Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                       Calendar No. 523
105th Congress                                                   Report
                                SENATE

 2d Session                                                     105-286
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                 WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1998

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                              COMMITTEE ON

                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                              to accompany

                                S. 2131

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]





                August 25, 1998.--Ordered to be printed.

                                     


               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                 JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia             MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire          DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho               FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             BARBARA BOXER, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado               RON WYDEN, Oregon
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
                     Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
               J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director



                            C O N T E N T S
                               __________
                                                                   Page
General statement................................................     1
Statement of committee policy....................................     2
Proposed changes in civil works mission..........................     4
    Shore protection projects....................................     4
    Challenge 21 Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem 
      Restoration Program........................................     4
    Recreational user fees.......................................     4
    Title II. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux 
      Tribe, and State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife 
      Habitat Restoration........................................     5
Section-by-Section Analysis:
    Sec. 1. Short Title..........................................     6
    Sec. 101. Definitions........................................     6
    Sec. 102. Project authorizations.............................     6
    Sec. 102b. Project authorizations subject to a final report..     8
    Sec. 103. Project modifications..............................    11
    Sec. 104. Project deauthorizations...........................    13
    Sec. 105. Studies............................................    14
    Sec. 106. Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem 
      Restoration Program........................................    17
    Sec. 107. Shore protection...................................    18
    Sec. 108. Small flood control projects.......................    19
    Sec. 109. Use of non-Federal funds for compiling and 
      disseminating information on flood and flood damages.......    19
    Sec. 110. Everglades and South Florida ecosystem restoration.    19
    Sec. 111. Aquatic ecosystem restoration......................    20
    Sec. 112. Beneficial uses of dredged materials...............    20
    Sec. 113. Voluntary contributions by States and political 
      subdivisions...............................................    20
    Sec. 114. Recreation user fees...............................    20
    Sec. 115. Water resources development studies for the Pacific 
      region.....................................................    21
    Sec. 116. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement 
      project....................................................    21
    Sec. 117. Outer Continental dredging.........................    21
    Sec. 118. Environmental dredging.............................    21
    Sec. 119. Benefit of primary flood damages avoided included 
      in benefit cost analysis...................................    21
    Sec. 120. Control of aquatic plant growth....................    22
    Sec. 121. Environmental infrastructure.......................    22
    Sec. 122. Watershed management, restoration, and development.    22
    Sec. 123. Lakes Program......................................    22
    Sec. 124. Dredging of salt ponds in the State of Rhode Island    22
    Sec. 125. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New 
      York.......................................................    22
    Sec. 126. Repaupo Creek and Delaware River, Gloucester 
      County, New Jersey.........................................    23
    Sec. 127. Small navigation projects..........................    23
    Sec. 128. Streambank protection projects.....................    23
    Sec. 129. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Springfield, Oregon.    23
    Sec. 130. Guilford and New Haven, Connecticut................    23
    Sec. 131. Francis Bland, Arkansas Floodway Ditch No. 5.......    23
    Sec. 132. Point Judith Breakwater............................    23
    Sec. 133. Caloosahatchee River Basin, Florida................    24
    Sec. 134. Cumberland, Maryland, flood project mitigation.....    24
    Sec. 135. Sediments decontamination policy...................    24
    Sec. 136. City of Miami Beach, Florida.......................    24
    Sec. 137. Small storm damage reduction projects..............    24
    Sec. 138. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.........................    24
    Sec. 139. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway 
      System Navigation Modernization............................    24
    Sec. 140. Disposal of dredged material on beaches............    25
    Sec. 141. Fish and wildlife mitigation.......................    25
    Sec. 142. Upper Mississippi River management.................    25
    Sec. 143. Construction of flood control projects by non-
      Federal interest...........................................    26
    Sec. 144. Research and development program for Columbia and 
      Snake Rivers Salmon Survival...............................    26

  Title II--Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and 
     State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration

    Sec. 201. Definitions........................................    26
    Sec. 202. Terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration...........    26
    Sec. 203. South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 
      Restoration Trust Fund.....................................    27
    Sec. 204. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux 
      Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Funds.    27
    Sec. 205. Transfer of Federal land to State of South Dakota..    27
    Sec. 206. Transfer of Corps of Engineers land for Indian 
      Tribes.....................................................    27
    Sec. 207. Administration.....................................    28
    Sec. 208. Authorization of appropriations....................    28
Hearings.........................................................    28
Rollcall votes...................................................    28
Regulatory impact statement......................................    29
Mandates assessment..............................................    29
Cost of legislation..............................................    29
Additional views of Senators Boxer and Graham....................    35
Changes to existing law..........................................    37



                                                       Calendar No. 523
105th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 2d Session                                                     105-286
_______________________________________________________________________


                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1998

                                _______
                                

                August 25, 1998.--Ordered to be printed.

   Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of July 31, 1998.

_______________________________________________________________________


    Mr. Chafee, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 2131]

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 2131) to provide for the 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, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the 
bill do pass.

                           General Statement

    In reporting the Water Resources Development Act of 1998, 
the committee has chosen to adhere to the policies established 
in the 1986 Water Resources Development Act (P.L. 99-662), and 
continued in subsequent Acts, regarding the authorization of 
projects within the civil works program of the Army Corps of 
Engineers. This bill includes authorization for 27 new 
construction projects, for flood control, navigation, hurricane 
protection and beach erosion control, and environmental 
restoration.
    The Water Resources Development Act of 1986, signed into 
law on November 17, 1986, marked the end of a 16-year deadlock, 
between the Congress and the Executive Branch regarding 
authorization of the public works program. In addition to 
authorizing numerous projects, the 1986 Act resolved 
longstanding disputes relating to cost-sharing, user fees, and 
environmental requirements.
    Prior to 1986, disputes over these and other matters had 
prevented enactment of major civil works legislation since 
1970. Between 1947 and 1970, civil works authorization bills 
were enacted every 2 to 3 years. This regular schedule had many 
advantages. It helped to avoid long delays between the planning 
and the execution of projects; assured that engineering work 
and economic analysis were applicable to current conditions; 
minimized the backlog of projects that have been considered but 
not authorized by Congress; and allowed the public works 
committees of the Congress to review proposed projects, 
programs and agency policies on a regular schedule.
    Nevertheless, this system broke down in the 1970's. There 
was no legislation enacted between 1970 and 1986 to authorize 
civil works projects for construction. The Water Resources 
Development Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-587) made some changes to 
Corps policies, but authorized no projects.
    In 1986, a House-Senate conference committee produced a 
conference report (H. Rept. 99-1013) which was passed by the 
House and the Senate and signed into law on November 17, 1986 
(P.L. 99-662). The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 was 
the largest and most comprehensive authorization of the Corps' 
Civil Works Program since the Senate Committee on Public Works 
was created in 1947.
    Some of the major reforms included in the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (and maintained in this legislation) 
are listed below:
    Cost-sharing formulas were established for deep draft 
harbor dredging (section 101), flood control (section 103), 
shoreline protection (section 103), streambanks erosion control 
(section 603), and other projects. Local Cooperation Agreements 
were required for all such projects. Projects for enhancement 
of fish and wildlife resources were allowed to be carried out 
at up to 100 percent Federal expense under section 906 and 
environmental restoration at 75 percent Federal expense under 
section 1135.
    The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, capitalized by a new 
Harbor Maintenance Fee, was established to pay 40 percent of 
the Federal cost of maintaining authorized deep draft 
navigation channels (sections 210, 1402 and 1403), and was 
subsequently increased to 100 percent under the 1990 Water 
Resources Development Act.
    Projects authorized prior to 1986 that were incomplete 
would be deauthorized without congressional action if no funds 
were expended on the project for a period of 10 years; projects 
authorized in 1986 or thereafter would be deauthorized if not 
funded for a period of 5 years (section 1001).
    These policy changes applied to all projects contained in 
the Water Resources Development Acts of 1988 (P.L. 100-676); 
1990 (P.L. 101-640); 1992 (P.L. 102-580); 1996 (P.L. 104-303) 
and will continue to apply to all projects contained in the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1998.

                     Statement of Committee Policy

    Since 1986, it has been the policy of the committee to 
authorize only those construction projects that conform with 
cost-sharing and other policies established in the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986. In addition, it has been the 
policy of the committee to require projects to have undergone 
full and final engineering, economic and environmental review 
by the Chief of Engineers prior to project approvals by the 
committee.
    The Corps of Engineers water resources project study 
process can be initiated when either of the two public works 
committees of the Congress approves a committee resolution 
requesting that the study of a potential project area be 
undertaken. Once such a resolution is approved by either 
committee, the Corps is authorized to proceed with a 
reconnaissance study of the proposed project at 100 percent 
Federal cost. The purpose of a reconnaissance study is to 
determine whether or not there is a Federal interest in the 
project. Authorization of a reconnaissance study may also be 
provided by statute. Army Corps policy now requires all 
reconnaissance studies to completed within 12 months and at a 
cost of no greater than $100,000.
    If, after completion of the reconnaissance study, a project 
is deemed to be in the Federal interest, the Federal government 
and a non-Federal sponsor may enter into an equally cost-shared 
feasibility study. The feasibility study includes a more 
detailed set of engineering, economic and environmental 
analyses to determine whether a project is justified to advance 
to the construction phase. When the feasibility study is 
completed, the Corps District Engineer reviews the results and 
forwards a recommendation on the project to the Division 
Engineer. The Division Engineer issues a Division Engineer's 
notice and then submits the report to Corps Headquarters. 
Headquarters performs a final policy review and submits the 
report for the mandatory (33 U.S.C. 701 1(a)) 90-day State and 
agency review period. After these reviews are complete and the 
report is found favorable, a report is prepared for the final 
recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. The report of the 
Chief of Engineers is forwarded to the Assistant Secretary of 
the Army (Civil Works) for Administration review and submission 
to the Congress.
    Some of the projects sent to the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army by the Chief of Engineers are forwarded to the Congress 
with a recommendation that construction be authorized. Such a 
recommendation only occurs after the project has been reviewed 
by the Office of Management and Budget. It is the prerogative 
of the Administration to make recommendations regarding the 
authorization of Corps projects. However, the committee is not 
bound by these recommendations. The decision to authorize a 
project rests with the two Houses of Congress.
    The review of projects by the Chief of Engineers is 
technical in nature and does not involve either a political or 
policy judgment. The committee practice of using Chief of 
Engineers' reports to measure the validity of projects does not 
represent a pre-clearance of projects with the Administration. 
If the technical Chief of Engineers' review process ever 
becomes unduly influenced by political or policy-related 
considerations, the committee would reevaluate the practice of 
using Chief of Engineers' reports for the purpose of helping to 
determine project authorization.
    The contingent authorization of water resources projects 
not expected to have final reports of the Chief of Engineers in 
the same calendar year as the Water Resources Development Act 
under consideration is contrary to the policy of the committee. 
Exceptions to this fundamental committee practice are not 
supported.

        Administration's Proposed Changes in Civil Works Mission

    The Administration's Water Resources Development Act 
proposal, introduced as S. 2131 on June 4, 1998, by Senators 
Chafee, Warner, and Baucus by request, contains new project 
authorizations and new programs, as well as several 
modifications to existing projects and programs within its 20 
sections. S. 2131, as reported by the committee, incorporates 
some of these provisions as outlined below.
Shore Protection Projects
    The Administration proposed dramatic changes in cost 
sharing for coastal shore protection projects. The current cost 
sharing for shore protection projects is 65 percent Federal and 
35 percent non-Federal for initial construction and for the 50-
year renourishment life of the project. The Administration 
proposed to modify the cost share so that the renourishment 
work would be 35 percent Federal and 65 percent non-Federal. 
After conducting detailed budgetary, economic and equity 
analyses, the legislation reported by the committee instead 
proposes that the renourishment be cost shared equally at 50-50 
between the Federal and non-Federal project sponsors. An 
amendment approved in committee and included in the reported 
legislation would apply the new equal cost share to those 
projects (that advance to construction) not having a completed 
feasibility study before January 1, 1999.
Challenge 21 Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem Restoration 
        Program
    One of the Administration's major proposals is to authorize 
a new continuing authorities program (wherein the individual 
projects do not require congressional authorization) for non-
structural flood control and riverine ecosystem restoration 
projects. This section, also known as ``Challenge 21,'' 
proposes a major new initiative which would authorize the 
Secretary of the Army to construct non-structural (upland water 
storage, voluntary buyouts, setback levees, flood warning 
systems) flood control projects at a cost share of 65 percent 
Federal and 35 percent non-Federal. The Administration proposed 
authorizing appropriations totaling $325 million over 6 years 
with a $75 million per project cap. The legislation reported by 
the committee instead recommends a two-year program with a 
total authorization level of $75 million and a per project cap 
of $25 million. Members of the committee reduced the cost and 
duration of the new program in order to better assess its 
efficacy after two years.
Recreational User Fees
    Additionally, the Administration proposes to modify the 
expenditure of fees collected at Corps recreation sites. The 
provision would allow the Corps to use any recreation fees it 
collects above an annual, national baseline level of $34 
million to remain at the park from which the fee originated. 
For the portion of the fee that remains at the park, the Corps 
can only fund maintenance activities, such as campground or 
trail upkeep. The legislation reported by the committee 
includes said provision.
Title II. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and the 
        State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration
    This Title settles the claims of the Cheyenne River Sioux 
Tribe, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and the State of South 
Dakota against the Federal government for the mitigation of 
terrestrial wildlife habitat losses incurred as a result of the 
construction of the Oahe and Big Bend Missouri River main stem 
dams nearly forty years ago. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and the State of South Dakota 
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration title achieves this 
objective in two ways.
    First, it transfers to the Department of Interior, to be 
held in trust for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower 
Brule Sioux Tribe, the Federal lands located within their 
exterior reservation boundaries that were acquired for the 
Pick-Sloan project and that remain above the exclusive flood 
pool. Recreation areas currently operated by the Corps within 
the boundaries of those Indian reservations will be transferred 
into trust for the respective tribes. The title also transfers 
to the State of South Dakota the Federal Pick-Sloan project-
lands above the exclusive flood pool and recreation areas 
located outside Indian reservation boundaries.
    Second, the legislation establishes trust funds for the 
State of South Dakota and the two Indian tribes that are 
sufficient to mitigate all of the terrestrial wildlife habitat 
flooded as a result of construction of the mainstream Missouri 
River dams. Through the trust funds, the tribes and State will 
have a steady source of funding with which to implement formal 
wildlife habitat mitigation plans. Since there is insufficient 
Federal project land in South Dakota on which to perform the 
necessary wildlife habitat mitigation, the tribes and State 
will be able to use revenues from the trust funds to implement 
plans developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and the Secretary of the Army to lease private lands 
for the protection of wildlife habitat, including habitat for 
threatened and endangered species.
    In addition, the tribes and the State will be able to use 
proceeds from the trust funds to:

          1) protect archeological, cultural, and 
        historic sites located along the river;
          2) operate the recreation areas transferred 
        under the bill; and
          3) develop and maintain public access to, and 
        protect, wildlife habitat and recreation areas.

    This title provides the annual interest revenue from a $108 
million trust fund to the State of South Dakota and the annual 
revenue from trust funds of roughly $42 million for the 
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and roughly $15 million for the 
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. The trust fund amounts are based on 
the cost to fully mitigate the inundated terrestrial wildlife 
habitat.
    The trust funds are capitalized through annual payments by 
the Treasury Department equal to 25 percent of the total 
revenues of the Pick-Sloan project, which are roughly $250 
million per year. The trust funds are expected to be fully 
capitalized after four years. Pick-Sloan power rates will be 
unaffected by the passage of the bill. The trust funds will be 
fully paid for using the Pay-As-You-Go Scorecard surplus and 
budget authority available to the Senate Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
    The transfer of the recreation areas to the State of South 
Dakota and the Indian tribes, combined with the willingness of 
the State of South Dakota and the tribes to use trust fund 
revenues to maintain the recreation areas, will ensure that a 
sufficient investment is made to meet the needs of the more 
than 5 million visitors to these facilities each year.
    The rules governing jurisdiction over hunting and fishing 
on the waters of the Missouri River and the adjacent lands 
remain unaffected by the bill, except that the Indian tribes 
will gain full jurisdiction for hunting and fishing over the 
Federal lands that are transferred to the Interior Department 
to be held in trust for them. The jurisdiction over the waters 
of the Missouri River presently enjoyed by the State of South 
Dakota and the Indian tribes shall continue in perpetuity under 
this legislation.
    The Corps of Engineers has noted that it has important 
statutory responsibilities regarding the operation of the dams 
and reservoirs to meet the purposes of the Pick-Sloan project, 
including providing flood control and generating hydropower. 
This legislation should not interfere with the ability of the 
Corps of Engineers to operate the Pick-Sloan project. Language 
is included to clarify that nothing in this title shall 
interfere with the Corps of Engineers operations of the project 
for any purpose authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944 
or other applicable law.
    The title protects both Indian treaty rights and water 
rights, stating explicitly that both shall be unaffected by the 
passage of the legislation and preserves existing easements and 
rights-of-way on any lands transferred to the Interior 
Department for the Indian tribes and to the State of South 
Dakota.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

                  title i--water resources development

Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents
    This section designates the title of the bill as ``The 
Water Resources Development Act of 1998'' and lists the table 
of contents.
Sec. 101. Definitions
    This section defines the term ``Secretary'' for the 
purposes of this Act as the Secretary of the Army.
Sec. 102. Project Authorizations
    This section provides authority for the Secretary to carry 
out 6 projects for water resources development, conservation, 
and other purposes substantially in accordance with the plans 
recommended in the reports referenced in the bill language.

American River Watershed, California.--This provision 
    authorizes the Secretary to undertake efforts for flood 
    damage reduction described as the Folsom Stepped Release 
    Plan in the United States Army Corps of Engineers 
    Supplemental Information Report (SIR) for the American 
    River Watershed Project, California, dated March 1996, at a 
    total cost of $464,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
    of $302,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
    $162,600,000. The Stepped Release flood damage reduction 
    project shall be implemented after the stabilization of 
    existing levees and development of flood warning features, 
    authorized in Water Resources Development Act of 1996, and 
    after reviewing the design of such Stepped Release project 
    features to determine if modifications are necessary to 
    account for changes in hydrologic or other conditions. The 
    committee has received assurances in a July 29, 1998, 
    letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army that the 
    Corps has the discretionary authority to consider measures 
    to minimize adverse project impacts or allow for more 
    timely implementation of a project. The Assistant Secretary 
    further confirms that the measures developed by the Corps 
    as part of the Stepped Release Plan will adequately 
    mitigate for all potential downstream impacts. 
    Implementation of the remaining downstream elements may be 
    undertaken only after the Secretary, in consultation with 
    affected Federal, State, regional, and local entities, has 
    reviewed the elements to determine if modifications, as 
    called for in the March 1996 SIR, including stepped 
    operation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir, are necessary.

Llagas Creek, California.--This provision authorizes the 
    Secretary to complete the remaining reaches of the National 
    Resources Conservation Service flood control project at 
    Llagas Creek, California, authorized in the Watershed 
    Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1005) at a 
    total cost of $34,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
    of $16,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
    $17,700,000.

Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, 
    Florida.--This provision authorizes the Secretary to 
    construct related aquifer storage and recovery projects at 
    Hillsboro and Okeechobee, described in the U.S. Army Corps 
    of Engineers Central and Southern Florida Water Supply 
    Study, dated April 1989, at a total cost of $27,000,000, 
    with an estimated Federal cost of $13,500,000 and an 
    estimated non-Federal cost of $13,500,000. Aquifer storage 
    and recovery has been identified as one of the most cost-
    effective methods of water storage. It is hoped that 
    delivery of the two related projects at Hillsboro and 
    Okeechobee will yield data to help determine the 
    feasibility of constructing aquifer storage and recovery 
    facilities at other locations throughout the United States.

Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels, Maryland and 
    Virginia.--This provision authorizes the Secretary to 
    construct a navigation project on the Baltimore Harbor 
    Anchorages and Channels, Maryland and Virginia, as 
    described in the report of the Chief, dated June 8, 1998, 
    at a total cost of $27,692,000, with an estimated Federal 
    cost of $19,126,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
    $8,566,000.

Red Lake River at Crookston, Minnesota.--This provision 
    authorizes the Secretary to construct a flood damage 
    reduction project on the Red Lake River at Crookston, 
    Minnesota, as described in the report of the Chief, dated 
    April 20, 1998, at a total cost of $8,720,000, with an 
    estimated Federal cost of $5,567,000 and an estimated non-
    Federal cost of $3,153,000.

Park River, North Dakota.--This provision authorizes the 
    Secretary to construct a flood control project on the Park 
    River, Grafton, North Dakota at a total cost of 
    $27,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $17,745,000 
    and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,555,000. This 
    project was authorized in section 401(a) of Water Resources 
    Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662) and subsequently 
    deauthorized on November 18, 1991, in accordance with 
    section 1001(a) of Water Resources Development Act of 1986, 
    therefore, no construction may be initiated unless the 
    General Reevaluation report deems the project still to be 
    technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and 
    economically justified.
Sec. 102(b)--Project Authorizations Subject to a Final Report
    Subsection (b) of Section 02 authorizes the following 21 
projects for water resources and development and conservation 
and other purposes to be carried out by the Secretary 
substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the 
conditions recommended in a final report of the Chief of 
Engineers as approved by the Secretary, if the report of the 
Chief is completed not later than December 31, 1998.

Hamilton Airfield Wetland Restoration, California.--This 
    provision authorizes the Secretary to conduct wetlands 
    restoration and related environmental improvements at 
    Hamilton Airfield, California, at a total cost of 
    $39,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $29,000,000 
    and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,000,000.
    The committee encourages the Secretary to coordinate 
    remediation and closure of the Hamilton Air Field site in 
    Marin County, California, under the Base Realignment and 
    Closure Act to ensure that the site is cleaned to the level 
    that will allow implementation of the wetlands restoration 
    project and that any issues associated with base closure, 
    such as impacts to surrounding properties, are resolved by 
    January 1, 2000.

Oakland Harbor, California.--This provision authorizes the 
    Secretary to construct a navigation project in Oakland 
    Harbor, California at a total cost of $202,000,000, with an 
    estimated Federal cost of $120,000,000 and an estimated 
    non-Federal cost of $82,000,000. In addition, the non-
    Federal interests shall provide berthing areas and other 
    local service facilities at an estimated cost of 
    $43,000,000.

South Sacramento County Streams, California.--This provision 
    authorizes the Secretary to construct a flood damage 
    reduction, environmental restoration and recreation project 
    in South Sacramento County Streams, California at a total 
    cost of $64,770,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
    $38,840,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
    $25,930,000 at full Federal expense.

Upper Guadalupe River, California.--This provision authorizes 
    the Secretary to construct the locally preferred plan for 
    flood damage reduction and recreation on the Upper 
    Guadalupe River, California, described as the Bypass 
    Channel Plan of the Chief of Engineers, at a total cost of 
    $132,836,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $42,869,000 
    and an estimated non-Federal cost of $89,967,000.

Yuba River Basin, California.--This provision authorizes the 
    Secretary to construct a flood damage reduction project in 
    the Yuba River Basin, California, at a total cost of 
    $25,850,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $16,775,000 
    and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,075,000.

Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Broadkill 
    Beach, Delaware.--This provision authorizes the Secretary 
    to construct a shore protection project for hurricane and 
    storm damage reduction on the Delaware Bay Coastline: 
    Delaware and New Jersey-Broadkill Beach, Delaware at a 
    total cost of $8,871,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
    $5,593,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,278,000. 
    In addition, this section authorizes periodic nourishment 
    for a 50-year period at an estimated average annual cost of 
    $651,000, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $410,000 
    and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $241,000.

Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Port Mahon, 
    Delaware.--This provision authorizes the Secretary to 
    construct a shore protection project for ecosystem 
    restoration on the Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New 
    Jersey-Port Mahon, Delaware at a total cost of $7,563,000, 
    with an estimated Federal cost of $4,916,000 and an 
    estimated non-Federal cost of $2,647,000. In addition, this 
    section authorizes periodic nourishment for a 50-year 
    period at an estimated average annual cost of $238,000, 
    with an estimated annual Federal cost of $155,000 and an 
    estimated annual non-Federal cost of $83,000.

Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Roosevelt 
    Inlet-Lewes Beach, Delaware.--This provision authorizes the 
    Secretary to construct a shore protection project for 
    navigation mitigation and hurricane and storm damage 
    reduction on the Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New 
    Jersey-Roosevelt Inlet-Lewes Beach, Delaware at a total 
    cost of $3,326,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
    $2,569,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,647,000. 
    In addition, this section authorizes periodic nourishment 
    for a 50-year period at an estimated average annual cost of 
    $207,000, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $159,000 
    and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $47,600.

Delaware Coast From Cape Henelopen to Fenwick Island, Bethany 
    Beach/South Bethany Beach, Delaware.--This provision 
    authorizes the Secretary to construct a shore protection 
    project for hurricane storm damage reduction on the 
    Delaware Coast From Cape Henelopen to Fenwick Island, 
    Bethany Beach/South Bethany Beach, Delaware at a total cost 
    of $22,094,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
    $14,361,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
    $7,773,000. In addition, this section authorizes periodic 
    nourishment for a 50-year period at an estimated average 
    annual cost of $1,573,000, with an estimated annual Federal 
    cost of $1,022,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost 
    of $551,000.

Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.--This provision authorizes the 
    Secretary to construct a navigation project in Jacksonville 
    Harbor, Florida at a total cost of $27,758,000, with an 
    estimated Federal cost of $9,632,000 and an estimated non-
    Federal cost of $18,126,000.

Little Talbot Island, Duval County, Florida.--This provision 
    authorizes the Secretary to construct a shore protection 
    project for hurricane and storm damage prevention on Little 
    Talbot Island, Duval County, Florida at a total cost of 
    $5,802,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,771,000 
    and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,031,000.

Ponce De Leon Inlet, Volusic County, Florida.--This provision 
    authorizes the Secretary to construct a navigation and 
    recreation project at Ponce De Leon Inlet, Volusic County, 
    Florida at a total cost of $5,533,000, with an estimated 
    Federal cost of $3,408,000, and an estimated non-Federal 
    cost of $2,125,000.

Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida.--This provision 
    authorizes the Secretary to construct a navigation project 
    at Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida at a total cost 
    of $11,348,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
    $5,747,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,601,000.

Brunswick Harbor Deepening, Georgia.--This provision authorizes 
    the Secretary to construct a navigation project in 
    Brunswick Harbor, Georgia at a total cost of $49,433,000, 
    with an estimated Federal cost of $32,083,000 and an 
    estimated non-Federal cost of $17,350,000.

Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--This provision authorizes 
    the Secretary to construct a navigation project in the 
    Savannah Harbor, Georgia at a total cost of $195,302,000, 
    with an estimated Federal cost of $84,423,000 and an 
    estimated non-Federal cost of $110,879,000.

Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks, Minnesota.--
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to construct a 
    flood damage reduction and recreation project in Grand 
    Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks, Minnesota at a 
    total cost of $281,754,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
    of $140,877,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
    $140,877,000.

Bayou Cassotte Extension, Pascagoula Harbor, Pascagoula, 
    Mississippi.--This provision authorizes the Secretary to 
    construct a navigation project in Pascagoula Harbor, 
    Pascagoula, Mississippi at a total cost of $5,700,000, with 
    an estimated Federal cost of $4,300,000 and an estimated 
    non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.

Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas City, Missouri.--This provision 
    authorizes the Secretary to construct a flood damage 
    reduction project in the Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas City, 
    Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas at a total cost of 
    $38,594,000 with and estimated Federal cost of $22,912,000 
    and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,682,000.

Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.--This 
    provision authorizes the Secretary to construct a 
    navigation mitigation, ecosystem restoration and hurricane 
    and storm damage reduction project on the Lower Cape May 
    Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey at a total cost of 
    $14,885,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,390,000 
    and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,495,000. In 
    addition, this section authorizes periodic nourishment for 
    a 50-year period at an estimated average annual cost of 
    $4,565,000, with an estimated annual Federal cost of 
    $3,674,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of 
    $891,000.

New Jersey Shore Protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg 
    Harbor, Brigantine Island, New Jersey.--This provision 
    authorizes the Secretary to construct a shore protection 
    and hurricane and storm damage reduction project at the 
    Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor, Brigantine Island, 
    New Jersey at a total cost of $4,861,000, with an estimated 
    Federal cost of $3,160,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
    cost of $1,701,000. In addition, this section authorizes 
    periodic nourishment for a 50-year period at an estimated 
    average annual cost of $2,600,000, with an estimated annual 
    Federal cost of $1,700,000 and an estimated annual non-
    Federal cost of $900,000.

New Jersey Shore Protection, Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, 
    New Jersey.--This provision authorizes the Secretary to 
    construct a shore protection, ecosystem restoration and 
    hurricane and storm damage reduction project on the 
    Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey at a total 
    cost of $55,203,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
    $35,882,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
    $19,321,000. In addition, this section authorizes periodic 
    nourishment for a 50-year period at an estimated average 
    annual cost of $6,319,000, with an estimated annual Federal 
    cost of $4,107,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost 
    of $2,212,000.
Sec. 103. Project Modifications
    (a) Projects with Reports.--This section provides authority 
for the Secretary to modify previously authorized projects for 
water resources development, conservation, and other purposes 
substantially in accordance with the plans recommended in the 
reports referenced in the bill language.

Glenn-Colusa, California.--This provision authorizes the 
    Secretary to modify the project for flood control, 
    Sacramento River, California, authorized by section 2 of 
    the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the control of 
    floods of the Mississippi River and the Sacramento River, 
    and for other purposes'', approved March 1, 1917 (39 Stat. 
    949), as amended, to carry out a flood control project in 
    Glenn-Colusa, California, in accordance with Corps report 
    dated May 22, 1998, at a total cost of $20,700,000, with an 
    estimated Federal cost of $15,570,000 and an estimated non-
    Federal cost of $5,130,000.

San Lorenzo River, California.--This provision authorizes the 
    Secretary to modify the flood control project for San 
    Lorenzo River, California, authorized by section 101(a)(5) 
    of Public Law 104-303, to include as part of the project, 
    stream bank erosion control measures at a total estimated 
    cost of $4,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
    $2,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.

Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska.--This provision authorizes 
    the Secretary to modify the flood protection project 
    authorized in section 101(a)(19) of the Water Resources 
    Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) in accordance with 
    the Corps report dated June 29, 1998, at a total cost of 
    $16,632,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,508,000 
    and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,124,000.

Absecon Island, New Jersey.--This provision authorizes the 
    Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor for work 
    performed that would otherwise have been the responsibility 
    of the Federal government at the project authorized at 
    Absecon Island, New Jersey, by section 101(h)(13) of Water 
    Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303).

Waurika Lake, Oklahoma, Water Conveyance Facilities.--This 
    provision directs the Secretary to waive the requirement 
    for the Waurika Project Master Conservancy District to 
    repay the $2,900,000 in costs resulting from the October 
    1991 settlement of the claim of the Travelers Insurance 
    Company.

    (b) Projects Subject to Reports.--The following projects 
are modified as follows, except that no funds may be obligated 
to carry out work under such modifications until completion of 
a final report by the Chief of Engineers, as approved by the 
Secretary, finding that such work is technically sound, 
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified, as 
applicable.

Sacramento Metro Area, California.--This provision modifies the 
    Sacramento Metro Area flood control project authorized in 
    section 101(4) of Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
    (P.L. 102-580), to authorize the Secretary to construct the 
    project at a total cost of $32,900,000, with an estimated 
    Federal cost of $24,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
    cost of $8,200,000.

New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey, New 
    Jersey.--This provision modifies the New York Harbor and 
    Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey, New Jersey navigation 
    project, authorized by section 202(b) of the Water Resource 
    Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098) to authorize the 
    Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of 
    $100,689,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $74,998,000 
    and an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,701,000.

Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey.--This provision modifies 
    the Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey navigation project 
    authorized in section 202(b) of Water Resources Development 
    Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098) and modified by section 
    301(b)(11) of Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
    Stat. 3711), to further modify the project to authorize 
    funds for the project at a total cost of $260,899,000 with 
    an estimated Federal cost of $195,705,000 and an estimated 
    non-Federal cost of $65,194,000

    (c) Flood Mitigation Near Pierre, South Dakota.--Subsection 
(c) provides the Secretary of the Army with the authority to 
acquire lands and property from willing sellers in the vicinity 
of Pierre, South Dakota, or to floodproof or relocate such 
property within the local community that the Secretary 
determines are adversely affected by the full wintertime 
release from the Oahe Powerplant at full Federal expense. The 
Secretary must provide a report to Congress outlining the 
implementation plan for such nonstructural measures to mitigate 
the flooding problems. The Federal cost limit for all 
activities carried out under this subsection is $35,000,000.

    (d) Payment Option, Moorefield, West Virginia.--Subsection 
(d) authorizes the Secretary to permit the non-Federal sponsor 
for the Moorefield, West Virginia flood control project to pay, 
without interest, the remaining non-Federal cost of the project 
over a period to be determined by the Secretary, but not to 
exceed thirty years.

    (e) Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.--This subsection 
provides relief to the City of Chesapeake, Virginia for the 
annual cash payments made by the City for the navigation 
project on the Elizabeth River. The local sponsor has made the 
annual payments for twenty years.

    (f) Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection, 
Virginia Beach, Virginia.--This subsection directs the 
Secretary to accept additional annul payments from the City of 
Virginia Beach for the hurricane protection in an effort to 
maintain the projects construction schedule. Modification of 
the project cooperation agreement is not required. The 
Secretary is further directed to repay or credit the additional 
payments toward the non-Federal cost sharing requirements.

    (g) Beaver Lake, Arkansas, Water Supply Storage 
Reallocation.--Subsection (g) authorizes the Secretary to 
reallocate approximately 31,000 additional acre-feet at Beaver 
Lake, Arkansas, to water supply storage at no cost to the 
Beaver Water District or the Carroll-Boone Water District, 
except that at no time shall the bottom of the conservation 
pool be at an elevation less than 1076 feet, NGVD.

    (h) Tolchester Channel S-Turn, Baltimore, Maryland.--
Subsection (h) authorizes the Secretary to straighten the 
Tolchester Channel S-Turn as part of the maintenance of the 
navigation project for Baltimore Harbor, authorized by section 
101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958.

    (i) Tropicana Wash and Flamingo Wash, Nevada.--Subsection 
(i) directs the Secretary to reimburse any costs incurred by 
the non-Federal interest to accelerate or modify construction 
of the Tropicana Wash and Flamingo Wash, Nevada project.
Sec. 104. Project Deauthorizations

    (a) Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.--The navigation project 
authorized by section 101 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1958 
in Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, consisting of a 2.4 acre 
anchorage area 9 feet deep and an adjacent 0.60-area anchorage 
6 feet deep, located on the west side of the Johnsons River, 
Connecticut, is not authorized after the date of enactment of 
this Act.

    (b) Bass Harbor, Maine.--The portions of the navigation 
project at Bass Harbor, Maine, authorized on May 7, 1962, and 
described in this legislation, are not authorized after the 
date of enactment of this Act.

    (c) East Boothbay Harbor, Maine.--The remaining portions of 
the navigation project authorized by ``and Act making 
appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation 
of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
purposes'', approved June 25, 1910 (36 stat. 657) are not 
authorized after the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 105. Studies

    (a) Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California.--The Secretary 
shall conduct a study of the feasibility of restoring 
Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California, to determine the 
Federal interest in environmental restoration, conservation of 
fish and wildlife resources, recreation, and water quality.

    (b) West Side Storm Water Retention Facility, City of 
Lancaster, California.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of undertaking measures to construct 
the West Side Storm Water Retention Facility in the City of 
Lancaster, California.

    (c) Apalachicola River, Florida.--The Secretary shall 
conduct a study for the purpose of identifying alternatives for 
the management of material dredged in connection with operation 
and maintenance of the Apalachicola River navigation project, 
as well as alternatives which reduce the requirements for such 
dredging.

    (d) Broward County, Sand Bypassing at Port Everglades 
Inlet, Florida.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of constructing a sand bypassing 
project whether there is a Federal interest in constructing a 
sand bypassing project at the Port Everglades Inlet, Florida.

    (e) City of Destin--Noriega Point Breakwater, Florida.--The 
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
restoring Noriega Point, Florida, to serve as a breakwater for 
Destin Harbor, including the feasibility of including Noriega 
Point as part of the East Pass, Florida, navigation project.

    (f) Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, Florida.--The 
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
undertaking measures to reduce the flooding problems in the 
vicinity of Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, Florida. The 
study shall include a review and consideration of studies and 
reports completed by the non-Federal sponsor.

    (g) Hillsborough River, Withlacoochee River Basins, 
Florida.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to identify 
appropriate measures which can be undertaken in the Green 
Swamp, Withlacoochee River, and the Hillsborough River, the 
Water Triangle of West Central Florida to address comprehensive 
watershed planning for water conservation, water supply, 
restoration and protection of environmental resources, and 
other water resource-related problems in the area.

    (h) City of Plant City, Florida.--The Secretary shall 
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of a flood control 
project in the City of Plant City, Florida. In conducting this 
study, the Secretary shall review and consider studies and 
reports completed by the non-Federal sponsor.

    (i) St. Lucie County, Florida Shore Protection.--The 
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
extending the current shore protection and hurricane and storm 
damage reduction project for Fort Pierce Beach, Florida, 
southward to the Martin County line.

    (j) Acadiana Navigation Channel, Louisiana.--The Secretary 
shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of assuming 
operations and maintenance for the Acadiana Navigational 
Channel located in Iberia and Vermillion Parishes, Louisiana.

    (k) Contraband Bayou Navigation Channel, Louisiana.--The 
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
assuming the maintenance of Contraband Bayou, Calcasieu River 
Ship Canal, Louisiana.

    (l) Golden Meadow Lock, Louisiana.--The Secretary shall 
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of converting the 
Golden Meadow floodgate into a navigation lock to be included 
in the Larose to Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection project.

    (j) Gulf Intercoastal Waterway Ecosystem Protection, Chef 
Menteur to Sabine River, Louisiana.--The Secretary shall 
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking 
ecosystem restoration and protection measures along the Gulf 
Intracoastal Waterway from Chef Menteur to Sabine River, 
Louisiana. The study shall address saltwater intrusion, tidal 
scour, erosion and other water resource- related problems in 
this area.

    (k) Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and Vicinity, St. 
Charles Parish Pumps.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of modifying the Lake Pontchartrain 
Hurricane Protection project to include the St. Charles Parish 
Pumps and the modification of the seawall fronting protection 
along Lake Pontchartrain in Orleans Parish, from New Basin 
Canal on the west to the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal on the 
east.

    (l) Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and Vicinity Seawall 
Restoration, Louisiana.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of extending and structurally 
modifying the seawall for approximately 5 miles.

    (m) Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee, Louisiana.--The 
Secretary shall conduct a study of the impacts of crediting the 
non-Federal sponsor for work performed in the project area of 
the Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee.

    (n) Tunica Lake Weir, Mississippi.--The Secretary shall 
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of constructing an 
outlet weir for the purpose of stabilizing the water levels in 
the lake. The Secretary shall include the recreational uses and 
economic benefits associated with restoration of fish and 
wildlife habitat as a part of the economic analysis.

    (o) Yellowstone River, Montana.--The Secretary shall 
conduct a comprehensive study to determine the hydrologic, 
biological and socio-economic cumulative impacts on the 
Yellowstone river. The study shall be conducted in consultation 
with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States 
Geological Survey, and the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service and with the full participation of the State of 
Montana, tribal and local entities, and provide public 
participation, and be submitted to Congress not later than five 
years after the date of enactment of this Act.
    The study should be designed to recognize the river 
functions in relation to the cumulative effects of flood damage 
and the resulting stabilization projects through the assessment 
of river and riparian conditions and processes along the 
Yellowstone River floodplain from Gardiner to the confluence of 
the Missouri River. The study shall involve the public through 
input provided by local groups such as the Upper Yellowstone 
River Task Force.

    (p) Las Vegas Valley, Nevada.--The Secretary shall conduct 
a comprehensive study to identify problems and opportunities 
related to ecosystem restoration, water quality, particularly 
the quality of surface run-off, water supply, and flood control 
within this area.

    (q) Oswego River Basin, New York.--The Secretary shall 
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a 
flood forecasting system within the Oswego River basin, New 
York.

    (r) Port of New York-New Jersey Navigation Study and 
Environmental Restoration Study, Port of New York-New Jersey.--
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of 
navigational needs to address improvements, including deepening 
of existing channels. In determining navigational needs, the 
Secretary shall examine other reports concerning the New York 
Harbor to determine the Federal interest. Studies shall be 
completed by December, 1999.

    (s) Niobrara River and Missouri River Sedimentation Study, 
South Dakota.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine 
the feasibility of alleviating the bank erosion, sedimentation, 
and related problems of the lower Niobrara River and the 
Missouri River below Fort Randall Dam.

    (t) City of Ocean Shores, Washington, Shore Protection 
Project.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of undertaking a project for beach erosion and 
flood control, including relocation of a primary dune and 
periodic nourishment.

    (u) Protective Facilities for the St. Louis, Missouri, 
Riverfront Area, Missouri.--The Secretary shall conduct a study 
to determine the optimal plan to protect facilities along the 
Mississippi River within the boundaries of St. Louis, Missouri. 
The Secretary is directed to identify alternatives which offer 
safety and security as well as use of state-of-the-art 
techniques. This report shall be submitted to Congress not 
later that April 15, 1999.

    (v) Escambia River, Alabama and Florida.--The Secretary 
shall review the previous reports to determine whether project 
modifications are justified in the vicinity of Brewton and East 
Brewton, Alabama, for flood control, floodplain evacuation, 
flood warning and preparedness, environmental restoration and 
protection, and bank stabilization. This review shall be 
coordinated with other local and Federal agencies.

    (w) Baldwin County, Alabama, Watersheds.--The Secretary 
shall review the report of the Chief of Engineers on the 
Alabama Coast and other pertinent reports to determine whether 
modification in the interest of flood damage reduction, 
environmental restoration and protection, water quality, and 
other purposes, to determine the feasibility of development of 
a comprehensive coordinated watershed management plan in 
Baldwin County, Alabama.

    (x) National Alternative Water Sources Study.--This 
provision directs the Administrator of the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study of the water 
supply needs of States that are not currently eligible for 
assistance under title XVI of the Reclamation Projects 
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992. The study is required 
to identify the water supply needs of each State through 2020, 
evaluate various alternatives water source technologies and 
their feasibility, and assess how alternative water sources 
technologies can be utilized. The Administrator shall make a 
report to Congress not more than 180 days after the enactment 
of this Act.

    (y) Camden and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey, Streams and 
Watersheds, New Jersey.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restoration, 
floodplain management, flood control, water quality control, 
comprehensive watershed management, and other related purposes 
along tributaries of the Delaware River, Camden and Gloucester 
Counties, New Jersey.
Sec. 106. Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem Restoration 
        Program
    The purpose of this section is to address some of the broad 
range of issues concerning the wise use of water and related 
land resources. The development of high hazard floodplains, 
alteration of hydrologic regimes, and disturbance of riverine 
ecosystems has had adverse consequences for the nation's 
economic and environmental health. Each year billions of 
dollars, both public and private, are expended on costly repair 
and reconstruction of floodplain property and associated 
infrastructure following flood events. Development in upstream 
areas has altered hydrology, aggravated flooding, and 
contributed to the loss of important riverine, wetland and 
floodplain environmental values.
    Failure to appreciate and incorporate economic, hydrologic 
and environmental considerations into local and regional growth 
policies has led to uses of high hazard floodplains and the 
loss of floodplain resources such as wetlands. Storm water 
management in upstream areas often has not been sufficiently 
comprehensive to avoid aggravating downstream flood problems 
and environmental degradation. In addition, while many Federal 
programs address these problems, they neither fully integrate 
Federal assistance nor always complement non-Federal 
activities. Consequently, opportunities to prevent or reduce 
flood damages, restore riverine ecosystem values and the wise 
use of floodplains and to conserve remaining hydrologic and 
ecological resources in developing areas are not fully 
utilized.
    This provision provides authority for the Army Corps of 
Engineers to work with other Federal agencies to more 
efficiently and effectively help local governments both reduce 
flood damages and conserve, restore, and manage riverine and 
related land resources.
    This program will emphasize is to be placed on non-
structural flood damage reduction measures and riverine and 
wetland ecosystem restoration measures that conserve, restore, 
and manage hydrologic and hydraulic regimes and restore the 
natural functions and values of the floodplain. Related 
benefits include prevention of future flood damages and Federal 
flood disaster assistance costs, reduced risks and exposure to 
flooding, reduced community displacement due to flooding, 
improved water quality, improved habitat along streams, 
additional open space, and overall improved community well 
being. Modifying the use of upstream areas to reduce storm 
water runoff is a key element in reducing future flood damages 
and achieving revitalization of our riverine resources.
    In the carrying out of this program, the Secretary is 
expected to ensure that each comprehensive planning initiative 
emphasizes non-structural flood hazard reduction measures and 
is undertaken in collaboration and cooperation with the 
respective Federal, State and local agencies that have 
complementary programs and interests.
    The Secretary may implement such projects after making a 
determination that the projects will significantly reduce 
potential flood damages, will improve the quality of the 
environment, and are justified based on the monetary (National 
Economic Development) and non-monetary environmental benefits 
that the project provides. Federal and non-Federal cost sharing 
for all studies and projects undertaken pursuant to this 
authority will be in accordance with current laws and 
regulations. No more than $25,000,000 in Army Civil Works 
appropriations may be expended on any single project undertaken 
under this authority. All studies and projects undertaken under 
this authority from Army Civil Works appropriations shall be 
fully funded within the program funding levels provided in this 
subsection. Total Army Civil Works appropriations authorized 
under this section are $75,000,000, to be expended over a total 
of two years.
    The program established under this authority will be 
subject to an independent review, the purpose of which will be 
to evaluate the efficiency of the program in achieving the dual 
goals of flood hazard mitigation and ecosystem restoration.
    This provision instructs the Secretary to examine the 
potential for flood damage reductions in the following high 
priority areas: Saint Genevieve, Missouri; Upper Delaware River 
Basin; New York; Tillamook County, Oregon; Providence County, 
Rhode Island; and Willamette River Basin, Oregon.
    This provision authorizes $75,000,000 for the period of 
fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
Sec. 107. Shore Protection
    This provision creates a new cost sharing formula for the 
periodic nourishment of shore protection projects. The non-
Federal share will be 50 percent of the cost of the periodic 
nourishment except that the cost of the periodic nourishment of 
privately owned shores will be borne by non-Federal interests, 
and the cost of periodic nourishment of federally owned shores 
will be borne by the Federal government. The provision 
maintains the Federal and non-Federal cost sharing provisions 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 for the initial 
construction of shore protection projects. In addition, this 
section makes it clear that those projects for shore protection 
that are authorized in this Act, as well as those projects that 
complete a feasibility study by December 31, 1998, shall be 
cost shared at the current 65 percent Federal and 35 percent 
non-Federal. -
    This proposal will provide for the orderly continuation of 
the Federal and non-Federal partnerships on shore protection 
projects by providing affordable projects in the context of a 
balanced Federal budget. The majority of hurricane and storm 
damage reduction projects are built in coastal areas. These 
coastal projects most often involve the periodic nourishment of 
beach areas over a 50-year project life. Besides reducing 
hurricane and storm damages, which is essential to preserving 
the viability of coastal areas, many of these projects are also 
essential to the economic viability of State, regional, and 
local recreation and tourism activities. To reflect the long-
term non-Federal benefits that accrue to such shoreline 
protection projects, the provision amends section 103(d) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to increase the non-
Federal contribution associated with the periodic nourishment 
of such projects.
Sec. 108. Small Flood Control Projects
    The Army Corps of Engineers' small flood control project 
continuing authority program is a popular program that provides 
a means for quick implementation for flood damage reduction 
studies and projects. During fiscal year 1997, there were nine 
projects initiated under this program, and there is a demand 
for more. The Federal project limits for section 205 were last 
increased in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. This 
proposed increase in the Federal share of project cost from 
$5,000,000 to $7,000,000 will offset the rise in costs due to 
inflation during that period. Additionally, the provision 
encourages consideration of non-structural flood control 
measures in implementing projects under the authority.
Sec. 109. Use of Non-Federal Funds for Compiling and Disseminating 
        Information on Flood and Flood Damages
    This provision allows the Secretary to accept and expend 
certain funds provided by States and local governments to 
compile and disseminate information on floods and flood 
damages. The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 prohibited 
the collection of fees from such entities; nevertheless, the 
demand for information on floods and flood damages continues to 
increase. There have been a number of instances where States 
and local governments have offered to contribute funds to 
expand the services provided pursuant to this authority, but 
the agency has been unable to accept such contributions because 
of the statutory prohibition on collecting fees for such 
services. This section will allow the agency to accept 
voluntary contributions from State and local governments. By 
clarifying that this statutory prohibition does not apply to 
funds voluntarily contributed, the agency will be able to 
disseminate information on flooding and flood damages to a 
wider segment of the public.
Sec. 110. Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
    This provision amends section 528 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) to extend the 
authorization of appropriations for critical restoration 
projects in South Florida through fiscal year 2000. This is 
necessary because funds were not available to begin work on 
this project in fiscal year 1997 as anticipated.
Sec. 111. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
    This provision will allow non-profit entities to 
participate as non-Federal project sponsors in aquatic 
ecosystem restoration and protection projects carried out under 
the authority of section 206 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303), thereby expanding the universe for 
potential project sponsors beyond those that meet the 
definition of ``non-Federal interest'' as set forth in section 
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970.
Sec. 112. Beneficial Uses of Dredged Materials
    This provision will allow non-profit entities to 
participate as non-Federal project sponsors in beneficial uses 
of dredged material projects carried out under the authority of 
section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(P.L. 102-580), thereby expanding the universe for potential 
project sponsors beyond those that meet the definition of 
``non-Federal interest'' as set forth in section 221 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970.
Sec. 113. Voluntary Contributions by States and Political Subdivisions
    This provision expands the authority of the Secretary to 
receive funds from States and political subdivisions to be 
expended in connection with funds appropriated by the United 
States for any authorized flood control work to allow the 
Secretary to receive funds from States and political 
subdivisions to be expended in connection with funds 
appropriated by the United States for any authorized 
environmental restoration project.
Sec. 114. Recreation User Fees
    This provision allows the Secretary to retain and expend, 
without further appropriation, 100 percent of recreation user 
fee revenues above the base line of $34,000,000 for each fiscal 
year 1999 through 2002. The revenues retained by the Corps 
would be available through fiscal year 2005 for specific 
purposes, including repair and maintenance work and habitat for 
facility enhancement.
    Under current law, all recreation user fee revenues 
collected at water resources development projects under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of the Army must be deposited 
into a special account in the Treasury and are made available 
to the Corps only after Congress provides an appropriation in 
subsequent fiscal years. Although the Corps has authority to 
collect recreation user fees and is encouraged to do so, to 
maximize revenues, the cost of collecting those revenues is 
provided for with funds that could be used for other recreation 
activities. This reduces the funds available for those 
activities. It also reduces the incentive for project managers 
to pursue expanded fee collection aggressively, since the cost 
of that collection is not reimbursed.
Sec. 115. Water Resources Development Studies for the Pacific Region
    This provision expands studies authorized for the Pacific 
Region that includes American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth 
of the Northern Mariana Islands to allow the Secretary to 
conduct studies in that region that cover the full panoply of 
water resources issues.
Sec. 116. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to develop projects 
to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat of the 
Missouri and middle Mississippi Rivers. The projects shall 
provide for such activities as are necessary to protect and 
enhance fish and wildlife habitat without adversely affecting 
flood control, navigation, recreation, enhancement of water 
supply and private property rights. $30,000,000 is authorized 
to carry out the section for the period of fiscal years 2000 
and 2001. The Federal share of the cost of each project shall 
not exceed $5,000,000 and the non-Federal share of the cost of 
each project shall be 35 percent.
Sec. 117. Outer Continental dredging
    This provision amends section 8(k)(2)(B) of the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit the Department of 
Interior from assessing fees on non-Federal sponsors of water 
resource projects. Currently, the Department of Interior is 
precluded from collecting fees from other Federal agencies who 
receive minerals, sand or other natural resources from the 
outer continental shelf.
    This section reimburses the City of Virginia Beach, 
Virginia, for fees assessed by the Department of Interior for 
use of Outer Continental Shelf sand for the Sandbridge 
Hurricane Protection project.
Sec. 118. Environmental Dredging
    This provision adds Snake Creek in Bixby, Oklahoma, to the 
list of rivers contained in the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1990 (P.L. 101-640) where the Corps is authorized to conduct 
dredging to restore environmental resources.
Sec. 119. Benefit of Primary Flood Damages Avoided Included in Benefit 
        Cost Analysis
    This provision amends section 308(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-640) to direct the Secretary 
to include primary flood damage reduction benefits in the 
benefit base for justifying non-structural flood damage 
reduction projects. Failure to count these essential benefits 
in economic benefit cost evaluations has resulted in an 
unwarranted impediment to justification of non-structural flood 
damage reduction projects. These benefits, such as flood plain 
evacuation and relocation, are appropriate to be counted in 
benefit cost analysis for such projects. This provision does 
not modify the existing calculation of benefits for structural 
flood control projects.
Sec. 120. Control of Aquatic Plant Growth
    This provision adds two plants, Arundo donax, and tarmarix, 
to the list of noxious weeds that the Secretary has authority 
to control and eradicate.
Sec. 121. Environmental Infrastructure
    This provision amends section 219(c) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580) by adding Lake Tahoe, 
California and Nevada; Lancaster, California, and San Ramon, 
California to the list of watersheds the Secretary is 
authorized to provide technical and planning and design 
assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and 
resource protection and development.
Sec. 122. Watershed Management, Restoration, and Development
    This provision amends section 503(d) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) by adding Clear Lake 
watershed, California; Fresno Slough watershed, California; 
Kaweah River watershed, California; Lake Tahoe, California, and 
Nevada, Malibu Creek watershed, California; Truckee River 
basin, Nevada; Walker River basin, Nevada; and Hayward Marsh, 
Southern San Francisco Bay watershed, California to the list of 
watersheds the Secretary is authorized to provide technical, 
planning and design assistance for watershed management, 
restoration and development projects.
Sec. 123. Lakes Program
    This provision amends the existing silt and aquatic growth 
removal program at specified lakes in the United States, 
authorized by section 602(a) of the 1986 Water Resources 
Development Act (100 Stat. 4148), by adding two additional 
lakes, located in Clear Lake, Lake County, California; and 
Osgood Pond, Milford, New Hampshire.
Sec. 124. Dredging of Salt Ponds in the State of Rhode Island
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to acquire a small 
dredge for the State of Rhode Island to perform dredging for 
environmental mitigation purposes at numerous coastal salt 
ponds in the State.
Sec. 125. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York
    This provision amends section 567(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) by adding the Chemung 
River watershed, New York, to the list of watersheds the 
Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture and 
the States of Pennsylvania and New York, is authorized to 
conduct a study and develop a strategy for using wetland 
restoration, soil and water conservation practices, and 
nonstructural measures to reduce flood damage, improve water 
quality, and create wildlife habitat.
Sec. 126. Repaupo Creek and Delaware River, Gloucester County, New 
        Jersey
    This provision amends section 102 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) by adding Repaupo Creek 
and Delaware River, Gloucester County, New Jersey, and Tioga 
County, Pennsylvania to the list of small flood control 
projects the Secretary is authorized to study, and, if 
feasible, carry out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1948.
Sec. 127. Small Navigation Projects
    This provision amends section 104 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) by adding Fortescue 
Inlet, Delaware Bay, New Jersey, to the list of small 
navigation projects the Secretary is authorized to study, and, 
if feasible, carry out under section 107 of the River and 
Harbor Act of 1960.
Sec. 128. Streambank Protection Projects
    This provision directs the Secretary to carry out a small 
emergency streambank stabilization project to prevent eroded 
debris underlying Coulson Park from being released into the 
Yellowstone River at Billings, Montana.
Sec. 129. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Springfield, Oregon
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to reconfigure the 
existing pond at Springfield, Oregon, if the Secretary 
determines harmful impacts are a result of a previously 
constructed flood control project by the Corps of Engineers.-
Sec. 130. Guilford and New Haven, Connecticut
    This provision urges the Corps of Engineers to 
expeditiously complete the activities authorized under section 
346 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-
580) at Sluice Creek in Guilford, Connecticut, and Lighthouse 
Point Park in New Haven, Connecticut. In July 1998, the Corps 
completed a reconnaissance study for Coastal Connecticut 
Ecosystem Restoration. The completion of a feasibility study is 
consistent with the long-term goal of the Corps' water 
resources development program for increasing the quality and 
quantity of the Nation's wetlands and is of ecological 
significance for the State of Connecticut, including Long 
Island Sound. The Corps is urged to complete the feasibility 
study within 48 months of the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 131. Francis Bland, Arkansas Floodway Ditch No. 5
    This provision names the Eight Mile Creek, Paragould, 
Arkansas, flood control project the ``Francis Bland, Arkansas 
Floodway Ditch No. 5''.
Sec. 132. Point Judith Breakwater
    This provision directs the Secretary to restore the 
breakwater located at Point Judith, Rhode Island authorized by 
the ``River and Harbor Appropriations Act of 1907'' (34 stat. 
1075, chapter 2509) and the ``River and Harbor Appropriations 
Act of 1910'' (36 stat 632, chapter 382), at a total estimated 
cost of 10,000,000 with an estimated Federal cost of 
6,5000,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of 3,5,000,000. 
Operation and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the 
non-Federal sponsor.
Sec. 133. Caloosahatchee River Basin, Florida
    This provision amends section 528(e)(4) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (104-303) by adding the 
Caloosahatchee River Basin as a potential area which may be 
acquired by the non-Federal sponsor for water storage purposes 
within the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration 
project area. The terms of crediting the non-Federal sponsor 
for land acquisition are not changed by this section.
Sec. 134. Cumberland, Maryland, Flood Project Mitigation
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to participate in 
the restoration of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, consistent 
with the recommendations of the National Park Service's 
Rewatering Design Analysis. The project will be cost shared and 
operations and maintenance of the canal will be the full 
responsibility of the National Park Service. The project will 
be authorized at 65 percent Federal, 35 percent non-Federal.
Sec. 135. Sediments Decontamination Policy
    This provision amends section 405 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580) by requiring that 
sediment decontamination technologies result in practical end-
use products and increases the authorized program level from 
$5,000,000 to $22,000,000.
Sec. 136. City of Miami Beach, Florida
    This provision amends section 5(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act of 
August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426h) by adding the city of Miami 
Beach, Florida, to those areas eligible for assistance under 
the National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and 
Demonstration Program.
Sec. 137. Small Storm Damage Reduction Projects
    This provision amends section 3 of the Act of August 13, 
1962 (33 U.S.C. 426g) by increasing the authorized level for 
Federal funding of small storm damage reduction projects from 
$2,000,000 to $3,000,000.
Sec. 138. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to accept a 
prepayment of the full costs of water supply storage the 
project at Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma. The amount to be paid by 
the State of Oklahoma will be determined through an independent 
audit.
Sec. 139. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System 
        Navigation Modernization
    This provision directs the Secretary, in accordance with 
the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System Navigation 
Study, to proceed immediately to prepare preconstruction 
engineering design, plans and specifications for 1,200 foot 
extensions of locks 20-25 on the Mississippi River and the 
LaGrange and Peoria Locks on the Illinois River. This provision 
does not authorize construction and does not preempt the future 
findings of the Secretary on the engineering, economic and 
environmental feasibility of any specific approach to improve 
navigation along these waterways.
    This provision also includes ``Findings'' to emphasize what 
is at stake should the United States fail to modernize this 
critical transportation option to meet the needs of the next 
century. The United States is anticipated to experience 
increased trade activity over the next 50 years that will place 
greater demands on our transportation system. It should be the 
policy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to aggressively 
pursue modernization of water transportation infrastructure 
authorized by the Congress to promote the relative competitive 
position of the United States in the international marketplace.
Sec. 140. Disposal of Dredged Material on Beaches
    This provision amends section 145 of Water Resources 
Development Act of 1976 ( 33 U.S.C. 426j) by changing the non-
Federal cost share for beneficial reuse projects from 50 
percent to 35 percent. This change is necessary to allow the 
use of dredged materials from navigation projects on nearby 
shoreline projects at a lower overall cost to the Federal 
government and State or local entities. It is noted that local 
communities need to be advised of the cost-share provisions of 
such beneficial use in a timely manner to budget for their 
cost-share of such use.
Sec. 141. Fish and Wildlife Mitigation
    This provision amends section 906(e) of Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 to allow non-Federal project sponsors 
to contribute in-kind facilities, supplies and services for up 
to 80 percent of allowable first costs of enhancement projects. 
The committee is including such modifications to make the cost-
sharing requirements with respect to Environmental Management 
Program enhancements consistent with all other Corps 
enhancement cost-share requirements,
Sec. 142. Upper Mississippi River Management
    This provision amends section 1103 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662) by extending the existing 
authorization for the Upper Mississippi River Environmental 
Management Program for the period from 2002 through 2009. In 
addition, this provision increases the authorization level for 
fish and wildlife habitat rehabilitation and enhancement 
activities, from 8,200,000 to 22,750,000 for each of fiscal 
years 1999 through 2009. For the long term resources monitoring 
program action the authorization level is increased from 
7,680,000 to 10,420,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 to 2009. 
For all enhancement and mitigation projects carried out on non-
Federal land, the non-Federal share of the cost of each project 
shall be 35 percent and the cost of operation and maintenance 
of each project shall also be 100 percent non-Federal 
responsibility.
    In addition this provision authorizes the Secretary to 
investigate, and, if appropriate, carry out restoration of 
urban wildlife habitat in the St. Louis, Missouri, area with an 
emphasis on greenways. To the extent possible this project 
should include reclamation and wetlands restoration 
opportunities such as that at the Columbia Bottoms and the 
Rivers South Restoration Project near the River des Peres in 
LeMay in St. Louis County.
Sec. 143. Construction of Flood Control Projects by Non-Federal 
        Interest
    This provision amends section 211(e) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) to clarify the 
Secretary's authority to reimburse non-Federal interests under 
the special rules provided in section 211(e)(2)(A).
Sec. 144. Research and Development Program for Columbia and Snake 
        Rivers Salmon Survival
    This provision amends section 511 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) by increasing the 
existing authorization level in subsection 511(b)(2) from 
$12,000,000 to $35,000,000 for the Advanced Turbine Development 
program. Additionally, section 511 of P.L. 104-303 is modified 
by providing the Secretary of the Army with authority to 
develop and carry out methods to reduce Caspian Tern and 
cormorant nesting populations on and in the vicinity of certain 
Army Corps dredge spoil islands in the Columbia River. An 
authorization level of $1,000,000 is provided for this purpose. 
Nothing in this section shall interrupt or preclude any ongoing 
salmon recovery program. It is noted that the report requested 
in 1999 on activities under subsection 511(a) remains 
unchanged.

  title ii--cheyenne river sioux tribe, lower brule sioux tribe, and 
     state of south dakota terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration

Sec. 201. Definitions
    This section defines the terms restoration, Secretary, 
terrestrial wildlife habitat, and wildlife.
Sec. 202. Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration
    This section requires the State of South Dakota, the 
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, as 
a condition of receipt of funds under this title, to prepare 
plans for the restoration of wildlife habitat that was lost as 
a result of construction of the Big Bend and Oahe dams. Plans 
are to be submitted to the Secretary of the Army and to the two 
Congressional committees. Upon receipt of the plans, the 
respective committees are required to notify the Secretary of 
the Treasury, who then is required to make funds available for 
the implementation of the plans from trust funds established 
under this title. To supplement the formal habitat restoration 
plans, the State and tribes are authorized to lease wildlife 
habitat from private landowners, based on plans developed 
cooperatively with the Secretary of the Army and the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service.
    In addition, this provision clarifies that the 
establishment of the trust funds and the implementation of the 
terrestrial wildlife habitat plans developed under this section 
satisfies the Federal obligation for wildlife habitat 
mitigation by the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River 
Sioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe for the Oahe and 
Big Bend projects under the Fish and Wildlife Habitat 
Coordination Act of 1958.
Sec. 203. South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust 
        Fund
    This section establishes a trust fund of $108 million for 
use by the State of South Dakota to 1) implement its 
terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration plan, 2) protect 
archaeological and cultural sites threatened by the operation 
of the Pick-Sloan project, 3) operate and develop Corps of 
Engineers recreation areas transferred to the State under this 
title, 4) implement the wildlife habitat leasing plan, and 5) 
develop and maintain public access to, and protect, wildlife 
habitat and recreation areas along the Missouri River. The 
Secretary of the Treasury is required to provide the annual 
interest revenue from the trust fund to the State of South 
Dakota for these purposes.
Sec. 204. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 
        Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Funds.
    This section establishes trust funds of roughly $42 million 
for use by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and roughly $15 
million for use by the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe to 1) implement 
their terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration plans, 2) 
protect archaeological and cultural sites threatened by the 
operation of the Pick-Sloan project, 3) operate and develop 
Corps of Engineers recreation areas transferred to the 
respective tribes under this title, 4) implement the wildlife 
habitat leasing plan, and 5) develop and maintain public access 
to, and protect, wildlife habitat and recreation areas along 
the Missouri River. The Secretary of the Treasury is required 
to provide the annual interest revenue from the trust fund to 
the tribes for these purposes.
Sec. 205. Transfer of Federal Land to State of South Dakota
    This section transfers to the State of South Dakota the 
Federal lands located outside of the Indian reservation 
boundaries that were acquired for the Pick-Sloan project and 
that remain above the exclusive flood pool and recreation areas 
outside reservation boundaries. It requires the State of South 
Dakota to use the transferred lands for wildlife habitat 
restoration and recreation development. The transfer is 
required to occur no later than one year after the full 
capitalization of the trust fund. The section preserves 
existing easements and rights-of-way on any lands transferred 
to the Interior Department for the Indian tribes and to the 
State of South Dakota.
    On the lands transferred to the State of South Dakota, the 
State retains its current jurisdiction in perpetuity for 
hunting and fishing over these lands, and over the waters of 
the Missouri River for all areas outside reservation boundaries 
and for non-Indians within reservation boundaries.
Sec. 206. Transfer of Corps of Engineers Land for Indian Tribes
    This provision transfers to the Interior Department to be 
held in trust for the Indian tribes the Federal lands located 
within reservation boundaries that were acquired for the Pick-
Sloan project and that remain above the exclusive flood pool 
and recreation areas inside reservation boundaries. The 
transfer is required to occur no later than one year after the 
full capitalization of the trust fund. The section preserves 
existing easements and rights-of-way on any lands transferred 
to the Interior Department for the Indian tribes and to the 
State of South Dakota.
    Jurisdiction over hunting and fishing on the waters of the 
Missouri River and the adjacent lands remain unaffected by the 
bill, except that the Indian tribes will gain full jurisdiction 
for the regulation of hunting and fishing on the Federal lands 
that are transferred to the Interior Department to be held in 
trust for them.
    The provisions of this title, including the jurisdictional 
provisions, are not intended to serve as precedent with regard 
to any tribe not included in such title. The provisions of the 
Native American Indian Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 
shall apply to all lands transferred under this Act.
Sec. 207. Administration
    The section clarifies that Indian water rights, treaty 
rights, and reservation boundaries shall remain unaffected by 
enactment of this title, and that nothing in this legislation 
waives the applicability of Federal laws related to the lands 
and waters affected by this title.
Sec. 208. Authorization of Appropriations
    This section authorizes appropriations to pay the 
administrative expenses of the Secretaries of the Interior and 
the Army in carrying out the requirements of this title.

                                Hearings

    On June 23, 1998, the Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure held a hearing on the Administration's Water 
Resources Development Act proposal, S. 2131 and to examine the 
President's budget request for fiscal year 1999 for the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers. Testimony received from the Honorable 
Joseph Westphal, Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, U.S. 
Department of the Army; accompanied by Mr. Michael L. Davis, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Civil Works for Policy and 
Legislation and General Russell L. Fuhrman, Director of Civil 
Works; Mr. Kurt J. Nagle, President, American Association of 
Port Authorities, Alexandria, Virginia; Mr. Scott E. Faber, 
Director of Floodplain Programs, American Rivers; the Honorable 
Louisa M. Strayhorn, Councilwoman, Virginia, Beach, Virginia; 
Mr. Grover Fugate, Executive Director, Rhode Island Coastal 
Resources Management Council, Wakefield, Rhode Island; the 
Honorable Kenneth Pringle, Mayor, Borough of Belmar, New 
Jersey; and Mr. Stephen Higgins, Beach Erosion Administrator, 
Broward County, Florida.

                             Rollcall Votes

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works met on July 
22, 23, and 29, 1998 to consider S. 2131, the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1998. On July 22, the committee agreed en 
bloc to the chairman's mark, two managers' amendments, and a 
second degree amendment to the first managers' amendment; all 
managers' amendments were agreed to by voice vote. Also on July 
22, Senator Graham offered an amendment to strike the 
provisions of Sec. 131 from the chairman's mark (authorizing 
certain highway funds). The Graham amendment was agreed to by a 
rollcall vote of 12 ayes to 6 noes. Voting in the affirmative 
were Senators Allard, Bond, Boxer, Graham, Hutchinson, Inhofe, 
Kempthorne, Lautenberg, Reid, Smith of New Hampshire, Thomas, 
and Wyden. Voting in the negative were Senators Baucus, Chafee, 
Lieberman, Moynihan, Sessions, and Warner.
    On July 23, 1998, the committee continued consideration of 
S. 2131. An amendment offered by Senator Kempthorne relative to 
salmon conservation was agreed to by voice vote. No rollcall 
votes on S. 2131 occurred at this meeting of the committee.
    On July 29, 1998, the committee continued consideration of 
S. 2131, and the bill was ordered reported, as amended, by 
voice vote. No rollcall votes on S. 2131 occurred at this 
meeting of the committee.

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

    Section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires publication in the report the committee's 
estimate of the regulatory impact made by the bill as reported. 
No regulatory impact is expected by the passage of S. 2131. The 
bill will not affect the personal privacy of individuals.

                          Mandates Assessement

    In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-4), the Committee finds that this bill would 
impose no Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State, 
local, or tribal governments. All of its governmental 
directives are imposed on Federal agencies. The bill does not 
directly impose any private sector mandates.

                          Cost of Legislation

    Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the 
reported bill, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be 
included in the report. That statement follows:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                   Washington, DC, August 20, 1998.

Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2131, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1998.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Gary Brown 
(for Federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, and 
Marjorie Miller (for the State and local impact), who can be 
reached at 225-3220.

            Sincerely,
                                           June E. O'Neill,
                                                          Director.
                                ------                                


               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

S. 2131, Water Resources Development Act of 1998, as ordered 
reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
Works on July 29, 1998
Summary
    S. 2131 would authorize the appropriation of about $1.9 
billion (in 1998 dollars) over the 1999-2008 period for the 
Secretary of Army, acting through the Army Corps of Engineers, 
to conduct studies and undertake projects for flood control, 
port development, inland navigation, storm damage reduction, 
and environmental restoration. Adjusting for anticipated 
inflation, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would 
require appropriations of $2.1 billion over that period the 
bill also would authorize prepayment of or waive amounts owed 
to the Federal Government and make a portion of the fees 
collected at Corps recreation sites available for spending 
without further appropriation.
    The bill also would settle potential claims of the Cheyenne 
River and Lower Brule Sioux Tribes and the State of South 
Dakota against the Federal Government for losses of terrestrial 
(land) habitat incurred as a result of the construction of the 
Missouri River Basin Pick-Sloan project. The bill would 
transfer to the Department of the Interior, to be held in trust 
for the tribes, and to the State, Federal lands that were 
acquired for the Pick-Sloan project. The United States would 
relinquish all fees associated with recreation, permits, 
easements, and rights-of-way, on these lands. S. 2131 would 
establish funds for the tribes and the State and make interest 
from the funds available for restoring habitat flooded as a 
result of the project.
    CBO estimates that implementing S. 2131 would result in 
additional outlays of about $1.5 billion over the 1999-2003 
period, assuming the appropriation of the necessary amounts. 
The remaining amounts authorized by the bill would be spent 
after 2003. Enacting the bill would affect direct spending, 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. CBO estimates 
that enacting S. 2131 would reduce direct spending by $17 
million in 1999, but would cause a net increase in direct 
spending of $21 million over the 1999-2003 period. The 
legislation contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Estimated Cost to the Federal Government
    The estimated budgetary impact of S. 2131 is shown in the 
following table. For constructing, operating, and maintaining 
projects that are already authorized, CBO estimates that the 
Corps will need about $4 billion annually over the 1999-2003 
period (roughly the level appropriated in 1998). The table 
shows the estimates of additional spending necessary to 
implement the bill. The costs of this legislation fall within 
budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).

                                                                        
                 By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   1999    2000    2001    2002    2003 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO                                         
          APPROPRIATION                                                 
Estimated Authorization Level...     340     425     403     273     132
Estimated Outlays...............     170     332     401     341     222
                                                                        
   CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING                                           
Estimated Budget Authority......     -17       6      10      13      14
Estimated Outlays...............     -17       4       8      12      14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basis of Estimate
    For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 2131 
will be enacted at or near the beginning of fiscal year 1999, 
and that all amounts estimated to be authorized by the bill 
will be appropriated for each fiscal year.
Spending Subject to Appropriation
    Estimates of annual budget authority needed to meet design 
and construction schedules were provided by the Corps. CBO 
adjusted the estimates to reflect the impact of anticipated 
inflation during the time between authorization and 
appropriation. Estimated outlays are based or historical 
spending rates for Corps activities.
Direct Spending
    Prepayments and Waivers of Payments. S. 2131 would 
authorize the State of Oklahoma to pay the present value of its 
outstanding obligation to the United States for water supply. 
CBO estimates that, if the bill is enacted, a prepayment of 
about $20 million would be made in 1999 and that payments 
forgone would be about $2 million a year over the 1999-2033 
period. The bill would authorize the Corps to partly or fully 
waive payments from the Waurika Project Master Conservancy 
District and the cities of Chesapeake, Virginia, and 
Moorefield, West Virginia, for other projects. CBO estimates 
that, under current law, payments from these entities would 
total less than $500,000 annually over the 1999-2031 period. 
Thus, any forgone payments from those activities would not be 
significant..
    Spending of Recreational Fees. S. 2131 would authorize the 
Corps to retain and spend each year any recreation fees that 
are in excess of $34 million, the amount that the 
Administration and CBO estimate will be collected under current 
law. At present, all recreation fees are deposited as 
offsetting receipts in the Treasury and are unavailable for 
spending unless appropriated. By allowing the Corps to spend 
receipts in excess of $34 million, this provision creates the 
possibility of new direct spending. Because recreation fees do 
not vary significantly from year to year, CBO estimates that 
the expected increase in spending from any annual receipts 
collected in excess of $34 million would be less than $500,000 
a year.
    Land Transfers and Trust Funds. S. 2131 would direct the 
Corps to transfer lands to the Department of the Interior, to 
be held in trust for the Cheyenne River and Lower Brule Sioux 
Tribes, and to the State of South Dakota. The United Stales 
would relinquish all revenues from permits, easements, rights-
of-way, and recreational use of these lands. CBO anticipates 
that the transfers would occur over the 2000-2002 period. CBO 
estimates that the amount of offsetting receipts forgone under 
this provision would total less than $500,000 in 2000 and about 
$1 million annually thereafter.
    S. 2131 also would establish habitat restoration funds for 
the Cheyenne River and Lower Brule Tribes and the State of 
South Dakota. Beginning with the year that S. 2131 is enacted, 
the bill would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to deposit 
25 percent of the previous year's receipts from the Pick-Sloan 
Missouri River basin program into separate accounts in the U.S. 
Treasury on behalf of the Tribes and the State. Once a total of 
$165 million is deposited--$57 million for the tribes and $108 
million for the State--no further principal deposits would be 
made. The bill would direct that principal amounts be invested 
in interest-bearing Treasury securities and that the funds' 
interest earnings be made available to the tribes and the State 
without fiscal year limitation or the need for further 
appropriation.
    Based on information from the Western Area Power 
Administration--which markets electricity produced from the 
Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin--CBO estimates that receipts 
from the Pick-Sloan project will total about $250 million 
annually over the 1998-2001 period; therefore, if S. 2131 is 
enacted in fiscal year 1999, the funds would be fully 
capitalized in fiscal year 2001. The deposits to the trust 
finds would be intragovernmental transfers, and thus, there 
would be no net outlays associated with them.
    S. 2131 would make the interest on the amounts in the funds 
available to the tribes and the State for restoring terrestrial 
habitat. For the purpose of this estimate, CBO assumes that 
deposits into the funds will be made by January 1 of each year; 
the initial deposits would be made by January 1, 1999, and earn 
interest for three quarters of fiscal year 1999. Interest 
earnings would first become available for spending in fiscal 
year 2000. We assume that the balances in the funds would earn 
interest at an annual rate of about 6.2 percent, which is CBO's 
baseline projection of the interest rate on 30-year Treasury 
bonds. Unspent interest in the accounts also would earn 
interest, but as a lower (short-term) rate of about 5 percent.
    As a result, CBO estimates the interest earnings in the 
following amounts would be made available to the tribes and the 
State: $3 million in 2000, $7 million in 2001, $10 million in 
2002, and $11 million a year thereafter. Estimated outlays are 
based on historical spending rates for similar programs.
    It is possible that enacting S. 2131 would allow the United 
States to avoid potential costs from possible claims by the 
tribes and South Dakota related to the restoration of 
terrestrial habitat. The State has indicated that it may file 
suit against the United States for failing to restore such 
wildlife habitat affected by the construction of the Missouri 
River Basin Pick-Sloan project if provisions similar to those 
included in S. 2131 are not enacted. It is possible that the 
tribes would do the same. Because the bill would provide for 
completely restoring such habitat affected by the project, CBO 
estimates that enacting the bill would probably be more costly 
than any potential judgment (which might provide for only 
partial restoration). However, CBO has no basis for estimating 
the likelihood, timing or amount of any judgment. Enacting the 
bill would not settle any potential claims related to aquatic 
habitat. The impact of the project on these resources is still 
under evaluation.
Pay-as-you-go Considerations
    The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets 
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
spending or receipts. The net changes in outlays that are 
subject to pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following 
table. (The bill would not affect governmental receipts.) For 
the purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the 
effects in the current year, the budget year, and the 
succeeding four years are counted.

                                                                                                                
                                      By Fiscal Year in Millions of Dollars                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      1998   1999   2000   2001   2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes us outlays.................      0    -17      4      8     12     14     14     14     14     14     14
Changes in receipts\1\                                                                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable                                                                                              

Estimated Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments
    S. 2131 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in UMRA. State and local governments that choose to participate 
in water resources development projects and programs carried 
out by the Corps would incur costs as described below. In 
addition, some State, local, and tribal governments would 
benefit from provisions in this bill that would alter their 
obligations to make payments to the Federal Government, order 
transfers of land, and increase habitat restoration trust 
funds.
Authorizations of New Projects
    CBO estimates the non-Federal entities (primarily State and 
local governments) that choose to participate in the projects 
authorized by this bill would spend about $1.1 billion during 
fiscal years 1999 through 2010 to help construct these 
projects. These estimates are based on information provided by 
the Corps. In addition to these costs, non-Federal entities 
would pay for the operation and maintenance of many of the 
projects after they are constructed.
Changes in Cost-Sharing Policies
    S. 2131 would make a number of changes to Federal laws that 
specify the share of water resources project costs borne by 
State end local governments. Section 107 would increase the 
non-Federal share of recurring costs associated with new 
coastal shore protection projects from 35 percent to 50 
percent. This change would not affect the initial construction 
of these projects. In the case of projects to place on beaches 
sand that has been dredged from adjacent navigation inlets and 
channels, section 140 of this bill would reduce the non-Federal 
share of costs from 50 percent to 35 percent.
    Several provisions in S. 2131 would expend the 
opportunities State and local governments to participate in 
water resources projects. Other parts of the bill would alter 
the responsibility of specific State and local governments to 
pay amounts owed to the Federal Government in association with 
water resource projects, either by allowing the prepayment of 
amounts owed or by waiving amounts owed under current law.
New Programs
    S. 2131 would authorize two new programs that would assist 
State and local governments. Specifically, the bill would 
authorize total appropriations of $75 million for fiscal years 
2000 and 2001 for a program to reduce flood hazards and $30 
million for the same period for activities to protect and 
enhance fish and wildlife habitat of the Missouri River and the 
middle Mississippi River. State and local governments choosing 
to participate in these programs would have to provide 35 
percent of the initial cost of any funded project and all the 
subsequent operation and maintenance costs.
Land Transfers and Trust Funds
    S. 2131 would direct the Corps to transfer certain lands to 
the State of South Dakota and to the Department of the 
Interior. The latter lands would be held in trust for two 
tribes in that State--the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the 
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. Further, the bill would create habitat 
restoration funds for the State and the tribes. The interest 
earnings of those funds would be made available to those 
governments for restoration activities. The amounts available 
would reach about $11 million a year by 2003. In addition, the 
State, the tribes, and affected counties in the State would 
receive all the revenues now collected by the Federal 
Government on the lands to be transferred--about $1 million per 
year.
    The State and the tribes would incur some costs initially 
to complete plans for restoration of wildlife habitat. Based on 
information provided by State and tribal officials, CBO 
estimates that these costs would total less than $500,000.
    Estimated Impact on the Private Sector: This bill would 
impose no new private-sector mandates as defined UMRA.
    Estimate Prepared by: Federal Costs: Gary Brown (226-2860); 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller 
(225-3220).
    Estimate Approved by: Paul A. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.
             ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS BOXER AND GRAHAM

    In recent years the Environment and Public Works Committee 
has blazed new trails in terms of innovative financing for 
transportation infrastructure in the United States. In the 
National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, it developed 
the State Infrastructure Bank pilot program. This year the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century established the 
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation program to 
provide Federal loans and lines of credit. Innovative financing 
was also extended to Intelligent Transportation Systems.
    We believe that it is also time that we extend innovative 
financing to maritime investments, particularly for small craft 
harbors and medium-sized ports. These harbors and ports face 
eroding support in Federal assistance. Meanwhile, obtaining 
conventional financing at affordable rates for high- cost 
navigation and other improvements has proved difficult.
    In some cases, ports have been unable to take advantage of 
new benefits. For example, two years ago the Committee provided 
much needed relief for local ports by inserting Section 201 of 
WRDA 1996 to provide cost-sharing for upland disposal sites. 
Still, the financing of the local share of these upland sites, 
or other navigation projects, is a challenging endeavor for 
which public and private capital markets charge a considerable 
premium, if financing can be obtained at all.
    A revolving fund is an ideal financing alternative to 
increase the availability and cost of maritime infrastructure 
financing.
    Several states already have innovative financing for their 
ports. California has established the California Maritime 
Infrastructure Authority and its development arm, the nonprofit 
California Maritime Infrastructure Bank, as a mechanism for 
addressing infrastructure needs for 12 general cargo and deep 
draft ports and 24 small craft harbor districts. Other existing 
revolving funds include the Florida Seaport Transportation and 
Economic Development Bond Program, the Oregon Port Revolving 
Fund, the Maryland Boating Revolving Fund, and the Virginia 
Small Port Development Fund.
    State assistance to these revolving loan programs is 
minimal. However, the ports and harbors provide significant 
economic benefits. In California, for example, every $1 spent 
on Federal port and harbor maintenance generates more than $160 
in Federal revenues, according to a 1997 economic benefit study 
conducted for the California Marine Affairs and Navigation 
Conference. While major ports provide important national 
benefits from international trade, even smaller ports and 
harbors contribute economically from commercial fishing, marine 
construction, mineral extraction, ocean research, recreational 
boating and public safety.
    We urge the Administration to propose innovative financing 
for our ports when it submits to the Congress an overhaul of 
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Reform should include help 
for the needs of the neediest sector of the national port 
network, the shallow draft harbors that clearly contribute to 
national well being even though they do not contribute to the 
harbor trust fund.
    One option to finance this Federal assistance is the use of 
the only Federal fuel tax revenue not devoted for 
transportation purposes. Under current law, 5 cents of the 18 
\1/2\ cents paid by recreational vessel owners as the motorboat 
fuel tax is currently deposited in the General Fund of the U.S. 
Treasury. One penny of that 5 cents could be used as the source 
of matching funds for state maritime banks, revolving loan 
programs or similar entities. The Secretary of the Army could 
use this funding to enter into cooperative agreements with 
eligible entities in selected states to finance water resources 
development.
    This is just one option for consideration. We urge the 
Administration to consider this and other alternatives for 
financing future construction, operations and maintenance of 
projects in small and medium ports. The State Infrastructure 
Bank program gives States the capacity to increase the 
efficiency of their transportation investment and significantly 
leverage Federal resources by attracting public and private 
investment. Our ports and harbors are part of our greater 
transportation network, and we believe the Federal government 
should provide similar assistance.

                                            4Barbara Boxer.
                                                Bob Graham.
                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill 
as reported are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be 
omitted is enclosed in [black brackets], new matter is printed 
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown 
in roman:

                           UNITED STATES CODE

               Title 33--Navigation and Navigable Waters

Chapter 9--Protection of Navigable Waters and of Harbor and River

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 426g. Authorization of small projects not specifically authorized; 
        expenditures; local cooperation; work to be complete; 
        exceptions

    The Secretary of the Army is authorized to undertake 
construction of small shore and beach restoration and 
protection projects not specifically authorized by Congress, 
which otherwise comply with section 426e of this title, when he 
finds that such work is advisable, and he is further authorized 
to allot from any appropriations hereafter made for civil 
works, not to exceed $30,000,000 for any one fiscal year for 
the Federal share of the costs of construction of such 
projects: Provided, That not more than [$2,000,000] $3,000,000 
shall be allotted for this purpose for any single project and 
the total amount allotted shall be sufficient to complete the 
Federal participation in the project under this section 
including periodic nourishment as provided for under section 
426e(c) of this title: Provided further, That the provisions of 
local cooperation specified in section 426e of this title shall 
apply: And provided further, That the work shall be complete in 
itself and shall not commit the United States to any additional 
improvement to insure its successful operation, except for 
participation in periodic beach nourishment in accordance with 
section 426e(c) of this title, and as may result from the 
normal procedure applying to projects authorized after 
submission of survey reports.

Sec. 426h. ``Shores'' defined

    As used in sections 426e to 426h of this title, the word 
``shores'' includes all the shorelines of the Atlantic and 
Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and lakes, 
estuaries, and bays directly connected therewith, including the 
city of Miami Beach, Florida.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 426j. Placement on State beaches of sand dredged in constructing 
        and maintaining navigation inlets and channels adjacent to such 
        beaches

    The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
Engineers, is authorized upon request of the State, to place on 
the beaches of such State beach-quality sand which has been 
dredged in constructing and maintaining navigation inlets and 
channels adjacent to such beaches, if the Secretary deems such 
action to be in the public interest and upon payment by such 
State of [50] 35 percent of the increased cost thereof above 
the cost required for alternative methods of disposing of such 
sand. At the request of the State, the Secretary may enter into 
an agreement with a political subdivision of the State to place 
sand on the beaches of the political subdivision of the State 
under the same terms and conditions required in the first 
sentence of this section; except that the political subdivision 
shall be responsible for providing any payments required under 
such sentence in lieu of the State. In carrying out this 
section, the Secretary shall give consideration to the schedule 
of the State, or the schedule of the responsible political 
subdivision of the requesting State, for providing its share of 
funds for placing such sand on the beaches of the State or the 
political subdivision and shall, to the maximum extent 
practicable, accommodate such schedule.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


          CHAPTER 12--RIVER AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS GENERALLY

SUBCHAPTER IV--PARTICULAR WORK OR IMPROVEMENTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 610. Control of aquatic plant growths

    (a) There is hereby authorized a comprehensive program to 
provide for control and progressive eradication of water-
hyacinth, Arundo dona, alligatorweed, Eurasian water milfoil, 
malaleuca, tarmarix and other obnoxious aquatic plant growths, 
from the navigable waters, tributary streams, connecting 
channels, and other allied waters of the United States, in the 
combined interest of navigation, flood control, drainage, 
agriculture, fish and wildlife conservation, public health, and 
related purposes, including continued research for development 
of the most effective and economic control measures, to be 
administered by the Chief of Engineers, under the direction of 
the Secretary of the Army, in cooperation with other Federal 
and State agencies. Local interests shall agree to hold and 
save the United States free from claims that may occur from 
control operations and to participate to the extent of 30 per 
centum of the cost of such operations. Costs for research and 
planning undertaken pursuant to the authorities of this section 
shall be borne fully by the Federal Government.
    (b) There are authorized to be appropriated such amounts, 
not in excess of $12,000,000 annually, as may be necessary to 
carry out the provisions of this section. Any such funds 
employed for control operations shall be allocated by the Chief 
of Engineers on a priority basis, based upon the urgency and 
need of each area, and the availability of local funds.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Chapter 15--Flood Control

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 701h. Contributions by states and political subdivisions

    The Secretary of the Army is authorized to receive from 
States and political subdivisions thereof, such funds as may be 
contributed by them to be expended in connection with funds 
appropriated by the United States for any authorized flood 
control or environmental restoration work whenever such work 
and expenditure may be considered by the Secretary of the Army, 
on recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, as advantageous in 
the public interest, and the plans for any reservoir project 
may, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Army, on 
recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, be modified to 
provide additional storage capacity for domestic water supply 
or other conservation storage, on condition that the cost of 
such increased storage capacity is contributed by local 
agencies and that the local agencies agree to utilize such 
additional storage capacity in a manner consistent with Federal 
uses and purposes: Provided, That when contributions made by 
States and political subdivisions thereof, are in excess of the 
actual cost of the work contemplated and properly chargeable to 
such contributions, such excess contributions may, with the 
approval of the Secretary of the Army, be returned to the 
proper representatives of the contributing interests.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 701s. Small flood control projects; appropriations; amount 
        limitation for single locality; conditions

    The Secretary of the Army is authorized to allot from any 
appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for flood control, 
not to exceed $40,000,000 for any one fiscal year, for the 
[construction of small projects] implementation of small 
structural and nonstructural projects for flood control and 
related purposes not specifically authorized by Congress, which 
come within the provisions of section 701a of this title, when 
in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers such work is 
advisable. The amount allotted for a project shall be 
sufficient to complete Federal participation in the project. 
Not more than [$5,000,000] $7,000,000 shall be allotted under 
this section for a project at any single locality. The 
provisions of local cooperation specified in section 701c of 
this title shall apply. The work shall be complete in itself 
and not commit the United States to any additional improvement 
to insure its successful operation, except as may result from 
the normal procedure applying to projects authorized after 
submission of preliminary examination and survey reports.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 709a. Information on floods and flood damage

    (a) Compilation and dissemination.--In recognition of the 
increasing use and development of the flood plains of the 
rivers of the United States and of the need for information on 
flood hazards to serve as a guide to such development, and as a 
basis for avoiding future flood hazards by regulation of use by 
States and political subdivisions thereof, and to assure that 
Federal departments and agencies may take proper cognizance of 
flood hazards, the Secretary of the Army, through the Chief of 
Engineers, is hereby authorized to compile and disseminate 
information on floods and flood damages, including 
identification of areas subject to inundation by floods of 
various magnitudes and frequencies, and general criteria for 
guidance of Federal and non-Federal interests and agencies in 
the use of flood plain areas; and to provide advice to other 
Federal agencies and local interests for their use in planning 
to ameliorate the flood hazard. Surveys and guides will be made 
for States and political subdivisions thereof only upon the 
request of a State or a political subdivision thereof, and upon 
approval by the Chief of Engineers, and such information and 
advice provided them only upon such request and approval.
    (b) Fees.--The Secretary of the Army is authorized to 
establish and collect fees from Federal agencies and private 
persons for the purpose of recovering the cost of providing 
services pursuant to this section. Funds collected pursuant to 
this section shall be deposited into the account of the 
Treasury of the United States entitled ``Contributions and 
Advances, Rivers and Harbor, Corps of Engineers (8862)'' and 
shall be available until expended to carry out this section. No 
fees shall be collected from State, regional, or local 
governments or other non-Federal public agencies for services 
provided pursuant to this section, but the Secretary of the 
Army may accept funds voluntarily contributed by such entities 
for the purpose of expanding the scope of the services 
requested by the entities.
    (c) Fiscal year limitation on expenditures.--The Secretary 
of the Army is authorized to expend not to exceed $15,000,000 
per fiscal year for the compilation and dissemination of 
information under this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               UNITED STATES CODE--TITLE 43--PUBLIC LANDS

                      CHAPTER 29--SUBMERGED LANDS

SUBCHAPTER III--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1337. Grant of leases by Secretary

    (a) * * *
    (k) Other mineral leases; award to highest bidder; terms 
and conditions; agreements for use of resources for shore 
protection, beach or coastal wetlands restoration, or other 
projects.--
            (1) The Secretary is authorized to grant to the 
        qualified persons offering the highest cash bonuses on 
        a basis of competitive bidding leases of any mineral 
        other than oil, gas, and sulphur in any area of the 
        outer Continental Shelf not then under lease for such 
        mineral upon such royalty, rental, and other terms and 
        conditions as the Secretary may prescribe at the time 
        of offering the area for lease.
            (2)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary 
        may negotiate with any person an agreement for the use 
        of Outer Continental Shelf sand, gravel and shell 
        resources--
                    (i) for use in a program of, or project 
                for, shore protection, beach restoration, or 
                coastal wetlands restoration undertaken by a 
                Federal, State, or local government agency; or
                    (ii) for use in a construction project, 
                other than a project described in clause (i), 
                that is funded in whole or in part by or 
                authorized by the Federal Government.
            (B) In carrying out a negotiation under this 
        paragraph, the Secretary may assess a fee based on an 
        assessment of the value of the resources and the public 
        interest served by promoting development of the 
        resources. No fee shall be assessed directly or 
        indirectly under this subparagraph against an agency of 
        the Federal Government or any other non-Federal 
        interest subject to an agreement entered into under 
        section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
        1962d-5b).
            (C) The Secretary may, through this paragraph and 
        in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, seek to 
        facilitate projects in the coastal zone, as such term 
        is defined in section 1453 of title 16, that promote 
        the policy set forth in section 1452 of title 16.
            (D) Any Federal agency which proposes to make use 
        of sand, gravel and shell resources subject to the 
        provisions of this subchapter shall enter into a 
        Memorandum of Agreement with the Secretary concerning 
        the potential use of those resources. The Secretary 
        shall notify the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries and the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
        House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy 
        and Natural Resources of the Senate on any proposed 
        project for the use of those resources prior to the use 
        of those resources.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           Public Law 99-662

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986

          [As Amended Through P.L. 105-153, December 17, 1997]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

      (a) Short Title.--This Act many be cited as the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 103. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES.

      (a) Flood Control.--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (d) Certain Other Costs Assigned to Project Purposes.--
[Costs of constructing]
            (1) Construction.--Costs of construction  projects 
        or measures for beach erosion control and water quality 
        enhancement shall be assigned to appropriate project 
        purposes listed in subsections (a), (b), and (c) and 
        shall be shared in the same percentage as the purposes 
        to which the costs are assigned, except that all costs 
        assigned to benefits to privately owned shores (where 
        use of such shores is limited to private interests) or 
        to prevention of losses of private lands shall be borne 
        by non-Federal interests and all costs assigned to the 
        protection of federally owned shores shall be borne by 
        the United States.
            (2) Periodic nourishment.--In the case of a project 
        authorized for construction after December 31, 1998, or 
        for which a feasibility study is completed after that 
        date, the non-Federal cost of the periodic nourishment 
        of projects or measures for shore protection or beach 
        erosion control shall be 50 percent, except that--
                    (A) all costs assigned to benefits to 
                privately owned shores (where use of such 
                shores is limited to private interests) or to 
                prevention of losses of private land shall be 
                borne by non-Federal interests; and
                    (B) all costs assigned to the protection of 
                federally owned shores shall be borne by the 
                United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 202. GENERAL CARGO AND SHALLOW HARBOR PROJECTS.

    (a) Authorization of Construction.-- * * *

                  arthur kill, new york and new jersey

    The project for navigation, Arthur Kill, New York and New 
Jersey, Report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and 
Harbors, dated March 31, 1986, at a [total cost of $42,600,000, 
with an estimated first Federal cost of $27,500,000, and an 
estimated first non-Federal cost of $15,100,000] total cost of 
$260,899,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $195,705,000 
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $65,194,000. At such time 
as construction may be initiated in accofdance with the terms 
of this subsection, the project shall be included in and joined 
with the Kill van Kull and Newark Bay Channel, New York and New 
Jersey project under subsection (a) of this section.

     new york harbor and adjacent channels, new york and new jersey

    The project for (1) an access channel 45 feet deep below 
man low water and generally 450 feet wide with suitable bends 
and turning areas to extend from deep water in the Anchorage 
Channel, New York Harbor, westward approximately 12,000 feet 
along the southern boundary of the Port Jersey peninsula to the 
head of navigation in Jersey City, New Jersey, at [a total cost 
of $29,700,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of 
$21,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of 
$8,700,000; and (2) for a channel 42 feet deep below mean low 
water and generally 300 feet wide with suitable bends and 
turning areas to extend from deep water in the Anchorage 
Channel westward approximately 11,000 feet to the head of 
navigation in Claremont Terminal Channel, at a total cost of 
$16,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of 
$11,300,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of 
$4,700,000] at a total cost of $100,689,000, with an estimated 
Federal cost of $74,998,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
of $25,701,000. No disposal of dredged material from 
construction, operation, and maintenance of such project shall 
take place at Bowery Bay, Flushing Bay, Powell's Cove, Little 
Bay, or Little Neck Bay, Queens, New York.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF PROJECTS.

    (a) Authorization for construction.--* * *

                 eight mile creek, paragould, arkansas

    The project for flood control, [Eight Mile Creek, 
Paragould, Arkansas] Francis Bland, Arkansas Floodway Ditch No. 
5: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 10, 1979, at 
a total cost of $16,100,000, with and estimated first Federal 
cost of $11,200,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of 
$4,900,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 602. LAKES PROGRAM.

    (a) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, removal 
        of silt and aquatic growth and development of a 
        sustainable weed and algae management program.
            (18) Osgood Pond, Milford, New Hampshire, removal 
        of excessive aquatic vegetation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 906. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.

      (a)(1) * * *
      (e) In those cases when the Secretary, as part of any 
report to Congress, recommends activities to enhance fish and 
wildlife resources, the fish costs of such enhancement shall be 
a Federal cost when--
            (1) such enhancement provides benefits that are 
        determined to be national, including benefits to 
        species that are identified by the National Marine 
        Fisheries Service as of national economic importance, 
        species that are subject to treaties or international 
        convention to which the United States is a party, and 
        anadromous fish;
            (2) such enhancement is designed to benefit species 
        that have been listed as threatened or endangered by 
        the Secretary of the Interior under the terms of the 
        Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et 
        seq.), or
            (3) such activities are located on lands managed as 
        a national wildlife refuge.
When benefits of enhancement do not qualify under the preceding 
sentence, 25 percent of such first costs of enhancement shall 
be provided by non-Federal interests under a schedule of 
reimbursement determined by the Secretary. The non-Federal 
share of operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of 
activities to enhance fish and wildlife resources shall be 25 
percent. Not more than 80 percent of the non-Federal share of 
such first costs may be in kind, including a facility, supply, 
or service that is necessary to carry out the enhancement 
project.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1103. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER PLAN.

    (a)(1) This section may be cited as the ``Upper Mississippi 
River Management Act of 1986.''

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(e)(1) The Secretary, in consultation wit the Secretary of 
the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, 
Missouri, and Wisconsin, is authorized to undertake, as 
identified in the master plan--
            [(A) a program for the planning, construction, and 
        evaluation of measures for fish and wildlife habitat 
        rehabilitation and enhancement;
            [(B) implementation of a long-term resource 
        monitoring program; and
            [(C) implementation of a computerized inventory and 
        analysis system.
    [(2) Each program referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 
carried out for ten years. Before the last day of such ten-year 
period, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 
the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, 
Missouri, and Wisconsin, shall conduct an eveluation of such 
programs and submit a report on the results of such evaluation 
to Congress. Such evaluation shall determine each such 
program's effectiveness, strengths, and weaknesses and contain 
recommendations for the modification and continuance or 
termination of such program.]
    (e) Undertakings.--
            (1) In general.--
                    (A) Authority.--The Secretary, in 
                consultation with the Secretary of the Interior 
                and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, 
                Missouri, and Wisconsin, may undertake, as 
                identified in the master plan--
                            (i) a program for the planning, 
                        construction, and evaluation of 
                        measures for fish and wildlife habitat 
                        rehabilitation and enhancement;
                            (ii) implementation of a long-term 
                        resource monitoring, computerized data 
                        inventory and analysis, and applied 
                        research program; and
                            (iii) for each pool and the open 
                        reach, a natural resource blueprint to 
                        guide habitat rehabilitation and long-
                        term resource monitoring.
                    (B) Requirements for projects.--Each 
                project carried out under subparagraph (A) 
                shall--
                            (i) to the maximum extent 
                        practicable, simulate natural river 
                        processes; and
                            (ii) include an outreach and 
                        education component.
                    (C) Review committee.--In carrying out 
                subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall create an 
                independent technical review committee to 
                review projects, monitoring plans, and 
                blueprints.
                    (D) Criteria for habitat rehabilitation.--
                In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary 
                shall revise criteria for habitat 
                rehabilitation for projects to promote the 
                simulation of natural river processes, to the 
                maximum extent practicable.
                    (E) Blueprints.--
                            (i) Data.--The natural resource 
                        blueprint shall, to the maximum extent 
                        practicable, use data in existence on 
                        the date of enactment of this 
                        subparagraph.
                            (ii) Timing.--The Secretary shall 
                        complete a natural resource blueprint 
                        for each pool not later than 6 years 
                        after the date of enactment of this 
                        subparagraph.
                    (F) Authorization of appropriations.--There 
                is authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
                this paragraph $350,000 for each of fiscal 
                years 1999 through 2009.
            (2) Reports.--On December 31, 2004, in consultation 
        with the Secretary of the Interior and the States of 
        Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, the 
        Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress a report 
        that--
                    (A) contains an evaluation of the programs 
                described in paragraph (1);
                    (B) describes the accomplishments of each 
                program;
                    (C) provide updates of a systemic habitat 
                needs assessment; and
                    (D) identifies any needed adjustments in 
                the authorization under paragraph (1) or the 
                authorized appropriations under paragraphs (3) 
                and (4).
    (3) For purposes of carrying out paragraph [1(A)] 1(A)(i) 
of this subsection, there is authorized to be appropriated to 
the [Secretary not to exceed $8,200,000 for the first fiscal 
year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, not to 
exceed $12,400,000 for the second fiscal year beginning after 
the date of enactment of this Act, and not to exceed 
$13,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the succeeding eight 
fiscal years] Secretary not to exceed $22,750,000 for each of 
fiscal years 1999 through 2009.
    (4) For purposes of carrying out paragraph [1(B)] 
(1)(A)(ii) of this subsection, there is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary not to exceed [$7,680,000 for the 
first fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this 
Act and not to exceed $5,080,000 per fiscal year for each of 
the succeeding nine fiscal years] $10,420,000 for each of 
fiscal years 1999 through 2009.
    [(5) For purposes of carrying out paragraph 1(C) of this 
subsection, there is authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary not to exceed $40,000 for the first fiscal year 
beginning after the enactment of this Act, not to exceed 
$280,000 for the second fiscal year beginning after the 
enactment of this Act, not to exceed $1,220,000 for the third 
fiscal year beginning after the enactment of this Act, and not 
to exceed $875,000 per fiscal year for each of the succeeding 
seven fiscal years.
    [(6)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2) 
of this section, the costs of each project carried out pursuant 
to paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection shall be allocated 
between the Secretary and the appropriate non-Federal sponsor 
in accordance with the provisions of section 906 of this Act.
    [(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2) of 
this section, the cost of implementing the activities 
authorized by paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) of this subsection 
shall be allocated in accordance with the provisions of section 
906 of this Act, as if such activity was required to mitigate 
losses of fish and wildlife.
    (5) Transfer of amounts.--For each fiscal year beginning 
after September 30, 1992, the Secretary, in consultation with 
the Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, 
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, may transfer appropriated 
amounts between the programs under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
paragraph (1).
    [(7)] (6) (A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 
(a)(2) of this section, the costs of each project carried out 
pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection shall be 
allocated between the Secretary and the appropriate non-Federal 
sponsor in accordance with the provisions of section 2283(e) of 
this title; except that the costs of operation and maintenance 
of projects located on Federal lands or lands owned or operated 
by a State or local government shall be borne by the Federal, 
State, or local agency that is responsible for management 
activities for fish and wildlife on such lands and, in the case 
of any project carried out on non-Federal land, the non-Federal 
share of the cost of the project shall be 35 percent and the 
non-Federal share of the cost of operation and maintenance of 
the project shall be 100 percent.
    (B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2) of 
this section, the cost of implementing the activities 
authorized by [paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) of this subsection] 
paragraph (1)(B) shall be allocated in accordance with the 
provisions of section 2283 of this title, as if such activity 
was required to mitigate losses to fish and wildlife.
    [(8)] (7) None of the funds appropriated pursuant to any 
authorization contained in this subsection shall be considered 
to be chargeable to navigation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (k) St. Louis Area Urban Wildlife Habitat.--The Secretary 
shall investigate and, if appropriate, carry out restoration of 
urban wildlife habitat, with a special emphasis on the 
establishment of greenways in St. Louis, Missouri, area and 
surrounding communities.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           Public Law 101-640

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990

          [As Amended Through P.L. 105-153, December 17, 1997]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 1990''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

    Except as provided in this section, the following projects 
for water resources development and conservation and other 
purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary 
substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the 
conditions, recommended in the respective reports designated in 
this section:
            (1) Southeast alaska harbors of refuge, alaska.-- * 
        * *
            (4) Sacramento metro area, california.--The project 
        for flood control, Sacramento Metro Area, California: 
        Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 29, 1992, 
        at a total cost of $17,000,000, with an estimated 
        Federal cost of $12,800,000 and an estimated non-
        Federal cost of $4,200,000, is modified to authorize 
        the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost 
        of $32,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
        $24,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
        $8,200,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 308. FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT.

    (a) [Benefit-Cost Analysis] Elements Excluded From Cost-
Benefit Analysis.--The Secretary shall not include in the 
benefit base for justifying Federal flood damage reduction 
projects--
            (1)(A) any new or substantially improved structure 
        (other than a structure necessary for conducting a 
        water-dependent activity) built in the 100-year flood 
        plain with a first floor elevation less than the 100-
        year flood elevation after July 1, 1991; or
            (B) in the case of a county substantially located 
        within the 100-year flood plain, any new or 
        substantially improved structure (other than a 
        structure necessary for conducting a water-dependent 
        activity) built in the 10-year flood plain after July 
        1, 1991; and
            (2) any structure which becomes located in the 100-
        year flood plain with a first floor elevation less than 
        the 100-year flood elevation or in the 10-year flood 
        plain, as the case may be, by virtue of constrictions 
        placed in the flood plain after July 1, 1991.
    (b) Elements Included in Cost-Benefit Analysis.--The 
Secretary shall include primary flood damages avoided in the 
benefit base for justifying Federal nonstructural flood damage 
reduction projects.
    [(b)] (c) Counties Substantially Located Within 100-Year 
Flood Plain.--For the purposes of subsection (a), a county is 
substantially located within the 100-year flood plain--
            (1) if the county is comprised of lands of which 50 
        percent or more are located in the 100-year flood 
        plain; and
            (2) if the Secretary determines that application of 
        the requirement contained in subsection (a)(1)(A) with 
        respect to the county would unreasonably restrain 
        continued economic development or unreasonably limit 
        the availability of needed flood control measures.
    [(c)] (d) Cost Sharing.--Not later than January 1, 1992, 
the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the 
feasibility and advisability of increasing the non-Federal 
share of costs for new projects in areas where new or 
substantially improved structures and other constrictions are 
built or placed in the 100-year flood plain or the 10-year 
flood plain, as the case may be, after the initial date of the 
affected governmental unit's entry into the regular program of 
the national flood insurance program of the National Flood 
Insurance Act of 1968.
    [(d)] (e) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the 
date on which a report is transmitted to Congress under 
subsection (b), the Secretary, in consultation with the 
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, shall 
issue regulations to implement subsection (a). Such regulations 
shall define key terms, such as new or substantially improved 
structure, constriction, 10-year flood plain, and 100-year 
flood plain.
    [(e)] (f) Applicability.--The provisions of this section 
shall not apply to any project, or separable element thereof, 
for which a final report of the Chief of Engineers has been 
forwarded to the Secretary before the last day of the 6-month 
period beginning on the date on which regulations are issued 
pursuant to subsection (a) but not later than July 1, 1993.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 312. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.

    (a) Operation and Maintenance of Navigation Projects.-- * * 
*
    (f) Priority Work.--In carrying out this section, the 
Secretary shall give priority to work in the following areas:
            (1) Brooklyn Waterfront, New York.
            (2) Buffalo Harbor and River, New York.
            (3) Ashtabula River, Ohio.
            (4) Mahoning River, Ohio.
            (5) Lower Fox River, Wisconsin.
            (6) Snake Creek, Bixby, Oklahoma.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           Public Law 102-580

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992

          [As Amended Through P.L. 105-153, December 17, 1997]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 204. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

    (a) In General.-- * * *
    (g) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any 
project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest 
may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the 
affected local government.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 405. SEDIMENTS DECONTAMINATION TECHNOLOGY.

    (a) Decontamination Project.--
            (1) Selection of Technologies.--Based upon a review 
        of decontamination technologies identified pursuant to 
        section 412(c) of the Water Resources Development Act 
        of 1990, the Administrator of the Environmental 
        Protection Agency and the Secretary shall, within 1 
        year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
        jointly select removal, pre-treatment, post-treatment, 
        and decontamination technologies for contaminated 
        marine sediments for a decontamination project in the 
        New York/New Jersey Harbor.
            (2) Recommended Program.--Upon selection of 
        technologies, the Administrator and the Secretary shall 
        jointly recommend a program of selected technologies to 
        assess their effectiveness in rendering sediments 
        acceptable for unrestricted ocean disposal or 
        beneficial reuse, or both.
            (3) Project purpose.--The purpose of the project to 
        be carried out under this section is to provide for the 
        development of 1 or more sediment decontamination 
        technologies on a pilot scale demonstrating a capacity 
        of at least 500,000 cubic yards per year.
             (4) Practical end-use products.--Technologies 
        selected for demonstration at the pilot scale shall 
        result in practical end-use products.
            (5) Assistance by the secretary.--The Secretary 
        shall assist the project to ensure expeditious 
        completion by providing sufficient quantities of 
        contaminated dredged material to conduct the full-scale 
        demonstrations to stated capacity.
    (b) Decontamination Defined.--For purposes of this section, 
`decontamination' may include local or remote prototype or 
production and laboratory decontamination technologies, 
sediment pre-treatment and post-treatment processes, and 
siting, economic, or other measures necessary to develop a 
matrix for selection of interim prototype of long-term 
processes. Decontamination techniques need not be preproven in 
terms of likely success.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--[There is authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1992] There is 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section a total 
of $22,000,000 to complete technology testing, technology 
commercialization, and the development of full scale processing 
facilities within the New York-New Jersey Harbor. Such sums 
shall remain available until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 219. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to provide 
assistance to non-Federal interests for carrying out water-
related environmental infrastructure and resource protection 
and development projects described in subsection (c), including 
waste water treatment and related facilities and water supply, 
storage, treatment, and distribution facilities. Such 
assistance may be in the form of technical and planning and 
design assistance. If the Secretary is to provide any design or 
engineering assistance to carry out a project under this 
section, the Secretary shall obtain by procurement from private 
sources all services necessary for the Secretary to provide 
such assistance, unless the Secretary finds that--
            (1) the service would require the use of a new 
        technology unavailable in the private sector; or
            (2) a solicitation or request for proposal has 
        failed to attract 2 or more bids or proposals.
    (b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
of projects for which assistance is provided under this section 
shall not be less than 25 percent, except that such share shall 
be subject to the ability of the non-Federal interest to pay, 
including the procedures and regulations relating to ability to 
pay established under section 103(m) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986.
    (c) Project Descriptions.--The projects for which the 
Secretary is authorized to provide assistance under subsection 
(a) are as follows:
            (1) Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada.--Regional 
        water system for Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada.
            (2) Lancaster, California.--Fox Field Industrial 
        Corridor water facilities, Lancaster, California.
            (3) San Ramon, California.--San Ramon Valley 
        recycled water project, San Ramon, California.
            [(1)] (4) Washington, D.C. and Maryland.--Measures 
        to alleviate adverse water quality impacts resulting 
        from storm water discharges from Federal facilities in 
        the Anacostia River watershed, Washington, D.C. and 
        Maryland.
            [(2)] (5) Atlanta, Georgia.--A combined sewer 
        overflow treatment facility for the city of Atlanta, 
        Georgia.
            [(3)] (6) Hazard, Kentucky.--A water system 
        (including a 13,000,000 gallon per day water treatment 
        plant), intake structures, raw water pipelines and 
        pumps, distribution lines, and pumps and storage tanks 
        for Hazard, Kentucky.
            [(4)] (7) Rouge River, Michigan.--Completion of a 
        comprehensive streamflow enhancement project for the 
        Western Townships Utility Authority, Rouge River, Wayne 
        County, Michigan.
            [(5)] (8) Jackson County, Mississippi.--Provision 
        of an alternative water supply for Jackson County, 
        Mississippi.
            [(6)] (9) Epping, New Hampshire.--Evaluation and 
        assistance in addressing expanded and advanced 
        wastewater treatment needs for Epping, New Hampshire.
            [(7)] (10) Manchester, New Hampshire.--Elimination 
        of combined sewer overflows in the city of Manchester, 
        New Hampshire.
            [(8)] (11) Rochester, New Hampshire.--Provision of 
        advanced wastewater treatment for the city of 
        Rochester, New Hampshire.
            [(9)] (12) Paterson and Passaic County, New 
        Jersey.--Drainage facilities to alleviate flooding 
        problems on Getty Avenue in the vicinity of St. 
        Joseph's Hospital for the city of Paterson, New Jersey, 
        and Passaic County, New Jersey.
            [(10)] (13) State of New Jersey and New Jersey 
        Wastewater Treatment Trust.--The development of 
        innovative beneficial uses of sewage sludge and 
        conventional and innovative facilities to dispose of 
        sewage sludge or to make reusable products from sewage 
        sludge for local government units that ceased the 
        discharge of sewage sludge in the Atlantic Ocean.
            [(11)] (14) Erie County, New York.--A tunnel from 
        North Buffalo, New York, to Amherst Quarry to relieve 
        flooding and improve water quality.
            [(12)] (15) Erie County, New York.--A sludge 
        processing disposal facility to serve the Erie County 
        Sewer District 5, New York.
            [(13)] (16) Otsego County, New York.--A water 
        storage tank and an adequate water filtration system 
        for the Village of Milford, Otsego County, New York.
            [(14)] (17) Chenango County, New York.--A primary 
        source water well and improvement of a water 
        distribution system for New Berlin, Chenango County, 
        New York.
            [(15)] (18) Greensboro and Glassworks, 
        Pennsylvania.--A sewage treatment plant for the borough 
        of Greensboro, Pennsylvania, and the unincorporated 
        village of Glassworks, Pennsylvania.
            [(16)] (19) Lynchburg, Virginia.--Alleviation of 
        combined sewer overflows for Lynchburg, Virginia, in 
        accordance with combined sewer overflow control plans 
        adopted by, and currently being implemented by, the 
        non-Federal sponsor.
            [(17)] (20) Richmond, Virginia.--Alleviation of 
        combined sewer overflows for Richmond, Virginia, in 
        accordance with combined sewer overflow control plans 
        adopted by, and currently being implemented by, the 
        non-Federal sponsor.
            [(18)] (21) Colonias along United States-Mexico 
        Border.--Wastewater treatment facilities, water systems 
        (including water treatment plants), intake structures, 
        raw water pipelines and pumps, distribution lines, and 
        pumps and storage tanks for colonias in the United 
        States along the United States-Mexico border.
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
to be appropriated for providing assistance under this section 
$5,000,000. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
    (e) Authorization of Appropriations for Construction 
Assistance.--There are authorized to be appropriated for 
providing construction assistance under this section--
            (1) $10,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(5);
            (2) $2,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(6);
            (3) $10,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(7);
            (4) $11,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(8);
            (5) $20,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(16); and
            (6) $20,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(17).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           Public Law 104-303

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996

          [As Amended Through P.L. 105-153, December 17, 1997]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

    (a) Projects With Chief's Reports.-- * * *
            (5) San lorenzo river, california.--The project for 
        flood control, San Lorenzo River, 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 and habitat restoration, at a total cost of 
        $4,050,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
        $3,040,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
        $1,010,000; is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
        include as a part of the project streambank erosion 
        control measures to be undertaken substantially in 
        accordance with the report entitled ``Bank 
        Stabilization Concept, Laurel Street Extension'', dated 
        April 23, 1998, at a total cost of $4,000,000, with an 
        estimated Federal cost of $2,600,000 and an estimated 
        non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (19) 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; is modified to 
        authorize the Secretary to construct the project in 
        accordance with the Corps of Engineers report dated 
        June 29, 1998, at a total cost of $16,632,000, with an 
        estimated Federal cost of $9,508,000 and an estimated 
        non-Federal cost of $7,124,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 102. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.

    The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that the 
project is feasible, may 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.-- * * *
            (15) Repaupo Creek and Delaware River, Gloucester 
        County, New Jersey.--Project for tidegate and levee 
        improvements for Repaupo Creek and the Delaware River, 
        Gloucester County, New Jersey.
            (16) Tioga County, Pennsylvania.--Project for flood 
        control, Tioga River and Cowanesque River and their 
        tributaries, Tioga County, Pennsylvania.
            [(15)] (17) Buffalo Creek, Erie County, New York.--
        Project for flood control, Buffalo Creek, Erie County, 
        New York.
            [(16)] (18) Cazenovia Creek, Erie County, New 
        York.--Project for flood control, Cazenovia Creek, Erie 
        County, New York.
            [(17)] (19) Cheektowaga, Erie County, New York.--
        Project for flood control, Cheektowaga, Erie County, 
        New York.
            [(18)] (20) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New 
        York.--Project for flood control, Fulmer Creek, village 
        of Mohawk, New York.
            [(19)] (21) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New 
        York.--Project for flood control, Moyer Creek, village 
        of Frankfort, New York.
            [(20)] (22) Sauquoit Creek, Whitesboro, New York.--
        Project for flood control, Sauquoit Creek, Whitesboro, 
        New York.
            [(21)] (23) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New 
        York.--Project for flood control, Steele Creek, village 
        of Ilion, New York.
            [(22)] (24) Willamette River, Oregon.--Project for 
        nonstructural flood control, Willamette River, Oregon, 
        including floodplain and ecosystem restoration.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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, may carry out the project under section 
107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
            (1) Akutan, alaska.-- * * *
            (9) Fortescue inlet, delaware bay, new jersey.--
        Project for navigation for Fortesque Inlet, Delaware 
        Bay, New Jersey.
            [(9)] (10) 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.
            [(10))] (11) Buffalo inner harbor, buffalo, new 
        york.--Project for navigation, Buffalo Inner Harbor, 
        Buffalo, New York, including enlargement of the 
        existing harbor and bank stabilization measures.
            [(11))] (12) Glenn cove creek, new york.--Project 
        for navigation, Glenn Cove Creek, New York, including 
        bulkheading.
            [(12))] (13) Union ship canal, buffalo and 
        lackawanna, new york.-- Project for navigation, Union 
        Ship Canal, Buffalo and Lackawanna, New York.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 206. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

    (a) General Authority.-- * * *
    (c) Agreements.--[Construction]
            (1) In general.--Construction of a project under 
        this section shall be initiated only after a non-
        Federal interest has entered into a binding agreement 
        with the Secretary to pay the non-Federal share of the 
        costs of construction required by this section and to 
        pay 100 percent of any operation, maintenance, and 
        replacement and rehabilitation costs with respect to 
        the project in accordance with regulations prescribed 
        by the Secretary.
            (2) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section 
        221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-
        5b(b)), for any project undertaken under this section, 
        a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity 
        with the consent of the affected local government.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 211. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL 
        INTERESTS.

    (a) Authority.-- * * *
    (e) Reimbursement.--
            (1) General rule.-- * * *
            (2) Special rules.--
                    (A) Reimbursement.--For work (including 
                work associated with studies, planning, design, 
                and construction) carried out by a non-Federal 
                interest with respect to a project described in 
                subsection (f), the Secretary shall, [subject 
                to amounts being made available in advance in 
                appropriations Acts] subject to the 
                availability of appropriations, reimburse, 
                without interest, the non-Federal interest an 
                amount equal to the estimated Federal share of 
                the cost of such work if such work is later 
                recommended by the Chief of Engineers and 
                approved by the Secretary.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 301. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.

    (a) Projects With Reports.-- * * *
    (b) Projects Subject to Reports.--The following projects 
are modified as follows, except that no funds may be obligated 
to carry out work under such modifications until completion of 
a report by the Corps of Engineers finding that such work is 
technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economic, as 
applicable:
            (1) Alamo dam, arizona.-- * * *
            (3) Glenn-colusa, california.--The project for 
        flood control, Sacramento River, California, authorized 
        by section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide 
        for the control of the floods of the Mississippi River 
        and of the Sacramento River, California, and for other 
        purposes'', approved March 1, 1917 (39 Stat. 949), and 
        modified by section 102 of the Energy and Water 
        Development Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649), 
        and further modified by section 301(b)(3) of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3709), [is 
        further modified to authorize the Secretary to carry 
        out the portion of the project at Glenn-Colusa, 
        California, at a total cost of $14,200,000] is further 
        modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the 
        portion of the project in Glenn-Colusa, California in 
        accordance with the Corps of Engineers report dated May 
        22, 1998, at a total cost of $20,700,000, with an 
        estimated Federal cost of $15,570,000 and an estimated 
        non-Federal cost of $5,130,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 364. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

     The following projects are not authorized after the date 
of the enactment of this Act:
            (1) Branford Harbor, Connecticut.-- * * *
            [(9) East Boothbay Harbor, Maine.--The following 
        portion of the navigation project for East Boothbay 
        Harbor, Maine, authorized by the 1st section of the Act 
        entitled ``An Act making appropriations for the 
        construction, repair, and preservation of certain 
        public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
        purposes'', approved June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 657), 
        containing approximately 1.15 acres and described in 
        accordance with the Maine State Coordinate System, West 
        Zone: Beginning at a point noted as point number 6 and 
        shown as having plan coordinates of North 9, 722, East 
        9, 909, on the plan entitled, ``East Boothbay Harbor, 
        Maine, examination, 8- foot area'', and dated August 9, 
        1955, Drawing Number F1251 D-6- 2, that point having 
        Maine State Coordinate System, West Zone coordinates of 
        Northing 74514, Easting 698381. Thence, North 58 
        degrees, 12 minutes, 30 seconds East a distance of 
        120.9 feet to a point. Thence, South 72 degrees, 21 
        minutes, 50 seconds East a distance of 106.2 feet to a 
        point. Thence, South 32 degrees, 04 minutes, 55 seconds 
        East a distance of 218.9 feet to a point. Thence, South 
        61 degrees, 29 minutes, 40 seconds West a distance of 
        148.9 feet to a point. Thence, North 35 degrees, 14 
        minutes, 12 seconds West a distance of 87.5 feet to a 
        point. Thence, North 78 degrees, 30 minutes, 58 seconds 
        West a distance of 68.4 feet to a point. Thence, North 
        27 degrees, 11 minutes, 39 seconds West a distance of 
        157.3 feet to the point of beginning.]
            (9) East Boothbay Harbor, Maine.--The project for 
        navigation, East Boothbay Harbor, Maine, authorized by 
        the first section of the Act entitled ``An Act making 
        appropriations for the construction, repair, and 
        preservation of certain public works on rivers and 
        harbors, and for other purposes'', approved June 25, 
        1910 (36 Stat. 657).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 444. PACIFIC REGION.

    The Secretary may conduct studies in the [interest of 
navigation] interests of water resources development (including 
navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental 
restoration) in that part of the Pacific region that includes 
American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 503. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, RESTORATION, AND DEVELOPMENT.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary may provide technical, 
planning, and design assistance to non-Federal interests for 
carrying out watershed management, restoration, and development 
projects at the locations described in subsection (d).
    (b) Specific Measures.--Assistance provided under 
subsection (a) may be in support of non-Federal projects for 
the following purposes:
            (1) Management and restoration of water quality.
            (2) Control and remediation of toxic sediments.
            (3) Restoration of degraded streams, rivers, 
        wetlands, and other waterbodies to their natural 
        condition as a means to control flooding, excessive 
        erosion, and sedimentation.
            (4) Protection and restoration of watersheds, 
        including urban watersheds.
            (5) Demonstration of technologies for nonstructural 
        measures to reduce destructive impacts of flooding.
    (c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 
percent.
    (d) Project Locations.--The Secretary may provide 
assistance under subsection (a) for projects at the following 
locations:
            (1) Gila River and Tributaries, Santa Cruz River, 
        Arizona.
            (2) Rio Salado, Salt River, Phoenix and Tempe, 
        Arizona.
            (3) Colusa basin, California.
            (4) Los Angeles River watershed, California.
            (5) Napa Valley watershed, California.
            (6) Russian River watershed, California.
            (7) Sacramento River watershed, California.
            (8) San Pablo Bay watershed, California.
            (9) Santa Clara Valley watershed, California.
            (10) Nancy Creek, Utoy Creek, and North Peachtree 
        Creek and South Peachtree Creek basin, Georgia.
            (11) Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska.
            (12) Juniata River watershed, Pennsylvania, 
        including Raystown Lake.
            (13) Upper Potomac River watershed, Grant and 
        Mineral Counties, West Virginia.
            (14) Clear Lake watershed, California.
            (15) Fresno Slough watershed, California.
            (16) Hayward Marsh, Southern San Francisco Bay 
        watershed, California.
            (17) Kaweah River watershed, California.
            (18) Lake Tahoe watershed, California and Nevada.
            (19) Malibu Creek watershed, California.
            (20) Truckee River basin, Nevada.
            (21) Walker River basin, Nevada.
    (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 511. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM TO IMPROVE SALMON SURVIVAL.

    [(a) Salmon Survival Activities.--
            [(1) In general.--The Secretary shall accelerate 
        ongoing research and development activities, and may 
        carry out or participate in additional research and 
        development activities, for the purpose of developing 
        innovative methods and technologies for improving the 
        survival of salmon, especially salmon in the Columbia 
        River Basin.
            [(2) Accelerated activities.--Accelerated research 
        and development activities referred to in paragraph (1) 
        may include research and development related to--
                    [(A) impacts from water resources projects 
                and other impacts on salmon life cycles;
                    [(B) juvenile and adult salmon passage;
                    [(C) light and sound guidance systems;
                    [(D) surface-oriented collector systems;
                    [(E) transportation mechanisms; and
                    [(F) dissolved gas monitoring and 
                abatement.
            [(3) Additional activities.--Additional research 
        and development activities referred to in paragraph (1) 
        may include research and development related to--
                    [(A) marine mammal predation on salmon;
                    [(B) studies of juvenile salmon survival in 
                spawning and rearing areas;
                    [(C) estuary and near-ocean juvenile and 
                adult salmon survival;
                    [(D) impacts on salmon life cycles from 
                sources other than water resources projects; 
                and
                    [(E) other innovative technologies and 
                actions intended to improve fish survival, 
                including the survival of resident fish.
            [(4) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate 
        any activities carried out under this subsection with 
        appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, 
        affected Indian tribes, and the Northwest Power 
        Planning Council.
            [(5) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date 
        of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
        transmit to Congress a report on the research and 
        development activities carried out under this 
        subsection, including any recommendations of the 
        Secretary concerning the research and development 
        activities.
            [(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out 
        research and development activities under paragraph 
        (3).
    [(b) Advanced Turbine Development.--
            [(1) In general.--In conjunction with the Secretary 
        of Energy, the Secretary shall accelerate efforts 
        toward developing innovative, efficient, and 
        environmentally safe hydropower tur bines, including 
        design of ``fish-friendly'' turbines, for use on the 
        Columbia River hydrosystem.
            [(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated $12,000,000 to carry out 
        this subsection.
    [(c) Implementation.--Nothing in this section affects the 
authority of the Secretary to implement the results of the 
research and development carried out under this section or any 
other law.]
    (a) Salmon Survival Activities.--
            (1) In general.--In conjunction with the Secretary 
        of Commerce and Secretary of the Interior, the 
        Secretary shall accelerate ongoing research and 
        development activities, and may carry out or 
        participate in additional research and development 
        activities, for the purpose of developing innovative 
        methods and technologies for improving the survival of 
        salmon, especially salmon in the Columbia/Snake River 
        Basin.
            (2) Accelerated activities.--Accelerated research 
        and development activities referred to in paragraph (1) 
        may include research and development related to--
                    (A) impacts from water resources projects 
                and other impacts on salmon life cycles;
                    (B) juvenile and adult salmon passage;
                    (C) light and sound guidance systems;
                    (D) surface-oriented collector systems;
                    (E) transportation mechanisms; and
                    (F) dissolved gas monitoring and abatement.
            (3) Additional activities.--Additional research and 
        development activities referred to in paragraph (1) may 
        include research and development related to--
                    (A) studies of juvenile salmon survival in 
                spawning and rearing areas;
                    (B) estuary and near-ocean juvenile and 
                adult salmon survival;
                    (C) impacts on salmon life cycles from 
                sources other than water resources projects;
                    (D) cryopreservation of fish gametes and 
                formation of a germ plasm repository for 
                threatened and endangered populations of native 
                fish; and
                    (E) other innovative technologies and 
                actions intended to improve fish survival, 
                including the survival of resident fish.
            (4) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate 
        any activities carried out under this subsection with 
        appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, 
        affected Indian tribes, and the Northwest Power 
        Planning Council.
            (5) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date 
        of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit 
        to Congress a report on the research and development 
        activities carried out under this subsection, including 
        any recommendations of the Secretary concerning the 
        research and development activities.
            (6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out 
        research and development activities under paragraph 
        (3).
    (b) Advanced Turbine Development.--
            (1) In general.--In conjunction with the Secretary 
        of Energy, the Secretary shall accelerate efforts 
        toward developing and installing in Corps of Engineers 
        operated dams innovative, efficient, and 
        environmentally safe hydropower turbines, including 
        design of ``fish-friendly'' turbines, for use on the 
        Columbia/Snake River hydrosystem.
            (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated $35,000,000 to carry out 
        this subsection.
    (c) Management of Predation on Columbia/Snake River System 
Native Fishes.--
            (1) Nesting avian predators.--In conjunction with 
        the Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of the 
        Interior, and consistent with a management plan to be 
        developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife 
        Service, the Secretary shall carry out methods to 
        reduce nesting populations of avian predators on dredge 
        spoil islands in the Columbia River under the 
        jurisdiction of the Secretary.
            (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 to carry out 
        research and development activities under this 
        subsection.
    (d) Implementation.--Nothing in this section affects the 
authority of the Secretary to implement the results of the 
research and development carried out under this section or any 
other law.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 528. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

    (a) Definitions.-- * * *
    (b) Restoration Activities.--
            (1) Comprehensive plan.-- * * *
            (3) Critical restoration projects.--
                    (A) In general.--In addition to the 
                activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2), 
                if the Secretary, in cooperation with the non-
                Federal project sponsor and the Task Force, 
                determines that a restoration project for the 
                South Florida ecosystem will produce 
                independent, immediate, and substantial 
                restoration, preservation, and protection 
                benefits, and will be generally consistent with 
                the conceptual framework described in paragraph 
                (1)(A)(ii)(II), the Secretary shall proceed 
                expeditiously with the implementation of the 
                restoration project.
                    (B) Initiation of projects.--After 
                September 30, [1999] 2000, no new projects may 
                be initiated under subparagraph (A).
                    (C) Authorization of appropriations.--
                            (i) In general.--There is 
                        authorized to be appropriated to the 
                        Department of the Army to pay the 
                        Federal share of the cost of carrying 
                        out projects under subparagraph (A) 
                        $75,000,000 for the period consisting 
                        of fiscal years 1997 through [1999] 
                        2000.
                            (ii) Federal share.--The Federal 
                        share of the cost of carrying out any 1 
                        project under subparagraph (A) shall be 
                        not more than $25,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Cost Sharing.--
            (1) In general.-- * * *
            (4) Credit.--Regardless of the date of acquisition, 
        the value of lands or interests in land acquired by 
        non-Federal interests for any activity described in 
        subsection (b) shall be included in the total cost of 
        the activity and credited against the non-Federal share 
        of the cost of the activity , including potential land 
        acquisition in the Caloosahatchee River basin or other 
        areas. Such value shall be determined by the Secretary.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 567. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK.

    (a) Study and Strategy Development.--The Secretary, in 
cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the State of 
Pennsylvania, and the State of New York, shall conduct a study, 
and develop a strategy, for using wetland restoration, soil and 
water conservation practices, and nonstructural measures to 
reduce flood damage, improve water quality, and create wildlife 
habitat in the following portions of the Upper Susquehanna 
River basin:
            (1) The Juniata River watershed, Pennsylvania, at 
        an estimated Federal cost of $8,000,000.
            (2) The Susquehanna River watershed upstream of the 
        Chemung River, New York, at an estimated Federal cost 
        of $5,000,000.
            (3) The Chemung River watershed, New York, at an 
        estimated cost of $5,000,000.