
Sec. 219. Obstruction removal requirement.
Sec. 220. Small project authorizations.
Sec. 221. Uneconomical cost-sharing requirements.
Sec. 222. Planning assistance to States.
Sec. 223. Corps of Engineers expenses.
Sec. 224. State and Federal agency review period.
Sec. 225. Limitation on reimbursement of non-Federal costs per project.
Sec. 226. Aquatic plant control.
Sec. 227. Sediments decontamination technology.
Sec. 228. Shore protection.
Sec. 229. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 230. Support of Army Civil Works Program.
Sec. 231. Benefits to navigation.
Sec. 232. Loss of life prevention.
Sec. 233. Scenic and aesthetic considerations.
Sec. 234. Removal of study prohibitions.
Sec. 235. Sense of Congress; requirement regarding notice.
Sec. 236. Reservoir Management Technical Advisory Committee.
Sec. 237. Technical corrections.
TITLE III--PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Sec. 301. Mobile Harbor, Alabama.
Sec. 302. Alamo Dam, Arizona.
[[Page
H8694]]
Sec. 303. Nogales Wash and Tributaries, Arizona.
Sec. 304. Phoenix, Arizona.
Sec. 305. San Francisco River at Clifton, Arizona.
Sec. 306. Channel Islands Harbor, California
Sec. 307. Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 308. Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, San Pedro Bay,
California.
Sec. 309. Oakland Harbor, California.
Sec. 310. Queensway Bay, California.
Sec. 311. San Luis Rey, California.
Sec. 312. Thames River, Connecticut.
Sec. 313. Potomac River, Washington, District Of Columbia.
Sec. 314. Canaveral Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 315. Captiva Island, Florida.
Sec. 316. Central and southern Florida, Canal 51.
Sec. 317. Central and southern Florida, Canal 111 (C-111).
Sec. 318. Jacksonville Harbor (Mill Cove), Florida.
Sec. 319. Panama City Beaches, Florida.
Sec. 320. Tybee Island, Georgia.
Sec. 321. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 322. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 323. Chicago Lock and Thomas J. O'Brien Lock, Illinois.
Sec. 324. Kaskaskia River, Illinois.
Sec. 325. Locks and Dam 26, Alton, Illinois and Missouri.
Sec. 326. North Branch of Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. 327. Illinois and Michigan Canal.
Sec. 328. Halstead, Kansas.
Sec. 329. Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland
River, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia.
Sec. 330. Prestonburg, Kentucky.
Sec. 331. Comite River, Louisiana.
Sec. 332. Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana.
Sec. 333. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.
Sec. 334. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.
Sec. 335. Mississippi River Outlets, Venice, Louisiana.
Sec. 336. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 337. Westwego to Harvey Canal, Louisiana.
Sec. 338. Tolchester Channel, Maryland.
Sec. 339. Saginaw River, Michigan.
Sec. 340. Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan.
Sec. 341. Stillwater, Minnesota.
Sec. 342. Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
Sec. 343. New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.
Sec. 344. St. John's Bayou--New Madrid Floodway, Missouri.
Sec. 345. Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Park, New Jersey.
Sec. 346. Molly Ann's Brook, New Jersey.
Sec. 347. Passaic River, New Jersey.
Sec. 348. Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jersey and New York.
Sec. 349. Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey.
Sec. 350. Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 351. Jones Inlet, New York.
Sec. 352. Kill Van Kull, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 353. Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River, North Carolina.
Sec. 354. Garrison Dam, North Dakota.
Sec. 355. Reno Beach-Howards Farm, Ohio.
Sec. 356. Wister Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 357. Bonneville Lock and Dam, Columbia River, Oregon and
Washington.
Sec. 358. Columbia River dredging, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 359. Grays Landing Lock and Dam, Monongahela River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 360. Lackawanna River at Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 361. Mussers Dam, Middle Creek, Snyder County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 362. Saw Mill Run, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 363. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 364. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 365. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 366. San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 367. Narragansett, Rhode Island.
Sec. 368. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Sec. 369. Dallas Floodway Extension, Dallas, Texas.
Sec. 370. Upper Jordan River, Utah.
Sec. 371. Haysi Lake, Virginia.
Sec. 372. Rudee Inlet, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 373. Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 374. East Waterway, Washington.
Sec. 375. Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.
Sec. 376. Moorefield, West Virginia.
Sec. 377. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 378. West Virginia trail head facilities.
Sec. 379. Kickapoo River, Wisconsin.
Sec. 380. 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. Southern California infrastructure.
Sec. 408. Yolo Bypass, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
Sec. 409. Chain of Rocks Canal, Illinois.
Sec. 410. Quincy, Illinois.
Sec. 411. Springfield, Illinois.
Sec. 412. Beauty Creek Watershed, Valparaiso City, Porter County,
Indiana.
Sec. 413. Grand Calumet River, Hammond, Indiana.
Sec. 414. Indiana Harbor Canal, East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana.
Sec. 415. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 416. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
Sec. 417. Tippecanoe River Watershed, Indiana.
Sec. 418. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Hackberry, Louisiana.
Sec. 419. Huron River, Michigan.
Sec. 420. Saco River, New Hampshire.
Sec. 421. Buffalo River Greenway, New York.
Sec. 422. Port of Newburgh, New York.
Sec. 423. Port of New York-New Jersey sediment study.
Sec. 424. Port of New York-New Jersey navigation study.
Sec. 425. Chagrin River, Ohio.
Sec. 426. Cuyahoga River, Ohio.
Sec. 427. Charleston, South Carolina, estuary.
Sec. 428. Mustang Island, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Sec. 429. Prince William County, Virginia.
Sec. 430. Pacific region.
Sec. 431. Financing of infrastructure needs of small and medium ports.
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. Hopper dredges.
Sec. 522. Design and construction assistance.
Sec. 523. Field office headquarters facilities.
Sec. 524. Corps of Engineers restructuring plan.
Sec. 525. Lake Superior Center.
Sec. 526. Jackson County, Alabama.
Sec. 527. Earthquake Preparedness Center of Expertise Extension.
Sec. 528. Quarantine facility.
Sec. 529. Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas.
Sec. 530. Calaveras County, California.
Sec. 531. Farmington Dam, California.
Sec. 532. Prado Dam safety improvements, California.
Sec. 533. Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.
Sec. 534. Seven Oaks Dam, California.
Sec. 535. Manatee County, Florida.
Sec. 536. Tampa, Florida.
Sec. 537. Watershed management plan for Deep River Basin, Indiana.
Sec. 538. Southern and eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 539. Louisiana coastal wetlands restoration projects.
Sec. 540. Southeast Louisiana.
Sec. 541. Restoration projects for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia.
Sec. 542. Cumberland, Maryland.
Sec. 543. Beneficial use of dredged material, Poplar Island, Maryland.
Sec. 544. Erosion control measures, Smith Island, Maryland.
Sec. 545. Duluth, Minnesota, alternative technology project.
Sec. 546. Redwood River Basin, Minnesota.
Sec. 547. Natchez Bluffs, Mississippi.
Sec. 548. Sardis Lake, Mississippi.
Sec. 549. Missouri River management.
Sec. 550. St. Charles County, Missouri, flood protection.
Sec. 551. Durham, New Hampshire.
Sec. 552. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
Sec. 553. Authorization of dredge material containment facility for
Port of New York/New Jersey.
Sec. 554. Hudson River habitat restoration, New York.
Sec. 555. Queens County, New York.
Sec. 556. New York Bight and Harbor study.
Sec. 557. New York State Canal System.
Sec. 558. New York City Watershed.
Sec. 559. Ohio River Greenway.
Sec. 560. Northeastern Ohio.
Sec. 561. Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 562. Broad Top region of Pennsylvania.
Sec. 563. Curwensville Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 564. Hopper Dredge McFarland.
Sec. 565. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 566. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 567. Seven Points Visitors Center, Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 568. Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Sec. 569. Wills Creek, Hyndman, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 570. Blackstone River Valley, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
Sec. 571. East Ridge, Tennessee.
Sec. 572. Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
Sec. 573. Buffalo Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 574. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 575. San Antonio River, Texas.
Sec. 576. Neabsco Creek, Virginia.
[[Page
H8695]]
Sec. 577. Tangier Island, Virginia.
Sec. 578. Pierce County, Washington.
Sec. 579. Washington Aqueduct.
Sec. 580. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia, flood protection.
Sec. 581. Huntington, West Virginia.
Sec. 582. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Sec. 583. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.
Sec. 584. Evaluation of beach material.
Sec. 585. National Center for Nanofabrication and Molecular Self-
Assembly.
Sec. 586. Sense of Congress regarding St. Lawrence Seaway tolls.
Sec. 587. Prado Dam, California.
TITLE VI--EXTENSION OF EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY UNDER HARBOR MAINTENANCE
TRUST FUND
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.
(a) Projects with Chief's Reports.--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) American river watershed, california.--
(A) In general.--The project for flood damage reduction,
American and Sacramento Rivers, California: Supplemental
Information Report for the American River Watershed Project,
California, dated March 1996, at a total cost of $57,300,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $42,975,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $14,325,000, consisting of the
following:
(i) Approximately 24 miles of slurry wall in the existing
levees along the lower American River.
(ii) Approximately 12 miles of levee modifications along
the east bank of the Sacramento River downstream from the
Natomas Cross Canal.
(iii) 3 telemeter streamflow gages upstream from the Folsom
Reservoir.
(iv) Modifications to the existing flood warning system
along the lower American River.
(B) Credit toward non-federal share.--The non-Federal
sponsor shall receive credit toward the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project for expenses that the sponsor has
incurred for design and construction of any of the features
authorized pursuant to this paragraph prior to the date on
which Federal funds are appropriated for construction of the
project. The amount of the credit shall be determined by the
Secretary.
(C) Operation of folsom dam.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall continue to operate the Folsom Dam and Reservoir to the
variable 400,000/670,000 acre-feet of flood control storage
capacity as an interim measure and extend the agreement
between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Sacramento Area
Flood Control Agency until such date as a comprehensive flood
control plan for the American River Watershed has been
implemented.
(D) Responsibility of non-federal sponsor.--The non-Federal
sponsor shall be responsible for all operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with
the improvements undertaken pursuant to this paragraph, as
well as for 25 percent of the costs for the variable flood
control operation of the Folsom Dam and Reservoir (including
any incremental power and water purchase costs incurred by
the Western Area Power Administration or the Bureau of
Reclamation and any direction, capital, and operation and
maintenance costs borne by either of such agencies).
Notwithstanding any contract or other agreement, the
remaining 75 percent of the costs for the variable flood
control operation of the Folsom Dam and Reservoir shall be
the responsibility of the United States and shall be
nonreimbursable.
(2) San lorenzo river, santa cruz, california.--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 $21,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,900,000.
(3) 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 estimated non-Federal cost of $1,170,000.
(4) Santa monica breakwater, california.--The project for
navigation and storm damage reduction, Santa Monica
Breakwater, Santa Monica, California: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated June 7, 1996, at a total cost of $6,440,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $4,220,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $2,220,000.
(5) Marin county shoreline, san rafael, california.--The
project for storm damage reduction, Marin County shoreline,
San Rafael, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated January 28, 1994, at a total cost of $28,300,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $18,400,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $9,900,000.
(6) Humboldt harbor and bay, california.--The project for
navigation, Humboldt Harbor and Bay, California: Report of
the Chief of Engineers, dated October 30, 1995, at a total
cost of $15,180,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,180,000.
(7) Anacostia river and tributaries, district of columbia
and maryland.--The project for environmental restoration,
Anacostia River and Tributaries, District of Columbia and
Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated November
15, 1994, at a total cost of $17,144,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $12,858,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $4,286,000.
(8) Atlantic intracoastal waterway, st. johns county,
florida.--The project for navigation, 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, replacement, and
rehabilitation shall be a non-Federal responsibility and the
non-Federal interest must assume ownership of the bridge.
(9) 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
Federal cost of $110,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $94,000,000. The project shall include the breakwater
near the South Water Filtration Plant described in the report
as a separate element 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. The Secretary
shall reimburse the non-Federal interest for the Federal
share of any costs incurred by the non-Federal interest--
(A) in reconstructing the revetment structures protecting
Solidarity Drive in Chicago, Illinois, if such work is
determined by the Secretary to be a component of the project;
and
(B) in constructing the breakwater near the South Water
Filtration Plant in Chicago, Illinois.
(10) Kentucky lock and dam, tennessee river, kentucky.--The
project for navigation, Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee
River, Kentucky: 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.
(11) Pond creek, jefferson county, kentucky.--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.
(12) Wolf creek dam and lake cumberland, 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 estimated non-
Federal cost of $53,763,000. Funds derived 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.
(13) 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.
(14) West bank of the mississippi river, new orleans (east
of harvey canal), louisiana.--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 estimated Federal cost of
$82,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $43,800,000.
(15) Wood river, grand island, nebraska.--The project for
flood control, Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska: Report of
the Chief of Engineers, 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.
(16) Las cruces, new mexico.--The project for flood
control, Las Cruces, New Mexico: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated June 24, 1996, at a total cost of
$8,278,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,494,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,784,000.
(17) Long beach island, new york.--The project for storm
damage reduction, Long Beach Island, 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.
(18) Wilmington harbor, cape fear river, north carolina.--
The project for navigation, Wilmington 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.
(19) 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 estimated Federal cost of $11,960,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,987,000.
[[Page
H8696]]
(20) Willamette river temperature control, 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 estimated
Federal cost of $38,000,000.
(21) Rio grande de arecibo, puerto rico.--The project for
flood control, Rio Grande de Arecibo, Puerto Rico: Report of
the Chief of Engineers, 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.
(22) Charleston harbor, south carolina.--The project for
navigation, Charleston Harbor Deepening and Widening, South
Carolina: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 18,
1996, at a total cost of $116,639,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $72,798,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $43,841,000.
(23) 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.
(24) 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.
(25) Gulf intracoastal waterway, aransas national wildlife
refuge, texas.--The project for navigation and environmental
preservation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Aransas National
Wildlife Refuge, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated May 28, 1996, at a total cost of $18,283,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $18,283,000.
(26) Houston-galveston navigation channels, texas.--The
project for navigation and environmental restoration,
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas: Report of the
Chief of Engineers, dated May 9, 1996, at a total initial
construction cost of $292,797,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $210,891,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$81,906,000. The project shall include deferred construction
of additional environmental 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 construction of
berthing areas and the removal of pipelines and other
obstructions that are necessary for the project shall be
accomplished at non-Federal expense. Non-Federal interests
shall receive credit toward cash contributions required
during construction and subsequent to construction for design
and construction management work that is performed by non-
Federal interests and that the Secretary determines is
necessary to implement the project.
(27) 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
appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\
from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways 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
individuals. The Secretary shall proceed with real estate
acquisition in connection with the project expeditiously.
(b) Projects With Pending Chief's Reports.--The following
projects are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary
substantially in accordance with a final report of the Chief
of Engineers if such report is completed not later than
December 31, 1996:
(1) Chignik, alaska.--The project for navigation, Chignik,
Alaska, at a total cost of $10,365,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $4,344,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $6,021,000.
(2) Cook inlet, alaska.--The project for navigation, Cook
Inlet, Alaska, at a total cost of $5,342,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $4,006,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $1,336,000.
(3) St. paul island harbor, st. paul, alaska.--The project
for navigation, St. Paul Harbor, St. Paul, Alaska, with an
estimated total cost of $18,981,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $12,188,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $6,793,000.
(4) Norco bluffs, riverside county, california.--A project
for bluff stabilization, Norco Bluffs, Riverside County,
California, with an estimated total cost of $8,600,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $6,450,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,150,000.
(5) Port of long beach (deepening), california.--The
project for navigation, Port of Long Beach (Deepening),
California, at a total cost of $37,288,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $14,318,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $22,970,000.
(6) Terminus dam, kaweah river, california.--The project
for flood damage reduction and water supply, Terminus Dam,
Kaweah River, California, at a total estimated cost of
$34,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,200,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $14,300,000.
(7) Rehoboth beach and dewey beach, delaware.--A project
for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection, Rehoboth
Beach and Dewey Beach, Delaware, at a total cost of
$9,423,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of
$6,125,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of
$3,298,000, and an average annual cost of $282,000 for
periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of $183,000 and an
estimated annual non-Federal cost of $99,000.
(8) Brevard county, florida.--The project for shoreline
protection, Brevard County, Florida, at a total first cost of
$76,620,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of
$36,006,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of
$40,614,000, and an average annual cost of $2,341,000 for
periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,109,000 and an
estimated annual non-Federal cost of $1,232,000.
(9) Miami harbor channel, florida.--The project for
navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, Miami, Florida, with an
estimated total cost of $3,221,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $1,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,421,000.
(10) North worth inlet, florida.--The project for
navigation and shoreline protection, Lake Worth Inlet, Palm
Beach Harbor, Florida, at a total cost of $3,915,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $1,762,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,153,000.
(11) Lower savannah river basin, savannah river, georgia
and south carolina.--The project for navigation and related
purposes, Lower Savannah River Basin, Savannah River, Georgia
and South Carolina, at a total cost of $3,419,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $2,551,000, and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $868,000.
(12) Absecon island, new jersey.--The project for storm
damage reduction and shoreline protection, Brigantine Inlet
to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, Absecon Island, New Jersey, at a
total cost of $52,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$34,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $18,000,000.
(13) Cape fear river, north carolina.--The project for
navigation, Cape Fear River deepening, North Carolina, at a
total cost of $210,264,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$130,159,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$80,105,000.
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) South upland, san bernadino county, california.--
Project for flood control, South Upland, San Bernadino
County, California.
(2) Birds, lawrence county, illinois.--Project for flood
control, Birds, Lawrence County, Illinois.
(3) Bridgeport, lawrence county, illinois.--Project for
flood control, Bridgeport, Lawrence County, Illinois.
(4) Embarras river, villa grove, illinois.--Project for
flood control, Embarras River, Villa Grove, Illinois.
(5) Frankfort, will county, illinois.--Project for flood
control, Frankfort, Will County, Illinois.
(6) Sumner, lawrence county, illinois.--Project for flood
control, Sumner, Lawrence County, Illinois.
(7) Vermillion river, demanade park, lafayette,
louisiana.--Project for nonstructural flood control,
Vermillion River, Demanade Park, Lafayette, 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 subdivision, lafayette,
louisiana.--Project for nonstructural flood control,
Vermillion River, Quail Hollow Subdivision, Lafayette,
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.
(9) Kawkawlin river, bay county, michigan.--Project for
flood control, Kawkawlin River, Bay County, Michigan.
(10) Whitney drain, arenac county, michigan.--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
reconnaissance 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) River Des Peres, St. Louis County, Missouri.--Project
for flood control, River Des Peres, St. Louis County,
Missouri. In carrying out the study and the project (if any),
the Secretary shall determine the feasibility of potential
flood control measures, consider potential storm water runoff
and related improvements, and cooperate with the Metropolitan
St. Louis Sewer District.
[[Page
H8697]]
(14) Buffalo creek, erie county, new york.--Project for
flood control, Buffalo Creek, Erie County, New York.
(15) Cazenovia creek, erie county, new york.--Project for
flood control, Cazenovia Creek, Erie County, New York.
(16) Cheektowaga, erie county, new york.--Project for flood
control, Cheektowaga, Erie County, New York.
(17) Fulmer creek, village of mohawk, new york.--Project
for flood control, Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York.
(18) Moyer creek, village of frankfort, new york.--Project
for flood control, Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New
York.
(19) Sauquoit creek, whitesboro, new york.--Project for
flood control, Sauquoit Creek, Whitesboro, New York.
(20) Steele creek, village of ilion, new york.--Project for
flood control, Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York.
(21) Willamette river, oregon.--Project for nonstructural
flood control, Willamette River, Oregon, including floodplain
and ecosystem restoration.
(22) Greenbrier river basin, west virginia.--Project for
flood control, consisting of an early flood warning system,
Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.
(b) Cost Allocations.--
(1) Lake elsinore, california.--The maximum 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 allotted 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 requirement applicable
to the project referred to in paragraph (1) under the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986.
SEC. 103. SMALL BANK STABILIZATION PROJECTS.
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 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
(1) St. joseph river, indiana.--Project for bank
stabilization, St. Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana,
including recreation and pedestrian access features.
(2) Allegheny river at oil city, pennsylvania.--Project for
bank stabilization to address erosion problems affecting the
pipeline crossing the Allegheny River at Oil City,
Pennsylvania, including measures to address erosion affecting
the pipeline in the bed of the Allegheny River and its
adjacent banks.
(3) Cumberland river, nashville, tennessee.--Project for
bank stabilization, Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.
(4) Tennessee river, hamilton county, tennessee.--Project
for bank stabilization, Tennessee River, Hamilton County,
Tennessee; except that the maximum amount of Federal funds
that may be allotted for the project shall be $7,500,000.
SEC. 104. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.
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 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 technology 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 navigation, Duluth,
Minnesota.
(4) Taconite, minnesota.--Project for navigation, 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, missouri.--Project for
navigation, New Madrid County Harbor, Missouri, including
enlargement of the existing harbor and bank stabilization
measures.
(8) Brooklyn, new york.--Project for navigation, 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 Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
(10) Glenn cove creek, new york.--Project for navigation,
Glenn Cove Creek, New York, including bulkheading.
(11) Union ship canal, buffalo and lackawanna, 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, Florida.
(3) Orchard beach, bronx, new york.--Project for shoreline
protection, Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York, New York; except
that the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allotted
for the project shall be $5,200,000.
(4) Sylvan beach breakwater, verona, oneida county, new
york.--Project for shoreline protection, Sylvan Beach
breakwater, 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 the
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
clearing, snagging, and sediment removal, East Bank of the
Mississippi River, Little Falls, Minnesota, including removal
of sediment from culverts. The study shall include a
determination of the adequacy of culverts to maintain flows
through the channel. If the Secretary determines that the
project is feasible, the Secretary 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 Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309(a)):
(1) Upper truckee river, el dorado county, california.--
Project for environmental restoration, Upper Truckee River,
El Dorado County, California, including measures for
restoration of degraded wetlands and wildlife enhancement.
(2) San lorenzo river, california.--Project for habitat
restoration, San Lorenzo River, California.
(3) Whittier narrows dam, california.--Project for
environmental restoration and remediation of contaminated
water sources, Whittier Narrows Dam, California.
(4) Upper jordan river, salt lake county, utah.--Project
for channel restoration and environmental improvement, Upper
Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah.
SEC. 108. PROJECT TO MITIGATE SHORE DAMAGE.
The Secretary shall expedite the Assateague Island
restoration feature of the Ocean City, Maryland, and vicinity
study and, if the Secretary determines that the Federal
navigation project has contributed to degradation of the
shoreline, the Secretary shall carry out the project for
shoreline restoration under section 111 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 735); except that the maximum
amount of Federal funds that may be allotted by the Secretary
for the project shall be $35,000,000. In carrying out the
project, the Secretary shall coordinate with affected Federal
and State agencies and shall enter into an agreement with the
Federal property owner to determine the allocation of the
project costs.
TITLE II--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. COST SHARING FOR DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL 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' includes constructed land-based
and aquatic dredged material disposal facilities that are
necessary for the disposal of dredged material required for
project construction and for which a contract for
construction has not been awarded on or before the date of
the enactment of this paragraph.''.
(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'';
[[Page
H8698]]
(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 inserting ``by
the Secretary pursuant to this Act or any other law approved
after the date of the enactment of this Act''; and
(4) by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(2) Dredged material disposal facilities.--The Federal
share of the cost of constructing land-based and aquatic
dredged material disposal facilities that are necessary for
the disposal of dredged material required for the operation
and maintenance of a project and for which a contract for
construction 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 striking ``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--
``(1) 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 associated with construction of dredged material
disposal facilities in accordance with subsections (a) and
(b);
``(2) funds expended for such construction are equitably
apportioned in accordance with regional needs; and
``(3) the Secretary's participation in the construction of
dredged material disposal facilities does not result in
unfair competition with potential private sector providers of
such facilities.''.
(e) Eligible Operations and Maintenance Defined.--Section
214(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2241; 100 Stat. 4108) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by inserting ``Federal'' after ``means all'';
(B) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``including''; and
(C) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``; (ii) the construction of dredged material
disposal facilities that are necessary for the operation and
maintenance of any harbor or inland harbor; (iii) dredging
and disposing of contaminated sediments which are in or which
affect the maintenance of Federal navigation channels; (iv)
mitigating for impacts resulting from Federal navigation
operation and maintenance activities; and (v) operating and
maintaining dredged material disposal facilities''; and
(2) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``rights-of-way, or
dredged material disposal areas,'' and inserting ``or rights-
of-way,''.
(f) Amendment of Cooperation Agreement.--If requested by
the non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall amend a project
cooperation agreement executed on or before the date of the
enactment of this Act to reflect the application of the
amendments made by this section to any project for which a
contract for construction has not been awarded on or before
such date of enactment.
(g) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section (including the
amendments made by this section) shall increase, or result in
the increase of, the non-Federal share of the costs of--
(1) any dredged material disposal facility authorized
before the date of the enactment of this Act, including any
facility authorized by section 123 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1823); or
(2) any dredged material disposal facility that is
necessary for the construction or maintenance of a project
authorized before the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 202. FLOOD CONTROL POLICY.
(a) Flood Control Cost Sharing.--
(1) Increased non-federal contributions.--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
striking ``25 percent'' each place it appears and inserting
``35 percent''.
(2) Applicability.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to any project authorized after the date of the
enactment of this Act and to any flood control project which
is not specifically authorized by Congress for which a
Detailed Project Report is approved after such date of
enactment or, in the case of a project for which no Detailed
Project Report is prepared, construction is initiated after
such date of enactment.
(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 agreement under this
section for flood control or agricultural 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 determined by the Secretary
in accordance with criteria and procedures in effect on the
day before the date of the enactment of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996; except that such criteria and
procedures 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 Secretary--
``(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 county 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 relating to the non-
Federal interest's financial ability to carry out its cost-
sharing responsibilities, to the extent that the application
of such criteria does not eliminate areas from eligibility
for a reduction in the non-Federal share as determined under
subparagraph (A).
``(4) Non-federal share.--Notwithstanding subsection (a),
the Secretary shall reduce or eliminate the requirement that
a non-Federal interest make a cash contribution for any
project that is determined 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 subparagraph (C), 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.
(B) Amendment of cooperation agreement.--If requested by
the non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall amend a project
cooperation agreement executed on or before the date of the
enactment of this Act to reflect the application of the
amendment made by paragraph (1) to any project for which a
contract for construction has not been awarded on or before
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 Resources 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 Management and Insurance
Programs.--Before construction of any project for local flood
protection or any project for hurricane or storm damage
reduction and involving Federal assistance from the
Secretary, the non-Federal interest shall agree to
participate in and comply with applicable Federal flood plain
management and flood insurance programs.
``(b) Flood Plain Management Plans.--Within 1 year after
the date of signing a project cooperation agreement 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 Secretary shall develop
guidelines for preparation of flood plain management plans by
non-Federal interests under subsection (b). Such guidelines
shall address potential measures, practices and policies to
reduce loss of life, injuries, damages to property and
facilities, public expenditures, and other adverse impacts
associated with flooding and to preserve and enhance natural
flood plain values.
``(2) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to confer any regulatory
authority upon the Secretary.
``(d) Technical Support.--The Secretary is authorized to
provide technical support to a non-Federal interest 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 review of
policies, procedures, and techniques relating to the
evaluation and development of flood control measures with a
view toward identifying impediments 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
[[Page
H8699]]
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the findings
on the review conducted under this subsection, together with
any recommendations for modifying existing 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 certain
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''.
(f) Nonstructural Alternatives.--Section 73 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 701b-11; 88
Stat. 32) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting
the following:
``(a) In the survey, planning, or design by any Federal
agency of any project involving flood protection, such
agency, with a view toward formulating the most economically,
socially, and environmentally acceptable means of reducing or
preventing flood damages, shall consider and address in
adequate detail nonstructural alternatives, including
measures that may be implemented by others, to prevent or
reduce flood damages. Such alternatives may include watershed
management, wetlands restoration, elevation or flood proofing
of structures, floodplain regulation, relocation, and
acquisition of floodplain lands for recreational, fish and
wildlife, and other public purposes.''.
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 following:
``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-sharing 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 subject 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-Federal 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 subsection (a)
shall apply notwithstanding any feasibility cost-sharing
agreement entered into by the Secretary and non-Federal
interests. Upon request of the non-Federal interest, 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 following 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 contributed 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 restoration, either through
modifications at the project site or at other locations that
have been affected by the construction or operation of the
project, if such measures do
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
(House of Representatives - July 30, 1996)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H8693-H8756]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (
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, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3592
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 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, Little Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 107. Small projects for improvement of the environment.
Sec. 108. Project to mitigate shore damage.
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. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 208. Recreation policy and user fees.
Sec. 209. Recovery of costs.
Sec. 210. Cost sharing of environmental projects.
Sec. 211. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal
interests.
Sec. 212. Engineering and environmental innovations of national
significance.
Sec. 213. Lease authority.
Sec. 214. Collaborative research and development.
Sec. 215. Dam safety program.
Sec. 216. Maintenance, rehabilitation, and modernization of facilities.
Sec. 217. Long-term sediment management strategies.
Sec. 218. Dredged material disposal facility partnerships.
Sec. 219. Obstruction removal requirement.
Sec. 220. Small project authorizations.
Sec. 221. Uneconomical cost-sharing requirements.
Sec. 222. Planning assistance to States.
Sec. 223. Corps of Engineers expenses.
Sec. 224. State and Federal agency review period.
Sec. 225. Limitation on reimbursement of non-Federal costs per project.
Sec. 226. Aquatic plant control.
Sec. 227. Sediments decontamination technology.
Sec. 228. Shore protection.
Sec. 229. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 230. Support of Army Civil Works Program.
Sec. 231. Benefits to navigation.
Sec. 232. Loss of life prevention.
Sec. 233. Scenic and aesthetic considerations.
Sec. 234. Removal of study prohibitions.
Sec. 235. Sense of Congress; requirement regarding notice.
Sec. 236. Reservoir Management Technical Advisory Committee.
Sec. 237. Technical corrections.
TITLE III--PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Sec. 301. Mobile Harbor, Alabama.
Sec. 302. Alamo Dam, Arizona.
[[Page
H8694]]
Sec. 303. Nogales Wash and Tributaries, Arizona.
Sec. 304. Phoenix, Arizona.
Sec. 305. San Francisco River at Clifton, Arizona.
Sec. 306. Channel Islands Harbor, California
Sec. 307. Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 308. Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, San Pedro Bay,
California.
Sec. 309. Oakland Harbor, California.
Sec. 310. Queensway Bay, California.
Sec. 311. San Luis Rey, California.
Sec. 312. Thames River, Connecticut.
Sec. 313. Potomac River, Washington, District Of Columbia.
Sec. 314. Canaveral Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 315. Captiva Island, Florida.
Sec. 316. Central and southern Florida, Canal 51.
Sec. 317. Central and southern Florida, Canal 111 (C-111).
Sec. 318. Jacksonville Harbor (Mill Cove), Florida.
Sec. 319. Panama City Beaches, Florida.
Sec. 320. Tybee Island, Georgia.
Sec. 321. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 322. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 323. Chicago Lock and Thomas J. O'Brien Lock, Illinois.
Sec. 324. Kaskaskia River, Illinois.
Sec. 325. Locks and Dam 26, Alton, Illinois and Missouri.
Sec. 326. North Branch of Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. 327. Illinois and Michigan Canal.
Sec. 328. Halstead, Kansas.
Sec. 329. Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland
River, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia.
Sec. 330. Prestonburg, Kentucky.
Sec. 331. Comite River, Louisiana.
Sec. 332. Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana.
Sec. 333. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.
Sec. 334. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.
Sec. 335. Mississippi River Outlets, Venice, Louisiana.
Sec. 336. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 337. Westwego to Harvey Canal, Louisiana.
Sec. 338. Tolchester Channel, Maryland.
Sec. 339. Saginaw River, Michigan.
Sec. 340. Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan.
Sec. 341. Stillwater, Minnesota.
Sec. 342. Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
Sec. 343. New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.
Sec. 344. St. John's Bayou--New Madrid Floodway, Missouri.
Sec. 345. Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Park, New Jersey.
Sec. 346. Molly Ann's Brook, New Jersey.
Sec. 347. Passaic River, New Jersey.
Sec. 348. Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jersey and New York.
Sec. 349. Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey.
Sec. 350. Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 351. Jones Inlet, New York.
Sec. 352. Kill Van Kull, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 353. Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River, North Carolina.
Sec. 354. Garrison Dam, North Dakota.
Sec. 355. Reno Beach-Howards Farm, Ohio.
Sec. 356. Wister Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 357. Bonneville Lock and Dam, Columbia River, Oregon and
Washington.
Sec. 358. Columbia River dredging, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 359. Grays Landing Lock and Dam, Monongahela River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 360. Lackawanna River at Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 361. Mussers Dam, Middle Creek, Snyder County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 362. Saw Mill Run, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 363. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 364. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 365. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 366. San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 367. Narragansett, Rhode Island.
Sec. 368. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Sec. 369. Dallas Floodway Extension, Dallas, Texas.
Sec. 370. Upper Jordan River, Utah.
Sec. 371. Haysi Lake, Virginia.
Sec. 372. Rudee Inlet, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 373. Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 374. East Waterway, Washington.
Sec. 375. Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.
Sec. 376. Moorefield, West Virginia.
Sec. 377. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 378. West Virginia trail head facilities.
Sec. 379. Kickapoo River, Wisconsin.
Sec. 380. 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. Southern California infrastructure.
Sec. 408. Yolo Bypass, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
Sec. 409. Chain of Rocks Canal, Illinois.
Sec. 410. Quincy, Illinois.
Sec. 411. Springfield, Illinois.
Sec. 412. Beauty Creek Watershed, Valparaiso City, Porter County,
Indiana.
Sec. 413. Grand Calumet River, Hammond, Indiana.
Sec. 414. Indiana Harbor Canal, East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana.
Sec. 415. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 416. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
Sec. 417. Tippecanoe River Watershed, Indiana.
Sec. 418. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Hackberry, Louisiana.
Sec. 419. Huron River, Michigan.
Sec. 420. Saco River, New Hampshire.
Sec. 421. Buffalo River Greenway, New York.
Sec. 422. Port of Newburgh, New York.
Sec. 423. Port of New York-New Jersey sediment study.
Sec. 424. Port of New York-New Jersey navigation study.
Sec. 425. Chagrin River, Ohio.
Sec. 426. Cuyahoga River, Ohio.
Sec. 427. Charleston, South Carolina, estuary.
Sec. 428. Mustang Island, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Sec. 429. Prince William County, Virginia.
Sec. 430. Pacific region.
Sec. 431. Financing of infrastructure needs of small and medium ports.
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. Hopper dredges.
Sec. 522. Design and construction assistance.
Sec. 523. Field office headquarters facilities.
Sec. 524. Corps of Engineers restructuring plan.
Sec. 525. Lake Superior Center.
Sec. 526. Jackson County, Alabama.
Sec. 527. Earthquake Preparedness Center of Expertise Extension.
Sec. 528. Quarantine facility.
Sec. 529. Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas.
Sec. 530. Calaveras County, California.
Sec. 531. Farmington Dam, California.
Sec. 532. Prado Dam safety improvements, California.
Sec. 533. Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.
Sec. 534. Seven Oaks Dam, California.
Sec. 535. Manatee County, Florida.
Sec. 536. Tampa, Florida.
Sec. 537. Watershed management plan for Deep River Basin, Indiana.
Sec. 538. Southern and eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 539. Louisiana coastal wetlands restoration projects.
Sec. 540. Southeast Louisiana.
Sec. 541. Restoration projects for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia.
Sec. 542. Cumberland, Maryland.
Sec. 543. Beneficial use of dredged material, Poplar Island, Maryland.
Sec. 544. Erosion control measures, Smith Island, Maryland.
Sec. 545. Duluth, Minnesota, alternative technology project.
Sec. 546. Redwood River Basin, Minnesota.
Sec. 547. Natchez Bluffs, Mississippi.
Sec. 548. Sardis Lake, Mississippi.
Sec. 549. Missouri River management.
Sec. 550. St. Charles County, Missouri, flood protection.
Sec. 551. Durham, New Hampshire.
Sec. 552. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
Sec. 553. Authorization of dredge material containment facility for
Port of New York/New Jersey.
Sec. 554. Hudson River habitat restoration, New York.
Sec. 555. Queens County, New York.
Sec. 556. New York Bight and Harbor study.
Sec. 557. New York State Canal System.
Sec. 558. New York City Watershed.
Sec. 559. Ohio River Greenway.
Sec. 560. Northeastern Ohio.
Sec. 561. Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 562. Broad Top region of Pennsylvania.
Sec. 563. Curwensville Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 564. Hopper Dredge McFarland.
Sec. 565. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 566. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 567. Seven Points Visitors Center, Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 568. Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Sec. 569. Wills Creek, Hyndman, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 570. Blackstone River Valley, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
Sec. 571. East Ridge, Tennessee.
Sec. 572. Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
Sec. 573. Buffalo Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 574. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 575. San Antonio River, Texas.
Sec. 576. Neabsco Creek, Virginia.
[[Page
H8695]]
Sec. 577. Tangier Island, Virginia.
Sec. 578. Pierce County, Washington.
Sec. 579. Washington Aqueduct.
Sec. 580. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia, flood protection.
Sec. 581. Huntington, West Virginia.
Sec. 582. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Sec. 583. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.
Sec. 584. Evaluation of beach material.
Sec. 585. National Center for Nanofabrication and Molecular Self-
Assembly.
Sec. 586. Sense of Congress regarding St. Lawrence Seaway tolls.
Sec. 587. Prado Dam, California.
TITLE VI--EXTENSION OF EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY UNDER HARBOR MAINTENANCE
TRUST FUND
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.
(a) Projects with Chief's Reports.--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) American river watershed, california.--
(A) In general.--The project for flood damage reduction,
American and Sacramento Rivers, California: Supplemental
Information Report for the American River Watershed Project,
California, dated March 1996, at a total cost of $57,300,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $42,975,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $14,325,000, consisting of the
following:
(i) Approximately 24 miles of slurry wall in the existing
levees along the lower American River.
(ii) Approximately 12 miles of levee modifications along
the east bank of the Sacramento River downstream from the
Natomas Cross Canal.
(iii) 3 telemeter streamflow gages upstream from the Folsom
Reservoir.
(iv) Modifications to the existing flood warning system
along the lower American River.
(B) Credit toward non-federal share.--The non-Federal
sponsor shall receive credit toward the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project for expenses that the sponsor has
incurred for design and construction of any of the features
authorized pursuant to this paragraph prior to the date on
which Federal funds are appropriated for construction of the
project. The amount of the credit shall be determined by the
Secretary.
(C) Operation of folsom dam.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall continue to operate the Folsom Dam and Reservoir to the
variable 400,000/670,000 acre-feet of flood control storage
capacity as an interim measure and extend the agreement
between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Sacramento Area
Flood Control Agency until such date as a comprehensive flood
control plan for the American River Watershed has been
implemented.
(D) Responsibility of non-federal sponsor.--The non-Federal
sponsor shall be responsible for all operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with
the improvements undertaken pursuant to this paragraph, as
well as for 25 percent of the costs for the variable flood
control operation of the Folsom Dam and Reservoir (including
any incremental power and water purchase costs incurred by
the Western Area Power Administration or the Bureau of
Reclamation and any direction, capital, and operation and
maintenance costs borne by either of such agencies).
Notwithstanding any contract or other agreement, the
remaining 75 percent of the costs for the variable flood
control operation of the Folsom Dam and Reservoir shall be
the responsibility of the United States and shall be
nonreimbursable.
(2) San lorenzo river, santa cruz, california.--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 $21,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,900,000.
(3) 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 estimated non-Federal cost of $1,170,000.
(4) Santa monica breakwater, california.--The project for
navigation and storm damage reduction, Santa Monica
Breakwater, Santa Monica, California: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated June 7, 1996, at a total cost of $6,440,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $4,220,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $2,220,000.
(5) Marin county shoreline, san rafael, california.--The
project for storm damage reduction, Marin County shoreline,
San Rafael, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated January 28, 1994, at a total cost of $28,300,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $18,400,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $9,900,000.
(6) Humboldt harbor and bay, california.--The project for
navigation, Humboldt Harbor and Bay, California: Report of
the Chief of Engineers, dated October 30, 1995, at a total
cost of $15,180,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,180,000.
(7) Anacostia river and tributaries, district of columbia
and maryland.--The project for environmental restoration,
Anacostia River and Tributaries, District of Columbia and
Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated November
15, 1994, at a total cost of $17,144,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $12,858,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $4,286,000.
(8) Atlantic intracoastal waterway, st. johns county,
florida.--The project for navigation, 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, replacement, and
rehabilitation shall be a non-Federal responsibility and the
non-Federal interest must assume ownership of the bridge.
(9) 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
Federal cost of $110,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $94,000,000. The project shall include the breakwater
near the South Water Filtration Plant described in the report
as a separate element 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. The Secretary
shall reimburse the non-Federal interest for the Federal
share of any costs incurred by the non-Federal interest--
(A) in reconstructing the revetment structures protecting
Solidarity Drive in Chicago, Illinois, if such work is
determined by the Secretary to be a component of the project;
and
(B) in constructing the breakwater near the South Water
Filtration Plant in Chicago, Illinois.
(10) Kentucky lock and dam, tennessee river, kentucky.--The
project for navigation, Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee
River, Kentucky: 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.
(11) Pond creek, jefferson county, kentucky.--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.
(12) Wolf creek dam and lake cumberland, 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 estimated non-
Federal cost of $53,763,000. Funds derived 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.
(13) 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.
(14) West bank of the mississippi river, new orleans (east
of harvey canal), louisiana.--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 estimated Federal cost of
$82,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $43,800,000.
(15) Wood river, grand island, nebraska.--The project for
flood control, Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska: Report of
the Chief of Engineers, 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.
(16) Las cruces, new mexico.--The project for flood
control, Las Cruces, New Mexico: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated June 24, 1996, at a total cost of
$8,278,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,494,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,784,000.
(17) Long beach island, new york.--The project for storm
damage reduction, Long Beach Island, 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.
(18) Wilmington harbor, cape fear river, north carolina.--
The project for navigation, Wilmington 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.
(19) 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 estimated Federal cost of $11,960,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,987,000.
[[Page
H8696]]
(20) Willamette river temperature control, 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 estimated
Federal cost of $38,000,000.
(21) Rio grande de arecibo, puerto rico.--The project for
flood control, Rio Grande de Arecibo, Puerto Rico: Report of
the Chief of Engineers, 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.
(22) Charleston harbor, south carolina.--The project for
navigation, Charleston Harbor Deepening and Widening, South
Carolina: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 18,
1996, at a total cost of $116,639,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $72,798,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $43,841,000.
(23) 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.
(24) 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.
(25) Gulf intracoastal waterway, aransas national wildlife
refuge, texas.--The project for navigation and environmental
preservation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Aransas National
Wildlife Refuge, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated May 28, 1996, at a total cost of $18,283,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $18,283,000.
(26) Houston-galveston navigation channels, texas.--The
project for navigation and environmental restoration,
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas: Report of the
Chief of Engineers, dated May 9, 1996, at a total initial
construction cost of $292,797,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $210,891,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$81,906,000. The project shall include deferred construction
of additional environmental 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 construction of
berthing areas and the removal of pipelines and other
obstructions that are necessary for the project shall be
accomplished at non-Federal expense. Non-Federal interests
shall receive credit toward cash contributions required
during construction and subsequent to construction for design
and construction management work that is performed by non-
Federal interests and that the Secretary determines is
necessary to implement the project.
(27) 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
appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\
from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways 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
individuals. The Secretary shall proceed with real estate
acquisition in connection with the project expeditiously.
(b) Projects With Pending Chief's Reports.--The following
projects are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary
substantially in accordance with a final report of the Chief
of Engineers if such report is completed not later than
December 31, 1996:
(1) Chignik, alaska.--The project for navigation, Chignik,
Alaska, at a total cost of $10,365,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $4,344,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $6,021,000.
(2) Cook inlet, alaska.--The project for navigation, Cook
Inlet, Alaska, at a total cost of $5,342,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $4,006,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $1,336,000.
(3) St. paul island harbor, st. paul, alaska.--The project
for navigation, St. Paul Harbor, St. Paul, Alaska, with an
estimated total cost of $18,981,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $12,188,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $6,793,000.
(4) Norco bluffs, riverside county, california.--A project
for bluff stabilization, Norco Bluffs, Riverside County,
California, with an estimated total cost of $8,600,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $6,450,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,150,000.
(5) Port of long beach (deepening), california.--The
project for navigation, Port of Long Beach (Deepening),
California, at a total cost of $37,288,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $14,318,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $22,970,000.
(6) Terminus dam, kaweah river, california.--The project
for flood damage reduction and water supply, Terminus Dam,
Kaweah River, California, at a total estimated cost of
$34,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,200,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $14,300,000.
(7) Rehoboth beach and dewey beach, delaware.--A project
for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection, Rehoboth
Beach and Dewey Beach, Delaware, at a total cost of
$9,423,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of
$6,125,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of
$3,298,000, and an average annual cost of $282,000 for
periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of $183,000 and an
estimated annual non-Federal cost of $99,000.
(8) Brevard county, florida.--The project for shoreline
protection, Brevard County, Florida, at a total first cost of
$76,620,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of
$36,006,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of
$40,614,000, and an average annual cost of $2,341,000 for
periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,109,000 and an
estimated annual non-Federal cost of $1,232,000.
(9) Miami harbor channel, florida.--The project for
navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, Miami, Florida, with an
estimated total cost of $3,221,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $1,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,421,000.
(10) North worth inlet, florida.--The project for
navigation and shoreline protection, Lake Worth Inlet, Palm
Beach Harbor, Florida, at a total cost of $3,915,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $1,762,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,153,000.
(11) Lower savannah river basin, savannah river, georgia
and south carolina.--The project for navigation and related
purposes, Lower Savannah River Basin, Savannah River, Georgia
and South Carolina, at a total cost of $3,419,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $2,551,000, and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $868,000.
(12) Absecon island, new jersey.--The project for storm
damage reduction and shoreline protection, Brigantine Inlet
to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, Absecon Island, New Jersey, at a
total cost of $52,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$34,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $18,000,000.
(13) Cape fear river, north carolina.--The project for
navigation, Cape Fear River deepening, North Carolina, at a
total cost of $210,264,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$130,159,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$80,105,000.
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) South upland, san bernadino county, california.--
Project for flood control, South Upland, San Bernadino
County, California.
(2) Birds, lawrence county, illinois.--Project for flood
control, Birds, Lawrence County, Illinois.
(3) Bridgeport, lawrence county, illinois.--Project for
flood control, Bridgeport, Lawrence County, Illinois.
(4) Embarras river, villa grove, illinois.--Project for
flood control, Embarras River, Villa Grove, Illinois.
(5) Frankfort, will county, illinois.--Project for flood
control, Frankfort, Will County, Illinois.
(6) Sumner, lawrence county, illinois.--Project for flood
control, Sumner, Lawrence County, Illinois.
(7) Vermillion river, demanade park, lafayette,
louisiana.--Project for nonstructural flood control,
Vermillion River, Demanade Park, Lafayette, 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 subdivision, lafayette,
louisiana.--Project for nonstructural flood control,
Vermillion River, Quail Hollow Subdivision, Lafayette,
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.
(9) Kawkawlin river, bay county, michigan.--Project for
flood control, Kawkawlin River, Bay County, Michigan.
(10) Whitney drain, arenac county, michigan.--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
reconnaissance 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) River Des Peres, St. Louis County, Missouri.--Project
for flood control, River Des Peres, St. Louis County,
Missouri. In carrying out the study and the project (if any),
the Secretary shall determine the feasibility of potential
flood control measures, consider potential storm water runoff
and related improvements, and cooperate with the Metropolitan
St. Louis Sewer District.
[[Page
H8697]]
(14) Buffalo creek, erie county, new york.--Project for
flood control, Buffalo Creek, Erie County, New York.
(15) Cazenovia creek, erie county, new york.--Project for
flood control, Cazenovia Creek, Erie County, New York.
(16) Cheektowaga, erie county, new york.--Project for flood
control, Cheektowaga, Erie County, New York.
(17) Fulmer creek, village of mohawk, new york.--Project
for flood control, Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York.
(18) Moyer creek, village of frankfort, new york.--Project
for flood control, Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New
York.
(19) Sauquoit creek, whitesboro, new york.--Project for
flood control, Sauquoit Creek, Whitesboro, New York.
(20) Steele creek, village of ilion, new york.--Project for
flood control, Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York.
(21) Willamette river, oregon.--Project for nonstructural
flood control, Willamette River, Oregon, including floodplain
and ecosystem restoration.
(22) Greenbrier river basin, west virginia.--Project for
flood control, consisting of an early flood warning system,
Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.
(b) Cost Allocations.--
(1) Lake elsinore, california.--The maximum 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 allotted 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 requirement applicable
to the project referred to in paragraph (1) under the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986.
SEC. 103. SMALL BANK STABILIZATION PROJECTS.
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 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
(1) St. joseph river, indiana.--Project for bank
stabilization, St. Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana,
including recreation and pedestrian access features.
(2) Allegheny river at oil city, pennsylvania.--Project for
bank stabilization to address erosion problems affecting the
pipeline crossing the Allegheny River at Oil City,
Pennsylvania, including measures to address erosion affecting
the pipeline in the bed of the Allegheny River and its
adjacent banks.
(3) Cumberland river, nashville, tennessee.--Project for
bank stabilization, Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.
(4) Tennessee river, hamilton county, tennessee.--Project
for bank stabilization, Tennessee River, Hamilton County,
Tennessee; except that the maximum amount of Federal funds
that may be allotted for the project shall be $7,500,000.
SEC. 104. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.
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 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 technology 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 navigation, Duluth,
Minnesota.
(4) Taconite, minnesota.--Project for navigation, 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, missouri.--Project for
navigation, New Madrid County Harbor, Missouri, including
enlargement of the existing harbor and bank stabilization
measures.
(8) Brooklyn, new york.--Project for navigation, 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 Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
(10) Glenn cove creek, new york.--Project for navigation,
Glenn Cove Creek, New York, including bulkheading.
(11) Union ship canal, buffalo and lackawanna, 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, Florida.
(3) Orchard beach, bronx, new york.--Project for shoreline
protection, Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York, New York; except
that the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allotted
for the project shall be $5,200,000.
(4) Sylvan beach breakwater, verona, oneida county, new
york.--Project for shoreline protection, Sylvan Beach
breakwater, 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 the
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
clearing, snagging, and sediment removal, East Bank of the
Mississippi River, Little Falls, Minnesota, including removal
of sediment from culverts. The study shall include a
determination of the adequacy of culverts to maintain flows
through the channel. If the Secretary determines that the
project is feasible, the Secretary 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 Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309(a)):
(1) Upper truckee river, el dorado county, california.--
Project for environmental restoration, Upper Truckee River,
El Dorado County, California, including measures for
restoration of degraded wetlands and wildlife enhancement.
(2) San lorenzo river, california.--Project for habitat
restoration, San Lorenzo River, California.
(3) Whittier narrows dam, california.--Project for
environmental restoration and remediation of contaminated
water sources, Whittier Narrows Dam, California.
(4) Upper jordan river, salt lake county, utah.--Project
for channel restoration and environmental improvement, Upper
Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah.
SEC. 108. PROJECT TO MITIGATE SHORE DAMAGE.
The Secretary shall expedite the Assateague Island
restoration feature of the Ocean City, Maryland, and vicinity
study and, if the Secretary determines that the Federal
navigation project has contributed to degradation of the
shoreline, the Secretary shall carry out the project for
shoreline restoration under section 111 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 735); except that the maximum
amount of Federal funds that may be allotted by the Secretary
for the project shall be $35,000,000. In carrying out the
project, the Secretary shall coordinate with affected Federal
and State agencies and shall enter into an agreement with the
Federal property owner to determine the allocation of the
project costs.
TITLE II--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. COST SHARING FOR DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL 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' includes constructed land-based
and aquatic dredged material disposal facilities that are
necessary for the disposal of dredged material required for
project construction and for which a contract for
construction has not been awarded on or before the date of
the enactment of this paragraph.''.
(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'';
[[Page
H8698]]
(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 inserting ``by
the Secretary pursuant to this Act or any other law approved
after the date of the enactment of this Act''; and
(4) by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(2) Dredged material disposal facilities.--The Federal
share of the cost of constructing land-based and aquatic
dredged material disposal facilities that are necessary for
the disposal of dredged material required for the operation
and maintenance of a project and for which a contract for
construction 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 striking ``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--
``(1) 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 associated with construction of dredged material
disposal facilities in accordance with subsections (a) and
(b);
``(2) funds expended for such construction are equitably
apportioned in accordance with regional needs; and
``(3) the Secretary's participation in the construction of
dredged material disposal facilities does not result in
unfair competition with potential private sector providers of
such facilities.''.
(e) Eligible Operations and Maintenance Defined.--Section
214(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2241; 100 Stat. 4108) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by inserting ``Federal'' after ``means all'';
(B) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``including''; and
(C) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``; (ii) the construction of dredged material
disposal facilities that are necessary for the operation and
maintenance of any harbor or inland harbor; (iii) dredging
and disposing of contaminated sediments which are in or which
affect the maintenance of Federal navigation channels; (iv)
mitigating for impacts resulting from Federal navigation
operation and maintenance activities; and (v) operating and
maintaining dredged material disposal facilities''; and
(2) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``rights-of-way, or
dredged material disposal areas,'' and inserting ``or rights-
of-way,''.
(f) Amendment of Cooperation Agreement.--If requested by
the non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall amend a project
cooperation agreement executed on or before the date of the
enactment of this Act to reflect the application of the
amendments made by this section to any project for which a
contract for construction has not been awarded on or before
such date of enactment.
(g) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section (including the
amendments made by this section) shall increase, or result in
the increase of, the non-Federal share of the costs of--
(1) any dredged material disposal facility authorized
before the date of the enactment of this Act, including any
facility authorized by section 123 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1823); or
(2) any dredged material disposal facility that is
necessary for the construction or maintenance of a project
authorized before the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 202. FLOOD CONTROL POLICY.
(a) Flood Control Cost Sharing.--
(1) Increased non-federal contributions.--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
striking ``25 percent'' each place it appears and inserting
``35 percent''.
(2) Applicability.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to any project authorized after the date of the
enactment of this Act and to any flood control project which
is not specifically authorized by Congress for which a
Detailed Project Report is approved after such date of
enactment or, in the case of a project for which no Detailed
Project Report is prepared, construction is initiated after
such date of enactment.
(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 agreement under this
section for flood control or agricultural 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 determined by the Secretary
in accordance with criteria and procedures in effect on the
day before the date of the enactment of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996; except that such criteria and
procedures 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 Secretary--
``(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 county 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 relating to the non-
Federal interest's financial ability to carry out its cost-
sharing responsibilities, to the extent that the application
of such criteria does not eliminate areas from eligibility
for a reduction in the non-Federal share as determined under
subparagraph (A).
``(4) Non-federal share.--Notwithstanding subsection (a),
the Secretary shall reduce or eliminate the requirement that
a non-Federal interest make a cash contribution for any
project that is determined 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 subparagraph (C), 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.
(B) Amendment of cooperation agreement.--If requested by
the non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall amend a project
cooperation agreement executed on or before the date of the
enactment of this Act to reflect the application of the
amendment made by paragraph (1) to any project for which a
contract for construction has not been awarded on or before
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 Resources 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 Management and Insurance
Programs.--Before construction of any project for local flood
protection or any project for hurricane or storm damage
reduction and involving Federal assistance from the
Secretary, the non-Federal interest shall agree to
participate in and comply with applicable Federal flood plain
management and flood insurance programs.
``(b) Flood Plain Management Plans.--Within 1 year after
the date of signing a project cooperation agreement 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 Secretary shall develop
guidelines for preparation of flood plain management plans by
non-Federal interests under subsection (b). Such guidelines
shall address potential measures, practices and policies to
reduce loss of life, injuries, damages to property and
facilities, public expenditures, and other adverse impacts
associated with flooding and to preserve and enhance natural
flood plain values.
``(2) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to confer any regulatory
authority upon the Secretary.
``(d) Technical Support.--The Secretary is authorized to
provide technical support to a non-Federal interest 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 review of
policies, procedures, and techniques relating to the
evaluation and development of flood control measures with a
view toward identifying impediments 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
[[Page
H8699]]
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the findings
on the review conducted under this subsection, together with
any recommendations for modifying existing 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 certain
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''.
(f) Nonstructural Alternatives.--Section 73 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 701b-11; 88
Stat. 32) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting
the following:
``(a) In the survey, planning, or design by any Federal
agency of any project involving flood protection, such
agency, with a view toward formulating the most economically,
socially, and environmentally acceptable means of reducing or
preventing flood damages, shall consider and address in
adequate detail nonstructural alternatives, including
measures that may be implemented by others, to prevent or
reduce flood damages. Such alternatives may include watershed
management, wetlands restoration, elevation or flood proofing
of structures, floodplain regulation, relocation, and
acquisition of floodplain lands for recreational, fish and
wildlife, and other public purposes.''.
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 following:
``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-sharing 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 subject 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-Federal 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 subsection (a)
shall apply notwithstanding any feasibility cost-sharing
agreement entered into by the Secretary and non-Federal
interests. Upon request of the non-Federal interest, 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 following 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 contributed 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 restoration, either through
modifications at the project site or at other locations that
have been affected by the construction or operation of the
project, if such m
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in House section
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
(House of Representatives - July 30, 1996)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H8693-H8756]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (
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, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3592
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 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, Little Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 107. Small projects for improvement of the environment.
Sec. 108. Project to mitigate shore damage.
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. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 208. Recreation policy and user fees.
Sec. 209. Recovery of costs.
Sec. 210. Cost sharing of environmental projects.
Sec. 211. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal
interests.
Sec. 212. Engineering and environmental innovations of national
significance.
Sec. 213. Lease authority.
Sec. 214. Collaborative research and development.
Sec. 215. Dam safety program.
Sec. 216. Maintenance, rehabilitation, and modernization of facilities.
Sec. 217. Long-term sediment management strategies.
Sec. 218. Dredged material disposal facility partnerships.
Sec. 219. Obstruction removal requirement.
Sec. 220. Small project authorizations.
Sec. 221. Uneconomical cost-sharing requirements.
Sec. 222. Planning assistance to States.
Sec. 223. Corps of Engineers expenses.
Sec. 224. State and Federal agency review period.
Sec. 225. Limitation on reimbursement of non-Federal costs per project.
Sec. 226. Aquatic plant control.
Sec. 227. Sediments decontamination technology.
Sec. 228. Shore protection.
Sec. 229. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 230. Support of Army Civil Works Program.
Sec. 231. Benefits to navigation.
Sec. 232. Loss of life prevention.
Sec. 233. Scenic and aesthetic considerations.
Sec. 234. Removal of study prohibitions.
Sec. 235. Sense of Congress; requirement regarding notice.
Sec. 236. Reservoir Management Technical Advisory Committee.
Sec. 237. Technical corrections.
TITLE III--PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Sec. 301. Mobile Harbor, Alabama.
Sec. 302. Alamo Dam, Arizona.
[[Page
H8694]]
Sec. 303. Nogales Wash and Tributaries, Arizona.
Sec. 304. Phoenix, Arizona.
Sec. 305. San Francisco River at Clifton, Arizona.
Sec. 306. Channel Islands Harbor, California
Sec. 307. Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 308. Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, San Pedro Bay,
California.
Sec. 309. Oakland Harbor, California.
Sec. 310. Queensway Bay, California.
Sec. 311. San Luis Rey, California.
Sec. 312. Thames River, Connecticut.
Sec. 313. Potomac River, Washington, District Of Columbia.
Sec. 314. Canaveral Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 315. Captiva Island, Florida.
Sec. 316. Central and southern Florida, Canal 51.
Sec. 317. Central and southern Florida, Canal 111 (C-111).
Sec. 318. Jacksonville Harbor (Mill Cove), Florida.
Sec. 319. Panama City Beaches, Florida.
Sec. 320. Tybee Island, Georgia.
Sec. 321. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 322. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 323. Chicago Lock and Thomas J. O'Brien Lock, Illinois.
Sec. 324. Kaskaskia River, Illinois.
Sec. 325. Locks and Dam 26, Alton, Illinois and Missouri.
Sec. 326. North Branch of Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. 327. Illinois and Michigan Canal.
Sec. 328. Halstead, Kansas.
Sec. 329. Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland
River, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia.
Sec. 330. Prestonburg, Kentucky.
Sec. 331. Comite River, Louisiana.
Sec. 332. Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana.
Sec. 333. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.
Sec. 334. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.
Sec. 335. Mississippi River Outlets, Venice, Louisiana.
Sec. 336. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 337. Westwego to Harvey Canal, Louisiana.
Sec. 338. Tolchester Channel, Maryland.
Sec. 339. Saginaw River, Michigan.
Sec. 340. Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan.
Sec. 341. Stillwater, Minnesota.
Sec. 342. Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
Sec. 343. New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.
Sec. 344. St. John's Bayou--New Madrid Floodway, Missouri.
Sec. 345. Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Park, New Jersey.
Sec. 346. Molly Ann's Brook, New Jersey.
Sec. 347. Passaic River, New Jersey.
Sec. 348. Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jersey and New York.
Sec. 349. Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey.
Sec. 350. Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 351. Jones Inlet, New York.
Sec. 352. Kill Van Kull, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 353. Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River, North Carolina.
Sec. 354. Garrison Dam, North Dakota.
Sec. 355. Reno Beach-Howards Farm, Ohio.
Sec. 356. Wister Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 357. Bonneville Lock and Dam, Columbia River, Oregon and
Washington.
Sec. 358. Columbia River dredging, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 359. Grays Landing Lock and Dam, Monongahela River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 360. Lackawanna River at Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 361. Mussers Dam, Middle Creek, Snyder County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 362. Saw Mill Run, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 363. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 364. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 365. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 366. San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 367. Narragansett, Rhode Island.
Sec. 368. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Sec. 369. Dallas Floodway Extension, Dallas, Texas.
Sec. 370. Upper Jordan River, Utah.
Sec. 371. Haysi Lake, Virginia.
Sec. 372. Rudee Inlet, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 373. Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 374. East Waterway, Washington.
Sec. 375. Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.
Sec. 376. Moorefield, West Virginia.
Sec. 377. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 378. West Virginia trail head facilities.
Sec. 379. Kickapoo River, Wisconsin.
Sec. 380. 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. Southern California infrastructure.
Sec. 408. Yolo Bypass, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
Sec. 409. Chain of Rocks Canal, Illinois.
Sec. 410. Quincy, Illinois.
Sec. 411. Springfield, Illinois.
Sec. 412. Beauty Creek Watershed, Valparaiso City, Porter County,
Indiana.
Sec. 413. Grand Calumet River, Hammond, Indiana.
Sec. 414. Indiana Harbor Canal, East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana.
Sec. 415. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 416. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
Sec. 417. Tippecanoe River Watershed, Indiana.
Sec. 418. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Hackberry, Louisiana.
Sec. 419. Huron River, Michigan.
Sec. 420. Saco River, New Hampshire.
Sec. 421. Buffalo River Greenway, New York.
Sec. 422. Port of Newburgh, New York.
Sec. 423. Port of New York-New Jersey sediment study.
Sec. 424. Port of New York-New Jersey navigation study.
Sec. 425. Chagrin River, Ohio.
Sec. 426. Cuyahoga River, Ohio.
Sec. 427. Charleston, South Carolina, estuary.
Sec. 428. Mustang Island, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Sec. 429. Prince William County, Virginia.
Sec. 430. Pacific region.
Sec. 431. Financing of infrastructure needs of small and medium ports.
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. Hopper dredges.
Sec. 522. Design and construction assistance.
Sec. 523. Field office headquarters facilities.
Sec. 524. Corps of Engineers restructuring plan.
Sec. 525. Lake Superior Center.
Sec. 526. Jackson County, Alabama.
Sec. 527. Earthquake Preparedness Center of Expertise Extension.
Sec. 528. Quarantine facility.
Sec. 529. Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas.
Sec. 530. Calaveras County, California.
Sec. 531. Farmington Dam, California.
Sec. 532. Prado Dam safety improvements, California.
Sec. 533. Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.
Sec. 534. Seven Oaks Dam, California.
Sec. 535. Manatee County, Florida.
Sec. 536. Tampa, Florida.
Sec. 537. Watershed management plan for Deep River Basin, Indiana.
Sec. 538. Southern and eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 539. Louisiana coastal wetlands restoration projects.
Sec. 540. Southeast Louisiana.
Sec. 541. Restoration projects for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia.
Sec. 542. Cumberland, Maryland.
Sec. 543. Beneficial use of dredged material, Poplar Island, Maryland.
Sec. 544. Erosion control measures, Smith Island, Maryland.
Sec. 545. Duluth, Minnesota, alternative technology project.
Sec. 546. Redwood River Basin, Minnesota.
Sec. 547. Natchez Bluffs, Mississippi.
Sec. 548. Sardis Lake, Mississippi.
Sec. 549. Missouri River management.
Sec. 550. St. Charles County, Missouri, flood protection.
Sec. 551. Durham, New Hampshire.
Sec. 552. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
Sec. 553. Authorization of dredge material containment facility for
Port of New York/New Jersey.
Sec. 554. Hudson River habitat restoration, New York.
Sec. 555. Queens County, New York.
Sec. 556. New York Bight and Harbor study.
Sec. 557. New York State Canal System.
Sec. 558. New York City Watershed.
Sec. 559. Ohio River Greenway.
Sec. 560. Northeastern Ohio.
Sec. 561. Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 562. Broad Top region of Pennsylvania.
Sec. 563. Curwensville Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 564. Hopper Dredge McFarland.
Sec. 565. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 566. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 567. Seven Points Visitors Center, Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 568. Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Sec. 569. Wills Creek, Hyndman, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 570. Blackstone River Valley, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
Sec. 571. East Ridge, Tennessee.
Sec. 572. Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
Sec. 573. Buffalo Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 574. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 575. San Antonio River, Texas.
Sec. 576. Neabsco Creek, Virginia.
[[Page
H8695]]
Sec. 577. Tangier Island, Virginia.
Sec. 578. Pierce County, Washington.
Sec. 579. Washington Aqueduct.
Sec. 580. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia, flood protection.
Sec. 581. Huntington, West Virginia.
Sec. 582. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Sec. 583. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.
Sec. 584. Evaluation of beach material.
Sec. 585. National Center for Nanofabrication and Molecular Self-
Assembly.
Sec. 586. Sense of Congress regarding St. Lawrence Seaway tolls.
Sec. 587. Prado Dam, California.
TITLE VI--EXTENSION OF EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY UNDER HARBOR MAINTENANCE
TRUST FUND
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.
(a) Projects with Chief's Reports.--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) American river watershed, california.--
(A) In general.--The project for flood damage reduction,
American and Sacramento Rivers, California: Supplemental
Information Report for the American River Watershed Project,
California, dated March 1996, at a total cost of $57,300,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $42,975,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $14,325,000, consisting of the
following:
(i) Approximately 24 miles of slurry wall in the existing
levees along the lower American River.
(ii) Approximately 12 miles of levee modifications along
the east bank of the Sacramento River downstream from the
Natomas Cross Canal.
(iii) 3 telemeter streamflow gages upstream from the Folsom
Reservoir.
(iv) Modifications to the existing flood warning system
along the lower American River.
(B) Credit toward non-federal share.--The non-Federal
sponsor shall receive credit toward the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project for expenses that the sponsor has
incurred for design and construction of any of the features
authorized pursuant to this paragraph prior to the date on
which Federal funds are appropriated for construction of the
project. The amount of the credit shall be determined by the
Secretary.
(C) Operation of folsom dam.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall continue to operate the Folsom Dam and Reservoir to the
variable 400,000/670,000 acre-feet of flood control storage
capacity as an interim measure and extend the agreement
between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Sacramento Area
Flood Control Agency until such date as a comprehensive flood
control plan for the American River Watershed has been
implemented.
(D) Responsibility of non-federal sponsor.--The non-Federal
sponsor shall be responsible for all operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with
the improvements undertaken pursuant to this paragraph, as
well as for 25 percent of the costs for the variable flood
control operation of the Folsom Dam and Reservoir (including
any incremental power and water purchase costs incurred by
the Western Area Power Administration or the Bureau of
Reclamation and any direction, capital, and operation and
maintenance costs borne by either of such agencies).
Notwithstanding any contract or other agreement, the
remaining 75 percent of the costs for the variable flood
control operation of the Folsom Dam and Reservoir shall be
the responsibility of the United States and shall be
nonreimbursable.
(2) San lorenzo river, santa cruz, california.--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 $21,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,900,000.
(3) 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 estimated non-Federal cost of $1,170,000.
(4) Santa monica breakwater, california.--The project for
navigation and storm damage reduction, Santa Monica
Breakwater, Santa Monica, California: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated June 7, 1996, at a total cost of $6,440,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $4,220,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $2,220,000.
(5) Marin county shoreline, san rafael, california.--The
project for storm damage reduction, Marin County shoreline,
San Rafael, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated January 28, 1994, at a total cost of $28,300,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $18,400,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $9,900,000.
(6) Humboldt harbor and bay, california.--The project for
navigation, Humboldt Harbor and Bay, California: Report of
the Chief of Engineers, dated October 30, 1995, at a total
cost of $15,180,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,180,000.
(7) Anacostia river and tributaries, district of columbia
and maryland.--The project for environmental restoration,
Anacostia River and Tributaries, District of Columbia and
Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated November
15, 1994, at a total cost of $17,144,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $12,858,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $4,286,000.
(8) Atlantic intracoastal waterway, st. johns county,
florida.--The project for navigation, 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, replacement, and
rehabilitation shall be a non-Federal responsibility and the
non-Federal interest must assume ownership of the bridge.
(9) 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
Federal cost of $110,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $94,000,000. The project shall include the breakwater
near the South Water Filtration Plant described in the report
as a separate element 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. The Secretary
shall reimburse the non-Federal interest for the Federal
share of any costs incurred by the non-Federal interest--
(A) in reconstructing the revetment structures protecting
Solidarity Drive in Chicago, Illinois, if such work is
determined by the Secretary to be a component of the project;
and
(B) in constructing the breakwater near the South Water
Filtration Plant in Chicago, Illinois.
(10) Kentucky lock and dam, tennessee river, kentucky.--The
project for navigation, Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee
River, Kentucky: 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.
(11) Pond creek, jefferson county, kentucky.--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.
(12) Wolf creek dam and lake cumberland, 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 estimated non-
Federal cost of $53,763,000. Funds derived 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.
(13) 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.
(14) West bank of the mississippi river, new orleans (east
of harvey canal), louisiana.--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 estimated Federal cost of
$82,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $43,800,000.
(15) Wood river, grand island, nebraska.--The project for
flood control, Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska: Report of
the Chief of Engineers, 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.
(16) Las cruces, new mexico.--The project for flood
control, Las Cruces, New Mexico: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated June 24, 1996, at a total cost of
$8,278,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,494,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,784,000.
(17) Long beach island, new york.--The project for storm
damage reduction, Long Beach Island, 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.
(18) Wilmington harbor, cape fear river, north carolina.--
The project for navigation, Wilmington 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.
(19) 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 estimated Federal cost of $11,960,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,987,000.
[[Page
H8696]]
(20) Willamette river temperature control, 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 estimated
Federal cost of $38,000,000.
(21) Rio grande de arecibo, puerto rico.--The project for
flood control, Rio Grande de Arecibo, Puerto Rico: Report of
the Chief of Engineers, 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.
(22) Charleston harbor, south carolina.--The project for
navigation, Charleston Harbor Deepening and Widening, South
Carolina: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 18,
1996, at a total cost of $116,639,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $72,798,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $43,841,000.
(23) 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.
(24) 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.
(25) Gulf intracoastal waterway, aransas national wildlife
refuge, texas.--The project for navigation and environmental
preservation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Aransas National
Wildlife Refuge, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated May 28, 1996, at a total cost of $18,283,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $18,283,000.
(26) Houston-galveston navigation channels, texas.--The
project for navigation and environmental restoration,
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas: Report of the
Chief of Engineers, dated May 9, 1996, at a total initial
construction cost of $292,797,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $210,891,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$81,906,000. The project shall include deferred construction
of additional environmental 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 construction of
berthing areas and the removal of pipelines and other
obstructions that are necessary for the project shall be
accomplished at non-Federal expense. Non-Federal interests
shall receive credit toward cash contributions required
during construction and subsequent to construction for design
and construction management work that is performed by non-
Federal interests and that the Secretary determines is
necessary to implement the project.
(27) 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
appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\
from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways 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
individuals. The Secretary shall proceed with real estate
acquisition in connection with the project expeditiously.
(b) Projects With Pending Chief's Reports.--The following
projects are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary
substantially in accordance with a final report of the Chief
of Engineers if such report is completed not later than
December 31, 1996:
(1) Chignik, alaska.--The project for navigation, Chignik,
Alaska, at a total cost of $10,365,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $4,344,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $6,021,000.
(2) Cook inlet, alaska.--The project for navigation, Cook
Inlet, Alaska, at a total cost of $5,342,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $4,006,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $1,336,000.
(3) St. paul island harbor, st. paul, alaska.--The project
for navigation, St. Paul Harbor, St. Paul, Alaska, with an
estimated total cost of $18,981,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $12,188,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $6,793,000.
(4) Norco bluffs, riverside county, california.--A project
for bluff stabilization, Norco Bluffs, Riverside County,
California, with an estimated total cost of $8,600,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $6,450,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,150,000.
(5) Port of long beach (deepening), california.--The
project for navigation, Port of Long Beach (Deepening),
California, at a total cost of $37,288,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $14,318,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $22,970,000.
(6) Terminus dam, kaweah river, california.--The project
for flood damage reduction and water supply, Terminus Dam,
Kaweah River, California, at a total estimated cost of
$34,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,200,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $14,300,000.
(7) Rehoboth beach and dewey beach, delaware.--A project
for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection, Rehoboth
Beach and Dewey Beach, Delaware, at a total cost of
$9,423,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of
$6,125,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of
$3,298,000, and an average annual cost of $282,000 for
periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of $183,000 and an
estimated annual non-Federal cost of $99,000.
(8) Brevard county, florida.--The project for shoreline
protection, Brevard County, Florida, at a total first cost of
$76,620,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of
$36,006,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of
$40,614,000, and an average annual cost of $2,341,000 for
periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,109,000 and an
estimated annual non-Federal cost of $1,232,000.
(9) Miami harbor channel, florida.--The project for
navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, Miami, Florida, with an
estimated total cost of $3,221,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $1,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,421,000.
(10) North worth inlet, florida.--The project for
navigation and shoreline protection, Lake Worth Inlet, Palm
Beach Harbor, Florida, at a total cost of $3,915,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $1,762,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,153,000.
(11) Lower savannah river basin, savannah river, georgia
and south carolina.--The project for navigation and related
purposes, Lower Savannah River Basin, Savannah River, Georgia
and South Carolina, at a total cost of $3,419,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $2,551,000, and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $868,000.
(12) Absecon island, new jersey.--The project for storm
damage reduction and shoreline protection, Brigantine Inlet
to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, Absecon Island, New Jersey, at a
total cost of $52,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$34,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $18,000,000.
(13) Cape fear river, north carolina.--The project for
navigation, Cape Fear River deepening, North Carolina, at a
total cost of $210,264,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$130,159,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$80,105,000.
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) South upland, san bernadino county, california.--
Project for flood control, South Upland, San Bernadino
County, California.
(2) Birds, lawrence county, illinois.--Project for flood
control, Birds, Lawrence County, Illinois.
(3) Bridgeport, lawrence county, illinois.--Project for
flood control, Bridgeport, Lawrence County, Illinois.
(4) Embarras river, villa grove, illinois.--Project for
flood control, Embarras River, Villa Grove, Illinois.
(5) Frankfort, will county, illinois.--Project for flood
control, Frankfort, Will County, Illinois.
(6) Sumner, lawrence county, illinois.--Project for flood
control, Sumner, Lawrence County, Illinois.
(7) Vermillion river, demanade park, lafayette,
louisiana.--Project for nonstructural flood control,
Vermillion River, Demanade Park, Lafayette, 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 subdivision, lafayette,
louisiana.--Project for nonstructural flood control,
Vermillion River, Quail Hollow Subdivision, Lafayette,
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.
(9) Kawkawlin river, bay county, michigan.--Project for
flood control, Kawkawlin River, Bay County, Michigan.
(10) Whitney drain, arenac county, michigan.--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
reconnaissance 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) River Des Peres, St. Louis County, Missouri.--Project
for flood control, River Des Peres, St. Louis County,
Missouri. In carrying out the study and the project (if any),
the Secretary shall determine the feasibility of potential
flood control measures, consider potential storm water runoff
and related improvements, and cooperate with the Metropolitan
St. Louis Sewer District.
[[Page
H8697]]
(14) Buffalo creek, erie county, new york.--Project for
flood control, Buffalo Creek, Erie County, New York.
(15) Cazenovia creek, erie county, new york.--Project for
flood control, Cazenovia Creek, Erie County, New York.
(16) Cheektowaga, erie county, new york.--Project for flood
control, Cheektowaga, Erie County, New York.
(17) Fulmer creek, village of mohawk, new york.--Project
for flood control, Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York.
(18) Moyer creek, village of frankfort, new york.--Project
for flood control, Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New
York.
(19) Sauquoit creek, whitesboro, new york.--Project for
flood control, Sauquoit Creek, Whitesboro, New York.
(20) Steele creek, village of ilion, new york.--Project for
flood control, Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York.
(21) Willamette river, oregon.--Project for nonstructural
flood control, Willamette River, Oregon, including floodplain
and ecosystem restoration.
(22) Greenbrier river basin, west virginia.--Project for
flood control, consisting of an early flood warning system,
Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.
(b) Cost Allocations.--
(1) Lake elsinore, california.--The maximum 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 allotted 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 requirement applicable
to the project referred to in paragraph (1) under the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986.
SEC. 103. SMALL BANK STABILIZATION PROJECTS.
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 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
(1) St. joseph river, indiana.--Project for bank
stabilization, St. Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana,
including recreation and pedestrian access features.
(2) Allegheny river at oil city, pennsylvania.--Project for
bank stabilization to address erosion problems affecting the
pipeline crossing the Allegheny River at Oil City,
Pennsylvania, including measures to address erosion affecting
the pipeline in the bed of the Allegheny River and its
adjacent banks.
(3) Cumberland river, nashville, tennessee.--Project for
bank stabilization, Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.
(4) Tennessee river, hamilton county, tennessee.--Project
for bank stabilization, Tennessee River, Hamilton County,
Tennessee; except that the maximum amount of Federal funds
that may be allotted for the project shall be $7,500,000.
SEC. 104. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.
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 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 technology 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 navigation, Duluth,
Minnesota.
(4) Taconite, minnesota.--Project for navigation, 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, missouri.--Project for
navigation, New Madrid County Harbor, Missouri, including
enlargement of the existing harbor and bank stabilization
measures.
(8) Brooklyn, new york.--Project for navigation, 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 Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
(10) Glenn cove creek, new york.--Project for navigation,
Glenn Cove Creek, New York, including bulkheading.
(11) Union ship canal, buffalo and lackawanna, 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, Florida.
(3) Orchard beach, bronx, new york.--Project for shoreline
protection, Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York, New York; except
that the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allotted
for the project shall be $5,200,000.
(4) Sylvan beach breakwater, verona, oneida county, new
york.--Project for shoreline protection, Sylvan Beach
breakwater, 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 the
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
clearing, snagging, and sediment removal, East Bank of the
Mississippi River, Little Falls, Minnesota, including removal
of sediment from culverts. The study shall include a
determination of the adequacy of culverts to maintain flows
through the channel. If the Secretary determines that the
project is feasible, the Secretary 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 Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309(a)):
(1) Upper truckee river, el dorado county, california.--
Project for environmental restoration, Upper Truckee River,
El Dorado County, California, including measures for
restoration of degraded wetlands and wildlife enhancement.
(2) San lorenzo river, california.--Project for habitat
restoration, San Lorenzo River, California.
(3) Whittier narrows dam, california.--Project for
environmental restoration and remediation of contaminated
water sources, Whittier Narrows Dam, California.
(4) Upper jordan river, salt lake county, utah.--Project
for channel restoration and environmental improvement, Upper
Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah.
SEC. 108. PROJECT TO MITIGATE SHORE DAMAGE.
The Secretary shall expedite the Assateague Island
restoration feature of the Ocean City, Maryland, and vicinity
study and, if the Secretary determines that the Federal
navigation project has contributed to degradation of the
shoreline, the Secretary shall carry out the project for
shoreline restoration under section 111 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 735); except that the maximum
amount of Federal funds that may be allotted by the Secretary
for the project shall be $35,000,000. In carrying out the
project, the Secretary shall coordinate with affected Federal
and State agencies and shall enter into an agreement with the
Federal property owner to determine the allocation of the
project costs.
TITLE II--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. COST SHARING FOR DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL 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' includes constructed land-based
and aquatic dredged material disposal facilities that are
necessary for the disposal of dredged material required for
project construction and for which a contract for
construction has not been awarded on or before the date of
the enactment of this paragraph.''.
(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'';
[[Page
H8698]]
(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 inserting ``by
the Secretary pursuant to this Act or any other law approved
after the date of the enactment of this Act''; and
(4) by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(2) Dredged material disposal facilities.--The Federal
share of the cost of constructing land-based and aquatic
dredged material disposal facilities that are necessary for
the disposal of dredged material required for the operation
and maintenance of a project and for which a contract for
construction 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 striking ``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--
``(1) 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 associated with construction of dredged material
disposal facilities in accordance with subsections (a) and
(b);
``(2) funds expended for such construction are equitably
apportioned in accordance with regional needs; and
``(3) the Secretary's participation in the construction of
dredged material disposal facilities does not result in
unfair competition with potential private sector providers of
such facilities.''.
(e) Eligible Operations and Maintenance Defined.--Section
214(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2241; 100 Stat. 4108) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by inserting ``Federal'' after ``means all'';
(B) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``including''; and
(C) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``; (ii) the construction of dredged material
disposal facilities that are necessary for the operation and
maintenance of any harbor or inland harbor; (iii) dredging
and disposing of contaminated sediments which are in or which
affect the maintenance of Federal navigation channels; (iv)
mitigating for impacts resulting from Federal navigation
operation and maintenance activities; and (v) operating and
maintaining dredged material disposal facilities''; and
(2) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``rights-of-way, or
dredged material disposal areas,'' and inserting ``or rights-
of-way,''.
(f) Amendment of Cooperation Agreement.--If requested by
the non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall amend a project
cooperation agreement executed on or before the date of the
enactment of this Act to reflect the application of the
amendments made by this section to any project for which a
contract for construction has not been awarded on or before
such date of enactment.
(g) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section (including the
amendments made by this section) shall increase, or result in
the increase of, the non-Federal share of the costs of--
(1) any dredged material disposal facility authorized
before the date of the enactment of this Act, including any
facility authorized by section 123 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1823); or
(2) any dredged material disposal facility that is
necessary for the construction or maintenance of a project
authorized before the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 202. FLOOD CONTROL POLICY.
(a) Flood Control Cost Sharing.--
(1) Increased non-federal contributions.--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
striking ``25 percent'' each place it appears and inserting
``35 percent''.
(2) Applicability.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to any project authorized after the date of the
enactment of this Act and to any flood control project which
is not specifically authorized by Congress for which a
Detailed Project Report is approved after such date of
enactment or, in the case of a project for which no Detailed
Project Report is prepared, construction is initiated after
such date of enactment.
(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 agreement under this
section for flood control or agricultural 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 determined by the Secretary
in accordance with criteria and procedures in effect on the
day before the date of the enactment of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996; except that such criteria and
procedures 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 Secretary--
``(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 county 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 relating to the non-
Federal interest's financial ability to carry out its cost-
sharing responsibilities, to the extent that the application
of such criteria does not eliminate areas from eligibility
for a reduction in the non-Federal share as determined under
subparagraph (A).
``(4) Non-federal share.--Notwithstanding subsection (a),
the Secretary shall reduce or eliminate the requirement that
a non-Federal interest make a cash contribution for any
project that is determined 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 subparagraph (C), 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.
(B) Amendment of cooperation agreement.--If requested by
the non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall amend a project
cooperation agreement executed on or before the date of the
enactment of this Act to reflect the application of the
amendment made by paragraph (1) to any project for which a
contract for construction has not been awarded on or before
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 Resources 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 Management and Insurance
Programs.--Before construction of any project for local flood
protection or any project for hurricane or storm damage
reduction and involving Federal assistance from the
Secretary, the non-Federal interest shall agree to
participate in and comply with applicable Federal flood plain
management and flood insurance programs.
``(b) Flood Plain Management Plans.--Within 1 year after
the date of signing a project cooperation agreement 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 Secretary shall develop
guidelines for preparation of flood plain management plans by
non-Federal interests under subsection (b). Such guidelines
shall address potential measures, practices and policies to
reduce loss of life, injuries, damages to property and
facilities, public expenditures, and other adverse impacts
associated with flooding and to preserve and enhance natural
flood plain values.
``(2) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to confer any regulatory
authority upon the Secretary.
``(d) Technical Support.--The Secretary is authorized to
provide technical support to a non-Federal interest 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 review of
policies, procedures, and techniques relating to the
evaluation and development of flood control measures with a
view toward identifying impediments 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
[[Page
H8699]]
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the findings
on the review conducted under this subsection, together with
any recommendations for modifying existing 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 certain
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''.
(f) Nonstructural Alternatives.--Section 73 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 701b-11; 88
Stat. 32) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting
the following:
``(a) In the survey, planning, or design by any Federal
agency of any project involving flood protection, such
agency, with a view toward formulating the most economically,
socially, and environmentally acceptable means of reducing or
preventing flood damages, shall consider and address in
adequate detail nonstructural alternatives, including
measures that may be implemented by others, to prevent or
reduce flood damages. Such alternatives may include watershed
management, wetlands restoration, elevation or flood proofing
of structures, floodplain regulation, relocation, and
acquisition of floodplain lands for recreational, fish and
wildlife, and other public purposes.''.
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 following:
``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-sharing 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 subject 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-Federal 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 subsection (a)
shall apply notwithstanding any feasibility cost-sharing
agreement entered into by the Secretary and non-Federal
interests. Upon request of the non-Federal interest, 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 following 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 contributed 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 restoration, either through
modifications at the project site or at other locations that
have been affected by the construction or operation of the
project, if such measures do
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
(House of Representatives - July 30, 1996)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H8693-H8756]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (
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, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3592
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 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, Little Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 107. Small projects for improvement of the environment.
Sec. 108. Project to mitigate shore damage.
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. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 208. Recreation policy and user fees.
Sec. 209. Recovery of costs.
Sec. 210. Cost sharing of environmental projects.
Sec. 211. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal
interests.
Sec. 212. Engineering and environmental innovations of national
significance.
Sec. 213. Lease authority.
Sec. 214. Collaborative research and development.
Sec. 215. Dam safety program.
Sec. 216. Maintenance, rehabilitation, and modernization of facilities.
Sec. 217. Long-term sediment management strategies.
Sec. 218. Dredged material disposal facility partnerships.
Sec. 219. Obstruction removal requirement.
Sec. 220. Small project authorizations.
Sec. 221. Uneconomical cost-sharing requirements.
Sec. 222. Planning assistance to States.
Sec. 223. Corps of Engineers expenses.
Sec. 224. State and Federal agency review period.
Sec. 225. Limitation on reimbursement of non-Federal costs per project.
Sec. 226. Aquatic plant control.
Sec. 227. Sediments decontamination technology.
Sec. 228. Shore protection.
Sec. 229. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 230. Support of Army Civil Works Program.
Sec. 231. Benefits to navigation.
Sec. 232. Loss of life prevention.
Sec. 233. Scenic and aesthetic considerations.
Sec. 234. Removal of study prohibitions.
Sec. 235. Sense of Congress; requirement regarding notice.
Sec. 236. Reservoir Management Technical Advisory Committee.
Sec. 237. Technical corrections.
TITLE III--PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Sec. 301. Mobile Harbor, Alabama.
Sec. 302. Alamo Dam, Arizona.
[[Page
H8694]]
Sec. 303. Nogales Wash and Tributaries, Arizona.
Sec. 304. Phoenix, Arizona.
Sec. 305. San Francisco River at Clifton, Arizona.
Sec. 306. Channel Islands Harbor, California
Sec. 307. Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 308. Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, San Pedro Bay,
California.
Sec. 309. Oakland Harbor, California.
Sec. 310. Queensway Bay, California.
Sec. 311. San Luis Rey, California.
Sec. 312. Thames River, Connecticut.
Sec. 313. Potomac River, Washington, District Of Columbia.
Sec. 314. Canaveral Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 315. Captiva Island, Florida.
Sec. 316. Central and southern Florida, Canal 51.
Sec. 317. Central and southern Florida, Canal 111 (C-111).
Sec. 318. Jacksonville Harbor (Mill Cove), Florida.
Sec. 319. Panama City Beaches, Florida.
Sec. 320. Tybee Island, Georgia.
Sec. 321. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 322. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 323. Chicago Lock and Thomas J. O'Brien Lock, Illinois.
Sec. 324. Kaskaskia River, Illinois.
Sec. 325. Locks and Dam 26, Alton, Illinois and Missouri.
Sec. 326. North Branch of Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. 327. Illinois and Michigan Canal.
Sec. 328. Halstead, Kansas.
Sec. 329. Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland
River, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia.
Sec. 330. Prestonburg, Kentucky.
Sec. 331. Comite River, Louisiana.
Sec. 332. Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana.
Sec. 333. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.
Sec. 334. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.
Sec. 335. Mississippi River Outlets, Venice, Louisiana.
Sec. 336. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 337. Westwego to Harvey Canal, Louisiana.
Sec. 338. Tolchester Channel, Maryland.
Sec. 339. Saginaw River, Michigan.
Sec. 340. Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan.
Sec. 341. Stillwater, Minnesota.
Sec. 342. Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
Sec. 343. New Madrid Harbor, Missouri.
Sec. 344. St. John's Bayou--New Madrid Floodway, Missouri.
Sec. 345. Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Park, New Jersey.
Sec. 346. Molly Ann's Brook, New Jersey.
Sec. 347. Passaic River, New Jersey.
Sec. 348. Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jersey and New York.
Sec. 349. Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey.
Sec. 350. Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 351. Jones Inlet, New York.
Sec. 352. Kill Van Kull, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 353. Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River, North Carolina.
Sec. 354. Garrison Dam, North Dakota.
Sec. 355. Reno Beach-Howards Farm, Ohio.
Sec. 356. Wister Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 357. Bonneville Lock and Dam, Columbia River, Oregon and
Washington.
Sec. 358. Columbia River dredging, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 359. Grays Landing Lock and Dam, Monongahela River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 360. Lackawanna River at Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 361. Mussers Dam, Middle Creek, Snyder County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 362. Saw Mill Run, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 363. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 364. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 365. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 366. San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 367. Narragansett, Rhode Island.
Sec. 368. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Sec. 369. Dallas Floodway Extension, Dallas, Texas.
Sec. 370. Upper Jordan River, Utah.
Sec. 371. Haysi Lake, Virginia.
Sec. 372. Rudee Inlet, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 373. Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Sec. 374. East Waterway, Washington.
Sec. 375. Bluestone Lake, West Virginia.
Sec. 376. Moorefield, West Virginia.
Sec. 377. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 378. West Virginia trail head facilities.
Sec. 379. Kickapoo River, Wisconsin.
Sec. 380. 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. Southern California infrastructure.
Sec. 408. Yolo Bypass, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
Sec. 409. Chain of Rocks Canal, Illinois.
Sec. 410. Quincy, Illinois.
Sec. 411. Springfield, Illinois.
Sec. 412. Beauty Creek Watershed, Valparaiso City, Porter County,
Indiana.
Sec. 413. Grand Calumet River, Hammond, Indiana.
Sec. 414. Indiana Harbor Canal, East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana.
Sec. 415. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 416. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
Sec. 417. Tippecanoe River Watershed, Indiana.
Sec. 418. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Hackberry, Louisiana.
Sec. 419. Huron River, Michigan.
Sec. 420. Saco River, New Hampshire.
Sec. 421. Buffalo River Greenway, New York.
Sec. 422. Port of Newburgh, New York.
Sec. 423. Port of New York-New Jersey sediment study.
Sec. 424. Port of New York-New Jersey navigation study.
Sec. 425. Chagrin River, Ohio.
Sec. 426. Cuyahoga River, Ohio.
Sec. 427. Charleston, South Carolina, estuary.
Sec. 428. Mustang Island, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Sec. 429. Prince William County, Virginia.
Sec. 430. Pacific region.
Sec. 431. Financing of infrastructure needs of small and medium ports.
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. Hopper dredges.
Sec. 522. Design and construction assistance.
Sec. 523. Field office headquarters facilities.
Sec. 524. Corps of Engineers restructuring plan.
Sec. 525. Lake Superior Center.
Sec. 526. Jackson County, Alabama.
Sec. 527. Earthquake Preparedness Center of Expertise Extension.
Sec. 528. Quarantine facility.
Sec. 529. Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas.
Sec. 530. Calaveras County, California.
Sec. 531. Farmington Dam, California.
Sec. 532. Prado Dam safety improvements, California.
Sec. 533. Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.
Sec. 534. Seven Oaks Dam, California.
Sec. 535. Manatee County, Florida.
Sec. 536. Tampa, Florida.
Sec. 537. Watershed management plan for Deep River Basin, Indiana.
Sec. 538. Southern and eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 539. Louisiana coastal wetlands restoration projects.
Sec. 540. Southeast Louisiana.
Sec. 541. Restoration projects for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia.
Sec. 542. Cumberland, Maryland.
Sec. 543. Beneficial use of dredged material, Poplar Island, Maryland.
Sec. 544. Erosion control measures, Smith Island, Maryland.
Sec. 545. Duluth, Minnesota, alternative technology project.
Sec. 546. Redwood River Basin, Minnesota.
Sec. 547. Natchez Bluffs, Mississippi.
Sec. 548. Sardis Lake, Mississippi.
Sec. 549. Missouri River management.
Sec. 550. St. Charles County, Missouri, flood protection.
Sec. 551. Durham, New Hampshire.
Sec. 552. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
Sec. 553. Authorization of dredge material containment facility for
Port of New York/New Jersey.
Sec. 554. Hudson River habitat restoration, New York.
Sec. 555. Queens County, New York.
Sec. 556. New York Bight and Harbor study.
Sec. 557. New York State Canal System.
Sec. 558. New York City Watershed.
Sec. 559. Ohio River Greenway.
Sec. 560. Northeastern Ohio.
Sec. 561. Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 562. Broad Top region of Pennsylvania.
Sec. 563. Curwensville Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 564. Hopper Dredge McFarland.
Sec. 565. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 566. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 567. Seven Points Visitors Center, Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 568. Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Sec. 569. Wills Creek, Hyndman, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 570. Blackstone River Valley, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
Sec. 571. East Ridge, Tennessee.
Sec. 572. Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
Sec. 573. Buffalo Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 574. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 575. San Antonio River, Texas.
Sec. 576. Neabsco Creek, Virginia.
[[Page
H8695]]
Sec. 577. Tangier Island, Virginia.
Sec. 578. Pierce County, Washington.
Sec. 579. Washington Aqueduct.
Sec. 580. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia, flood protection.
Sec. 581. Huntington, West Virginia.
Sec. 582. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Sec. 583. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.
Sec. 584. Evaluation of beach material.
Sec. 585. National Center for Nanofabrication and Molecular Self-
Assembly.
Sec. 586. Sense of Congress regarding St. Lawrence Seaway tolls.
Sec. 587. Prado Dam, California.
TITLE VI--EXTENSION OF EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY UNDER HARBOR MAINTENANCE
TRUST FUND
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.
(a) Projects with Chief's Reports.--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) American river watershed, california.--
(A) In general.--The project for flood damage reduction,
American and Sacramento Rivers, California: Supplemental
Information Report for the American River Watershed Project,
California, dated March 1996, at a total cost of $57,300,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $42,975,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $14,325,000, consisting of the
following:
(i) Approximately 24 miles of slurry wall in the existing
levees along the lower American River.
(ii) Approximately 12 miles of levee modifications along
the east bank of the Sacramento River downstream from the
Natomas Cross Canal.
(iii) 3 telemeter streamflow gages upstream from the Folsom
Reservoir.
(iv) Modifications to the existing flood warning system
along the lower American River.
(B) Credit toward non-federal share.--The non-Federal
sponsor shall receive credit toward the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project for expenses that the sponsor has
incurred for design and construction of any of the features
authorized pursuant to this paragraph prior to the date on
which Federal funds are appropriated for construction of the
project. The amount of the credit shall be determined by the
Secretary.
(C) Operation of folsom dam.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall continue to operate the Folsom Dam and Reservoir to the
variable 400,000/670,000 acre-feet of flood control storage
capacity as an interim measure and extend the agreement
between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Sacramento Area
Flood Control Agency until such date as a comprehensive flood
control plan for the American River Watershed has been
implemented.
(D) Responsibility of non-federal sponsor.--The non-Federal
sponsor shall be responsible for all operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with
the improvements undertaken pursuant to this paragraph, as
well as for 25 percent of the costs for the variable flood
control operation of the Folsom Dam and Reservoir (including
any incremental power and water purchase costs incurred by
the Western Area Power Administration or the Bureau of
Reclamation and any direction, capital, and operation and
maintenance costs borne by either of such agencies).
Notwithstanding any contract or other agreement, the
remaining 75 percent of the costs for the variable flood
control operation of the Folsom Dam and Reservoir shall be
the responsibility of the United States and shall be
nonreimbursable.
(2) San lorenzo river, santa cruz, california.--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 $21,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,900,000.
(3) 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 estimated non-Federal cost of $1,170,000.
(4) Santa monica breakwater, california.--The project for
navigation and storm damage reduction, Santa Monica
Breakwater, Santa Monica, California: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated June 7, 1996, at a total cost of $6,440,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $4,220,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $2,220,000.
(5) Marin county shoreline, san rafael, california.--The
project for storm damage reduction, Marin County shoreline,
San Rafael, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated January 28, 1994, at a total cost of $28,300,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $18,400,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $9,900,000.
(6) Humboldt harbor and bay, california.--The project for
navigation, Humboldt Harbor and Bay, California: Report of
the Chief of Engineers, dated October 30, 1995, at a total
cost of $15,180,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,180,000.
(7) Anacostia river and tributaries, district of columbia
and maryland.--The project for environmental restoration,
Anacostia River and Tributaries, District of Columbia and
Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated November
15, 1994, at a total cost of $17,144,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $12,858,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $4,286,000.
(8) Atlantic intracoastal waterway, st. johns county,
florida.--The project for navigation, 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, replacement, and
rehabilitation shall be a non-Federal responsibility and the
non-Federal interest must assume ownership of the bridge.
(9) 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
Federal cost of $110,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $94,000,000. The project shall include the breakwater
near the South Water Filtration Plant described in the report
as a separate element 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. The Secretary
shall reimburse the non-Federal interest for the Federal
share of any costs incurred by the non-Federal interest--
(A) in reconstructing the revetment structures protecting
Solidarity Drive in Chicago, Illinois, if such work is
determined by the Secretary to be a component of the project;
and
(B) in constructing the breakwater near the South Water
Filtration Plant in Chicago, Illinois.
(10) Kentucky lock and dam, tennessee river, kentucky.--The
project for navigation, Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee
River, Kentucky: 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.
(11) Pond creek, jefferson county, kentucky.--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.
(12) Wolf creek dam and lake cumberland, 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 estimated non-
Federal cost of $53,763,000. Funds derived 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.
(13) 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.
(14) West bank of the mississippi river, new orleans (east
of harvey canal), louisiana.--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 estimated Federal cost of
$82,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $43,800,000.
(15) Wood river, grand island, nebraska.--The project for
flood control, Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska: Report of
the Chief of Engineers, 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.
(16) Las cruces, new mexico.--The project for flood
control, Las Cruces, New Mexico: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated June 24, 1996, at a total cost of
$8,278,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,494,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,784,000.
(17) Long beach island, new york.--The project for storm
damage reduction, Long Beach Island, 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.
(18) Wilmington harbor, cape fear river, north carolina.--
The project for navigation, Wilmington 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.
(19) 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 estimated Federal cost of $11,960,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,987,000.
[[Page
H8696]]
(20) Willamette river temperature control, 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 estimated
Federal cost of $38,000,000.
(21) Rio grande de arecibo, puerto rico.--The project for
flood control, Rio Grande de Arecibo, Puerto Rico: Report of
the Chief of Engineers, 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.
(22) Charleston harbor, south carolina.--The project for
navigation, Charleston Harbor Deepening and Widening, South
Carolina: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 18,
1996, at a total cost of $116,639,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $72,798,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $43,841,000.
(23) 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.
(24) 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.
(25) Gulf intracoastal waterway, aransas national wildlife
refuge, texas.--The project for navigation and environmental
preservation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Aransas National
Wildlife Refuge, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated May 28, 1996, at a total cost of $18,283,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $18,283,000.
(26) Houston-galveston navigation channels, texas.--The
project for navigation and environmental restoration,
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas: Report of the
Chief of Engineers, dated May 9, 1996, at a total initial
construction cost of $292,797,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $210,891,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$81,906,000. The project shall include deferred construction
of additional environmental 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 construction of
berthing areas and the removal of pipelines and other
obstructions that are necessary for the project shall be
accomplished at non-Federal expense. Non-Federal interests
shall receive credit toward cash contributions required
during construction and subsequent to construction for design
and construction management work that is performed by non-
Federal interests and that the Secretary determines is
necessary to implement the project.
(27) 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
appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\
from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways 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
individuals. The Secretary shall proceed with real estate
acquisition in connection with the project expeditiously.
(b) Projects With Pending Chief's Reports.--The following
projects are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary
substantially in accordance with a final report of the Chief
of Engineers if such report is completed not later than
December 31, 1996:
(1) Chignik, alaska.--The project for navigation, Chignik,
Alaska, at a total cost of $10,365,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $4,344,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $6,021,000.
(2) Cook inlet, alaska.--The project for navigation, Cook
Inlet, Alaska, at a total cost of $5,342,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $4,006,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $1,336,000.
(3) St. paul island harbor, st. paul, alaska.--The project
for navigation, St. Paul Harbor, St. Paul, Alaska, with an
estimated total cost of $18,981,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $12,188,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $6,793,000.
(4) Norco bluffs, riverside county, california.--A project
for bluff stabilization, Norco Bluffs, Riverside County,
California, with an estimated total cost of $8,600,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $6,450,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,150,000.
(5) Port of long beach (deepening), california.--The
project for navigation, Port of Long Beach (Deepening),
California, at a total cost of $37,288,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $14,318,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $22,970,000.
(6) Terminus dam, kaweah river, california.--The project
for flood damage reduction and water supply, Terminus Dam,
Kaweah River, California, at a total estimated cost of
$34,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,200,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $14,300,000.
(7) Rehoboth beach and dewey beach, delaware.--A project
for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection, Rehoboth
Beach and Dewey Beach, Delaware, at a total cost of
$9,423,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of
$6,125,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of
$3,298,000, and an average annual cost of $282,000 for
periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of $183,000 and an
estimated annual non-Federal cost of $99,000.
(8) Brevard county, florida.--The project for shoreline
protection, Brevard County, Florida, at a total first cost of
$76,620,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of
$36,006,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of
$40,614,000, and an average annual cost of $2,341,000 for
periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,109,000 and an
estimated annual non-Federal cost of $1,232,000.
(9) Miami harbor channel, florida.--The project for
navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, Miami, Florida, with an
estimated total cost of $3,221,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $1,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,421,000.
(10) North worth inlet, florida.--The project for
navigation and shoreline protection, Lake Worth Inlet, Palm
Beach Harbor, Florida, at a total cost of $3,915,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $1,762,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,153,000.
(11) Lower savannah river basin, savannah river, georgia
and south carolina.--The project for navigation and related
purposes, Lower Savannah River Basin, Savannah River, Georgia
and South Carolina, at a total cost of $3,419,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $2,551,000, and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $868,000.
(12) Absecon island, new jersey.--The project for storm
damage reduction and shoreline protection, Brigantine Inlet
to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, Absecon Island, New Jersey, at a
total cost of $52,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$34,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $18,000,000.
(13) Cape fear river, north carolina.--The project for
navigation, Cape Fear River deepening, North Carolina, at a
total cost of $210,264,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$130,159,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$80,105,000.
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) South upland, san bernadino county, california.--
Project for flood control, South Upland, San Bernadino
County, California.
(2) Birds, lawrence county, illinois.--Project for flood
control, Birds, Lawrence County, Illinois.
(3) Bridgeport, lawrence county, illinois.--Project for
flood control, Bridgeport, Lawrence County, Illinois.
(4) Embarras river, villa grove, illinois.--Project for
flood control, Embarras River, Villa Grove, Illinois.
(5) Frankfort, will county, illinois.--Project for flood
control, Frankfort, Will County, Illinois.
(6) Sumner, lawrence county, illinois.--Project for flood
control, Sumner, Lawrence County, Illinois.
(7) Vermillion river, demanade park, lafayette,
louisiana.--Project for nonstructural flood control,
Vermillion River, Demanade Park, Lafayette, 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 subdivision, lafayette,
louisiana.--Project for nonstructural flood control,
Vermillion River, Quail Hollow Subdivision, Lafayette,
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.
(9) Kawkawlin river, bay county, michigan.--Project for
flood control, Kawkawlin River, Bay County, Michigan.
(10) Whitney drain, arenac county, michigan.--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
reconnaissance 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) River Des Peres, St. Louis County, Missouri.--Project
for flood control, River Des Peres, St. Louis County,
Missouri. In carrying out the study and the project (if any),
the Secretary shall determine the feasibility of potential
flood control measures, consider potential storm water runoff
and related improvements, and cooperate with the Metropolitan
St. Louis Sewer District.
[[Page
H8697]]
(14) Buffalo creek, erie county, new york.--Project for
flood control, Buffalo Creek, Erie County, New York.
(15) Cazenovia creek, erie county, new york.--Project for
flood control, Cazenovia Creek, Erie County, New York.
(16) Cheektowaga, erie county, new york.--Project for flood
control, Cheektowaga, Erie County, New York.
(17) Fulmer creek, village of mohawk, new york.--Project
for flood control, Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York.
(18) Moyer creek, village of frankfort, new york.--Project
for flood control, Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New
York.
(19) Sauquoit creek, whitesboro, new york.--Project for
flood control, Sauquoit Creek, Whitesboro, New York.
(20) Steele creek, village of ilion, new york.--Project for
flood control, Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York.
(21) Willamette river, oregon.--Project for nonstructural
flood control, Willamette River, Oregon, including floodplain
and ecosystem restoration.
(22) Greenbrier river basin, west virginia.--Project for
flood control, consisting of an early flood warning system,
Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.
(b) Cost Allocations.--
(1) Lake elsinore, california.--The maximum 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 allotted 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 requirement applicable
to the project referred to in paragraph (1) under the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986.
SEC. 103. SMALL BANK STABILIZATION PROJECTS.
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 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
(1) St. joseph river, indiana.--Project for bank
stabilization, St. Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana,
including recreation and pedestrian access features.
(2) Allegheny river at oil city, pennsylvania.--Project for
bank stabilization to address erosion problems affecting the
pipeline crossing the Allegheny River at Oil City,
Pennsylvania, including measures to address erosion affecting
the pipeline in the bed of the Allegheny River and its
adjacent banks.
(3) Cumberland river, nashville, tennessee.--Project for
bank stabilization, Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.
(4) Tennessee river, hamilton county, tennessee.--Project
for bank stabilization, Tennessee River, Hamilton County,
Tennessee; except that the maximum amount of Federal funds
that may be allotted for the project shall be $7,500,000.
SEC. 104. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.
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 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 technology 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 navigation, Duluth,
Minnesota.
(4) Taconite, minnesota.--Project for navigation, 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, missouri.--Project for
navigation, New Madrid County Harbor, Missouri, including
enlargement of the existing harbor and bank stabilization
measures.
(8) Brooklyn, new york.--Project for navigation, 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 Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
(10) Glenn cove creek, new york.--Project for navigation,
Glenn Cove Creek, New York, including bulkheading.
(11) Union ship canal, buffalo and lackawanna, 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, Florida.
(3) Orchard beach, bronx, new york.--Project for shoreline
protection, Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York, New York; except
that the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allotted
for the project shall be $5,200,000.
(4) Sylvan beach breakwater, verona, oneida county, new
york.--Project for shoreline protection, Sylvan Beach
breakwater, 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 the
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
clearing, snagging, and sediment removal, East Bank of the
Mississippi River, Little Falls, Minnesota, including removal
of sediment from culverts. The study shall include a
determination of the adequacy of culverts to maintain flows
through the channel. If the Secretary determines that the
project is feasible, the Secretary 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 Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309(a)):
(1) Upper truckee river, el dorado county, california.--
Project for environmental restoration, Upper Truckee River,
El Dorado County, California, including measures for
restoration of degraded wetlands and wildlife enhancement.
(2) San lorenzo river, california.--Project for habitat
restoration, San Lorenzo River, California.
(3) Whittier narrows dam, california.--Project for
environmental restoration and remediation of contaminated
water sources, Whittier Narrows Dam, California.
(4) Upper jordan river, salt lake county, utah.--Project
for channel restoration and environmental improvement, Upper
Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah.
SEC. 108. PROJECT TO MITIGATE SHORE DAMAGE.
The Secretary shall expedite the Assateague Island
restoration feature of the Ocean City, Maryland, and vicinity
study and, if the Secretary determines that the Federal
navigation project has contributed to degradation of the
shoreline, the Secretary shall carry out the project for
shoreline restoration under section 111 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 735); except that the maximum
amount of Federal funds that may be allotted by the Secretary
for the project shall be $35,000,000. In carrying out the
project, the Secretary shall coordinate with affected Federal
and State agencies and shall enter into an agreement with the
Federal property owner to determine the allocation of the
project costs.
TITLE II--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. COST SHARING FOR DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL 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' includes constructed land-based
and aquatic dredged material disposal facilities that are
necessary for the disposal of dredged material required for
project construction and for which a contract for
construction has not been awarded on or before the date of
the enactment of this paragraph.''.
(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'';
[[Page
H8698]]
(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 inserting ``by
the Secretary pursuant to this Act or any other law approved
after the date of the enactment of this Act''; and
(4) by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(2) Dredged material disposal facilities.--The Federal
share of the cost of constructing land-based and aquatic
dredged material disposal facilities that are necessary for
the disposal of dredged material required for the operation
and maintenance of a project and for which a contract for
construction 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 striking ``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--
``(1) 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 associated with construction of dredged material
disposal facilities in accordance with subsections (a) and
(b);
``(2) funds expended for such construction are equitably
apportioned in accordance with regional needs; and
``(3) the Secretary's participation in the construction of
dredged material disposal facilities does not result in
unfair competition with potential private sector providers of
such facilities.''.
(e) Eligible Operations and Maintenance Defined.--Section
214(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2241; 100 Stat. 4108) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by inserting ``Federal'' after ``means all'';
(B) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``including''; and
(C) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``; (ii) the construction of dredged material
disposal facilities that are necessary for the operation and
maintenance of any harbor or inland harbor; (iii) dredging
and disposing of contaminated sediments which are in or which
affect the maintenance of Federal navigation channels; (iv)
mitigating for impacts resulting from Federal navigation
operation and maintenance activities; and (v) operating and
maintaining dredged material disposal facilities''; and
(2) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``rights-of-way, or
dredged material disposal areas,'' and inserting ``or rights-
of-way,''.
(f) Amendment of Cooperation Agreement.--If requested by
the non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall amend a project
cooperation agreement executed on or before the date of the
enactment of this Act to reflect the application of the
amendments made by this section to any project for which a
contract for construction has not been awarded on or before
such date of enactment.
(g) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section (including the
amendments made by this section) shall increase, or result in
the increase of, the non-Federal share of the costs of--
(1) any dredged material disposal facility authorized
before the date of the enactment of this Act, including any
facility authorized by section 123 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1823); or
(2) any dredged material disposal facility that is
necessary for the construction or maintenance of a project
authorized before the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 202. FLOOD CONTROL POLICY.
(a) Flood Control Cost Sharing.--
(1) Increased non-federal contributions.--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
striking ``25 percent'' each place it appears and inserting
``35 percent''.
(2) Applicability.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to any project authorized after the date of the
enactment of this Act and to any flood control project which
is not specifically authorized by Congress for which a
Detailed Project Report is approved after such date of
enactment or, in the case of a project for which no Detailed
Project Report is prepared, construction is initiated after
such date of enactment.
(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 agreement under this
section for flood control or agricultural 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 determined by the Secretary
in accordance with criteria and procedures in effect on the
day before the date of the enactment of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996; except that such criteria and
procedures 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 Secretary--
``(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 county 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 relating to the non-
Federal interest's financial ability to carry out its cost-
sharing responsibilities, to the extent that the application
of such criteria does not eliminate areas from eligibility
for a reduction in the non-Federal share as determined under
subparagraph (A).
``(4) Non-federal share.--Notwithstanding subsection (a),
the Secretary shall reduce or eliminate the requirement that
a non-Federal interest make a cash contribution for any
project that is determined 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 subparagraph (C), 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.
(B) Amendment of cooperation agreement.--If requested by
the non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall amend a project
cooperation agreement executed on or before the date of the
enactment of this Act to reflect the application of the
amendment made by paragraph (1) to any project for which a
contract for construction has not been awarded on or before
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 Resources 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 Management and Insurance
Programs.--Before construction of any project for local flood
protection or any project for hurricane or storm damage
reduction and involving Federal assistance from the
Secretary, the non-Federal interest shall agree to
participate in and comply with applicable Federal flood plain
management and flood insurance programs.
``(b) Flood Plain Management Plans.--Within 1 year after
the date of signing a project cooperation agreement 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 Secretary shall develop
guidelines for preparation of flood plain management plans by
non-Federal interests under subsection (b). Such guidelines
shall address potential measures, practices and policies to
reduce loss of life, injuries, damages to property and
facilities, public expenditures, and other adverse impacts
associated with flooding and to preserve and enhance natural
flood plain values.
``(2) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to confer any regulatory
authority upon the Secretary.
``(d) Technical Support.--The Secretary is authorized to
provide technical support to a non-Federal interest 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 review of
policies, procedures, and techniques relating to the
evaluation and development of flood control measures with a
view toward identifying impediments 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
[[Page
H8699]]
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the findings
on the review conducted under this subsection, together with
any recommendations for modifying existing 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 certain
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''.
(f) Nonstructural Alternatives.--Section 73 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 701b-11; 88
Stat. 32) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting
the following:
``(a) In the survey, planning, or design by any Federal
agency of any project involving flood protection, such
agency, with a view toward formulating the most economically,
socially, and environmentally acceptable means of reducing or
preventing flood damages, shall consider and address in
adequate detail nonstructural alternatives, including
measures that may be implemented by others, to prevent or
reduce flood damages. Such alternatives may include watershed
management, wetlands restoration, elevation or flood proofing
of structures, floodplain regulation, relocation, and
acquisition of floodplain lands for recreational, fish and
wildlife, and other public purposes.''.
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 following:
``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-sharing 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 subject 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-Federal 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 subsection (a)
shall apply notwithstanding any feasibility cost-sharing
agreement entered into by the Secretary and non-Federal
interests. Upon request of the non-Federal interest, 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 following 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 contributed 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 restoration, either through
modifications at the project site or at other locations that
have been affected by the construction or operation of the
project, if such m
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
