Amendment Text: H.Amdt.98 — 110th Congress (2007-2008)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (04/19/2007)

This Amendment appears on page H3658 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H3600-H3665]
                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 319 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1495.

                              {time}  1611


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1495) 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, with Mr. Ross in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 1495, the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2007, a bill long in the making, 6 years in the 
making, a bill that has ultimately passed the House, not passed the 
Senate, passed the House, passed the Senate, not gone to conference.
  We tried in the closing hours of the 109th Congress to wrap this 
measure up, then-Chairman Don Young and I, working with our 
counterparts in the other body, attempting to reach an agreement, but 
it just proved insurmountable, too insurmountable an obstacle to get 
there.
  In this 110th Congress, we resumed on the base of the legislation 
that has built up over 6 years, over three Congresses, and working with 
the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the ranking member 
on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we spent a great 
deal of time together thinking through how to proceed with this 
legislation.

[[Page H3601]]

  We agreed on basic principles that we would start with the bill that 
passed the House. There was no conference ever consummated in the 109th 
Congress. So we decided that the benchmark bill for this Congress would 
be only those measures that were in the bill of the 109th Congress, and 
we started from there. And then we have worked our way through myriad 
issues, Members who wanted new projects or amendments or additions to 
existing projects; and in all cases, we made very, very difficult, but 
I think honest and consistent, decisions about the legislation we bring 
before you today.
  I want to assure Members that are concerned, that have issues that 
have arisen since the 109th Congress, that those issues that need to be 
addressed by projects of the Corps of Engineers will be addressed in 
subsequent legislation. As soon as we are able to move this bill 
through the House, through conference with the Senate, which I am 
confident can be done before the middle of June, maybe earlier if the 
other body will be able to free itself to work with us in conference, 
we can get this done very quickly, and then begin on the next round of 
water resources projects which I guarantee is not going to take 7 
years.

                              {time}  1615

  We are going to deal with somebody, maybe in the next 7 or 8 months 
after the conclusion of this legislation. Again, I express my 
appreciation to the gentleman from Florida for consistently working to 
move this critically important legislation.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is the proud 
inheritor of a long tradition of work, of investment in America's 
transportation needs, water resources, where the very first concerns of 
the new Nation in 1789 and the first act of the first Congress, 1789, 
was to authorize the establishment of a lighthouse, at the entry to 
Hampton Roads in Virginia.
  Starting from that point, this committee continued the direction of 
the Constitution to build and maintain post roads. Well, not all roads 
were built just for the postal service; but, again, it was the spirit 
of the Constitution, the spirit of the new Nation that we needed 
mobility. The Nation was founded along the waterways, the salt water 
coasts, the inland waterways. It has been our task to assure mobility, 
movement of people and goods through waterways, and then the highways, 
later the railways, and then the airways.
  Here we come with this massive bill, because the President, because 
Congress hasn't done its work; and the last time a President signed a 
Water Resources Development Act was in 2000. Well, we hope that the 
next one will be this year, which we fully expect.
  There are many issues that have arisen in the intervening years, some 
that were weighing heavily upon us when we began this process in 2000 
of crafting the current WRDA bill on the Great Lakes. Invasive species 
are threatening our native aquatic species, biota and flora, as well as 
a new issue called a deadly fish virus, a hemorrhagic virus that 
destroys the fisheries and is carried in ballast waters from one region 
of the Great Lakes to another.
  We have language in this bill that will initiate an emergency program 
by the Corps of Engineers to protect the vital food supply and the 
quality of the waters.
  Lake Superior, because of a drought in the Great Lakes watershed, has 
seen the water level drop 8 inches in the past 3 years and will drop 
another 2 inches this year with the beginning of the major shipping 
season. It will be at nearly its lowest level in history. That has 
meant that vessels carrying iron ore from the upper lakes to the lower 
lakes steel mills have gone out 7,500 tons light.
  It means two or three extra voyages per vessel per season, raising 
the cost of iron ore, raising the cost of steel, affecting our 
competitiveness. We have legislation, we have language in this 
legislation that will direct the Corps to undertake an accelerated 
dredging program making up for the 15 years they haven't done the 
dredging because we have had high waters on the Great Lakes.
  We authorize locks, improved extended locks on the Mississippi River 
system, seven extended locks to take the 600-foot locks to make them 
1,200-foot locks. A barge tow leaving Clinton, Iowa, round-trip to New 
Orleans, back to Clinton, Iowa, takes 820 hours. New Orleans is the 
world's most important grain export facility.
  We can cut 60 hours off that round-trip by extending the locks at 
1,200 feet so the tows that are 1,200 feet don't have to be broken in 
half, sent through 600 feet at a time, lashed together, go through the 
next lock and do it all over again. We are in a world competitive 
market on which grain moves on as little as an eighth of a cent a 
bushel. Every time you have to spend those extra hours going through 
the locks, you are raising the cost of our commodities, which makes us 
less competitive with, say, Brazil, which is mounting a massive soybean 
export facility at Recife, which is 2,500 miles further out in the 
Atlantic Ocean than New Orleans is.
  We have legislation here, language in this legislation to deal with 
the restoration of the Everglades, a matter of great interest to the 
gentleman from Florida, for which he has been an eloquent advocate. 
They are in a state of disrepair. The buffer to protect them from 
storms is weak because of our inaction, and we are going to deal with 
that issue, as well as the wetlands along the Gulf of Mexico from 
Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, all the way on to Florida.
  We are insistent on addressing the needs of the Everglades, the needs 
of the Louisiana coastal region and in Louisiana, New Orleans area, the 
Mississippi River gulf outlet, which allowed salt water intrusion to 
come up from the gulf, kill the wetlands. It allowed the overtopping of 
St. Bernard Parish. We have got to restore that wetland, and this 
legislation will do that at the request and insistence of the Louisiana 
delegation.
  There are many other important features in this legislation. In all, 
56 chiefs' reports, we had a request of over 1,500 projects. There are 
over 700 projects in this legislation. More than 300 Members of the 
House have a direct interest in the legislation. We welcome their 
interest in this participation. We bring to this body a very critical 
and supportable piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to urge all Members of the 
House on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 1495, which is known 
as the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.
  As we have heard from the chairman, this bill authorizes and directs 
the Corps of Engineers to carry out various studies, projects and 
programs relating to navigation, flood damage reduction, shoreline 
protection, dam safety, shoreline protection and recreation and 
environmental restoration and protection.
  Our subcommittee, led by Mr. Baker of Louisiana, held two days of 
hearings on projects, programs and policies during the development of 
this legislation. After a careful review, the committee was able to 
approve the authorization of more than 50 projects with the chiefs' 
reports relating to flood damage reduction, navigation, hurricane and 
storm damage reduction, and environmental restoration.
  We also have in this legislation, navigation and ecosystem 
restoration projects for the upper Mississippi River. Illinois waterway 
system, and Everglades restoration project, which I would like to talk 
about in just a moment, and conserving and restoring the Louisiana 
coastal area.
  We have in the bill a provision for streamlining and expediting the 
Corps of Engineers' project delivery and permits system. We have 
provisions for improvement of the Corps of Engineers' planning and 
project development process, including independent peer review of 
larger and more controversial studies. We also have authorization of a 
number of smaller project modifications, investigations, related to our 
civil works programs of the Corps of Engineers. I think all in all we 
have a good piece of legislation that we have worked on in a bipartisan 
fashion, and you see the product before us today.
  Now, I know the administration has issued a position opposing this 
legislation. However, I want to talk to a couple of points that they 
have raised. They do have a responsibility to be good trustees of the 
public monies and

[[Page H3602]]

the difficult situation we find ourselves in financially.
  But in this legislation between 3 and $4 billion would be typically 
spent during a WRDA cycle or authorization process on this type of 
legislation. We have not had a bill since the year 2000. So actually if 
you do simple math on that, you can see that the total cost of this 
bill in Federal dollars, $13.1 billion, is reasonable. The total cost 
with the State participation is $17.8 billion. But we do, indeed, have 
a backlog of projects over what would amount to at least three cycles. 
So this WRDA bill, this authorization legislation, in fact, combines 
the equivalent of all of those years of backlog of projects. The price 
tag, in fact, is consistent with that assumption.
  While this bill is considered costly by some, the 2005 WRDA 
legislation contained almost 900 projects. That is another complaint of 
the administration, too many projects. This bill contains 682 project 
provisions. Not that Mr. Oberstar, myself, Ms. Johnson, Mr. Baker 
haven't had Members throughout the Congress come to us and beg and 
plead to have additional projects that are critical to their district 
included in this legislation. I think we, too, have been good 
custodians and responsible in crafting this legislation.
  Let me say that the administration also raised some questions about 
cost benefits. We have gone through this. Mr. Oberstar, myself, Mr. 
Baker, Ms. Johnson, we have looked at cost benefits. We have done our 
very best to ensure that the taxpayers' dollars again are well spent 
and there is a good return for the investment that is being made here 
by the Federal taxpayer.
  So those are the reasons that I disagree with my administration on 
this. I actively support this. I think we have done this in a very good 
fashion.
  Finally, I want to talk to some of the measures that are in the bill. 
You have heard the chairman talk about some of the measures that are in 
this bill. This bill is important to me, not only as a Member of 
Congress, and I don't represent the Everglades, but I do represent the 
State of Florida. It is interesting how it takes time to undo some of 
the damage that mankind has done to our natural resources and national 
treasures.
  I have a copy of the Palm Beach Post, which I kept in a file, from 
Sunday, April 11, 1993, irony, same month a number of years ago, 
talking about the Everglades, reversing man's mistakes. I started 
working on that along with the Clinton administration, Secretary 
Babbitt. Hear is an article from July 4, 1994, about a $465 million 
government industry agreement to start cleaning up the Everglades, 
which had been damaged by man's abuse.
  Here is another article I pulled from the news journal Daytona Beach 
News-Journal that says: ``Representative John Mica and the other 
Members of central Florida's House delegation are in a fortunate 
position to finish the work the Senate started.'' This is the year 
2000. Here we are in 2007.
  Now, in 2000 we authorized a study. What is important about this bill 
is we authorize for the first time projects that actually do 
construction and work in restoring our precious national treasure, and 
Florida's national environmental treasure, the Everglades.

                              {time}  1630

  So that is one reason why I am excited about this piece of 
legislation. It does take a long time and a lot of money.
  Finally, I do want to also cite that I just inherited the 
responsibility of the Transportation leader on the Republican side, and 
I never realized how important these projects are to individual 
Members. For example, not on our side of the aisle, but Ms. Matsui, a 
Democrat Member, she has a project in here that would provide a 100-
year level of flood protection for the city of Sacramento. Almost a 
million Americans live in the capital of California, more than twice 
the population of the pre-Katrina New Orleans that today has only an 
80-year level of flood protection. No other community in America of 
this size has this little flood protection. This is a project important 
to Ms. Matsui.
  There are not Republican projects, there are not Democrat projects; 
there are projects for the people that are important to their survival. 
And we have seen the mistakes and the errors of our ways in Katrina. 
Mr. Baker can speak to what he has gone through in Louisiana. We need 
not repeat those errors.
  So here we have in this legislation an opportunity to help her and 
299 other districts. I wish it was 435. So it has been put together in 
a bipartisan way.
  And finally, on my effort, I tried to do it in a transparent way. All 
of the Republican projects have been on file, open to the public, and 
any of the earmarks, open to public and press scrutiny. So I have tried 
to do it in a manner that restores public faith, because I would rather 
have elected Members of Congress make those decisions, fight for them, 
and have it done and conducted in a transparent fashion rather than 
have some bureaucrat down there decide where the taxpayer money, which 
they just paid in in huge amounts over the past week to Washington, get 
expended. That is our responsibility, it is elected officials' 
responsibility, not appointed bureaucrats who don't have the 
responsibility we have under the Constitution.
  So, again, I recognize my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Johnson and Mr. Baker. I also want to thank Mr. 
Costello, who is no longer the Chair or the ranking member, and Mr. 
Duncan, who was the Chair because this is an inherited work. Again, 
several bills are combined that are long overdue. So I urge their 
passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to express my 
great appreciation again to the gentleman from Florida for his 
thoughtful discussion. I join him in his statement on the 
administration's statement of policy. I think they have it wrong, and 
the gentleman stated it just right.
  Over the past 6 years, if we had passed the water resources bill in a 
timely fashion, it would have been in the range of $2 billion a year. 
That is normal. So what we are dealing with is a huge, pent-up backlog.
  Again, as the gentleman said, this is an investment in America, and 
Members of Congress representing their constituents, their businesses, 
their water resources, know what they need. They have come forward with 
thoughtful recommendations, and this bill reflects those 
recommendations.
  We have served as a filter to weed out those in our best judgment 
that did not measure up on cost-benefit analysis. So we have set a 
standard for the future and we have, in accordance with the rules of 
the House, made all of the Member projects available, and will continue 
to do that.
  I would like to acknowledge the splendid work of the Chair of the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson. She has 
devoted years of her service in the Congress to consideration of water 
resources vital to her State of Texas. She has taken ownership of these 
issues and led the subcommittee hearings. Even this afternoon, she has 
hearings going on in our committee room while she is here to help 
manage the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I am pleased to rise to support H.R. 1495, the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2007.
  This bill authorizes water resources projects and the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers policy and programmatic changes that our Congress has 
failed to consider for far too long.
  Water resources legislation is most effective when it is considered 
biennially. I support this 2-year cycle, as it provides stability to 
the program and assurance to the non-Federal sponsors who support Corps 
projects.
  When we let them go, they get to be more costly. And, unfortunately, 
no water resources bill has been enacted since 2000, the entire term of 
our current administration. This is a result, in part, of a failure of 
the current administration to engage in this important legislation, as 
well as a failure of the Congress to reach agreement.
  Last year, we came very close to resolving our differences with the 
other body in conference. However, we ultimately ran out of time. I 
hope this legislation that we consider today can take us to that point 
and further, releasing this backlog of authorizations to fix our 
existing infrastructure and

[[Page H3603]]

to authorize new flood control, navigation and environmental 
restoration projects.
  We are trying very hard to move a little ahead of the next flooding. 
We must do that. And they are not going to kick out Democrats or 
Republicans for flooding, it is going to be whoever is in the way. It 
is purposeful that we have brought this bill to the floor as early as 
we have in this session.
  The authorizations in the language are time sensitive, and there 
should be no surprise that this bill contains a substantial number of 
provisions. Many of these authorizations have been waiting for action 
more than 6 years.
  Within the 110th Congress, the committee intends to move two water 
resources bill. This first one contains a logjam of more than 6 years 
of issues. The second bill will consider new projects and policy 
changes that we were not able to add to this legislation, that we will 
consider today. This approach may not be traditional, but it is 
necessary.
  Since Congress last passed a Water Resources Development Act, we have 
seen Hurricanes Katrina and Rita tear up the gulf coast and my home 
State of Texas, flooding cities, damaging economies and businesses, and 
threatening public health.
  The Florida Everglades continue to need attention and restoration to 
save the unique treasures it brings to the State and our country.
  This bill also contains smaller projects that may be less publicized 
but just as vital to communities that rely on various water resources 
for their livelihood.
  As in the past, these projects were not considered on a partisan 
basis, but on individual merit. Their approval should not be considered 
solely on whether they are Democratic projects or Republican projects; 
these are human projects. They should be considered on their 
contributions to public safety and economics.
  H.R. 1495 authorizes programmatic changes to the Corps of Engineers 
that previously have passed the House, but have stalled in the failed 
conference negotiations. During the 109th Congress we came close to 
resolving these differences with the Senate. I urge my colleagues to 
once again support these provisions. Everybody who has been here more 
than 6 years ought to know what everything is in this bill because they 
have seen it over and over and over again. We must engage the other 
body and together produce the best package for Corps reform.
  I would like to acknowledge Chairman Oberstar for his leadership and 
eloquence in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as 
well as the interest and expertise that he shares on water resources 
issues.
  I also would like to thank our ranking member, Mr. Mica, and the 
ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Baker, for their knowledge and 
effort and partnership with me, and for their support.
  I strongly support this legislation. I hope and urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of its final passage. The time is now.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I recognize a valued member of 
the committee, Mr. Brown, for 2 minutes.
  (Mr. BROWN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this critical legislation. 
I want to thank so many on this committee for their hard work and long 
dedication to this legislation, especially our chairman, Mr. Oberstar, 
and our ranking member, Mr. Mica; and the subcommittee chairwoman, Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson, and Mr. Baker, the ranking member. I also thank 
Mr. Duncan, the former chairman, and Mr. Costello, who is the ranking 
member.
  We have been working on this bill now for my term in Congress, and 
this is my fourth term, and I am happy today we are here to present it 
again.
  One of the most important elements in this bill are reforms made to 
the processes and procedures of the Army Corps. The infrastructure 
needs of our Nation have never been at a higher level. We need to do 
all we can to ensure that the limited dollars available are spent 
wisely, and the reforms in this bill will give the Corps the tools to 
make that happen.
  In addition, the bill makes significant changes to the project 
delivery process used by the Army Corps. The process the Corps has to 
go through now to deliver a project are long and hard, to say the 
least. This bill makes commonsense change to streamline that process to 
help our communities.
  Improving infrastructure is not a partisan issue, it is a commitment 
we as a Nation must ensure is met. If we do not, then we as a Nation 
will be facing significantly greater environmental and economic 
challenges than we do currently.
  In closing, I want to say again that I strongly support this 
legislation and I am confident we will enact a bill this year. I also 
want to thank my friends and colleagues on the committee as we all have 
joined to invest so much effort into this particular legislation.
  I am proud to stand with you in support of its passage.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), an alumnus of the committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, 
and I am proud of the time that I was able to work with you for 10 
years on this subcommittee.
  I rise in support of the bill. As was referenced by the Chair of the 
committee and the subcommittee, this is an important and complex bill 
with 682 projects. They are important economically. They are important 
environmentally. We found out less than 2 years ago how critical they 
are to the Nation. Hurricane Katrina revealed it can literally be a 
matter of life or death.
  This legislation has been hung up since the year 2000, in part 
because of disagreements about the reform agenda with the Corps of 
Engineers. I am pleased that we have signaled an effort to try and move 
forward, to be able to break that impasse with this legislation, the 
provisions in it and others that will follow.
  I am also pleased to have an opportunity to offer an amendment to 
update the principles and guidelines that would help the Corps move 
even closer to developing environmentally, fiscally, and structurally 
sound projects.
  Let me be clear. The amendment will not impact any project currently 
under way or anything covered in this legislation. It would simply tell 
the Corps of Engineers to update their own principles and guidelines, 
the playbook for developing water resources projects that are over 25 
years old. The National Academy of Sciences has said they are woefully 
out of date. And the Corps and the Congress' inability to update these 
principles and guidelines is one of the reasons why the Corps has drawn 
criticism from the Government Accountability Office, the National 
Academy of Sciences, and the OMB, along with internal Pentagon reviews.
  It is one of the reasons why we have had trouble passing WRDA in the 
last 6 years and reconciling it with the Senate which has similar 
provisions. It does not affect anything in the bill currently; and I 
think it will be an opportunity for us not just passing the bill, but 
it would be a reason for the President to sign it, given the problems 
they have had.
  I appreciate the hard work that has been done. I appreciate the 
opportunity to speak in support of the bill, and look forward to having 
support for the amendment for updating the principles and guidelines 
later in the afternoon.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), a valued member of the committee.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the 
reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act. I would like to 
thank Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, Subcommittee Chairman 
Johnson and Ranking Member Baker for their hard work in getting this 
legislation to the floor.
  It has been too long since the water resources bill has become law, 
and it is important that we continue to move this and make this 
reauthorization a reality. Projects authorized in this bill are 
critical to our national waterways transportation system that 
businesses and industry in every State and congressional district rely 
on to move their products.

[[Page H3604]]

  In my State of West Virginia, a well-maintained system of navigable 
waterways is crucial to moving coal from our mines to plants across the 
country to power this Nation's economy. The bill addresses local needs. 
I am pleased that this legislation recognizes the important water and 
wastewater challenges in West Virginia by continuing the authorization 
for the Central West Virginia Environmental Infrastructure Program.

                              {time}  1645

  This program has provided access to clean water and wastewater 
treatment to many rural West Virginians who otherwise would be without 
these critical utilities. I am pleased that this Corps of Engineers 
program will be able to continue assisting local public service 
districts to address these important community needs.
  I want to thank the committee for their hard work. I look forward to 
the final passage and the President's signature on this bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Could the Chair advise the time remaining on both 
sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota has 13 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Louisiana has 17 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for yielding, and I would like to recognize 
him, as well as the ranking member, for the exceptional leadership on 
this critical issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1495, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2007. I urge the swift passage of the 
measure. Passage of this bill is long overdue.
  My communities are desperately waiting for infrastructure projects 
which are of major importance to their districts.
  My district includes hundreds of small communities that have narrow 
economic and tax bases. Small communities like these often are unable 
to address the significant infrastructure needs. Water infrastructure 
is vital to the economy and stability of these small communities.
  My rural communities rely on antiquated water systems, and they need 
to be updated. Without the means to update old systems, many of our 
constituents and communities nationwide have been living in substandard 
conditions.
  It is not only an environmental health issue. A lack of sufficient 
water resources can effectively prevent the community from moving 
forward with critical infrastructure, like additional housing for its 
inhabitants.
  This bill is an important and necessary step in protecting our 
Nation's water infrastructure. Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, we cannot 
afford not to pass this critical legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this investment in water resource 
development and conservation projects and the passage of this much-
needed bill.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to my distinguished colleague from Louisiana who has worked tirelessly 
on assisting the people of the storm-stricken area, Dr. Boustany.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from 
Louisiana for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. WRDA reauthorization is 
long overdue, and it is vital that we pass H.R. 1495 and get a bill 
signed into law this year.
  WRDA authorizes nearly $2.1 billion for the Louisiana coastal area, 
and it will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to move forward on many 
critical coastal restoration and hurricane protection projects 
statewide.
  I also want to thank Chairman Oberstar for accepting my amendment in 
committee to add projects identified in the Southwest Louisiana Coastal 
Hurricane Storm and Reduction Study to the list of priority projects 
and projects to be expedited under this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  This study is the first comprehensive assessment of hurricane and 
flood protection needs of southwest Louisiana. The Corps has nearly 
completed the reconnaissance phase, and I anticipate that we will enter 
into an agreement with the State to proceed with the feasibility phase 
in the near future.
  It is important that we expedite these projects, not only for 
southwest Louisiana, but for the entire Nation because in southwest 
Louisiana our waterways protect much of the vital and necessary energy 
infrastructure that keeps this country running.
  We have one of the largest strategic petroleum reserves in my 
district that is affected here. Also, the Henry Hub, which is where 
pricing is set for natural gas for the country, is in my district. And 
it was actually flooded in Hurricane Rita.
  And nearly 25 percent of the liquefied natural gas will run through 
my district by 2015.
  These waterways and coastal wetlands are far more than just 
commercial routes or playgrounds. They are a critical buffer to protect 
homes, business and our energy infrastructure and our way of life in 
Louisiana. What we are talking about is America's energy coast, a 
working coast.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to recognize a 
Member who has expressed interest in this subject matter, Mr. Hulshof, 
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1495. I grew up 
in the shadow of levees along the Mississippi River in southeast 
Missouri. And while the river, at times destructive, the river has been 
a provider for me and my family, delivering the grain from our farm to 
international markets.
  And I will tell you, as the gentleman from Minnesota has stated, the 
nickels and dimes that we saved by shipping via barge were often the 
difference between our farm ending up in the red or ending up in the 
black. Those few cents have helped keep food on our table; clothes on 
our back; and, over the years, kept our farm even within our own 
family.
  Title VIII of the legislation, lock modernization, will insure that 
farmers in northeast Missouri and farmers in Iowa and Illinois, 
Minnesota, Wisconsin and elsewhere will continue to have the same 
benefit that my family had, the ability to ship crops to international 
markets via the most cost-effective method.
  I will tell you that a recent study by the Food and Ag Policy 
Research Institute, FAPRI, found that if the Mississippi River and 
Illinois waterways were forced to close, possibly because of a massive 
lock failure, that farmers, our own U.S. farmers, would lose between 
$645 million and $806 million a year, a year in increased 
transportation costs. We experienced a glimpse of that in the aftermath 
of Hurricane Katrina when the river was shut down, navigation was shut 
down for a short time during the fall of 2005. Farmers endured a 60-
cent-per-bushel penalty on a bushel of corn during that critical time 
in September of 2005. And a massive failure, unfortunately, is a 
distinct possibility.
  These locks are standing just out of habit, or as my constituent, 
Senator Kit Bond, is fond of saying, ``These locks belong in the 
National Register of Historic Locations.'' They were built in the 1930s 
to accommodate steamboats for the next 50 years. As the gentleman 
pointed out, these locks are no longer navigation aids, but hindrances. 
They are 600 feet long. The modern barge is close to 1,200 feet, often 
three across and five long.
  What I want to emphasize again to my friend from Oregon who spoke, 
and others, these locks benefit the American public in other ways. The 
typical tow removes 870 18-wheel tractor trailer trucks from our 
already congested roads, bridges, and interstate highways. A gallon of 
diesel fuel will push one ton of freight 2\1/2\ times further by barge 
than by locomotive; nine times farther than by truck. Moreover, 
according to the Environmental Protection Agency, towboats emit 35 to 
60 percent fewer pollutants than locomotives or trucks. All in all, all 
worthy.
  I urge its support.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\3/4\ minutes, and I 
yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Chairman, in the last Congress the House approved a

[[Page H3605]]

water resources bill that included language to modify the navigation 
channel for the Fox River in Wisconsin. This provision, which was 
inserted by my predecessor, would have modified part of the 
navigational channel from 150 feet wide to 75 feet and from an 
authorized depth of 18 feet to 6 feet. However, the Congress adjourned 
and the work never was completed.
  This year I requested that this language not be included in the water 
resources bill because of my concern that it might impair the 
navigability of the Fox River and the potential for future commerce. It 
is my understanding that a 9-foot authorization depth is considered the 
minimal depth for a navigational channel to safely handle barge 
traffic.
  I would like to work with the Congress, with the chairman in 
conference to ensure that whatever language is included in the 
conference agreement, it will not adversely impact the navigability of 
the Fox River and will accomplish the goals of a safe cleanup of the 
Fox River.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. 
The question of the Fox River has been on the agenda of the committee 
for over 20 years.
  And the gentleman has stated the issue very well: that 6-foot channel 
depth is simply not viable for today's barge traffic.
  And there is also the issue of PCB contamination in the lower Fox 
River. The gentleman has shown real foresight in dealing with the issue 
both of navigation and of cleanup. So the Superfund really ought to 
deal with this problem. It is not going to. We are going to be vigilant 
on the matter. If there is an opportunity in conference to address the 
issue in an appropriate manner, we will do that. If not, we will do it 
in a subsequent water resources bill. And I look forward to coming to 
Green Bay to see the gentleman's district and the lower Fox River.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to a gentleman who is a former chairman of the Water Resources 
Subcommittee and who put an enormous amount of work into the product on 
the House floor today, Mr. Duncan.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend Chairman Oberstar, 
Ranking Member Mica, Chairwoman Johnson, with whom I spent so many 
hours. She was my ranking member during the entire 6 years that I had 
the privilege of chairing the Water Resources and Environment, or 
during part of the time that I chaired the Water Resources and 
Environment Subcommittee, and such a good friend, and Ranking Member 
Baker, for bringing this bill to the floor today and for their good and 
hard work on this legislation. And I urge its support.
  This is a very conservative bill, Mr. Chairman. It is a bill that 
passed this House with only eight dissenting votes a few years ago and 
then later only 14 dissenting votes. The bill passed with over 400 
votes in favor of it each time in the House. We did our work, but then 
it got held up in the other body.
  Some people say that these projects should be paid for entirely on a 
local basis. But I can tell you there is a very important Federal role 
in regard to our water resources because people in California or New 
York or Michigan use the water in Tennessee. And people expect us to 
have a good wastewater and clean water system in this country. And yet 
it is something that people take for granted probably more than 
anything else that I can think of. And we have got to improve and 
strengthen our water resource system in this country.
  Over the last few years, we have spent many billions on the water 
system, our wastewater and clean water systems in Iraq. But we have 
fallen down at the Federal level on what we are doing on our wastewater 
and clean water systems in this country. And most of the spending has 
been done by the State and local governments and particularly by the 
ratepayers. And so this is a very necessary, very overdue bill, as many 
have pointed out. And I urge support for this legislation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mahoney) 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.
  Seven years ago Congress, in the spirit of bipartisanship, had the 
wisdom to protect for future generations one of America's most precious 
natural areas, the Everglades, by authorizing the largest environmental 
restoration project in our Nation's history, the Comprehensive 
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP).
  This ambitious plan consists of over 40 projects that, when 
completed, would restore much of the Everglades. The plan, from its 
inception, was a joint venture, an equal partnership with the people of 
my State of Florida to share in the costs.
  I am sorry to say that Washington has failed to honor its word and 
live up to its commitment. In fact, to the shame of the Republican-
controlled Congress and the current administration, not a single WRDA 
bill has been passed since 2000. Not a single penny spent.
  I am proud to say that during this same period of time, Florida has 
spent over $2 billion to get CERP going. In fact, this is so important 
in my district that the good people from Martin County voted to 
increase their taxes to help pay.
  In my 16th Congressional District we are going to get the opportunity 
to restore the Indian River Lagoon.
  Stuart, Florida, which straddles the lagoon, is the sailfish capital 
of the world and was built on tourism based on its world-renowned 
fishing. I have seen the black and white photos of wagons overflowing 
with fish. I have seen the photos of kids swimming in the lagoon.
  It is time to quit talking about fixing it. It is time for our kids 
to go fishing. It is time for this Congress to have the courage and 
leadership to pass H.R. 1495.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would yield 1 minute to Mrs. 
Biggert.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1495. My 
district in Illinois represents the front line in the fight to keep the 
Asian carp from decimating the ecosystem of the Great Lakes and 
endangering a multi-million dollar commercial fishing industry.

                              {time}  1700

  Competing with native species for food, living space, and spawning 
areas, these voracious fish grow to between 50 and 150 pounds, eat up 
to 40 percent of their body weight every day, and each female can carry 
up to a million eggs.
  The bill before us today will enable the Army Corps of Engineers to 
fortify its aquatic and invasive species dispersal barrier, an 
invisible, underwater, electric fence on the Chicago Ship and Sanitary 
Canal in Illinois that repulses fish like the Asian carp.
  That is why I rise today, to thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking 
Member Mica, as well as Subcommittee Chairman Johnson and Ranking 
Member Baker, for recognizing the continuing threat of the Asian carp 
and including provisions in this bill to protect the Great Lakes. Our 
Great Lakes are too important just to leave them vulnerable to invasive 
species like the Asian carp.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a strong supporter and 
cosponsor of this Water Resources Development Act of 2007.
  This new Democratic Congress has made reauthorizing WRDA a top 
priority. I thank Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee Chairwoman Johnson 
for their work in quickly moving this bill of national significance to 
help protect America's waterways.
  These projects are vital to my home State of Missouri. Our local 
economy is driven by use of such important routes as the Mississippi, 
Missouri, and Illinois Rivers. Commerce on these rivers will be greatly 
benefited by this bill's strong commitment to repair current locks and 
reconstruct new locks on the Mississippi River.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, I 
have fought on behalf of my constituents to secure new levels of 
funding to help throughout our region. In particular, the bill 
authorizes $35 million for combined sewer overflow elimination in St. 
Louis. Some of our wastewater infrastructure dates back to the Lincoln 
administration.

[[Page H3606]]

  The great flood of 1993 exposed serious flaws in the St. Louis flood 
wall. This bill addresses that.
  Lastly, this bill continues the exciting progress of the Great Rivers 
Greenway in St. Louis City and County. By creating an aquatic ecosystem 
restoration, constructing bike paths, and increasing access to the 
Mississippi River, my constituents will gain more use of one of our 
national treasures.
  These projects are important to the strength of our community and the 
health of our waterways. I stand in strong support of H.R. 1495.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono).
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my concerns regarding a provision 
that was not included in this legislation, yet it is of significant 
importance to all of southern California. My concerns pertain to the 
importance of addressing the issues associated with the Salton Sea in 
southern California, which is California's largest lake.
  This body of water is significant not only because of its role in 
becoming an economic engine for the future, but also because of the 
impacts that will be felt in our local economy and environment if 
action is not taken.
  In order to address the problems associated with the Salton Sea, I 
have worked to include moneys within WRDA in prior congressional 
sessions. My goal is that moneys can be included to fund pilot projects 
in my district that would begin the proper steps to restore the sea.
  To meet this need, yesterday I offered an amendment in the Rules 
Committee that would provide $26 million for the restoration projects. 
Unfortunately, today we do not have the chance to vote on this 
important funding.
  It is important to note that my amendment would have directly 
mirrored language that was included in the final version of the WRDA 
legislation in the 109th Congress, H.R. 2864. At that time, displaying 
the bipartisan nature of this proposal, both the chairman and the 
ranking member, and now chairman, Mr. Oberstar, agreed that this 
language was important and worthy of inclusion.
  The support of the Senate remains consistent with their approval in 
conference of this project last year and its recent inclusion in their 
WRDA legislation reported from the Environment and Public Works 
Committee just a few weeks ago. I am grateful that we have the support 
from the other body on a Salton Sea provision.
  The time is right to act, as the State of California is on the verge 
of determining a plan that will permanently save the Salton Sea. The 
status quo, Mr. Chairman, is simply not an option. Massive yearly fish 
die and the potential for the deterioration in local air quality due to 
blowing sediments are a very serious reality. These problems will 
likely only worsen in the future, depending on the actions the State of 
California and our Federal Government take.
  I now yield to the gentleman from Florida in the hopes of entering 
into a colloquy.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  First of all, I know, Mrs. Bono, that you have worked tirelessly on 
behalf of restoration of the Salton Sea project. Only through a 
technicality in our agreement for moving forward with this legislation 
has your Bono Salton Sea restoration provision been left from this 
bill. But you have my assurance that you will have top priority for 
consideration for the conference on something you have worked year 
after year and so hard for. So before this gets to the President's 
desk, you have my assurance that it will be part of the President's 
bill, if we have a bill.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  And I just want to reiterate that since my coming to Congress, I took 
over this issue actually from my late husband, Sonny Bono, and we did 
pass the Sonny Bono Memorial Act in 1998. I thank the gentleman very 
much for his understanding of how important this is and southern 
California's willingness to help me as we move forward in conference.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. BONO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I concur in the remarks of the 
distinguished ranking member, and we are committed to working together 
either in conference or subsequently in resolving this matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1495, the 
Water Resources Development Act.
  In particular, I want to call attention to section 3065 and to thank 
Chairman Oberstar and the Chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Johnson, for 
their support of the city of Saco, Maine.
  Section 3065 authorizes construction of modifications to an Army 
Corps of Engineers jetty at the mouth of the Saco River in the Camp 
Ellis neighborhood of Saco. The Corps built the jetty more than 130 
years ago and subsequently has lengthened, smoothed, and raised it.
  Unfortunately, the jetty is destroying the Camp Ellis neighborhood by 
contributing to what the Maine State geologist has called the worst 
coastal erosion in the State. Thirty-eight homes have been lost to the 
sea. Currently, homes that were once six rows back from the shoreline 
are in danger of being destroyed. During winter nor'easter storms, one 
part of Camp Ellis often becomes an island.
  These dangerous conditions are caused by a structure erected, 
improved, and maintained by the United States Government. For that 
reason I believe that the Federal Government must act to alleviate the 
problem. Section 3065 funds a spur jetty and a series of breakwaters 
that will diminish the force of wave action on the beach. For the past 
7 years, I have been actively involved with Federal, State, and local 
officials, as well as with Camp Ellis residents, all dedicated to 
fixing the Camp Ellis erosion problem.
  Passage of WRDA could not be more timely. On Monday I was there in 
the middle of the storm surge, and during this week's nor'easter, Camp 
Ellis lost at least two homes to the sea. If the proposed modifications 
to the jetty had been made, these homes would not have been destroyed.
  I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Oberstar, 
Chairwoman Johnson, and Ranking Members Mica and Baker for their 
excellent work on H.R. 1495.
  This legislation is critical to the entire country, but for Louisiana 
in particular it provides much-needed authority and direction for the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to design and construct a comprehensive 
hurricane, flood, and coastal protection program safeguarding hundreds 
of thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars in industry and 
infrastructure vital to our Nation's economy.
  WRDA specifically allocates approximately $1.2 billion for actions to 
restore Louisiana's coastal wetlands over the next decade, including a 
plan for the closure and environmental restoration of the MRGO, the 
Inner Harbor Navigational Canal Lock, other projects like the Ouachita 
River levees and the Red River basin and several other projects 
throughout the State.
  Among the critical projects included in the WRDA bill is the Morganza 
to the Gulf Hurricane Protection project. This project is the best 
solution to protecting exposed areas in the bayou region of Louisiana.
  I am very pleased that the administration softened its stance on 
Morganza to the Gulf, which will provide essential hurricane 
protections to those in Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes. When 
complete, this project will provide category 3 protection for 200,000 
citizens and approximately $8 billion of public and private 
infrastructure.
  Though I certainly would have preferred an unqualified endorsement 
for Morganza to the Gulf from the administration, I look forward to 
working with my colleagues in the House to ensure that Morganza and 
other important projects remain intact in the final bill. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 1495.

[[Page H3607]]

  I want to thank again the chairman, and ranking member, Mr. Baker, in 
particular, for their work on this bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), former 
ranking member of the subcommittee, who devoted an enormous amount of 
his time, along with Mr. Duncan, in shaping this bill in the previous 
Congress and now leads us on aviation as the chairman of the Aviation 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Oberstar for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, today we are considering the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2007. This bill addresses what the Congress has 
failed to do in previous years, enact a WRDA bill that addresses the 
critical infrastructure needs of our country.
  I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar, Chairwoman Johnson, Mr. 
Mica, Mr. Baker, and the former chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. 
Duncan, for a job well done in bringing this bill to the floor today. 
Without their leadership and their persistence, we would not have a 
bill here to consider on the floor.
  H.R. 1495 authorizes projects for major flood control, navigation, 
environmental restoration, and other water projects and authorizes 
several important projects to restore and enhance the Nation's 
environmental infrastructure.
  The United States transportation system has an extensive system of 
highways, ports, locks and dams, and airports. Yet we continue to 
neglect upgrading and modernizing our infrastructure. We should not 
build our infrastructure and then walk away from it without maintaining 
and modernizing it as it becomes antiquated, like we have done with the 
Upper Mississippi and the Illinois Waterways lock and dam system.
  In H.R. 1495 we are again authorizing the Upper Mississippi and 
Illinois Waterways system. This bill authorizes the replacement of 600-
foot navigation locks with seven new 1,200-foot locks. In addition, the 
bill authorizes the largest environmental restoration program next to 
the Florida Everglades project to ensure that the project goes forward 
while respecting the environment and minimizing any adverse impact.
  Our current system loses about 10 percent of its capacity due to the 
system failure and breakdowns because it has exceeded its life 
expectancy by over 20 years. The system cannot handle today's traffic 
in an efficient, cost-effective manner, and it is costing taxpayers 
tens of millions of dollars to patch it together, let alone the cost in 
time and money to the users. Modernizing that infrastructure is the 
right thing to do. It is a necessity, and I am glad to see that this 
bill is moving forward on such a significant project to our economy and 
our commerce.
  Mr. Chairman, again I salute Chairman Oberstar, Chairwoman Johnson, 
Mr. Mica, Mr. Baker, and Mr. Duncan for their leadership and hard work. 
And I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).
  (Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this 
legislation because it is long overdue. Seven years is a long time and 
much has changed.
  This bill includes language important to my own district, but more 
importantly, it has national importance. We need this legislation to 
authorize new Army Corps of Engineer water infrastructure studies and 
projects. And it is not just about new projects, but how the Corps 
manages them, and for Congress to have an opportunity to exercise its 
oversight authority over current and future projects. This legislation 
is long overdue.
  I want to commend our committee leadership on both sides for working 
in a bipartisan fashion to move this so quickly. I thank everyone for 
their hard work, and I look forward to voting for this this evening.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hare).
  Mr. HARE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2007.
  This bill authorizes important long-overdue flood control, dam safety 
and environmental restoration projects. In my district, the Great Flood 
of 1993 took the lives of 47 people and resulted in over $15 billion in 
catastrophic damages throughout much of the Mississippi River basin. I 
support this bill for the safety of my constituents.
  Additionally, over 50 percent of our locks and dams have aged beyond 
their life cycle, and they are crumbling. WRDA authorizes repair of 
these structures and includes critical provisions to modernize seven 
new locks and dams on the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. These 
improvement will expand navigation capacity, reduce shipping delays, 
and accommodate larger barge tows, which is critical for the $12 
billion worth of products that the river transports ever year, as well 
as the agriculture, commercial and labor interests of my State of 
Illinois.
  This bill includes a much-needed program to restore the upper 
Mississippi River ecosystem and authorizes completion of the Emiquon 
Wildlife Preserve in my district. This preserve is one of the largest 
flood plain restoration projects in the country outside the Florida 
Everglades, and I am proud to have sponsored its inclusion in this bill 
today.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Water Resources Development Act. 
By improving our water resources infrastructure, we will make our river 
communities safer and strengthen our Nation's economy and environmental 
welfare.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the remainder of our time.
  I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Oberstar, Chairman 
Johnson and of course my ranking member, Mr. Mica, for their very 
diligent and hard work; more specifically, for the time spent in the 
great State of Louisiana after the landfall of Hurricane Katrina. The 
committee has come down, Members often more than once, to observe for 
themselves the damage that has been caused by this unbelievable natural 
catastrophe.
  The bill under consideration today will begin an enormous and 
monumental project for the restoration of coastal Louisiana. It is not 
just about keeping people with the ability to live on the water's edge; 
it is giving the ability to stop the storm surge coming inland and 
bringing about the type of devastation that we have painfully 
experienced again.
  This legislation is a landmark, certainly for the traditional 
reasons. Many Members have interests in projects for economic 
development reasons, for control of public water systems, for enhancing 
water runoff and minimizing agricultural and other sources of 
contamination to our water systems. But this bill is really important 
for maintenance of life and quality of life in our State, and it will 
begin the meaningful restoration of what is a tremendous natural asset, 
coastal Louisiana.
  I would emphasize what has already been stated repeatedly: this is a 
process resulting in over 600 projects which has come about over a 6-
year period. And so it is my deepest hope that this House will this 
evening favorably adopt 1495, that the Senate will work expeditiously 
with us in moving forward, and that the administration will find a way 
to sign this important jobs bill into law.
  $13.1 billion is a lot of money, and when coupled with the local 
matched dollars which are required, it will be a significant shot in 
the economic arm for the construction industry across this country. So 
I am most appreciative of the opportunity to have participated in this 
process.
  I am grateful to my Democratic colleagues for their kind and hard 
work on this subject and listening to the people of Louisiana in their 
hour of need. For that we are and will always be most appreciative.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining on our 
side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.

[[Page H3608]]

  Mr. OBERSTAR. There is an old saying among seafarers: ``No helmsman 
is tested in fair water.'' The gentleman from Louisiana was tested in 
the aftermath of Katrina, and I saw him at the helm in Baton Rouge when 
our committee made a tour of the devastation wreaked by Hurricane 
Katrina. I was impressed then and continue to be by his composure, his 
grasp of facts, grasp of the magnitude of the problem, and his 
willingness to address the issues in a coordinated and bipartisan 
manner. I salute him for his continued leadership and service not only 
to the State, but to the Nation.
  Again, I express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica) for similarly taking the helm in a time of turbulence when we had 
this work of 6 years thrust upon us, trying to sort it out, do the 
right thing and serve our Members, their districts, and our Nation at 
the same time and measure each project against the yardstick of balance 
that has historically guided the Corps of Engineers and guided the work 
of this committee, and I think we have come here with a good product.
  And I especially appreciate, once again, the splendid work of the 
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, who is the Chair of the 
subcommittee and who has put her heart and soul into seeing this bill 
move forward.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support H.R. 1495, the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2007. This bill, which authorizes 
water projects through the Army Corps of Engineers, is essential to 
maintaining and improving our Nation's vital water resources and 
infrastructure.
  This bill is long overdue. Congress has been unable to enact a 
comprehensive WRDA bill since the year 2000. Without Federal resources 
authorized in this bill, critical projects needed to sustain and 
protect America's water needs into the future have been stalled. I 
commend Chairman Oberstar for his leadership and steadfast commitment 
to this vital issue. I thank his hardworking staff, who worked long 
hours to complete this bill, which is a top priority of our new 
Democratic Congress.
  As a representative from southern California where water is a scare 
and precious resource, I appreciate the distinguished Chairman's 
efforts to put forth a bill that advances essential water resource 
infrastructure projects in the region.
  I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes an historic 
authorization for revitalization efforts along the Los Angeles River. 
The $20 million authorization contained within the bill will mark a 
significant Federal commitment to transforming the LA River from an 
unsightly concrete flood control channel into green space that will 
promote badly needed recreation, housing and job creation 
opportunities. In addition, the legislation will enable the Army Corps 
of Engineers to develop a plan to improve water quality, restore 
historic habitats, and enhance the river's flood protection function.
  For years, I have worked with my colleagues from Los Angeles to 
obtain Federal funding for studies on promising revitalization projects 
along the River. Our efforts have secured over $3 million for studies 
at various sites, including the Cornfields site in downtown Los 
Angeles. With the inclusion of the LA River projects in the WRDA 
authorization, the Army Corps of Engineers can begin to break ground on 
these revitalization activities.
  I want to take this opportunity to recognize my local community and 
public officials who have worked tirelessly to make the Los Angeles 
River revitalization project a success. The LA River revitalization 
plan reflects the vision of City Councilman Ed Reyes, who for many 
years has led the effort at the local level. I commend him for his 
commitment to enhancing the quality of life for the communities along 
the River and for all Angelenos.
  I also applaud the strong support of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and 
the local stakeholders who continue to explore ways to convert the land 
adjacent to the Los Angeles River into parks, housing, and economic 
opportunities for our local communities.
  The passage of WRDA with the LA River revitalization project will 
continue an exciting alliance between the federal government, the City 
of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County. We have worked in particular to 
enrich the lives of the many families who live in the communities along 
the River and to enhance opportunities for economic development 
associated with revitalization.
  I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to build upon 
this exciting opportunity to transform the LA River from an unsightly 
and environmentally void industrial space to a communal recreational 
space in which all Angelenos can take pride.
  I thank the Committee for its hard work and urge my colleagues to 
support this important legislationy.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Water 
Resources Development Act and urge its passage by the House. I want to 
compliment Chairman Oberstar and the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee for making early passage of this legislation a priority. The 
last Water Resources bill was signed into law over 6 years ago by 
President Clinton. It is Congress' job to renew this law every 2 years, 
but for whatever reason, we have been unable to reach agreement with 
the other body and get a final bill to the President for his signature.
  The Nation's water and environmental infrastructure problems won't 
wait forever. We need to overcome our past differences and move this 
bill to upgrade and modernize our Federal programs relating to 
navigation, flood damage reduction, shoreline protection, dam safety, 
water supply, recreation, and environmental restoration.
  I want to express my thanks to Chairman Oberstar for including a 
project I requested to authorize Federal funding to implement 
restoration projects in Lake St. Clair. In the past, Lake St. Clair has 
been described as ``the forgotten lake.'' No longer. Today, many of my 
constituents refer to Lake St. Clair as the ``Heart of the Great 
Lakes.'' We need to protect and restore it. Lake St. Clair is not the 
largest body of water in the Great Lakes System, but it is absolutely 
one of the most heavily used portions of the Lakes in terms of fishing, 
boating and drinking water.
  Two years ago, the Corps of Engineers completed a comprehensive 
management plan for Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair River. Congress 
paid for this plan. The recommendations contained in the management 
plan will help shape Lake St. Clair's future, but only if they are 
implemented. Having come this far, we can't let the report and its 
recommendations become another study that sits on a shelf and gathers 
dust. Everyone, including the federal government, has to step forward 
and take responsibility for turning these recommendations into action.
  Again, I support the bill before the House and urge its adoption.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill that 
will finally move forward important construction, navigation, and 
ecosystem restoration projects along the Mississippi River, Great 
Lakes, and elsewhere. In particular, H.R. 1495 will authorize the corps 
of engineers' sustainability plan for the upper Mississippi River.
  On the eve of Earth Day, founded by the great Senator from Wisconsin 
Gaylord Nelson, what better gift to the people of the upper Mississippi 
River basin than the largest ever investment in ecosystem restoration 
in the river's history? This bill will have a tremendous impact on 
water quality, wildlife habitat, and recreation in the upper 
Mississippi River region.
  Reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act has been a 
long time coming, and it has seen some improvement over the years. The 
current bill, for instance, includes an important provision, that I 
included, requiring that construction and restoration projects on the 
upper Mississippi achieve equal progress so that construction and 
navigation improvements do not degrade the river ecosystem. The WRDA 
bill of 1986 established the upper Mississippi River system as the only 
waterbody in the Nation recognized by Congress as both a ``nationally 
significant ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial 
navigation system,'' so it is important that the needs of these two 
aspects of the river are met in tandem.
  The Bush administration also has recognized the ecological importance 
of the basin by making the upper Mississippi River Basin environmental 
management program a priority project in the corps budget. A relatively 
modest program with authorized funding of $33.5 million, the EMP has 
demonstrated remarkable results in restoring river habitats all along 
my congressional district in western Wisconsin and beyond. And its 
long-term resource monitoring program has produced invaluable data and 
knowledge.
  Mr. Chairman, it is especially fitting that we pass this bill today 
in light of the 20th anniversary that EMP celebrated last year. This 
bill, H.R. 1495, and the accompanying manager's amendment contain 
language assuring that the navigation and ecosystem sustainability plan 
will continue the EMP's mission, including long-term resource 
monitoring.
  But this bill will address long-standing needs well beyond the upper 
Mississippi. This country's water resources infrastructure was largely 
constructed 70 or more years ago, and much of it has fallen into 
various states of disrepair and neglect. Hurricane Katrina so clearly 
demonstrated to the world the consequences of this lack of attention. 
Reauthorization of WRDA is a necessary first step in meeting the needs 
of our citizens, industry, and environment.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this vital 
legislation so that residents of low-lying areas can be reassured that

[[Page H3609]]

the levees that protect them will be made adequate, so that farmers 
will know they will be able to ship their grain downriver to be 
exported to foreign markets, and hunters, anglers, and birdwatchers 
will know that the habitat they know and love will be maintained.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman 
Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica, as well as Subcommittee Chairwoman 
Johnson and Ranking Member Baker for their hard work and leadership on 
this important legislation--the first water improvement and 
conservation package in seven years.
  Following several earlier impasses, I want to take this opportunity 
to commend the spirit of bipartisanship and compromise on this 
important measure. I hope it extends to a bicameral bipartisanship in 
the weeks to come.
  This bill benefits all Americans and their families who use and enjoy 
our Nation's waterways, public beaches--including over 300 miles of 
coastline along my district--and for U.S. businesses that depend on 
healthy and viable waterways throughout the country.
  My district benefits from the good work that the Army Corps of 
Engineers does for coastal communities by helping small towns deal with 
multiple concerns ranging from erosion to longstanding environmental 
challenges. The Corps is currently working on several projects on 
eastern Long Island that will dredge inlets, restore damaged 
ecosystems, and study coastal health.
  In addition, H.R. 1495 will go a long way toward supplying the Corps 
with all the resources it needs to protect coastal communities and 
vacationers by modernizing project planning and approval.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member again for their 
hard work on this issue, and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to make sure that we get a WRDA bill to the President as 
soon as we can. We simply cannot afford to let another year go by 
without passing this legislation.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1945, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). As the Democratic 
Majority begins our second 100 days, we are continuing to move America 
forward, and WRDA does just that.
  This bill will help commerce by improving navigation on waterways and 
making it easier to bring products to market. This bill will invest in 
our future by modernizing the locks and dams on the Mississippi River 
and elsewhere. This bill will protect the Great Lakes by finally making 
the Asian Carp barrier permanent. This bill invests in rural and urban 
America alike by renewing our commitment to protecting the environment 
and the economy.
  The Water Resources Development Act is a good bill that has been 
written in a bipartisan process to address the needs of the whole 
country, but there are two parts of the bill in particular that I am 
especially proud are included.
  The locks on the Mississippi River and Illinois Waterways are in need 
of repair, and WRDA finally addresses the long overdue need for lock 
modernization. Navigation in the upper Mississippi supports more than 
400,000 jobs and 90,000 high-paying manufacturing jobs, and passage of 
WRDA will create more jobs in the region. Every year, shipping in the 
upper Mississippi River adds up to about $1.2 billion to our economy. 
Modernizing the locks will go a long way to ensuring the livelihoods of 
the men and women that rely on these waterways.
  Another project in WRDA that is critical to the Great Lakes and 
important to all of Chicago is the Asian Carp barrier. As the residents 
of the Fifth Congressional District know, invasive species pose a 
severe threat to Lake Michigan, capable of billions of dollars in 
economic losses and inestimable environmental damage.
  The Asian Carp in particular has affected Great Lakes fisheries, and 
I have been working with my Great Lakes colleagues in making sure that 
this barrier is funded and operational to protect the Great Lakes from 
Asian Carp.
  Mr. Chairman, the Water Resources Development Act is a hat trick--
it's good for the environment, it's good for the economy, and it's good 
for America's future. I want to thank Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Mica for all 
of their good work, and I am glad that we are getting this bill done. I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 1495

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2007''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.
Sec. 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
Sec. 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection.
Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation.
Sec. 1005. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the 
              environment.
Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection.
Sec. 1008. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 2001. Non-Federal contributions.
Sec. 2002. Harbor cost sharing.
Sec. 2003. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 2004. National shoreline erosion control development and 
              demonstration program.
Sec. 2005. Small shore and beach restoration and protection projects.
Sec. 2006. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 2007. Small flood damage reduction projects.
Sec. 2008. Modification of projects for improvement of the quality of 
              the environment.
Sec. 2009. Written agreement for water resources projects.
Sec. 2010. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse.
Sec. 2011. Compilation of laws.
Sec. 2012. Dredged material disposal.
Sec. 2013. Wetlands mitigation.
Sec. 2014. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses.
Sec. 2015. Remote and subsistence harbors.
Sec. 2016. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 2017. Cost-sharing provisions for certain areas.
Sec. 2018. Use of other Federal funds.
Sec. 2019. Revision of project partnership agreement.
Sec. 2020. Cost sharing.
Sec. 2021. Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction.
Sec. 2022. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 2023. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 2024. Wildfire firefighting.
Sec. 2025. Technical assistance.
Sec. 2026. Lakes program.
Sec. 2027. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local 
              actions.
Sec. 2028. Project streamlining.
Sec. 2029. Cooperative agreements.
Sec. 2030. Training funds.
Sec. 2031. Access to water resource data.
Sec. 2032. Shore protection projects.
Sec. 2033. Ability to pay.
Sec. 2034. Leasing authority.
Sec. 2035. Cost estimates.
Sec. 2036. Project planning.
Sec. 2037. Independent peer review.
Sec. 2038. Studies and reports for water resources projects.
Sec. 2039. Offshore oil and gas fabrication port.
Sec. 2040. Use of firms employing local residents.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Sec. 3002. King Cove Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 3003. Sitka, Alaska.
Sec. 3004. Tatitlek, Alaska.
Sec. 3005. Rio De Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Sec. 3006. Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.
Sec. 3007. Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas.
Sec. 3008. American and Sacramento Rivers, California.
Sec. 3009. Compton Creek, California.
Sec. 3010. Grayson Creek/Murderer's Creek, California.
Sec. 3011. Hamilton Airfield, California.
Sec. 3012. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel, 
              California.
Sec. 3013. Kaweah River, California.
Sec. 3014. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California.
Sec. 3015. Llagas Creek, California.
Sec. 3016. Magpie Creek, California.
Sec. 3017. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California.
Sec. 3018. Pinole Creek, California.
Sec. 3019. Prado Dam, California.
Sec. 3020. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California.
Sec. 3021. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.
Sec. 3022. Santa Cruz Harbor, California.
Sec. 3023. Seven Oaks Dam, California.
Sec. 3024. Upper Guadalupe River, California.
Sec. 3025. Walnut Creek Channel, California.
Sec. 3026. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California.
Sec. 3027. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California.
Sec. 3028. Yuba River Basin project, California.
Sec. 3029. South Platte River Basin, Colorado.
Sec. 3030. Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, 
              Delaware and Maryland.
Sec. 3031. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 3032. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida.
Sec. 3033. Canaveral Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3034. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
Sec. 3035. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3036. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida.

[[Page H3610]]

Sec. 3037. Miami Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3038. Peanut Island, Florida.
Sec. 3039. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida.
Sec. 3040. Tampa Harbor Cut B, Florida.
Sec. 3041. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.
Sec. 3042. Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia.
Sec. 3043. Dworshak Dam and Reservoir improvements, Idaho.
Sec. 3044. Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois.
Sec. 3045. Cache River Levee, Illinois.
Sec. 3046. Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. 3047. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project, 
              Illinois.
Sec. 3048. Emiquon, Illinois.
Sec. 3049. Lasalle, Illinois.
Sec. 3050. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois.
Sec. 3051. Fort Wayne and vicinity, Indiana.
Sec. 3052. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 3053. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 3054. Des Moines River and Greenbelt, Iowa.
Sec. 3055. Prestonsburg, Kentucky.
Sec. 3056. Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge 
              Parish Watershed.
Sec. 3057. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 3058. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.
Sec. 3059. Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana.
Sec. 3060. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to 
              Shreveport, Louisiana.
Sec. 3061. Melville, Louisiana.
Sec. 3062. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.
Sec. 3063. New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana.
Sec. 3064. West bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), 
              Louisiana.
Sec. 3065. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.
Sec. 3066. Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan.
Sec. 3067. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
Sec. 3068. St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 3069. Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan.
Sec. 3070. Ada, Minnesota.
Sec. 3071. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota.
Sec. 3072. Grand Marais, Minnesota.
Sec. 3073. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3074. Granite Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 3075. Knife River Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3076. Red Lake River, Minnesota.
Sec. 3077. Silver Bay, Minnesota.
Sec. 3078. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3079. Two Harbors, Minnesota.
Sec. 3080. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi.
Sec. 3081. Pearl River Basin, Mississippi.
Sec. 3082. Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.
Sec. 3083. L-15 levee, Missouri.
Sec. 3084. Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri.
Sec. 3085. River Des Peres, Missouri.
Sec. 3086. Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Sec. 3087. Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska.
Sec. 3088. Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.
Sec. 3089. Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 3090. Buffalo Harbor, New York.
Sec. 3091. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
Sec. 3092. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 3093. New York State Canal System.
Sec. 3094. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.
Sec. 3095. Mahoning River, Ohio.
Sec. 3096. Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.
Sec. 3097. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3098. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, 
              Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3099. Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3100. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3101. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3102. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 3103. Freeport Harbor, Texas.
Sec. 3104. Lake Kemp, Texas.
Sec. 3105. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.
Sec. 3106. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas.
Sec. 3107. Pat Mayse Lake, Texas.
Sec. 3108. Proctor Lake, Texas.
Sec. 3109. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.
Sec. 3110. Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, and Wise Counties, 
              Virginia.
Sec. 3111. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.
Sec. 3112. Duwamish/Green, Washington.
Sec. 3113. Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington.
Sec. 3114. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 3115. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.
Sec. 3116. Northern West Virginia.
Sec. 3117. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 3118. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.
Sec. 3119. Continuation of project authorizations.
Sec. 3120. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 3121. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 3122. Land conveyances.
Sec. 3123. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use 
              restrictions.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program.
Sec. 4002. Lake Erie dredged material disposal sites.
Sec. 4003. Southwestern United States drought study.
Sec. 4004. Delaware River.
Sec. 4005. Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Sec. 4006. Kuskokwim River, Alaska.
Sec. 4007. St. George Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 4008. Susitna River, Alaska.
Sec. 4009. Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona.
Sec. 4010. Searcy County, Arkansas.
Sec. 4011. Elkhorn Slough Estuary, California.
Sec. 4012. Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, California.
Sec. 4013. Los Angeles River revitalization study, California.
Sec. 4014. Lytle Creek, Rialto, California.
Sec. 4015. Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California.
Sec. 4016. Napa River, St. Helena, California.
Sec. 4017. Orick, California.
Sec. 4018. Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California.
Sec. 4019. Sacramento River, California.
Sec. 4020. San Diego County, California.
Sec. 4021. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
Sec. 4022. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California.
Sec. 4023. Twentynine Palms, California.
Sec. 4024. Yucca Valley, California.
Sec. 4025. Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado.
Sec. 4026. Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek, 
              Wilmington, Delaware.
Sec. 4027. Collier County Beaches, Florida.
Sec. 4028. Lower St. Johns River, Florida.
Sec. 4029. Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.
Sec. 4030. Meriwether County, Georgia.
Sec. 4031. Tybee Island, Georgia.
Sec. 4032. Boise River, Idaho.
Sec. 4033. Ballard's Island Side Channel, Illinois.
Sec. 4034. Salem, Indiana.
Sec. 4035. Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 4036. Dewey Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 4037. Louisville, Kentucky.
Sec. 4038. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Sec. 4039. Clinton River, Michigan.
Sec. 4040. Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan.
Sec. 4041. Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Sec. 4042. Northeast Mississippi.
Sec. 4043. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 4044. Dredged material disposal, New Jersey.
Sec. 4045. Bayonne, New Jersey.
Sec. 4046. Carteret, New Jersey.
Sec. 4047. Gloucester County, New Jersey.
Sec. 4048. Perth Amboy, New Jersey.
Sec. 4049. Batavia, New York.
Sec. 4050. Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York.
Sec. 4051. Finger Lakes, New York.
Sec. 4052. Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 4053. Newtown Creek, New York.
Sec. 4054. Niagara River, New York.
Sec. 4055. Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New York.
Sec. 4056. Upper Delaware River Watershed, New York.
Sec. 4057. Lincoln County, North Carolina.
Sec. 4058. Wilkes County, North Carolina.
Sec. 4059. Yadkinville, North Carolina.
Sec. 4060. Lake Erie, Ohio.
Sec. 4061. Ohio River, Ohio.
Sec. 4062. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, Oregon.
Sec. 4063. Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon.
Sec. 4064. Chartiers Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4065. Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4066. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4067. Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4068. Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4069. Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 4070. Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina.
Sec. 4071. Broad River, York County, South Carolina.
Sec. 4072. Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Sec. 4073. Cleveland, Tennessee.
Sec. 4074. Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.
Sec. 4075. Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee.
Sec. 4076. Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, Memphis Tennessee.
Sec. 4077. Abilene, Texas.
Sec. 4078. Coastal Texas ecosystem protection and restoration, Texas.
Sec. 4079. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.
Sec. 4080. Port of Galveston, Texas.
Sec. 4081. Grand County and Moab, Utah.
Sec. 4082. Southwestern Utah.
Sec. 4083. Chowan River Basin, Virginia and North Carolina.
Sec. 4084. Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington.
Sec. 4085. Monongahela River Basin, northern West Virginia.
Sec. 4086. Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 4087. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.
Sec. 4088. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 5001. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 5002. Watershed management.
Sec. 5003. Dam safety.
Sec. 5004. Structural integrity evaluations.
Sec. 5005. Flood mitigation priority areas.
Sec. 5006. Additional assistance for authorized projects.
Sec. 5007. Expedited completion of reports and construction for certain 
              projects.
Sec. 5008. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects.
Sec. 5009. Southeastern water resources assessment.
Sec. 5010. Upper Mississippi River environmental management program.
Sec. 5011. Missouri and Middle Mississippi River enhancement project.

[[Page H3611]]

Sec. 5012. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 5013. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 5014. Great Lakes tributary models.
Sec. 5015. Great Lakes navigation.
Sec. 5016. Upper Mississippi River dispersal barrier project.
Sec. 5017. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, Delaware, 
              Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Sec. 5018. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection 
              program.
Sec. 5019. Hypoxia assessment.
Sec. 5020. Potomac River watershed assessment and tributary strategy 
              evaluation and monitoring program.
Sec. 5021. Lock and dam security.
Sec. 5022. Rehabilitation.
Sec. 5023. Research and development program for Columbia and Snake 
              River salmon survival.
Sec. 5024. Auburn, Alabama.
Sec. 5025. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama.
Sec. 5026. Alaska.
Sec. 5027. Barrow, Alaska.
Sec. 5028. Coffman Cove, Alaska.
Sec. 5029. Fire Island, Alaska.
Sec. 5030. Fort Yukon, Alaska.
Sec. 5031. Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 5032. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska.
Sec. 5033. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.
Sec. 5034. Tanana River, Alaska.
Sec. 5035. Valdez, Alaska.
Sec. 5036. Whittier, Alaska.
Sec. 5037. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 5038. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
Sec. 5039. Des Arc levee protection, Arkansas.
Sec. 5040. Loomis Landing, Arkansas.
Sec. 5041. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 5042. Cambria, California.
Sec. 5043. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California; 
              Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.
Sec. 5044. Dana Point Harbor, California.
Sec. 5045. East San Joaquin County, California.
Sec. 5046. Eastern Santa Clara basin, California.
Sec. 5047. Los Osos, California.
Sec. 5048. Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, California.
Sec. 5049. Raymond Basin, Six Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel 
              Basin, California.
Sec. 5050. San Francisco, California.
Sec. 5051. San Francisco, California, waterfront area.
Sec. 5052. San Pablo Bay, California, watershed and Suisun Marsh 
              ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 5053. Stockton, California.
Sec. 5054. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor, 
              Connecticut.
Sec. 5055. Florida Keys water quality improvements.
Sec. 5056. Lake Worth, Florida.
Sec. 5057. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho.
Sec. 5058. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects.
Sec. 5059. Illinois River Basin restoration.
Sec. 5060. Kaskaskia River Basin, Illinois, restoration.
Sec. 5061. Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 5062. Promontory Point, Lake Michigan, Illinois.
Sec. 5063. Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana.
Sec. 5064. Calumet region, Indiana.
Sec. 5065. Paducah, Kentucky.
Sec. 5066. Southern and eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 5067. Winchester, Kentucky.
Sec. 5068. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Sec. 5069. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana.
Sec. 5070. Cross Lake, Shreveport, Louisiana.
Sec. 5071. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 5072. Charlestown, Maryland.
Sec. 5073. Anacostia River, District of Columbia and Maryland.
Sec. 5074. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Delaware and Maryland.
Sec. 5075. Massachusetts dredged material disposal sites.
Sec. 5076. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 5077. Crookston, Minnesota.
Sec. 5078. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota.
Sec. 5079. Itasca County, Minnesota.
Sec. 5080. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sec. 5081. Northeastern Minnesota.
Sec. 5082. Wild Rice River, Minnesota.
Sec. 5083. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi.
Sec. 5084. Mississippi River, Missouri and Illinois.
Sec. 5085. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 5086. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
Sec. 5087. Atlantic Coast of New York.
Sec. 5088. College Point, New York City, New York.
Sec. 5089. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York.
Sec. 5090. Hudson River, New York.
Sec. 5091. Mount Morris Dam, New York.
Sec. 5092. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.
Sec. 5093. Stanly County, North Carolina.
Sec. 5094. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sec. 5095. Toussaint River, Ohio.
Sec. 5096. Eugene, Oregon.
Sec. 5097. Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon.
Sec. 5098. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5099. Kehly Run Dams, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5100. Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5101. Northeast Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5102. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 5103. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 5104. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and 
              terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration, South Dakota.
Sec. 5105. Fritz Landing, Tennessee.
Sec. 5106. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee.
Sec. 5107. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee.
Sec. 5108. Tennessee River partnership.
Sec. 5109. Upper Mississippi embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and 
              Mississippi.
Sec. 5110. Bosque River Watershed, Texas.
Sec. 5111. Dallas Floodway, Dallas Texas.
Sec. 5112. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 5113. Onion Creek, Texas.
Sec. 5114. Eastern Shore and southwest Virginia.
Sec. 5115. Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.
Sec. 5116. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.
Sec. 5117. Hamilton Island campground, Washington.
Sec. 5118. Puget Island, Washington.
Sec. 5119. Willapa Bay, Washington.
Sec. 5120. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.
Sec. 5121. Central West Virginia.
Sec. 5122. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 5123. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal 
              interests.

                      TITLE VI--FLORIDA EVERGLADES

Sec. 6001. Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida.
Sec. 6002. Pilot projects.
Sec. 6003. Maximum costs.
Sec. 6004. Project authorization.
Sec. 6005. Credit.
Sec. 6006. Outreach and assistance.
Sec. 6007. Critical restoration projects.
Sec. 6008. Modified water deliveries.
Sec. 6009. Deauthorizations.
Sec. 6010. Regional engineering model for environmental restoration.

                   TITLE VII--LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA

Sec. 7001. Definitions.
Sec. 7002. Comprehensive plan.
Sec. 7003. Louisiana coastal area.
Sec. 7004. Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task 
              Force.
Sec. 7005. Project modifications.
Sec. 7006. Construction.
Sec. 7007. Non-Federal cost share.
Sec. 7008. Project justification.
Sec. 7009. Independent review.
Sec. 7010. Expedited reports.
Sec. 7011. Reporting.
Sec. 7012. New Orleans and vicinity.
Sec. 7013. Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.

   TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATER-WAY SYSTEM

Sec. 8001. Definitions.
Sec. 8002. Navigation improvements and restoration.
Sec. 8003. Authorization of construction of navigation improvements.
Sec. 8004. Ecosystem restoration authorization.
Sec. 8005. Comparable progress.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

       In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     the Army.

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

     SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

       Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following 
     projects for water resources development and conservation and 
     other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the 
     Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and 
     subject to the conditions, described in the respective 
     reports designated in this section:
       (1) Haines, alaska.--The project for navigation, Haines, 
     Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 
     2004, at a total cost of $14,040,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $11,232,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $2,808,000.
       (2) Port lions, alaska.--The project for navigation, Port 
     Lions, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 
     14, 2006, at a total cost of $9,530,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $7,624,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $1,906,000.
       (3) Rio salado oeste, arizona.--The project for 
     environmental restoration, Rio Salado Oeste, Arizona: Report 
     of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total 
     cost of $166,650,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $106,629,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $60,021,000.
       (4) Santa cruz river, paseo de las iglesias, arizona.--The 
     project for environmental restoration, Santa Cruz River, Pima 
     County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 
     28, 2006, at a total cost of $97,700,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $63,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $34,400,000.
       (5) Tanque verde creek, pima county, arizona.--The project 
     for environmental restoration, Tanque Verde Creek, Pima 
     County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 
     22, 2003, at a total cost of $5,906,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $3,836,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $2,070,000.
       (6) Salt river (va shlyay' akimel), maricopa county, 
     arizona.--The project for environmental restoration, Salt 
     River (Va Shlyay' Akimel), Arizona: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of 
     $162,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $105,200,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $56,900,000.
       (7) May branch, fort smith, arkansas.--The project for 
     flood damage reduction, May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas, 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at 
     a

[[Page H3612]]

     total cost of $30,850,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $15,010,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,840,000.
       (8) Hamilton city, california.--The project for flood 
     damage reduction and environmental restoration, Hamilton 
     City, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
     December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $52,400,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $34,100,000 and estimated non-
     Federal cost of $18,300,000.
       (9) Imperial beach, california.--The project for storm 
     damage reduction, Imperial Beach, California: Report of the 
     Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost 
     of $13,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,521,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,179,000, and at an 
     estimated total cost of $42,500,000 for periodic beach 
     nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $21,250,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $21,250,000.
       (10) Matilija dam, ventura county, california.--The project 
     for environmental restoration, Matilija Dam, Ventura County, 
     California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 
     20, 2004, at a total cost of $144,500,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $89,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $54,800,000.
       (11) Middle creek, lake county, california.--The project 
     for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, 
     Middle Creek, Lake County, California: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of 
     $45,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $29,500,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,700,000.
       (12) Napa river salt marsh restoration, california.--
       (A) In general.--The project for environmental restoration, 
     Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa, California: Report 
     of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total 
     cost of $134,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $87,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $47,000,000.
       (B) Administration.--In carrying out the project authorized 
     by this paragraph, the Secretary shall--
       (i) construct a recycled water pipeline extending from the 
     Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Waste Water 
     Treatment Plant and the Napa Sanitation District Waste Water 
     Treatment Plant to the project; and
       (ii) restore or enhance Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 3.
       (13) Denver county reach, south platte river, denver, 
     colorado.--The project for environmental restoration, Denver 
     County Reach, South Platte River, Denver, Colorado: Report of 
     the Chief of Engineers dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost of 
     $21,050,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,680,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,370,000.
       (14) Miami harbor, miami-dade county, florida.--
       (A) In general.--The project for navigation, Miami Harbor, 
     Miami-Dade County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated April 25, 2005, at a total cost of $125,270,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $75,140,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $50,130,000.
       (B) General reevaluation report.--The non-Federal share of 
     the cost of the general reevaluation report that resulted in 
     the report of the Chief of Engineers referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be the same percentage as the non-
     Federal share of cost of construction of the project.
       (C) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into a new 
     partnership with the non-Federal interest to reflect the cost 
     sharing required by subparagraph (B).
       (15) East st. louis and vicinity, illinois.--The project 
     for environmental restoration and recreation, East St. Louis 
     and Vicinity, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $208,260,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $134,910,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $73,350,000.
       (16) Peoria riverfront development, illinois.--The project 
     for environmental restoration, Peoria Riverfront Development, 
     Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 28, 
     2003, at a total cost of $18,220,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $11,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $6,380,000.
       (17) Wood river levee system reconstruction, madison 
     county, illinois.--The project for flood damage reduction, 
     Wood River Levee System Reconstruction, Madison County, 
     Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 18, 
     2006, at a total cost of $17,220,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $11,193,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $6,027,000.
       (18) Des moines and raccoon rivers, des moines, iowa.--The 
     project for flood damage reduction, Des Moines and Raccoon 
     Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated March 28, 2006, at a total cost of $10,780,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $6,967,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $3,813,000.
       (19) Licking river basin, cynthiana, kentucky.--The project 
     for flood damage reduction, Licking River Basin, Cynthiana, 
     Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 
     2006, at a total cost of $18,200,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $11,830,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $6,370,000.
       (20) Bayou sorrel lock, louisiana.--The project for 
     navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana: Report of the Chief 
     of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of 
     $9,680,000. The costs of construction of the project are to 
     be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the general fund 
     of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the 
     Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
       (21) Morganza to the gulf of mexico, louisiana.--
       (A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Reports 
     of the Chief of Engineers dated August 23, 2002, and July 22, 
     2003, at a total cost of $886,700,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $576,355,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
     cost of $310,345,000.
       (B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design 
     and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
     if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.
       (22) Port of iberia, louisiana.--The project for 
     navigation, Port of Iberia, Louisiana, Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of 
     $131,250,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $105,315,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,935,000.
       (23) Smith island, somerset county, maryland.--The project 
     for environmental restoration, Smith Island, Somerset County, 
     Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 29, 
     2001, at a total cost of $15,580,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $10,127,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $5,453,000.
       (24) Roseau river, roseau, minnesota.--The project for 
     flood damage reduction, Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota, 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at 
     a total cost of $25,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $13,820,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $11,280,000.
       (25) Mississippi coastal, mississippi.--The project for 
     hurricane and storm damage reduction and environmental 
     restoration, Mississippi Coastal, Mississippi, Report of the 
     Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost 
     of $107,690,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $70,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $37,690,000.
       (26) Kansas citys levees, missouri and kansas.--The project 
     for flood damage reduction, Kansas Citys levees, Missouri and 
     Kansas, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 
     2006, at a total cost of $65,430,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $42,530,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $22,900,000.
       (27) Swope park industrial area, blue river, kansas city, 
     missouri.--The project for flood damage reduction, Swope Park 
     Industrial Area, Blue River, Kansas City, Missouri: Report of 
     the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total 
     cost of $16,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $11,037,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,943,000.
       (28) Great egg harbor inlet to townsends inlet, new 
     jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction, Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New 
     Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 
     2006, at a total cost of $54,360,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $35,069,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $19,291,000, and at an estimated total cost of 
     $202,500,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life 
     of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $101,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $101,250,000.
       (29) Hudson raritan estuary, liberty state park, new 
     jersey.--
       (A) In general.--The project for environmental restoration, 
     Hudson Raritan Estuary, Liberty State Park, New Jersey: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 25, 2006, at a 
     total cost of $34,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $22,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,900,000.
       (B) Restoration teams.--In carrying out the project, the 
     Secretary shall establish and utilize watershed restoration 
     teams composed of estuary restoration experts from the Corps 
     of Engineers, the New Jersey department of environmental 
     protection, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 
     and other experts designated by the Secretary for the purpose 
     of developing habitat restoration and water quality 
     enhancement.
       (30) Manasquan inlet to barnegat inlet, new jersey.--The 
     project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Manasquan 
     Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of 
     $71,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $46,735,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,165,000, and at an 
     estimated total cost of $119,680,000 for periodic beach 
     nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $59,840,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $59,840,000.
       (31) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, union beach, new 
     jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, New 
     Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 4, 
     2006, at a total cost of $115,000,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $74,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $40,200,000, and at an estimated total cost of $6,500,000 
     for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the 
     project, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,250,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $3,250,000.
       (32) South river, raritan river basin, new jersey.--The 
     project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and 
     environmental restoration, South River, Raritan River Basin, 
     New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 
     2003, at a total cost of $122,300,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $79,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $42,800,000.
       (33) Southwest valley, bernalillo county, new mexico.--The 
     project for flood damage reduction, Southwest Valley, 
     Bernalillo County, New Mexico: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of 
     $24,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,150,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,690,000.
       (34) Montauk point, new york.--The project for hurricane 
     and storm damage reduction, Montauk Point, New York: Report 
     of the Chief of Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at a total 
     cost of $14,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $7,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,300,000.

[[Page H3613]]

       (35) Hocking river, monday creek sub-basin, ohio.--The 
     project for environmental restoration, Hocking River, Monday 
     Creek Sub-basin, Ohio: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
     August 24, 2006, at a total cost of $20,980,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $13,440,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $7,540,000.
       (36) Town of bloomsburg, columbia county, pennsylvania.--
     The project for flood damage reduction, town of Bloomsburg, 
     Columbia County, Pennsylvania: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated January 25, 2006, at a total cost of 
     $44,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $28,925,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,575,000.
       (37) Pawley's island, south carolina.--The project for 
     hurricane and storm damage reduction, Pawley's Island, South 
     Carolina, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 
     2006, at a total cost of $8,980,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $5,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $3,140,000, and at an estimated total cost of $21,200,000 
     for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the 
     project, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,600,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $10,600,000.
       (38) Corpus christi ship channel, corpus christi, texas.--
     The project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Corpus 
     Christi Ship Channel, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated June 2, 2003, at a total cost of $188,110,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $87,810,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $100,300,000.
       (39) Gulf intracoastal waterway, matagorda bay re-route, 
     texas.--The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal 
     Waterway, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief 
     of Engineers dated December 24, 2002, at a total cost of 
     $17,280,000. The costs of construction of the project are to 
     be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the general fund 
     of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the 
     Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
       (40) Gulf intracoastal waterway, high island to brazos 
     river, texas.--The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal 
     Waterway, High Island to Brazos River, Texas: Report of the 
     Chief of Engineers dated April 16, 2004, at a total cost of 
     $14,450,000. The costs of construction of the project are to 
     be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the general fund 
     of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the 
     Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
       (41) Lower colorado river basin phase i, texas.--The 
     project for flood damage reduction and environmental 
     restoration, Lower Colorado River Basin Phase I, Texas, 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at 
     a total cost of $110,730,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $69,640,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $41,090,000.
       (42) Atlantic intracoastal waterway bridge replacement, 
     deep creek, chesapeake, virginia.--The project for Atlantic 
     Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep Creek, 
     Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
     March 3, 2003, at a total cost of $37,200,000.
       (43) Craney island eastward expansion, norfolk harbor and 
     channels, virginia.--The project for navigation, Craney 
     Island Eastward Expansion, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, 
     Virginia: Report of Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 
     2006, at a total cost of $712,103,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $31,229,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $680,874,000.

     SEC. 1002. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for 
     each of the following projects and, if the Secretary 
     determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the 
     project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 
     (33 U.S.C. 701s):
       (1) Haleyville, alabama.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Haleyville, Alabama.
       (2) Weiss lake, alabama.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Weiss Lake, Alabama.
       (3) Little colorado river levee, arizona.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Little Colorado River Levee, Arizona.
       (4) Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.
       (5) Barrel springs wash, palmdale, california.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Barrel Springs Wash, Palmdale, 
     California.
       (6) Borrego springs, california.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Borrego Springs, California.
       (7) Colton, california.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Colton, California.
       (8) Dunlap stream, yucaipa, california.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Dunlap Stream, Yucaipa, California.
       (9) Hunts canyon wash, palmdale, california.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Hunts Canyon Wash, Palmdale, 
     California.
       (10) Ontario and chino, california.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Ontario and Chino, California.
       (11) Santa venetia, california.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Santa Venetia, California.
       (12) Whittier, california.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Whittier, California.
       (13) Wildwood creek, yucaipa, california.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Wildwood Creek, Yucaipa, California.
       (14) St. francisville, lousiana.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, St. Francisville, Louisiana.
       (15) Salem, massachusetts.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Salem, Massachusetts.
       (16) Cass river, michigan.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Cass River, Vassar and vicinity, Michigan.
       (17) Crow river, rockford, minnesota.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Crow River, Rockford, Minnesota.
       (18) Marsh creek, minnesota.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Marsh Creek, Minnesota.
       (19) South branch of the wild rice river, borup, 
     minnesota.--Project for flood damage reduction, South Branch 
     of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota.
       (20) Blacksnake creek, st. joseph, missouri.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, 
     Missouri.
       (21) Acid brook, pompton lakes, new jersey.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New 
     Jersey.
       (22) Cannisteo river, addison, new york.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Cannisteo River, Addison, New York.
       (23) Cohocton river, campbell, new york.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Cohocton River, Campbell, New York.
       (24) Dry and otter creeks, cortland, new york.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Dry and Otter Creeks, Cortland, New 
     York.
       (25) East river, silver beach, new york city, new york.--
     Project for flood damage reduction, East River, Silver Beach, 
     New York City, New York.
       (26) East valley creek, andover, new york.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, East Valley Creek, Andover, New York.
       (27) Sunnyside brook, westchester county, new york.--
     Project for flood damage reduction, Sunnyside Brook, 
     Westchester County, New York.
       (28) Little yankee run, ohio.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Little Yankee Run, Ohio.
       (29) Little neshaminy creek, warrenton, pennsylvania.--
     Project for flood damage reduction, Little Neshaminy Creek, 
     Warrenton, Pennsylvania.
       (30) Southampton creek watershed, southampton, 
     pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction, 
     Southampton Creek watershed, Southampton, Pennsylvania.
       (31) Spring creek, lower macungie township, pennsylvania.--
     Project for flood damage reduction, Spring Creek, Lower 
     Macungie Township, Pennsylvania.
       (32) Yardley aqueduct, silver and brock creeks, yardley, 
     pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction, Yardley 
     Aqueduct, Silver and Brock Creeks, Yardley, Pennsylvania.
       (33) Surfside beach, south carolina.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Surfside Beach and vicinity, South 
     Carolina.
       (34) Congelosi ditch, missouri city, texas.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Congelosi Ditch, Missouri City, 
     Texas.
       (35) Dilley, texas.--Project for flood damage reduction, 
     Dilley, Texas.
       (b) Special Rules.--
       (1) Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas.--The Secretary may 
     proceed with the project for the Cache River Basin, Grubbs, 
     Arkansas, referred to in subsection (a), notwithstanding that 
     the project is located within the boundaries of the flood 
     control project, Cache River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, 
     authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950, 
     (64 Stat. 172) and modified by section 99 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 41).
       (2) Ontario and chino, california.--The Secretary shall 
     carry out the project for flood damage reduction, Ontario and 
     Chino, California, referred to in subsection (a) if the 
     Secretary determines that the project is feasible.
       (3) Santa venetia, california.--The Secretary shall carry 
     out the project for flood damage reduction, Santa Venetia, 
     California, referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary 
     determines that the project is feasible and shall allow the 
     non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the 
     project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the 
     extent that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that 
     applying such section is necessary to implement the project.
       (4) Whittier, california.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     the project for flood damage reduction, Whittier, California, 
     referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary determines 
     that the project is feasible.
       (5) South branch of the wild rice river, borup, 
     minnesota.--In carrying out the project for flood damage 
     reduction, South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup, 
     Minnesota, referred to in subsection (a) the Secretary may 
     consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in 
     determining the Federal interest in the project and shall 
     allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the 
     financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) 
     to the extent that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that 
     applying such section is necessary to implement the project.
       (6) Acid brook, pompton lakes, new jersey.--The Secretary 
     shall carry out the project for flood damage reduction, Acid 
     Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, referred to in subsection 
     (a) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.
       (7) Dilley, texas.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
     project for flood damage reduction, Dilley, Texas, referred 
     to in subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that the 
     project is feasible.

     SEC. 1003. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK 
                   PROTECTION.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 
     14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
       (1) St. johns bluff training wall, duval county, florida.--
     Project for emergency streambank protection, St. Johns Bluff 
     Training Wall, Duval County, Florida.
       (2) Gulf intracoastal waterway, iberville parish, 
     louisiana.--Projects for emergency streambank restoration, 
     Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.

[[Page H3614]]

       (3) Ouachita and black rivers, arkansas and louisiana.--
     Projects for emergency streambank protection, Ouachita and 
     Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana.
       (4) Piney point lighthouse, st. mary's county, maryland.--
     Project for emergency streambank protection, Piney Point 
     Lighthouse, St. Mary's County, Maryland.
       (5) Pug hole lake, minnesota.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Pug Hole Lake, Minnesota.
       (6) Middle fork grand river, gentry county, missouri.--
     Project for emergency streambank protection, Middle Fork 
     Grand River, Gentry County, Missouri.
       (7) Platte river, platte city, missouri.--Project for 
     emergency streambank protection, Platte River, Platte City, 
     Missouri.
       (8) Rush creek, parkville, missouri.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Rush Creek, Parkville, Missouri, 
     including measures to address degradation of the creek bed.
       (9) Dry and otter creeks, cortland county, new york.--
     Project for emergency streambank protection, Dry and Otter 
     Creeks, Cortland County, New York.
       (10) Keuka lake, hammondsport, new york.--Project for 
     emergency streambank protection, Keuka Lake, Hammondsport, 
     New York.
       (11) Kowawese unique area and hudson river, new windsor, 
     new york.--Project for emergency streambank protection, 
     Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York.
       (12) Owego creek, tioga county, new york.--Project for 
     emergency streambank protection, Owego Creek, Tioga County, 
     New York.
       (13) Howard road outfall, shelby county, tennessee.--
     Project for emergency streambank protection, Howard Road 
     outfall, Shelby County, Tennessee.
       (14) Mitch farm ditch and lateral d, shelby county, 
     tennessee.--Project for emergency streambank protection, 
     Mitch Farm Ditch and Lateral D, Shelby County, Tennessee.
       (15) Wolf river tributaries, shelby county, tennessee.--
     Project for emergency streambank protection, Wolf River 
     tributaries, Shelby County, Tennessee.
       (16) Johnson creek, arlington, texas.--Project for 
     emergency streambank protection, Johnson Creek, Arlington, 
     Texas.
       (17) Wells river, newbury, vermont.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Wells River, Newbury, Vermont.

     SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for 
     each of the following projects and, if the Secretary 
     determines that a 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) Mississippi river ship channel, louisiana.--Project for 
     navigation, Mississippi River Ship Channel, Louisiana.
       (2) East basin, cape cod canal, sandwich, massachusetts.--
     Project for navigation, East Basin, Cape Cod Canal, Sandwich, 
     Massachusetts.
       (3) Lynn harbor, lynn, massachusetts.--Project for 
     navigation, Lynn Harbor, Lynn, Massachusetts.
       (4) Merrimack river, haverhill, massachusetts.--Project for 
     navigation, Merrimack River, Haverhill, Massachusetts.
       (5) Oak bluffs harbor, oak bluffs, massachusetts.--Project 
     for navigation, Oak Bluffs Harbor, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.
       (6) Woods hole great harbor, falmouth, massachusetts.--
     Project for navigation, Woods Hole Great Harbor, Falmouth, 
     Massachusetts.
       (7) Au sable river, michigan.--Project for navigation, Au 
     Sable River in the vicinity of Oscoda, Michigan.
       (8) Traverse city harbor, traverse city, michigan.--Project 
     for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Traverse City, 
     Michigan.
       (9) Tower harbor, tower, minnesota.--Project for 
     navigation, Tower Harbor, Tower, Minnesota.
       (10) Olcott harbor, olcott, new york.--Project for 
     navigation, Olcott Harbor, Olcott, New York.
       (b) Special Rules.--
       (1) Traverse city harbor, traverse city, michigan.--The 
     Secretary shall review the locally prepared plan for the 
     project for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Michigan, 
     referred to in subsection (a), and, if the Secretary 
     determines that the plan meets the evaluation and design 
     standards of the Corps of Engineers and that the plan is 
     feasible, the Secretary may use the plan to carry out the 
     project and shall provide credit toward the non-Federal share 
     of the cost of the project for the cost of work carried out 
     by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 
     partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.
       (2) Tower harbor, tower minnesota.--The Secretary shall 
     carry out the project for navigation, Tower Harbor, Tower, 
     Minnesota, referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary 
     determines that the project is feasible.

     SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF 
                   THE ENVIRONMENT.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is appropriate, may carry out the project under 
     section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2309a):
       (1) Ballona creek, los angeles county, california.--Project 
     for improvement of the quality of the environment, Ballona 
     Creek, Los Angeles County, California.
       (2) Ballona lagoon tide gates, marina del rey, 
     california.--Project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Ballona Lagoon Tide Gates, Marina Del Rey, 
     California.
       (3) Ft. george inlet, duval county, florida.--Project for 
     improvement of the quality of the environment, Ft. George 
     Inlet, Duval County, Florida.
       (4) Rathbun lake, iowa.--Project for improvement of the 
     quality of the environment, Rathbun Lake, Iowa.
       (5) Smithville lake, missouri.--Project for improvement of 
     the quality of the environment, Smithville Lake, Missouri.
       (6) Delaware bay, new jersey and delaware.--Project for 
     improvement of the quality of the environment, Delaware Bay, 
     New Jersey and Delaware, for the purpose of oyster 
     restoration.
       (7) Tioga-hammond lakes, pennsylvania.--Project for 
     improvement of the quality of the environment, Tioga-Hammond 
     Lakes, Pennsylvania.

     SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for 
     each of the following projects and, if the Secretary 
     determines that a project is appropriate, may carry out the 
     project under section 206 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):
       (1) Cypress creek, montgomery, alabama.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cypress Creek, Montgomery, 
     Alabama.
       (2) Black lake, alaska.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Black Lake, Alaska, at the head of the Chignik 
     watershed.
       (3) Ben lomond dam, santa cruz, california.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, Ben Lomond Dam, Santa Cruz, 
     California.
       (4) Dockweiler bluffs, los angeles county, california.--
     Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Dockweiler Bluffs, 
     Los Angeles County, California.
       (5) Salt river, california.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Salt River, California.
       (6) Santa rosa creek, santa rosa, california.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, Santa Rosa Creek in the 
     vicinity of the Prince Memorial Greenway, Santa Rosa, 
     California.
       (7) Stockton deep water ship channel and lower san joaquin 
     river, california.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and lower San 
     Joaquin River, California.
       (8) Sweetwater reservoir, san diego county, california.--
     Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sweetwater 
     Reservoir, San Diego County, California, including efforts to 
     address aquatic nuisance species.
       (9) Biscayne bay, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Biscayne Bay, Key Biscayne, Florida.
       (10) Clam bayou and dinkins bayou, sanibel island, 
     florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Clam 
     Bayou and Dinkins Bayou, Sanibel Island, Florida.
       (11) Chattahoochee fall line, georgia and alabama.--Project 
     for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chattahoochee Fall Line, 
     Georgia and Alabama.
       (12) Longwood cove, gainesville, georgia.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, Longwood Cove, Gainesville, 
     Georgia.
       (13) City park, university lakes, louisiana.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, City Park, University Lakes, 
     Louisiana.
       (14) Mill pond, littleton, massachusetts.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mill Pond, Littleton, 
     Massachusetts.
       (15) Pine tree brook, milton, massachusetts.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pine Tree Brook, Milton, 
     Massachusetts.
       (16) Rush lake, minnesota.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Rush Lake, Minnesota.
       (17) South fork of the crow river, hutchinson, minnesota.--
     Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, South Fork of the 
     Crow River, Hutchinson, Minnesota.
       (18) St. louis, missouri.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, St. Louis, Missouri.
       (19) Truckee river, reno, nevada.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Truckee River, Reno, Nevada, including 
     features for fish passage for Washoe County.
       (20) Grover's mill pond, new jersey.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Grover's Mill Pond, New Jersey.
       (21) Dugway creek, bratenahl, ohio.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Dugway Creek, Bratenahl, Ohio.
       (22) Johnson creek, gresham, oregon.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Johnson Creek, Gresham, Oregon.
       (23) Beaver creek, beaver and salem, pennsylvania.--Project 
     for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Beaver Creek, Beaver and 
     Salem, Pennsylvania.
       (24) Cementon dam, lehigh river, pennsylvania.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cementon Dam, Lehigh River, 
     Pennsylvania.
       (25) Saucon creek, northampton county, pennsylvania.--
     Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Saucon Creek, 
     Northampton County, Pennsylvania.
       (26) Blackstone river, rhode island.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River, Rhode Island.
       (27) Wilson branch, cheraw, south carolina.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wilson Branch, Cheraw, South 
     Carolina.
       (28) White river, bethel, vermont.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, White River, Bethel, Vermont.
       (b) Special Rule.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
     project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Black Lake, Alaska 
     referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary determines 
     that the project is feasible.

     SEC. 1007. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, if the Secretary

[[Page H3615]]

     determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the 
     project under section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting 
     the shores of publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 
     1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g):
       (1) Nelson lagoon, alaska.--Project for shoreline 
     protection, Nelson Lagoon, Alaska.
       (2) Sanibel island, florida.--Project for shoreline 
     protection, Sanibel Island, Florida.
       (3) Apra harbor, guam.--Project for shoreline protection, 
     Apra Harbor, Guam.
       (4) Piti, cabras island, guam.--Project for shoreline 
     protection, Piti, Cabras Island, Guam.
       (5) Narrows and gravesend bay, upper new york bay, 
     brooklyn, new york.--Project for shoreline protection in the 
     vicinity of the confluence of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay, 
     Upper New York Bay, Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New 
     York.
       (6) Delaware river, philadelphia naval shipyard, 
     pennsylvania.--Project for shoreline protection, Delaware 
     River in the vicinity of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, 
     Pennsylvania.
       (7) Port aransas, texas.--Project for shoreline protection, 
     Port Aransas, Texas.

     SEC. 1008. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following 
     project and, if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project under 
     section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937 (33 
     U.S.C. 701g): Project for removal of snags and clearing and 
     straightening of channels for flood control, Kowawese Unique 
     Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 2001. NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2213) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(n) Non-Federal Contributions.--
       ``(1) Prohibition on solicitation of excess 
     contributions.--The Secretary may not--
       ``(A) solicit contributions from non-Federal interests for 
     costs of constructing authorized water resources projects or 
     measures in excess of the non-Federal share assigned to the 
     appropriate project purposes listed in subsections (a), (b), 
     and (c); or
       ``(B) condition Federal participation in such projects or 
     measures on the receipt of such contributions.
       ``(2) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to affect the Secretary's 
     authority under section 903(c).''.

     SEC. 2002. HARBOR COST SHARING.

       (a) Payments During Construction.--Section 101(a)(1) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2211(a)(1); 100 Stat. 4082) is amended in each of 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) by striking ``45 feet'' and 
     inserting ``53 feet''.
       (b) Operation and Maintenance.--Section 101(b)(1) of such 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 2211(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``45 feet'' 
     and inserting ``53 feet''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 214 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2241; 
     100 Stat. 4108) is amended in each of paragraphs (1) and (3) 
     by striking ``45 feet'' and inserting ``53 feet''.
       (d) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsections (a), 
     (b), and (c) shall apply only to a project, or separable 
     element of a project, on which a contract for physical 
     construction has not been awarded before October 1, 2003.
       (e) Revision of Partnership Agreement.--The Secretary shall 
     revise any partnership agreement entered into after October 
     1, 2003, for any project to which the amendments made by 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) apply to take into account the 
     change in non-Federal participation in the project as a 
     result of such amendments.

     SEC. 2003. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

       Section 214(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594; 117 Stat. 1836; 
     119 Stat. 2169; 120 Stat. 318; 120 Stat. 3197) is amended by 
     striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2010''.

     SEC. 2004. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension of Program.--Section 5(a) of the Act entitled 
     ``An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of 
     protecting the shores of publicly owned property'', approved 
     August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426h(a)), is amended by striking 
     ``7 years'' and inserting ``10 years''.
       (b) Extension of Planning, Design, and Construction 
     Phase.--Section 5(b)(1)(A) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
     426h(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``3 years'' and 
     inserting ``6 years''.
       (c) Cost Sharing; Removal of Projects.--Section 5(b) of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 426h(b)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (6), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Cost sharing.--The Secretary may enter into a cost 
     sharing agreement with a non-Federal interest to carry out a 
     project, or a phase of a project, under the erosion control 
     program in cooperation with the non-Federal interest.
       ``(4) Removal of projects.--The Secretary may pay all or a 
     portion of the costs of removing a project, or an element of 
     a project, constructed under the erosion control program if 
     the Secretary determines during the term of the program that 
     the project or element is detrimental to the environment, 
     private property, or public safety.''.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 5(e)(2) of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 426h(e)(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``$25,000,000'' and inserting ``$31,000,000''.

     SEC. 2005. SMALL SHORE AND BEACH RESTORATION AND PROTECTION 
                   PROJECTS.

       Section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal 
     participation in the cost of protecting the shores of 
     publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 
     U.S.C. 426g), is amended by striking ``$3,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$5,000,000''.

     SEC. 2006. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       Section 206(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) is amended by striking ``$25,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$40,000,000''.

     SEC. 2007. SMALL FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.

       Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s) is amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$60,000,000''.

     SEC. 2008. MODIFICATION OF PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE 
                   QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

       Section 1135(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(h)) is amended by striking 
     ``$25,000,000'' and inserting ``$30,000,000''.

     SEC. 2009. WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Sec. 221'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 221. WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES 
                   PROJECTS.'';

       (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Cooperation of Non-Federal Interest.--
       ``(1) In general.--After December 31, 1970, the 
     construction of any water resources project, or an acceptable 
     separable element thereof, by the Secretary of the Army, 
     acting through the Chief of Engineers, or by a non-Federal 
     interest where such interest will be reimbursed for such 
     construction under any provision of law, shall not be 
     commenced until each non-Federal interest has entered into a 
     written partnership agreement with the Secretary (or, where 
     appropriate, the district engineer for the district in which 
     the project will be carried out) under which each party 
     agrees to carry out its responsibilities and requirements for 
     implementation or construction of the project or the 
     appropriate element of the project, as the case may be; 
     except that no such agreement shall be required if the 
     Secretary determines that the administrative costs associated 
     with negotiating, executing, or administering the agreement 
     would exceed the amount of the contribution required from the 
     non-Federal interest and are less than $25,000.
       ``(2) Liquidated damages.--A partnership agreement 
     described in paragraph (1) may include a provision for 
     liquidated damages in the event of a failure of one or more 
     parties to perform.
       ``(3) Obligation of future appropriations.--In any 
     partnership agreement described in paragraph (1) and entered 
     into by a State, or a body politic of the State which derives 
     its powers from the State constitution, or a governmental 
     entity created by the State legislature, the agreement may 
     reflect that it does not obligate future appropriations for 
     such performance and payment when obligating future 
     appropriations would be inconsistent with constitutional or 
     statutory limitations of the State or a political subdivision 
     of the State.
       ``(4) Credit for in-kind contributions.--
       ``(A) In general.--A partnership agreement described in 
     paragraph (1) may provide with respect to a project that the 
     Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of the project, including a project implemented without 
     specific authorization in law, the value of in-kind 
     contributions made by the non-Federal interest, 
     including--
       ``(i) the costs of planning (including data collection), 
     design, management, mitigation, construction, and 
     construction services that are provided by the non-Federal 
     interest for implementation of the project;
       ``(ii) the value of materials or services provided before 
     execution of the partnership agreement, including efforts on 
     constructed elements incorporated into the project; and
       ``(iii) the value of materials and services provided after 
     execution of the partnership agreement.
       ``(B) Condition.--The Secretary shall credit an in-kind 
     contribution under subparagraph (A) if the Secretary 
     determines that the material or service provided as an in-
     kind contribution is integral to the project.
       ``(C) Work performed before partnership agreement.--In any 
     case in which the non-Federal interest is to receive credit 
     under subparagraph (A)(ii) for the cost of work carried out 
     by the non-Federal interest and such work has not been 
     carried out as of the date of enactment of this subparagraph, 
     the Secretary and the non-Federal interest shall enter into 
     an agreement under which the non-Federal interest shall carry 
     out such work, and only work carried out following the 
     execution of the agreement shall be eligible for credit.
       ``(D) Limitations.--Credit authorized under this paragraph 
     for a project--
       ``(i) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project;
       ``(ii) shall not alter any other requirement that a non-
     Federal interest provide lands, easements or rights-of-way, 
     or areas for disposal of dredged material for the project;
       ``(iii) shall not alter any requirement that a non-Federal 
     interest pay a portion of the costs of construction of the 
     project under sections 101 and 103 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211; 33 U.S.C. 2213); and
       ``(iv) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of 
     the materials, services, or other things provided by the non-
     Federal interest, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(E) Applicability.--

[[Page H3616]]

       ``(i) In general.--This paragraph shall apply to water 
     resources projects authorized after November 16, 1986, 
     including projects initiated after November 16, 1986, without 
     specific authorization in law.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--In any case in which a specific 
     provision of law provides for a non-Federal interest to 
     receive credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a 
     study for, or construction or operation and maintenance of, a 
     water resources project, the specific provision of law shall 
     apply instead of this paragraph.''.
       (b) Non-Federal Interest.--Section 221(b) of such Act is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Definition of Non-Federal Interest.--The term `non-
     Federal interest' means a legally constituted public body 
     (including a federally recognized Indian tribe), and a 
     nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local 
     government, that has full authority and capability to perform 
     the terms of its agreement and to pay damages, if necessary, 
     in the event of failure to perform.''.
       (c) Program Administration.--Section 221 of such Act is 
     further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (h); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Delegation of Authority.--Not later than September 
     30, 2008, the Secretary shall issue policies and guidelines 
     for partnership agreements that delegate to the district 
     engineers, at a minimum--
       ``(1) the authority to approve any policy in a partnership 
     agreement that has appeared in an agreement previously 
     approved by the Secretary;
       ``(2) the authority to approve any policy in a partnership 
     agreement the specific terms of which are dictated by law or 
     by a final feasibility study, final environmental impact 
     statement, or other final decision document for a water 
     resources project;
       ``(3) the authority to approve any partnership agreement 
     that complies with the policies and guidelines issued by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(4) the authority to sign any partnership agreement for 
     any water resources project unless, within 30 days of the 
     date of authorization of the project, the Secretary notifies 
     the district engineer in which the project will be carried 
     out that the Secretary wishes to retain the prerogative to 
     sign the partnership agreement for that project.
       ``(f) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, and every year 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report 
     detailing the following:
       ``(1) The number of partnership agreements signed by 
     district engineers and the number of partnership agreements 
     signed by the Secretary.
       ``(2) For any partnership agreement signed by the 
     Secretary, an explanation of why delegation to the district 
     engineer was not appropriate.
       ``(g) Public Availability.--Not later than 120 days after 
     the date of enactment of this subsection, the Chief of 
     Engineers shall--
       ``(1) ensure that each district engineer has made available 
     to the public, including on the Internet, all partnership 
     agreements entered into under this section within the 
     preceding 10 years and all partnership agreements for water 
     resources projects currently being carried out in that 
     district; and
       ``(2) make each partnership agreement entered into after 
     such date of enactment available to the public, including on 
     the Internet, not later than 7 days after the date on which 
     such agreement is entered into.''.
       (d) Local Cooperation.--Section 912(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (101 Stat. 4190) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``shall'' the first place it appears and 
     inserting ``may''; and
       (B) by striking the last sentence; and
       (2) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by inserting after ``injunction, for'' the following: 
     ``payment of damages or, for'';
       (B) by striking ``to collect a civil penalty imposed under 
     this section,''; and
       (C) by striking ``any civil penalty imposed under this 
     section,'' and inserting ``any damages,''.
       (e) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsections (a), 
     (b), and (d) only apply to partnership agreements entered 
     into after the date of enactment of this Act; except that, at 
     the request of a non-Federal interest for a project, the 
     district engineer for the district in which the project is 
     located may amend a project partnership agreement entered 
     into on or before such date and under which construction on 
     the project has not been initiated as of such date of 
     enactment for the purpose of incorporating such amendments.
       (f) Partnership and Cooperative Arrangements; References.--
       (1) In general.--A goal of agreements entered into under 
     section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
     1962d-5b) shall be to further partnership and cooperative 
     arrangements, and the agreements shall be referred to as 
     ``partnership agreements''.
       (2) References to cooperation agreements.--Any reference in 
     a law, regulation, document, or other paper of the United 
     States to a ``cooperation agreement'' or ``project 
     cooperation agreement'' shall be deemed to be a reference to 
     a ``partnership agreement'' or a ``project partnership 
     agreement'', respectively.
       (3) References to partnership agreements.--Any reference to 
     a ``partnership agreement'' or ``project partnership 
     agreement'' in this Act (other than this section) shall be 
     deemed to be a reference to a ``cooperation agreement'' or a 
     ``project cooperation agreement'', respectively.

     SEC. 2010. ASSISTANCE FOR REMEDIATION, RESTORATION, AND 
                   REUSE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may provide to State and 
     local governments assessment, planning, and design assistance 
     for remediation, environmental restoration, or reuse of areas 
     located within the boundaries of such State or local 
     governments where such remediation, environmental 
     restoration, or reuse will contribute to the improvement of 
     water quality or the conservation of water and related 
     resources of drainage basins and watersheds within the United 
     States.
       (b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 
     percent.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

     SEC. 2011. COMPILATION OF LAWS.

       (a) Compilation of Laws Enacted After November 8, 1966.--
     Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary and the Chief of Engineers shall prepare a 
     compilation of the laws of the United States relating to the 
     improvement of rivers and harbors, flood damage reduction, 
     beach and shoreline erosion, hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction, ecosystem and environmental restoration, and other 
     water resources development enacted after November 8, 1966, 
     and before January 1, 2008, and have such compilation printed 
     for the use of the Department of the Army, Congress, and the 
     general public.
       (b) Reprint of Laws Enacted Before November 8, 1966.--The 
     Secretary shall have the volumes containing the laws referred 
     to in subsection (a) enacted before November 8, 1966, 
     reprinted.
       (c) Index.--The Secretary shall include an index in each 
     volume compiled, and each volume reprinted, pursuant to this 
     section.
       (d) Congressional Copies.--Not later than December 1, 2008, 
     the Secretary shall transmit at least 25 copies of each 
     volume compiled, and of each volume reprinted, pursuant to 
     this section to each of the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
       (e) Availability.--The Secretary shall ensure that each 
     volume compiled, and each volume reprinted, pursuant to this 
     section are available through electronic means, including the 
     Internet.

     SEC. 2012. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL.

       Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2326a) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Dredged Material Facility.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into a 
     partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) with one or more non-Federal 
     interests with respect to a water resources project, or group 
     of water resources projects within a geographic region, if 
     appropriate, for the acquisition, design, construction, 
     management, or operation of a dredged material processing, 
     treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal facility 
     (including any facility used to demonstrate potential 
     beneficial uses of dredged material, which may include 
     effective sediment contaminant reduction technologies) using 
     funds provided in whole or in part by the Federal Government.
       ``(2) Performance.--One or more of the parties to a 
     partnership agreement under this subsection may perform the 
     acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation 
     of a dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant 
     reduction, or disposal facility.
       ``(3) Multiple projects.--If a facility to which this 
     subsection applies serves to manage dredged material from 
     multiple water resources projects located in the geographic 
     region of the facility, the Secretary may combine portions of 
     such projects with appropriate combined costsharing between 
     the various projects in a partnership agreement for the 
     facility under this subsection.
       ``(4) Specified federal funding sources and cost sharing.--
       ``(A) Specified federal funding.--A partnership agreement 
     with respect to a facility under this subsection shall 
     specify--
       ``(i) the Federal funding sources and combined cost-sharing 
     when applicable to multiple water resources projects; and
       ``(ii) the responsibilities and risks of each of the 
     parties relating to present and future dredged material 
     managed by the facility.
       ``(B) Management of sediments.--
       ``(i) In general.--A partnership agreement under this 
     subsection may include the management of sediments from the 
     maintenance dredging of Federal water resources projects that 
     do not have partnership agreements.
       ``(ii) Payments.--A partnership agreement under this 
     subsection may allow the non-Federal interest to receive 
     reimbursable payments from the Federal Government for 
     commitments made by the non-Federal interest for disposal or 
     placement capacity at dredged material processing, treatment, 
     contaminant reduction, or disposal facilities.
       ``(C) Credit.--A partnership agreement under this 
     subsection may allow costs incurred by the non-Federal 
     interest before execution of the partnership agreement to be 
     credited in accordance with section 221(a)(4) of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4)).
       ``(5) Credit.--
       ``(A) Effect on existing agreements.--Nothing in this 
     subsection supersedes or modifies an agreement in effect on 
     the date of enactment of this paragraph between the Federal 
     Government and any non-Federal interest for the cost-sharing, 
     construction, and operation and maintenance of a water 
     resources project.

[[Page H3617]]

       ``(B) Credit for funds.--Subject to the approval of the 
     Secretary and in accordance with law (including regulations 
     and policies) in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph, a non-Federal interest for a water resources 
     project may receive credit for funds provided for the 
     acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation 
     of a dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant 
     reduction, or disposal facility to the extent the facility is 
     used to manage dredged material from the project.
       ``(C) Non-federal interest responsibilities.--A non-Federal 
     interest entering into a partnership agreement under this 
     subsection for a facility shall--
       ``(i) be responsible for providing all necessary lands, 
     easements, rights-of-way, and relocations associated with the 
     facility; and
       ``(ii) receive credit toward the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of the project with respect to which the agreement is 
     being entered into for those items.''; and
       (3) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of subsection (d) (as 
     redesignated by paragraph (1))--
       (A) by inserting ``and maintenance'' after ``operation'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (B) by inserting ``processing, treatment, contaminant 
     reduction, or'' after ``dredged material'' the first place it 
     appears in each of those paragraphs.

     SEC. 2013. WETLANDS MITIGATION.

       In carrying out a water resources project that involves 
     wetlands mitigation and that has impacts that occur within 
     the same watershed of a mitigation bank, the Secretary, to 
     the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, shall 
     first consider the use of the mitigation bank if the bank 
     contains sufficient available credits to offset the impact 
     and the bank is approved in accordance with the Federal 
     Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of 
     Mitigation Banks (60 Fed. Reg. 58605) or other applicable 
     Federal law (including regulations).

     SEC. 2014. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

       (a) Mitigation Plan Contents.--Section 906(d) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Contents.--A mitigation plan shall include--
       ``(A) a description of the physical action to be undertaken 
     to achieve the mitigation objectives within the watershed in 
     which such losses occur and, in any case in which mitigation 
     must take place outside the watershed, a justification 
     detailing the rationale for undertaking the mitigation 
     outside of the watershed;
       ``(B) a description of the lands or interests in lands to 
     be acquired for mitigation and the basis for a determination 
     that such lands are available for acquisition;
       ``(C) the type, amount, and characteristics of the habitat 
     being restored;
       ``(D) success criteria for mitigation based on replacement 
     of lost functions and values of the habitat, including 
     hydrologic and vegetative characteristics; and
       ``(E) a plan for any necessary monitoring to determine the 
     success of the mitigation, including the cost and duration of 
     any monitoring and, to the extent practicable, the entities 
     responsible for any monitoring.
       ``(4) Responsibility for monitoring.--In any case in which 
     it is not practicable to identify in a mitigation plan for a 
     water resources project, the entity responsible for 
     monitoring at the time of a final report of the Chief of 
     Engineers or other final decision document for the project, 
     such entity shall be identified in the partnership agreement 
     entered into with the non-Federal interest.''.
       (b) Status Report.--
       (1) In general.--Concurrent with the President's submission 
     to Congress of the President's request for appropriations for 
     the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     report on the status of construction of projects that require 
     mitigation under section 906 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283; 100 Stat. 4186) and 
     the status of such mitigation.
       (2) Projects included.--The status report shall include the 
     status of all projects that are under construction, all 
     projects for which the President requests funding for the 
     next fiscal year, and all projects that have completed 
     construction, but have not completed the mitigation required 
     under section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986.

     SEC. 2015. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS.

       (a) In General.--In conducting a study of harbor and 
     navigation improvements, the Secretary may recommend a 
     project without the need to demonstrate that the project is 
     justified solely by national economic development benefits if 
     the Secretary determines that--
       (1)(A) the community to be served by the project is at 
     least 70 miles from the nearest surface accessible commercial 
     port and has no direct rail or highway link to another 
     community served by a surface accessible port or harbor; or
       (B) the project would be located in the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, or American Samoa;
       (2) the harbor is economically critical such that over 80 
     percent of the goods transported through the harbor would be 
     consumed within the community served by the harbor and 
     navigation improvement; and
       (3) the long-term viability of the community would be 
     threatened without the harbor and navigation improvement.
       (b) Justification.--In considering whether to recommend a 
     project under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider 
     the benefits of the project to--
       (1) public health and safety of the local community, 
     including access to facilities designed to protect public 
     health and safety;
       (2) access to natural resources for subsistence purposes;
       (3) local and regional economic opportunities;
       (4) welfare of the local population; and
       (5) social and cultural value to the community.

     SEC. 2016. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

       (a) In General.--Section 204 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended by 
     striking subsections (c) through (g) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(c) In General.--The Secretary may carry out projects to 
     transport and place sediment obtained in connection with the 
     construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized 
     water resources project at locations selected by a non-
     Federal entity for use in the construction, repair, or 
     rehabilitation of projects determined by the Secretary to be 
     in the public interest and associated with navigation, flood 
     damage reduction, hydroelectric power, municipal and 
     industrial water supply, agricultural water supply, 
     recreation, hurricane and storm damage reduction, aquatic 
     plant control, and environmental protection and restoration.
       ``(d) Cooperative Agreement.--Any project undertaken 
     pursuant to this section shall be initiated only after non-
     Federal interests have entered into an agreement with the 
     Secretary in which the non-Federal interests agree to pay the 
     non-Federal share of the cost of construction of the project 
     and 100 percent of the cost of operation, maintenance, 
     replacement, and rehabilitation of the project in accordance 
     with section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
       ``(e) Special Rule.--Construction of a project under 
     subsection (a) for one or more of the purposes of protection, 
     restoration, or creation of aquatic and ecologically related 
     habitat, the cost of which does not exceed $750,000 and which 
     will be located in a disadvantaged community as determined by 
     the Secretary, may be carried out at Federal expense.
       ``(f) Determination of Construction Costs.--Costs 
     associated with construction of a project under this section 
     shall be limited solely to construction costs that are in 
     excess of those costs necessary to carry out the dredging for 
     construction, operation, or maintenance of the authorized 
     water resources project in the most cos- effective way, 
     consistent with economic, engineering, and environmental 
     criteria.
       ``(g) Selection of Sediment Disposal Method.--In developing 
     and carrying out a water resources project involving the 
     disposal of sediment, the Secretary may select, with the 
     consent of the non-Federal interest, a disposal method that 
     is not the least cost option if the Secretary determines that 
     the incremental costs of such disposal method are reasonable 
     in relation to the environmental benefits, including the 
     benefits to the aquatic environment to be derived from the 
     creation of wetlands and control of shoreline erosion. The 
     Federal share of such incremental costs shall be determined 
     in accordance with subsections (d) and (f).
       ``(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), 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.
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $30,000,000 annually for projects under 
     this section of which not more than $3,000,000 annually may 
     be used for construction of projects described in subsection 
     (e). Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       ``(j) Regional Sediment Management Planning.--In 
     consultation with appropriate State and Federal agencies, the 
     Secretary may develop, at Federal expense, plans for regional 
     management of sediment obtained in conjunction with the 
     construction, operation, or maintenance of water resources 
     projects, including potential beneficial uses of sediment for 
     construction, repair, or rehabilitation of public projects 
     for navigation, flood damage reduction, hydroelectric power, 
     municipal and industrial water supply, agricultural water 
     supply, recreation, hurricane and storm damage reduction, 
     aquatic plant control, and environmental protection and 
     restoration.
       ``(k) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) Non-federal interest.--The non-Federal interest for a 
     project described in this section may use, and the Secretary 
     shall accept, funds provided under any other Federal program, 
     to satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of such project if such funds are authorized to be used 
     to carry out such project.
       ``(2) Other federal agencies.--The non-Federal share of the 
     cost of construction of a project under this section may be 
     met through contributions from a Federal agency made directly 
     to the Secretary, with the consent of the affected local 
     government, if such funds are authorized to be used to carry 
     out such project. Before initiating a project to which this 
     paragraph applies, the Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with a non-Federal interest in which the non-
     Federal interest agrees to pay 100 percent of the cost of 
     operation, maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of 
     the project.''.
       (b) Repeal.--
       (1) In general.--Section 145 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is repealed.
       (2) Hold harmless.--The repeal made by paragraph (1) shall 
     not affect the authority of the Secretary to complete any 
     project being carried out under such section 145 on the day 
     before the date of enactment of this Act.

[[Page H3618]]

       (c) Priority Areas.--In carrying out section 204 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), the 
     Secretary shall give priority to the following:
       (1) A project at Little Rock Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas.
       (2) A project at Egmont Key, Florida.
       (3) A project in the vicinity of Calcasieu Ship Channel, 
     Louisiana.
       (4) A project in the vicinity of the Smith Point Park 
     Pavilion and the TWA Flight 800 Memorial, Brookhaven, New 
     York.
       (5) A project in the vicinity of Morehead City, North 
     Carolina.
       (6) A project in the vicinity of Galveston Bay, Texas.
       (7) A project at Benson Beach, Washington.

     SEC. 2017. COST-SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN AREAS.

       Section 1156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2310; 100 Stat. 4256) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 1156. COST-SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN AREAS.

       ``The Secretary shall waive local cost-sharing requirements 
     up to $500,000 for all studies and projects--
       ``(1) in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, 
     Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and 
     the United States Virgin Islands;
       ``(2) in Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of 
     title 18, United States Code, and including lands that are 
     within the jurisdictional area of an Oklahoma Indian tribe, 
     as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, and are 
     recognized by the Secretary of the Interior as eligible for 
     trust land status under part 151 of title 25, Code of Federal 
     Regulations); or
       ``(3) on land in the State of Alaska owned by an Alaska 
     Native Regional Corporation or an Alaska Native Village 
     Corporation (as those terms are defined in the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)) or the 
     Metlakatla Indian community.''.

     SEC. 2018. USE OF OTHER FEDERAL FUNDS.

       The non-Federal interest for a water resources study or 
     project may use, and the Secretary shall accept, funds 
     provided by a Federal agency under any other Federal program, 
     to satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of the study or project if such funds are authorized to 
     be used to carry out the study or project.

     SEC. 2019. REVISION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.

       Upon authorization by law of an increase in the maximum 
     amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for a water 
     resources project or an increase in the total cost of a water 
     resources project authorized to be carried out by the 
     Secretary, the Secretary shall revise the partnership 
     agreement for the project to take into account the change in 
     Federal participation in the project.

     SEC. 2020. COST SHARING.

       An increase in the maximum amount of Federal funds that may 
     be allocated for a water resources project, or an increase in 
     the total cost of a water resources project, authorized to be 
     carried out by the Secretary shall not affect any cost-
     sharing requirement applicable to the project.

     SEC. 2021. EXPEDITED ACTIONS FOR EMERGENCY FLOOD DAMAGE 
                   REDUCTION.

       The Secretary shall expedite any authorized planning, 
     design, and construction of any project for flood damage 
     reduction for an area that, within the preceding 5 years, has 
     been subject to flooding that resulted in the loss of life 
     and caused damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to 
     warrant a declaration of a major disaster by the President 
     under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).

     SEC. 2022. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 729 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a; 114 Stat. 2587-
     2588; 100 Stat. 4164) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
     inserting ``;''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio;
       ``(7) Sauk River Basin, Snohomish and Skagit Counties, 
     Washington;
       ``(8) Niagara River Basin, New York;
       ``(9) Genesee River Basin, New York; and
       ``(10) White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (f) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the 
     costs of an assessment carried out under this section on or 
     after December 11, 2000, shall be 25 percent.''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (g).
       (b) Revision of Partnership Agreement.--The Secretary shall 
     revise the partnership agreement for any assessment being 
     carried out under such section 729 to take into account the 
     change in non-Federal participation in the assessment as a 
     result of the amendments made by subsection (a).

     SEC. 2023. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Scope.--Section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269(b)(1)(B); 114 Stat. 
     2589) is amended by inserting after ``Code'' the following: 
     ``, and including lands that are within the jurisdictional 
     area of an Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined by the 
     Secretary of the Interior, and are recognized by the 
     Secretary of the Interior as eligible for trust land status 
     under part 151 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 203(e) of 
     such Act is amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
     ``2012''.

     SEC. 2024. WILDFIRE FIREFIGHTING.

       Section 309 of Public Law 102-154 (42 U.S.C. 1856a-1; 105 
     Stat. 1034) is amended by inserting ``the Secretary of the 
     Army,'' after ``the Secretary of Energy,''.

     SEC. 2025. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 
     (42 U.S.C. 1962d-16) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``(a) The Secretary'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) Federal State Cooperation.--
       ``(1) Comprehensive plans.--The Secretary'';
       (2) by inserting after the last sentence in subsection (a) 
     the following:
       ``(2) Technical assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--At the request of a governmental agency 
     or non-Federal interest, the Secretary may provide, at 
     Federal expense, technical assistance to such agency or non-
     Federal interest in managing water resources.
       ``(B) Types of assistance.--Technical assistance under this 
     paragraph may include provision and integration of 
     hydrologic, economic, and environmental data and analyses.'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``this section'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)'';
       (4) in subsection (b)(3) by striking ``Up to \1/2\ of the'' 
     and inserting ``The'';
       (5) in subsection (c) by striking ``(c) There is'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) Federal and state cooperation.--There is'';
       (6) in subsection (c)(1) (as designated by paragraph (5))--
       (A) by striking ``the provisions of this section'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (a)(1)''; and
       (B) by striking ``$500,000'' and inserting ``$1,000,000'';
       (7) by inserting at the end of subsection (c) the 
     following:
       ``(2) Technical assistance.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated $5,000,000 annually to carry out subsection 
     (a)(2), of which not more than $2,000,000 annually may be 
     used by the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements 
     with nonprofit organizations to provide assistance to rural 
     and small communities.'';
       (8) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (9) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Annual Submission of Proposed Activities.--Concurrent 
     with the President's submission to Congress of the 
     President's request for appropriations for the Civil Works 
     Program for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report describing the individual 
     activities proposed for funding under subsection (a)(1) for 
     that fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 2026. LAKES PROGRAM.

       Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 Stat. 295) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at end of paragraph (18);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (19) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois, removal of 
     silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive 
     sedimentation;
       ``(21) McCarter Pond, Borough of Fairhaven, New Jersey, 
     removal of silt and measures to address water quality;
       ``(22) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey, removal 
     of silt and restoration of structural integrity;
       ``(23) Greenwood Lake, New York and New Jersey, removal of 
     silt and aquatic growth;
       ``(24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal of 
     silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of structural 
     integrity; and
       ``(25) Lake Luxembourg, Pennsylvania.''.

     SEC. 2027. COORDINATION AND SCHEDULING OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND 
                   LOCAL ACTIONS.

       (a) Notice of Intent.--Upon request of the non-Federal 
     interest in the form of a written notice of intent to 
     construct or modify a non-Federal water supply, wastewater 
     infrastructure, flood damage reduction, storm damage 
     reduction, ecosystem restoration, or navigation project that 
     requires the approval of the Secretary, the Secretary shall 
     initiate, subject to subsection (g)(1), procedures to 
     establish a schedule for consolidating Federal, State, and 
     local agency and Indian tribe environmental assessments, 
     project reviews, and issuance of all permits for the 
     construction or modification of the project. The non-Federal 
     interest shall submit to the Secretary, with the notice of 
     intent, studies and documentation, including environmental 
     reviews, that may be required by Federal law for 
     decisionmaking on the proposed project. All States and Indian 
     tribes having jurisdiction over the proposed project shall be 
     invited by the Secretary, but shall not be required, to 
     participate in carrying out this section with respect to the 
     project.
       (b) Procedural Requirements.--Within 15 days after receipt 
     of notice under subsection (a), the Secretary shall publish 
     such notice in the Federal Register. The Secretary also shall 
     provide written notification of the receipt of a notice under 
     subsection (a) to all State and local agencies and Indian 
     tribes that may be required to issue permits for the 
     construction of the project or related activities. The 
     Secretary shall solicit the cooperation of those agencies and 
     request their entry into a memorandum of agreement described 
     in subsection (c) with respect to the project. Within 30 days 
     after publication of the notice in the Federal Register, 
     State and local agencies and Indian tribes that intend to 
     enter into the memorandum of agreement with respect to the 
     project shall notify the Secretary of their intent in 
     writing.

[[Page H3619]]

       (c) Scheduling Agreement.--Within 90 days after the date of 
     receipt of notice under subsection (a) with respect to a 
     project, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of 
     Commerce, and the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, as necessary, and any State or local 
     agencies that have notified the Secretary under subsection 
     (b) shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary 
     establishing a schedule of decisionmaking for approval of the 
     project and permits associated with the project and with 
     related activities.
       (d) Contents of Agreement.--An agreement entered into under 
     subsection (c) with respect to a project, to the extent 
     practicable, shall consolidate hearing and comment periods, 
     procedures for data collection and report preparation, and 
     the environmental review and permitting processes associated 
     with the project and related activities. The agreement shall 
     detail, to the extent possible, the non-Federal interest's 
     responsibilities for data development and information that 
     may be necessary to process each permit required for the 
     project, including a schedule when the information and data 
     will be provided to the appropriate Federal, State, or local 
     agency or Indian tribe.
       (e) Revision of Agreement.--The Secretary may revise an 
     agreement entered into under subsection (c) with respect to a 
     project once to extend the schedule to allow the non-Federal 
     interest the minimum amount of additional time necessary to 
     revise its original application to meet the objections of a 
     Federal, State, or local agency or Indian tribe that is a 
     party to the agreement.
       (f) Final Decision.--Not later than the final day of a 
     schedule established by an agreement entered into under 
     subsection (c) with respect to a project, the Secretary shall 
     notify the non-Federal interest of the final decision on the 
     project and whether the permit or permits have been issued.
       (g) Costs of Coordination.--The costs incurred by the 
     Secretary to establish and carry out a schedule to 
     consolidate Federal, State, and local agency and Indian tribe 
     environmental assessments, project reviews, and permit 
     issuance for a project under this section shall be paid by 
     the non-Federal interest.
       (h) Report on Timesavings Methods.--Not later than 3 years 
     after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary 
     shall prepare and transmit to Congress a report estimating 
     the time required for the issuance of all Federal, State, 
     local, and tribal permits for the construction of non-Federal 
     projects for water supply, wastewater infrastructure, flood 
     damage reduction, storm damage reduction, ecosystem 
     restoration, and navigation. The Secretary shall include in 
     that report recommendations for further reducing the amount 
     of time required for the issuance of those permits, including 
     any proposed changes in existing law.

     SEC. 2028. PROJECT STREAMLINING.

       (a) Policy.--The benefits of water resources projects are 
     important to the Nation's economy and environment, and 
     recommendations to Congress regarding such projects should 
     not be delayed due to uncoordinated or inefficient reviews or 
     the failure to timely resolve disputes during the development 
     of water resources projects.
       (b) Scope.--This section shall apply to each study 
     initiated after the date of enactment of this Act to develop 
     a feasibility report under section 905 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282), or a reevaluation 
     report, for a water resources project if the Secretary 
     determines that such study requires an environmental impact 
     statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (c) Water Resources Project Review Process.--The Secretary 
     shall develop and implement a coordinated review process for 
     the development of water resources projects.
       (d) Coordinated Reviews.--
       (1) In general.--The coordinated review process under this 
     section shall provide that all reviews, analyses, opinions, 
     permits, licenses, and approvals that must be issued or made 
     by a Federal, State, or local government agency or Indian 
     tribe for the development of a water resources project 
     described in subsection (b) will be conducted, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, concurrently and completed within a time 
     period established by the Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     agencies identified under subsection (e) with respect to the 
     project.
       (2) Agency participation.--Each Federal agency identified 
     under subsection (e) with respect to the development of a 
     water resources project shall formulate and implement 
     administrative policy and procedural mechanisms to enable the 
     agency to ensure completion of reviews, analyses, opinions, 
     permits, licenses, and approvals described in paragraph (1) 
     for the project in a timely and environmentally responsible 
     manner.
       (e) Identification of Jurisdictional Agencies.--With 
     respect to the development of each water resources project, 
     the Secretary shall identify, as soon as practicable all 
     Federal, State, and local government agencies and Indian 
     tribes that may--
       (1) have jurisdiction over the project;
       (2) be required by law to conduct or issue a review, 
     analysis, or opinion for the project; or
       (3) be required to make a determination on issuing a 
     permit, license, or approval for the project.
       (f) State Authority.--If the coordinated review process is 
     being implemented under this section by the Secretary with 
     respect to the development of a water resources project 
     described in subsection (b) within the boundaries of a State, 
     the State, consistent with State law, may choose to 
     participate in the process and to make subject to the process 
     all State agencies that--
       (1) have jurisdiction over the project;
       (2) are required to conduct or issue a review, analysis, or 
     opinion for the project; or
       (3) are required to make a determination on issuing a 
     permit, license, or approval for the project.
       (g) Memorandum of Understanding.--The coordinated review 
     process developed under this section may be incorporated into 
     a memorandum of understanding for a water resources project 
     between the Secretary, the heads of Federal, State, and local 
     government agencies, Indian tribes identified under 
     subsection (e), and the non-Federal interest for the project.
       (h) Effect of Failure to Meet Deadline.--
       (1) Notification of congress and ceq.--If the Secretary 
     determines that a Federal, State, or local government agency, 
     Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest that is participating 
     in the coordinated review process under this section with 
     respect to the development of a water resources project has 
     not met a deadline established under subsection (d) for the 
     project, the Secretary shall notify, within 30 days of the 
     date of such determination, the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, the 
     Council on Environmental Quality, and the agency, Indian 
     tribe, or non-Federal interest involved about the failure to 
     meet the deadline.
       (2) Agency report.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of receipt of a notice under paragraph (1), the Federal, 
     State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-
     Federal interest involved may submit a report to the 
     Secretary, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Environment 
     and Public Works of the Senate, and the Council on 
     Environmental Quality explaining why the agency, Indian 
     tribe, or non-Federal interest did not meet the deadline and 
     what actions it intends to take to complete or issue the 
     required review, analysis, or opinion or determination on 
     issuing a permit, license, or approval.
       (i) Purpose and Need and Determination of Reasonable 
     Alternatives.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, as the Federal lead agency 
     responsible for carrying out a study for a water resources 
     project and the associated process for meeting the 
     requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969, shall--
       (A) define the project's purpose and need for purposes of 
     any document which the Secretary is responsible for preparing 
     for the project and shall determine the range of alternatives 
     for consideration in any document which the Secretary is 
     responsible for preparing for the project; and
       (B) determine, in collaboration with participating agencies 
     at appropriate times during the study process, the 
     methodologies to be used and the level of detail required in 
     the analysis of each alternative for the project.
       (2) Preferred alternative.--At the discretion of the 
     Secretary, the preferred alternative for a project, after 
     being identified, may be developed to a higher level of 
     detail than other alternatives.
       (j) Limitations.--Nothing in this section shall preempt or 
     interfere with--
       (1) any statutory requirement for seeking public comment;
       (2) any power, jurisdiction, or authority that a Federal, 
     State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-
     Federal interest has with respect to carrying out a water 
     resources project; or
       (3) any obligation to comply with the provisions of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the regulations 
     issued by the Council on Environmental Quality to carry out 
     such Act.

     SEC. 2029. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--For the purpose of expediting the cost-
     effective design and construction of wetlands restoration 
     that is part of an authorized water resources project, the 
     Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements under section 
     6305 of title 31, United States Code, with nonprofit 
     organizations with expertise in wetlands restoration to carry 
     out such design and construction on behalf of the Secretary.
       (b) Limitations.--
       (1) Per project limit.--A cooperative agreement under this 
     section shall not obligate the Secretary to pay the nonprofit 
     organization more than $1,000,000 for any single wetlands 
     restoration project.
       (2) Annual limit.--The total value of work carried out 
     under cooperative agreements under this section may not 
     exceed $5,000,000 in any fiscal year.

     SEC. 2030. TRAINING FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may include individuals not 
     employed by the Department of the Army in training classes 
     and courses offered by the Corps of Engineers in any case in 
     which the Secretary determines that it is in the best 
     interest of the Federal Government to include those 
     individuals as participants.
       (b) Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--An individual not employed by the 
     Department of the Army attending a training class or course 
     described in subsection (a) shall pay the full cost of the 
     training provided to the individual.
       (2) Payments.--Payments made by an individual for training 
     received under paragraph (1), up to the actual cost of the 
     training--
       (A) may be retained by the Secretary;
       (B) shall be credited to an appropriations account used for 
     paying training costs; and
       (C) shall be available for use by the Secretary, without 
     further appropriation, for training purposes.
       (3) Excess amounts.--Any payments received under paragraph 
     (2) that are in excess of the actual cost of training 
     provided shall be credited as miscellaneous receipts to the 
     Treasury of the United States.

[[Page H3620]]

     SEC. 2031. ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCE DATA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program to 
     provide public access to water resources and related water 
     quality data in the custody of the Corps of Engineers.
       (b) Data.--Public access under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) include, at a minimum, access to data generated in 
     water resources project development and regulation under 
     section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1344); and
       (2) appropriately employ geographic information system 
     technology and linkages to water resource models and 
     analytical techniques.
       (c) Partnerships.--To the maximum extent practicable, in 
     carrying out activities under this section, the Secretary 
     shall develop partnerships, including cooperative agreements 
     with State, tribal, and local governments and other Federal 
     agencies.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     each fiscal year.

     SEC. 2032. SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--In accordance with the Act of July 3, 1930 
     (33 U.S.C. 426), and notwithstanding administrative actions, 
     it is the policy of the United States to promote beach 
     nourishment for the purposes of flood damage reduction and 
     hurricane and storm damage reduction and related research 
     that encourage the protection, restoration, and enhancement 
     of sandy beaches, including beach restoration and periodic 
     beach renourishment for a period of 50 years, on a 
     comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal 
     Government, States, localities, and private enterprises.
       (b) Preference.--In carrying out the policy under 
     subsection (a), preference shall be given to--
       (1) areas in which there has been a Federal investment of 
     funds for the purposes described in subsection (a); and
       (2) areas with respect to which the need for prevention or 
     mitigation of damage to shores and beaches is attributable to 
     Federal navigation projects or other Federal activities.
       (c) Applicability.--The Secretary shall apply the policy 
     under subsection (a) to each shore protection and beach 
     renourishment project (including shore protection and beach 
     renourishment projects constructed before the date of 
     enactment of this Act).

     SEC. 2033. ABILITY TO PAY.

       (a) Criteria and Procedures.--Section 103(m)(2) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2213(m)(2)) is amended by striking ``180 days after such date 
     of enactment'' and inserting ``September 30, 2007''.
       (b) Projects.--The Secretary shall apply the criteria and 
     procedures referred to in section 103(m) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) to the 
     following projects:
       (1) St. johns bayou and new madrid floodway, missouri.--The 
     project for flood control, St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid 
     Floodway, Missouri, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4118).
       (2) Lower rio grande basin, texas.--The project for flood 
     control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas, authorized by section 
     401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
     Stat. 4125).
       (3) West virginia and pennsylvania projects.--The projects 
     for flood control authorized by section 581 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790-3791).

     SEC. 2034. LEASING AUTHORITY.

       Section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the 
     construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors 
     for flood control, and other purposes'', approved December 
     22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 460d), is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``federally recognized Indian tribes and'' 
     before ``Federal'' the first place it appears;
       (2) by inserting ``Indian tribes or'' after 
     ``considerations, to such''; and
       (3) by inserting ``federally recognized Indian tribe'' 
     after ``That in any such lease or license to a''.

     SEC. 2035. COST ESTIMATES.

       The estimated Federal and non-Federal costs of projects 
     authorized to be carried out by the Secretary before, on, or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act are for informational 
     purposes only and shall not be interpreted as affecting the 
     cost sharing responsibilities established by law.

     SEC. 2036. PROJECT PLANNING.

       (a) Determination of Certain National Benefits.--
       (1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, 
     consistent with the Economic and Environmental Principles and 
     Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources 
     Implementation Studies (1983), the Secretary may select a 
     water resources project alternative that does not maximize 
     net national economic development benefits or net national 
     ecosystem restoration benefits if there is an overriding 
     reason based on other Federal, State, local, or international 
     concerns.
       (2) Flood damage reduction, navigation, and hurricane storm 
     damage reduction projects.--With respect to a water resources 
     project the primary purpose of which is flood damage 
     reduction, navigation, or hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction, an overriding reason for selecting a plan other 
     than the plan that maximizes net national economic 
     development benefits may be if the Secretary determines, and 
     the non-Federal interest concurs, that an alternative plan is 
     feasible and achieves the project purposes while providing 
     greater ecosystem restoration benefits.
       (3) Ecosystem restoration projects.--With respect to a 
     water resources project the primary purpose of which is 
     ecosystem restoration, an overriding reason for selecting a 
     plan other than the plan that maximizes net national 
     ecosystem restoration benefits may be if the Secretary 
     determines, and the non-Federal interest concurs, that an 
     alternative plan is feasible and achieves the project 
     purposes while providing greater economic development 
     benefits.
       (b) Identifying Additional Benefits and Projects.--
       (1) Primarily economic benefits.--In conducting a study of 
     the feasibility of a project where the primary benefits are 
     expected to be economic, the Secretary may identify ecosystem 
     restoration benefits that may be achieved in the study area 
     and, after obtaining the participation of a non-Federal 
     interest, may study and recommend construction of additional 
     measures, a separate project, or separable project element to 
     achieve those benefits.
       (2) Primarily ecosystem restoration benefits.--In 
     conducting a study of the feasibility of a project where the 
     primary benefits are expected to be associated with ecosystem 
     restoration, the Secretary may identify economic benefits 
     that may be achieved in the study area and, after obtaining 
     the participation of a non-Federal interest, may study and 
     recommend construction of additional measures, a separate 
     project, or separable project element to achieve those 
     benefits.
       (3) Rules applicable to certain measures, projects, and 
     elements.--Any additional measures, separate project, or 
     separable element identified under paragraph (1) or (2) and 
     recommended for construction shall not be considered integral 
     to the underlying project and, if authorized, shall be 
     subject to a separate partnership agreement, unless a non-
     Federal interest agrees to share in the cost of the 
     additional measures, project, or separable element.
       (c) Calculation of Benefits and Costs for Flood Damage 
     Reduction Projects.--A feasibility study for a project for 
     flood damage reduction shall include, as part of the 
     calculation of benefits and costs--
       (1) a calculation of the residual risk of flooding 
     following completion of the proposed project;
       (2) a calculation of any upstream or downstream impacts of 
     the proposed project; and
       (3) calculations to ensure that the benefits and costs 
     associated with structural and nonstructural alternatives are 
     evaluated in an equitable manner.

     SEC. 2037. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.

       (a) Project Studies Subject to Independent Peer Review.--
       (1) In general.--Project studies shall be subject to a peer 
     review by an independent panel of experts as determined under 
     this section.
       (2) Scope.--The peer review may include a review of the 
     economic and environmental assumptions and projections, 
     project evaluation data, economic analyses, environmental 
     analyses, engineering analyses, formulation of alternative 
     plans, methods for integrating risk and uncertainty, models 
     used in evaluation of economic or environmental impacts of 
     proposed projects, and any biological opinions of the project 
     study.
       (3) Project studies subject to peer review.--
       (A) Mandatory.--A project study shall be subject to peer 
     review under paragraph (1)--
       (i) if the project has an estimated total cost of more than 
     $50,000,000, including mitigation costs, and is not 
     determined by the Chief of Engineers to be exempt from peer 
     review under paragraph (6); or
       (ii) the Governor of an affected State requests a peer 
     review by an independent panel of experts.
       (B) Discretionary.--A project study may be subject to peer 
     review if--
       (i) the head of a Federal or State agency charged with 
     reviewing the project study determines that the project is 
     likely to have a significant adverse impact on environmental, 
     cultural, or other resources under the jurisdiction of the 
     agency after implementation of proposed mitigation plans and 
     requests a peer review by an independent panel of experts; or
       (ii) the Chief of Engineers determines that the project 
     study is controversial.
       (4) Controversial projects.--Upon receipt of a written 
     request under paragraph (3)(B) or on the initiative of the 
     Chief of Engineers, the Chief of Engineers shall determine 
     whether a project study is controversial.
       (5) Factors to consider.--In determining whether a project 
     study is controversial, the Chief of Engineers shall consider 
     if--
       (A) there is a significant public dispute as to the size, 
     nature, or effects of the project; or
       (B) there is a significant public dispute as to the 
     economic or environmental costs or benefits of the project.
       (6) Project studies excluded from peer review.--Project 
     studies that may be excluded from peer review under paragraph 
     (1) are--
       (A) a study for a project the Chief of Engineers 
     determines--
       (i) is not controversial;
       (ii) has no more than negligible adverse impacts on scarce 
     or unique cultural, historic, or tribal resources;
       (iii) has no substantial adverse impacts on fish and 
     wildlife species and their habitat prior to the 
     implementation of mitigation measures; and
       (iv) has, before implementation of mitigation measures, no 
     more than a negligible adverse impact on a species listed as 
     endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species 
     Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539 et seq.) or the critical habitat 
     of such species designated under such Act; and
       (B) a study for a project pursued under section 205 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), section 2 of the 
     Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g), 
     section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 
     701r), section 107(a) of the River and Harbor Act of

[[Page H3621]]

     1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(a)), section 3 of the Act entitled 
     ``An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of 
     protecting the shores of publicly owned property'', 
     approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), section 111 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i), section 
     3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the 
     construction, repair, and preservation of certain public 
     works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes'', 
     approved March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a), section 1135 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2309a), section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), or section 204 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).
       (7) Appeal.--The decision of the Chief of Engineers whether 
     to peer review a project study shall be published in the 
     Federal Register and shall be subject to appeal by a person 
     referred to in paragraph (3)(B)(i) or (3)(B)(ii) to the 
     Secretary of the Army if such appeal is made within the 30-
     day period following the date of such publication.
       (8) Determination of project cost.--For purposes of 
     determining the estimated total cost of a project under 
     paragraph (3)(A), the project cost shall be based upon the 
     reasonable estimates of the Chief of Engineers at the 
     completion of the reconnaissance study for the project. If 
     the reasonable estimate of project costs is subsequently 
     determined to be in excess of the amount in paragraph (3)(A), 
     the Chief of Engineers shall make a determination whether a 
     project study should be reviewed under this section.
       (b) Timing of Peer Review.--The Chief of Engineers shall 
     determine the timing of a peer review of a project study 
     under subsection (a). In all cases, the peer review shall 
     occur during the period beginning on the date of the 
     completion of the reconnaissance study for the project and 
     ending on the date the draft report of the Chief of Engineers 
     for the project is made available for public comment. Where 
     the Chief of Engineers has not initiated a peer review of a 
     project study, the Chief of Engineers shall consider, at a 
     minimum, whether to initiate a peer review at the time that--
       (1) the without-project conditions are identified;
       (2) the array of alternatives to be considered are 
     identified; and
       (3) the preferred alternative is identified.
     Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the 
     Chief of Engineers to conduct multiple peer reviews for a 
     project study.
       (c) Establishment of Panels.--
       (1) In general.--For each project study subject to peer 
     review under subsection (a), as soon as practicable after the 
     Chief of Engineers determines that a project study will be 
     subject to peer review, the Chief of Engineers shall contract 
     with the National Academy of Sciences (or a similar 
     independent scientific and technical advisory organization), 
     or an eligible organization, to establish a panel of experts 
     to peer review the project study for technical and scientific 
     sufficiency.
       (2) Membership.--A panel of experts established for a 
     project study under this section shall be composed of 
     independent experts who represent a balance of areas of 
     expertise suitable for the review being conducted.
       (3) Limitation on appointments.--An individual may not be 
     selected to serve on a panel of experts established for a 
     project study under this section if the individual has a 
     financial or close professional association with any 
     organization or group with a strong financial or 
     organizational interest in the project.
       (4) Congressional notification.--Upon identification of a 
     project study for peer review under this section, but prior 
     to initiation of any review, the Chief of Engineers shall 
     notify the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives of such review.
       (d) Duties of Panels.--A panel of experts established for a 
     peer review for a project study under this section shall, 
     consistent with the scope of the referral for review--
       (1) conduct a peer review for the project study submitted 
     to the panel for review;
       (2) assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic 
     and environmental methods, models, and analyses used by the 
     Chief of Engineers;
       (3) provide timely written and oral comments to the Chief 
     of Engineers throughout the development of the project study, 
     as requested; and
       (4) submit to the Chief of Engineers a final report 
     containing the panel's economic, engineering, and 
     environmental analysis of the project study, including the 
     panel's assessment of the adequacy and acceptability of the 
     economic and environmental methods, models, and analyses used 
     by the Chief of Engineers, to accompany the publication of 
     the project study.
       (e) Duration of Project Study Peer Reviews.--
       (1) Deadline.--A panel of experts shall--
       (A) complete its peer review under this section for a 
     project study and submit a report to the Chief of Engineers 
     under subsection (d)(4) within 180 days after the date of 
     establishment of the panel, or, if the Chief of Engineers 
     determines that a longer period of time is necessary, such 
     period of time established by the Chief of Engineers, but in 
     no event later than 90 days after the date a draft project 
     study is made available for public review; and
       (B) terminate on the date of submission of the report.
       (2) Failure to meet deadline.--If a panel does not complete 
     its peer review of a project study under this section and 
     submit a report to the Chief of Engineers under subsection 
     (d)(4) on or before the deadline established by paragraph (1) 
     for the project study, the Chief of Engineers shall continue 
     the project study for the project that is subject to peer 
     review by the panel without delay.
       (f) Recommendations of Panel.--
       (1) Consideration by the chief of engineers.--After 
     receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts 
     under this section and before entering a final record of 
     decision for the project, the Chief of Engineers shall 
     consider any recommendations contained in the report and 
     prepare a written response for any recommendations adopted or 
     not adopted.
       (2) Public availability and transmittal to congress.--After 
     receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts 
     under this section, the Chief of Engineers shall--
       (A) make a copy of the report and any written response of 
     the Chief of Engineers on recommendations contained in the 
     report available to the public; and
       (B) transmit to Congress a copy of the report, together 
     with any such written response, on the date of a final report 
     of the Chief of Engineers or other final decision document 
     for a project study that is subject to peer review by the 
     panel.
       (g) Costs.--
       (1) In general.--The costs of a panel of experts 
     established for a peer review under this section--
       (A) shall be a Federal expense; and
       (B) shall not exceed $500,000.
       (2) Waiver.--The Chief of Engineers may waive the $500,000 
     limitation contained in paragraph (1)(B) in cases that the 
     Chief of Engineers determines appropriate.
       (h) Applicability.--This section shall apply to--
       (1) project studies initiated during the 2-year period 
     preceding the date of enactment of this Act and for which the 
     array of alternatives to be considered has not been 
     identified; and
       (2) project studies initiated during the period beginning 
     on such date of enactment and ending 4 years after such date 
     of enactment.
       (i) Report.--Within 4\1/2\ years of the date of enactment 
     of this section, the Chief of Engineers shall submit a report 
     to Congress on the implementation of this section.
       (j) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to any peer 
     review panel established under this section.
       (k) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any authority of the Chief of Engineers 
     to cause or conduct a peer review of a water resources 
     project existing on the date of enactment of this section.
       (l) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Project study.--The term ``project study'' means a 
     feasibility study or reevaluation study for a project. The 
     term also includes any other study associated with a 
     modification or update of a project that includes an 
     environmental impact statement, including the environmental 
     impact statement.
       (2) Affected state.--The term ``affected State'', as used 
     with respect to a project, means a State all or a portion of 
     which is within the drainage basin in which the project is or 
     would be located and would be economically or environmentally 
     affected as a consequence of the project.
       (3) Eligible organization.--The term ``eligible 
     organization'' means an organization that--
       (A) is described in section 501(c)(3), and exempt from 
     Federal tax under section 501(a), of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986;
       (B) is independent;
       (C) is free from conflicts of interest;
       (D) does not carry out or advocate for or against Federal 
     water resources projects; and
       (E) has experience in establishing and administering peer 
     review panels.

     SEC. 2038. STUDIES AND REPORTS FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.

       (a) Studies.--
       (1) Cost-sharing requirements.--Section 105(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Detailed project reports.--The requirements of this 
     subsection that apply to a feasibility study also shall apply 
     to a study that results in a detailed project report, except 
     that--
       ``(A) the first $100,000 of the costs of a study that 
     results in a detailed project report shall be a Federal 
     expense; and
       ``(B) paragraph (1)(C)(ii) shall not apply to such a 
     study.''.
       (2) Planning and engineering.--Section 105(b) of such Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 2215(b)) is amended by striking ``authorized by 
     this Act''.
       (3) Definitions.--Section 105 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2215) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Detailed project report.--The term `detailed project 
     report' means a report for a project not specifically 
     authorized by Congress in law or otherwise that determines 
     the feasibility of the project with a level of detail 
     appropriate to the scope and complexity of the recommended 
     solution and sufficient to proceed directly to the 
     preparation of contract plans and specifications. The term 
     includes any associated environmental impact statement and 
     mitigation plan. For a project for which the Federal cost 
     does not exceed $1,000,000, the term includes a planning and 
     design analysis document.
       ``(2) Feasibility study.--The term `feasibility study' 
     means a study that results in a feasibility report under 
     section 905, and any associated environmental impact 
     statement and mitigation plan, prepared by the Corps of 
     Engineers for a water resources project. The term includes a 
     study that results in a project implementation report 
     prepared under title VI of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680-2694), a general reevaluation 
     report, and a limited reevaluation report.''.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) Preparation.--Section 905(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(a)) is amended--

[[Page H3622]]

       (A) by striking ``(a) In the case of any'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(a) Preparation of Reports.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any'';
       (B) by striking ``the Secretary, the Secretary shall'' and 
     inserting ``the Secretary that results in recommendations 
     concerning a project or the operation of a project and that 
     requires specific authorization by Congress in law or 
     otherwise, the Secretary shall perform a reconnaissance study 
     and'';
       (C) by striking ``Such feasibility report'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(2) Contents of feasibility reports.--A feasibility 
     report'';
       (D) by striking ``The feasibility report'' and inserting 
     ``A feasibility report''; and
       (E) by striking the last sentence and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) Applicability.--This subsection shall not apply to--
       ``(A) any study with respect to which a report has been 
     submitted to Congress before the date of enactment of this 
     Act;
       ``(B) any study for a project, which project is authorized 
     for construction by this Act and is not subject to section 
     903(b);
       ``(C) any study for a project which does not require 
     specific authorization by Congress in law or otherwise; and
       ``(D) general studies not intended to lead to 
     recommendation of a specific water resources project.
       ``(4) Feasibility report defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term `feasibility report' means each feasibility report, and 
     any associated environmental impact statement and mitigation 
     plan, prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water 
     resources project. The term includes a project implementation 
     report prepared under title VI of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680-2694), a general 
     reevaluation report, and a limited reevaluation report.''.
       (2) Projects not specifically authorized by congress.--
     Section 905 of such Act is further amended--
       (A) in subsection (b) by inserting ``Reconnaissance 
     Studies.--'' before ``Before initiating'';
       (B) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as 
     subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively;
       (C) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Projects Not Specifically Authorized by Congress.--In 
     the case of any water resources project-related study 
     authorized to be undertaken by the Secretary without specific 
     authorization by Congress in law or otherwise, the Secretary 
     shall prepare a detailed project report.'';
       (D) in subsection (d) (as so redesignated) by inserting 
     ``Indian Tribes.--'' before ``For purposes of''; and
       (E) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated) by inserting 
     ``Standard and Uniform Procedures and Practices.--'' before 
     ``The Secretary shall''.

     SEC. 2039. OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS FABRICATION PORT.

       (a) In General.--In conducting a feasibility study for the 
     project for navigation, Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, 
     Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana, being conducted under section 
     430 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
     2639), the Secretary shall include in the calculation of 
     national economic development benefits all economic benefits 
     associated with contracts for new energy exploration and 
     contracts for the fabrication of energy infrastructure that 
     would result from carrying out the project.
       (b) Repeal.--Section 6009 of the Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and 
     Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-13; 119 Stat. 282) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 2040. USE OF FIRMS EMPLOYING LOCAL RESIDENTS.

       (a) Contracts or Agreements With Private Entities.--In 
     carrying out construction of a water resources project, the 
     Secretary may enter into a contract or agreement with a 
     private entity only if the private entity provides assurances 
     satisfactory to the Secretary that, to the maximum extent 
     practicable--
       (1) local residents in the area of the project will 
     comprise not less than 50 percent of the workforce employed 
     by the entity to perform the contract or agreement; and
       (2) local residents in the area of the project will 
     comprise not less than 50 percent of the workforce employed 
     by each subcontractor at each tier in connection with the 
     contract or agreement.
       (b) Exemptions.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may waive the application of 
     subsection (a) with respect to a contract or agreement if the 
     Secretary determines that compliance with subsection (a) is 
     not feasible due to--
       (A) a lack of qualified local residents to permit 
     satisfaction of the requirements of subsection (a);
       (B) a lack of sufficient numbers of specialized workers 
     necessary to carry out the project; or
       (C) the need to comply with small business or minority 
     contracting requirements under Federal law.
       (2) Documentation.--Any determination by the Secretary 
     under paragraph (1) to waive the application of subsection 
     (a) with respect to a contract or agreement shall be 
     justified in writing.
       (c) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
     establishing local residency and other requirements to 
     facilitate compliance with this section.
       (d) Prior Contracts.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any contract or agreement entered into 
     before the effective date of this section.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall become effective 
     180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

     SEC. 3001. COOK INLET, ALASKA.

       Section 118(a)(3) of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 2005 (title I of division C of the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005; 118 Stat. 2945) is 
     amended by inserting ``as part of the operation and 
     maintenance of such project modification'' after ``by the 
     Secretary''.

     SEC. 3002. KING COVE HARBOR, ALASKA.

       The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 
     for the project for navigation, King Cove Harbor, Alaska, 
     being carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), shall be $8,000,000.

     SEC. 3003. SITKA, ALASKA.

       The Sitka, Alaska, element of the project for navigation, 
     Southeast Alaska Harbors of Refuge, Alaska, authorized by 
     section 101(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (106 Stat. 4801), is modified to direct the Secretary to take 
     such action as is necessary to correct design deficiencies in 
     the Sitka Harbor Breakwater, at full Federal expense. The 
     estimated cost is $6,300,000.

     SEC. 3004. TATITLEK, ALASKA.

       The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 
     for the project for navigation, Tatitlek, Alaska, being 
     carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 
     1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), shall be $10,000,000.

     SEC. 3005. RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Rio De Flag, 
     Flagstaff, Arizona, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project 
     at a total cost of $54,100,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $35,000,000 and a non-Federal cost of $19,100,000.

     SEC. 3006. OSCEOLA HARBOR, ARKANSAS.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Osceola 
     Harbor, Arkansas, constructed under section 107 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to allow 
     non-Federal interests to construct a mooring facility within 
     the existing authorized harbor channel, subject to all 
     necessary permits, certifications, and other requirements.
       (b) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed as affecting the responsibility of 
     the Secretary to maintain the general navigation features of 
     the project at a bottom width of 250 feet.

     SEC. 3007. PINE MOUNTAIN DAM, ARKANSAS.

       The Pine Mountain Dam feature of the project for flood 
     protection, Lee Creek, Arkansas and Oklahoma, authorized by 
     section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1078), 
     is modified--
       (1) to add environmental restoration as a project purpose; 
     and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to finance the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project over a 30-year period in 
     accordance with section 103(k) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(k)).

     SEC. 3008. AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS, CALIFORNIA. .

        (a) In General.--The project for flood control, American 
     and Sacramento Rivers, California, authorized by section 
     101(a)(6)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 274), as modified by section 128 of the Energy and 
     Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2259), 
     is further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct 
     the auxiliary spillway generally in accordance with the Post 
     Authorization Change Report, American River Watershed Project 
     (Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise Projects), 
     dated December 2006, at a total cost of $683,000,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $444,000,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $239,000,000.
       (b) Dam Safety Activities.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of the 
     Interior to carry out dam safety activities in connection 
     with the auxiliary spillway in accordance with the Bureau of 
     Reclamation Safety of Dams Program.
       (c) Transfer of Funds.--The Secretary and the Secretary of 
     the Interior are authorized to transfer between their 
     respective agencies appropriated amounts and other available 
     funds (including funds contributed by non-Federal interests) 
     for the purpose of planning, design, and construction of the 
     auxiliary spillway. Any transfer made pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be subject to such terms and conditions as 
     agreed upon by the Secretary and the Secretary of the 
     Interior.

     SEC. 3009. COMPTON CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood control, Los Angeles Drainage Area, 
     California, authorized by section 101(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4611), is 
     modified to add environmental restoration and recreation as 
     project purposes.

     SEC. 3010. GRAYSON CREEK/MURDERER'S CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grayson 
     Creek/Murderer's Creek, California, being carried out under 
     section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified--
       (1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project; and
       (2) to authorize the Secretary to consider national 
     ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal 
     interest in the project.

     SEC. 3011. HAMILTON AIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for environmental restoration, Hamilton 
     Airfield, California, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to construct the project 
     substantially in accordance with the report of the

[[Page H3623]]

     Chief of Engineers dated July 19, 2004, at a total cost of 
     $228,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $171,100,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $57,000,000.

     SEC. 3012. JOHN F. BALDWIN SHIP CHANNEL AND STOCKTON SHIP 
                   CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for navigation, San Francisco to Stockton, 
     California, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091) is modified--
       (1) to provide that the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel 
     element of the project may be provided in the form of in-kind 
     services and materials; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of such element the cost of 
     planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of an agreement for such planning 
     and design if the Secretary determines that such work is 
     integral to such element.

     SEC. 3013. KAWEAH RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood control, Terminus Dam, Kaweah River, 
     California, authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3658), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project, or provide 
     reimbursement not to exceed $800,000, for the costs of any 
     work carried out by the non-Federal interest before, on, or 
     after the date of the project partnership agreement if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3014. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, LARKSPUR, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for navigation, Larkspur Ferry Channel, 
     Larkspur, California, authorized by section 601(d) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to determine whether 
     maintenance of the project is feasible, and if the Secretary 
     determines that maintenance of the project is feasible, to 
     carry out such maintenance.

     SEC. 3015. LLAGAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction, 
     Llagas Creek, California, authorized by section 501(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 333), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project 
     at a total cost of $105,000,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $65,000,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $40,000,000.
       (b) Special Rule.--In evaluating and implementing the 
     project, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest 
     to participate in the financing of the project in accordance 
     with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary's 
     evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary 
     to implement the project.

     SEC. 3016. MAGPIE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The project for Magpie Creek, California, 
     authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 
     (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to direct the Secretary to 
     apply the cost-sharing requirements of section 103(b) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4085) for 
     the portion of the project consisting of land acquisition to 
     preserve and enhance existing floodwater storage.
       (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning 
     and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
     if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3017. PACIFIC FLYWAY CENTER, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pacific 
     Flyway Center, Sacramento, California, being carried out 
     under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to authorize the Secretary 
     to expend $2,000,000 to enhance public access to the project.

     SEC. 3018. PINOLE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Pinole Creek Phase I, California, being carried 
     out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is modified to direct the 
     Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
     of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-
     Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement 
     for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
     integral to the project.

     SEC. 3019. PRADO DAM, CALIFORNIA.

       Upon completion of the modifications to the Prado Dam 
     element of the project for flood control, Santa Ana River 
     Mainstem, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113), the 
     Memorandum of Agreement for the Operation for Prado Dam for 
     Seasonal Additional Water Conservation between the Department 
     of the Army and the Orange County Water District (including 
     all the conditions and stipulations in the memorandum) shall 
     remain in effect for volumes of water made available prior to 
     such modifications.

     SEC. 3020. SACRAMENTO AND AMERICAN RIVERS FLOOD CONTROL, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Determination of Federal Costs Paid by Non-Federal 
     Interest.--
       (1) Federal costs paid by non-federal interest.--The 
     Secretary shall determine the amount paid by the Sacramento 
     Area Flood Control Agency towards the Federal share of the 
     cost of the project for the Natomas levee features authorized 
     by section 9159(b) of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1993 (106 Stat. 1944) of the project for 
     flood control and recreation, Sacramento and American Rivers, 
     California.
       (2) Reimbursements to non-federal interest.--The Secretary 
     shall determine the amount of reimbursements paid to the 
     Sacramento Flood Control Agency for payment of the Federal 
     share of the cost of the project referred to in paragraph 
     (1).
       (3) Determination of federal share.--In carrying out 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include in the total cost 
     of the project all costs of the following activities that the 
     Secretary determines to be integral to the project:
       (A) Planning, engineering, and construction.
       (B) Acquisition of project lands, easements, and rights-of-
     way.
       (C) Performance of relocations.
       (D) Environmental mitigation for all project elements.
       (b) Credit.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of any flood damage reduction 
     project, authorized before the date of enactment of this Act, 
     for which the non-Federal interest is the Sacramento Area 
     Flood Control Agency an amount equal to the total amount 
     determined under subsection (a)(1) reduced by the amount 
     determined under subsection (a)(2).
       (2) Allocation of credit.--The Secretary shall allocate the 
     amount to be credited under paragraph (1) toward the non-
     Federal share of such projects as are requested by the 
     Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.

     SEC. 3021. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship 
     Channel, California, authorized by section 202(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning 
     and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
     if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3022. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for navigation, Santa Cruz Harbor, California, 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 
     (72 Stat. 300) and modified by section 809 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4168) and 
     section 526 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 346), is modified to direct the Secretary--
       (1) to renegotiate the memorandum of agreement with the 
     non-Federal interest to increase the annual payment to 
     reflect the updated cost of operation and maintenance that is 
     the Federal and non-Federal share as provided by law based on 
     the project purpose; and
       (2) to revise the memorandum of agreement to include terms 
     that revise such payments for inflation.

     SEC. 3023. SEVEN OAKS DAM, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood control, Santa Ana Mainstem, 
     authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113) and modified by 
     section 104 of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1988 (101 Stat. 1329-11), section 102(e) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 
     4611), and section 311 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1996 (110 Stat. 3713), is further modified to direct the 
     Secretary to conduct a study for the reallocation of water 
     storage at the Seven Oaks Dam, California, for water 
     conservation.

     SEC. 3024. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, 
     Upper Guadalupe River, California, authorized by section 
     101(a)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
     Stat. 275), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
     construct the project generally in accordance with the Upper 
     Guadalupe River Flood Damage Reduction, San Jose, California, 
     Limited Reevaluation Report, dated March, 2004, at a total 
     cost of $244,500,000.

     SEC. 3025. WALNUT CREEK CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Walnut Creek 
     Channel, California, being carried out under section 206 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), 
     is modified--
       (1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project; and
       (2) to authorize the Secretary to consider national 
     ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal 
     interest in the project.

     SEC. 3026. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE I, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California, 
     being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is modified to 
     direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share 
     of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by 
     the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3027. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE II, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wildcat/San 
     Pablo Creek Phase II, California, being carried out under 
     section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to 
     credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project and to authorize the Secretary to consider 
     national ecosystem restoration benefits

[[Page H3624]]

     in determining the Federal interest in the project.

     SEC. 3028. YUBA RIVER BASIN PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Yuba River Basin, 
     California, authorized by section 101(a)(10) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is 
     modified--
       (1) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at 
     a total cost of $107,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $70,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $37,700,000; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3029. SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN, COLORADO.

       Section 808 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (100 Stat. 4168) is amended by striking ``agriculture,'' and 
     inserting ``agriculture, environmental restoration,''.

     SEC. 3030. INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO 
                   CHESAPEAKE BAY, DELAWARE AND MARYLAND.

       The project for navigation, Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware 
     River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland, authorized by 
     the first section of the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 30, 
     1935 (49 Stat. 1030), and section 101 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1249), is modified to add recreation as 
     a project purpose.

     SEC. 3031. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

       (a) Shoreline.--The project for shoreline protection, 
     Brevard County, Florida, authorized by section 101(b)(7) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667), 
     is modified--
       (1) to direct the Secretary to establish the reach of the 
     project as the reach between the Florida department of 
     environmental protection monuments 75.4 to 118.3, a distance 
     of 7.6 miles; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to expedite the general 
     reevaluation report required by section 418 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2637).
       (b) Credit.--Section 310 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 301) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(d) Credit.--After completion of the study, the Secretary 
     shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project for shore protection the cost of nourishment and 
     renourishment associated with the project for shore 
     protection incurred by the non-Federal interest to respond to 
     damages to Brevard County beaches that are the result of a 
     Federal navigation project, as determined in the final report 
     for the study.''.

     SEC. 3032. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO INLET, FLORIDA.

       The project for shore protection, Broward County and 
     Hillsboro Inlet, Florida, authorized by section 301 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1090), and modified by 
     section 311 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 301), is further modified to direct the Secretary 
     to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project the cost of mitigation construction and derelict 
     erosion control structure removal carried out by the non-
     Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement 
     for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
     integral to the project.

     SEC. 3033. CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA.

       In carrying out the project for navigation, Canaveral 
     Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1174), the Secretary shall 
     construct a sediment trap.

     SEC. 3034. GASPARILLA AND ESTERO ISLANDS, FLORIDA.

       The project for shore protection, Gasparilla and Estero 
     Island segments, Lee County, Florida, authorized by section 
     201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1073), by 
     Senate Resolution dated December 17, 1970, and by House 
     Resolution dated December 15, 1970, and modified by section 
     309 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
     2602), is further modified to direct the Secretary to credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 
     cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 
     the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3035. JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLORIDA.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Jacksonville 
     Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(17) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to extend the navigation 
     features in accordance with the Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of 
     $14,658,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,636,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,022,000.
       (b) General Reevaluation Reports.--The non-Federal share of 
     the cost of the general reevaluation report that resulted in 
     the report of the Chief of Engineers for the project and the 
     non-Federal share of the cost of the general reevaluation 
     report for Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, being conducted on 
     June 1, 2005, shall each be the same percentage as the non-
     Federal share of the cost of construction of the project.
       (c) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into new 
     partnership agreements with the non-Federal interest to 
     reflect the cost sharing required by subsection (b).

     SEC. 3036. LIDO KEY BEACH, SARASOTA, FLORIDA.

       (a) In General.--The project for shore protection, Lido Key 
     Beach, Sarasota, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1819), deauthorized 
     under section 1001(b) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)), and reauthorized by section 
     364(2)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
     Stat. 313), is modified to direct the Secretary to construct 
     the project substantially in accordance with the report of 
     the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total 
     cost of $15,190,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $9,320,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,870,000, 
     and at an estimated total cost of $65,000,000 for periodic 
     nourishment over the 50-year life of the project.
       (b) Construction of Shoreline Protection Projects by Non-
     Federal Interests.--The Secretary shall enter into a 
     partnership agreement with the non-Federal interest in 
     accordance with section 206 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 426i-1) for the modified 
     project.

     SEC. 3037. MIAMI HARBOR, FLORIDA.

       The project for navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, Florida, 
     authorized by section 101(a)(9) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) and modified by 
     section 315 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 302), is further modified--
       (1) to include as a project purpose environmental 
     mitigation required before July 18, 2003, by a Federal, 
     State, or local environmental agency for unauthorized or 
     unanticipated environmental impacts within, or in the 
     vicinity of, the authorized project; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal 
     interest for the Federal share of the costs the non-Federal 
     interest has incurred in construction of the project 
     (including environmental mitigation costs and costs incurred 
     for incomplete usable increments of the project) in 
     accordance with section 204 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232).

     SEC. 3038. PEANUT ISLAND, FLORIDA.

       The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 
     for the project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Peanut Island, Palm Beach County, Florida, being 
     carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) shall be 
     $9,750,000.

     SEC. 3039. TAMPA HARBOR-BIG BEND CHANNEL, FLORIDA.

       The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, 
     Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276) is modified 
     to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project the cost of planning, 
     design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project.

     SEC. 3040. TAMPA HARBOR CUT B, FLORIDA.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, 
     Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is modified to authorize the 
     Secretary to construct passing lanes in an area approximately 
     3.5 miles long and centered on Tampa Harbor Cut B if the 
     Secretary determines that such improvements are necessary for 
     navigation safety.
       (b) General Reevaulation Report.--The non-Federal share of 
     the cost of the general reevaluation report for Tampa Harbor, 
     Florida, being conducted on June 1, 2005, shall be the same 
     percentage as the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     construction of the project.
       (c) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into a new 
     partnership agreement with the non-Federal interest to 
     reflect the cost sharing required by subsection (b).

     SEC. 3041. ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA.

       (a) Land Exchange.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may exchange lands above 863 
     feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in 
     the Real Estate Design Memorandum prepared by the Mobile 
     district engineer, April 5, 1996, and approved October 8, 
     1996, for lands on the north side of Allatoona Lake that are 
     needed for wildlife management and for protection of the 
     water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--The basis for all land exchanges 
     under this subsection shall be a fair market appraisal so 
     that lands exchanged are of equal value.
       (b) Disposal and Acquisition of Lands, Allatoona Lake, 
     Georgia.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may also sell lands above 
     863 feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified 
     in the memorandum referred to in subsection (a)(1) and may 
     use the proceeds to pay costs associated with the purchase of 
     lands needed for wildlife management and for protection of 
     the water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--Land sales and purchases to be 
     conducted under this subsection shall be subject to the 
     following terms and conditions:
       (A) Lands acquired under this subsection shall be by 
     negotiated purchase from willing sellers only.
       (B) The basis for all transactions under the program shall 
     be a fair market appraisal acceptable to the Secretary.
       (C) The purchasers shall share in the associated real 
     estate costs, to include surveys and associated fees in 
     accordance with the memorandum referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1).
       (D) Any other conditions that the Secretary may impose.
       (c) Repeal.--Section 325 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4849) is repealed.

     SEC. 3042. LATHAM RIVER, GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA.

       The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 
     for the project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia, being 
     carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) shall be 
     $6,175,000.

[[Page H3625]]

     SEC. 3043. DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS, IDAHO.

       The Secretary may carry out improvements to recreational 
     facilities at the Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, North Fork, 
     Clearwater River, Idaho, authorized by section 203 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1193), to accommodate 
     lower pool levels.

     SEC. 3044. BEARDSTOWN COMMUNITY BOAT HARBOR, BEARDSTOWN, 
                   ILLINOIS.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Muscooten Bay, 
     Illinois River, Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, 
     Illinois, constructed under section 107 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified--
       (1) to include the channel between the harbor and the 
     Illinois River; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to enter into a partnership 
     agreement with the city of Beardstown to replace the local 
     cooperation agreement dated August 18, 1983, with the 
     Beardstown Community Park District.
       (b) Terms of Partnership Agreement.--The partnership 
     agreement referred to in subsection (a) shall include the 
     same rights and responsibilities as the local cooperation 
     agreement dated August 18, 1983, changing only the identity 
     of the non-Federal sponsor.
       (c) Maintenance.--Following execution of the partnership 
     agreement referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary may 
     carry out maintenance of the project referred to in 
     subsection (a) on an annual basis.

     SEC. 3045. CACHE RIVER LEVEE, ILLINOIS.

       The Cache River Levee constructed for flood control at the 
     Cache River, Illinois, and authorized by the Act of June 28, 
     1938 (52 Stat. 1217), is modified to add environmental 
     restoration as a project purpose.

     SEC. 3046. CHICAGO RIVER, ILLINOIS.

       The navigation channel for the North Branch Canal portion 
     of the Chicago River, authorized by the first section of the 
     Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of March 3, 1899 (30 
     Stat. 1129), extending from 100 feet downstream of the 
     Halsted Street Bridge to 100 feet upstream of the Division 
     Street Bridge is modified to be no wider than 66 feet.

     SEC. 3047. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIERS 
                   PROJECT, ILLINOIS.

       (a) Treatment as Single Project.--The Chicago Sanitary and 
     Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier Project (in this section 
     referred to as ``Barrier I'') (as in existence on the date of 
     enactment of this Act), constructed as a demonstration 
     project under section 1202(i)(3) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic 
     Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 
     4722(i)(3)), and the project relating to the Chicago Sanitary 
     and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, authorized by section 345 
     of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public 
     Law 108-335; 118 Stat. 1352) (in this section referred to as 
     ``Barrier II''), shall be considered to constitute a single 
     project.
       (b) Authorization.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, at Federal expense, shall--
       (A) upgrade and make permanent Barrier I;
       (B) construct Barrier II, notwithstanding the project 
     cooperation agreement with the State of Illinois dated June 
     14, 2005;
       (C) operate and maintain Barrier I and Barrier II as a 
     system to optimize effectiveness;
       (D) conduct, in consultation with appropriate Federal, 
     State, local, and nongovernmental entities, a study of a 
     range of options and technologies for reducing impacts of 
     hazards that may reduce the efficacy of the Barriers; and
       (E) provide to each State a credit in an amount equal to 
     the amount of funds contributed by the State toward Barrier 
     II.
       (2) Use of credit.--A State may apply a credit provided to 
     the State under paragraph (1)(E) to any cost sharing 
     responsibility for an existing or future Federal project 
     carried out by the Secretary in the State.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 345 of the District of 
     Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-335; 118 
     Stat. 1352), is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 345. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL 
                   BARRIER, ILLINOIS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary to carry out the Barrier II project of the 
     project for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal 
     Barrier, Illinois, initiated pursuant to section 1135 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2294 note; 
     100 Stat. 4251).''.
       (d) Feasibility Study.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     appropriate Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental 
     entities, shall conduct, at Federal expense, a feasibility 
     study of the range of options and technologies available to 
     prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species between the 
     Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago 
     Sanitary and Ship Canal and other pathways.

     SEC. 3048. EMIQUON, ILLINOIS.

       (a) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
     that may be expended for the project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Emiquon, Illinois, being carried out under 
     section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2330), shall be $7,500,000.
       (b) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall affect the 
     eligibility of the project for emergency repair assistance 
     under section 5(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing 
     the construction of certain public works on rivers and 
     harbors for flood control, and for other purposes'', approved 
     August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).

     SEC. 3049. LASALLE, ILLINOIS.

       In carrying out section 312 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4639-4640), the Secretary 
     shall give priority to work in the vicinity of LaSalle, 
     Illinois, on the Illinois and Michigan Canal.

     SEC. 3050. SPUNKY BOTTOMS, ILLINOIS.

       (a) Project Purpose.--The project for flood control, Spunky 
     Bottoms, Illinois, authorized by section 5 of the Flood 
     Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1583), is modified to 
     add environmental restoration as a project purpose.
       (b) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
     that may be expended for the project for improvement of the 
     quality of the environment, Spunky Bottoms, Illinois, being 
     carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), shall be 
     $7,500,000.
       (c) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall affect the 
     eligibility of the project for emergency repair assistance 
     under section 5(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing 
     the construction of certain public works on rivers and 
     harbors for flood control, and for other purposes'', approved 
     August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).

     SEC. 3051. FORT WAYNE AND VICINITY, INDIANA.

       The project for flood control Fort Wayne, St. Mary's and 
     Maumee Rivers, Indiana, authorized by section 101(a)(11) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4604), 
     is modified--
       (1) to direct the Secretary to provide a 100-year level of 
     flood protection at the Berry-Thieme, Park-Thompson, 
     Woodhurst, and Tillman sites along the St. Mary's River, Fort 
     Wayne and vicinity, Indiana, at a total cost of $5,300,000; 
     and
       (2) to allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the 
     financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) 
     to the extent that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that 
     applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

     SEC. 3052. KOONTZ LAKE, INDIANA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Koontz Lake, 
     Indiana, being carried out under section 206 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) and 
     modified by section 520 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2655), is further modified to direct 
     the Secretary to seek to reduce the cost of the project by 
     using innovative technologies and cost reduction measures 
     determined from a review of non-Federal lake dredging 
     projects in the vicinity of Koontz Lake.

     SEC. 3053. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA.

       The project for flood control, Indianapolis on West Fork of 
     White River, Indiana, authorized by section 5 of the Act 
     entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of certain 
     public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for 
     other purposes'', approved June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586), and 
     modified by section 323 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716) and section 322 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 303-304), is 
     further modified--
       (1) to authorize the Secretary to undertake the riverfront 
     alterations described in the Central Indianapolis Waterfront 
     Concept Plan, dated February 1994, for the Fall Creek Reach 
     feature at a total cost of $28,545,000; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3054. DES MOINES RIVER AND GREENBELT, IOWA.

       The project for the Des Moines Recreational River and 
     Greenbelt, Iowa, authorized by Public Law 99-88 and modified 
     by section 604 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (100 Stat. 4153), is modified to include enhanced public 
     access and recreational enhancements, at a Federal cost of 
     $3,000,000.

     SEC. 3055. PRESTONSBURG, KENTUCKY.

       The Prestonsburg, Kentucky, element of the project for 
     flood control, Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big Sandy and 
     Cumberland Rivers, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky, 
     authorized by section 202(a) of the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to take measures to provide 
     a 100-year level of flood protection for the city of 
     Prestonsburg.

     SEC. 3056. AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, LOUISIANA, EAST BATON 
                   ROUGE PARISH WATERSHED.

       The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, 
     Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge 
     Parish Watershed, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 277) and 
     modified by section 116 of division D of Public Law 108-7 
     (117 Stat. 140), is further modified--
       (1) to direct the Secretary to carry out the project with 
     the cost sharing for the project determined in accordance 
     with section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)), as in effect on October 11, 1996;
       (2) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at 
     a total cost of $187,000,000; and
       (3) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3057. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LOUISIANA.

       (a) In General.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2603-2604) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) is authorized to study, design, construct, operate, 
     and maintain, at Federal expense, a Type A Regional Visitor 
     Center in the vicinity of Morgan City, Louisiana, in 
     consultation with the State of Louisiana, to provide 
     information to the public on the Atchafalaya River system and 
     other associated waterways that have influenced surrounding 
     communities, and national

[[Page H3626]]

     and local water resources development of the Army Corps of 
     Engineers in South Central Louisiana; and''.
       (b) Technical Correction.--Section 315(b) of such Act is 
     amended by striking ``(a)'' and inserting ``(a)(2)''.
       (c) Donations.--Section 315 of such Act is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Donations.--In carrying out subsection (a)(1), the 
     Mississippi River Commission is authorized to accept the 
     donation of cash, funds, lands, materials, and services from 
     non-Federal governmental entities and nonprofit 
     corporations.''.

     SEC. 3058. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LOUISIANA.

       The public access feature of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway 
     System project, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to acquire from willing 
     sellers the fee interest, exclusive of oil, gas, and 
     minerals, of an additional 20,000 acres of land within the 
     Lower Atchafalaya Basin Floodway for the public access 
     feature of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, to enhance 
     fish and wildlife resources, at a total cost of $4,000,000.

     SEC. 3059. BAYOU PLAQUEMINE, LOUISIANA.

       The project for the improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana, being carried out 
     under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is modified to direct the Secretary 
     to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project.

     SEC. 3060. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO 
                   SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.

       The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, J. 
     Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, 
     Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142) and 
     modified by section 4(h) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4016), section 102(p) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4613), section 
     301(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
     Stat. 3710), and section 316 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2572), is further 
     modified--
       (1) to authorize the purchase and reforesting of lands that 
     have been cleared or converted to agricultural uses; and
       (2) to incorporate current wildlife and forestry management 
     practices for the purpose of improving species diversity on 
     mitigation lands that meet Federal and State of Louisiana 
     habitat goals and objectives.

     SEC. 3061. MELVILLE, LOUISIANA.

       Section 315(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (114 Stat. 2603) is amended by inserting before the 
     period at the end the following: ``and may include the town 
     of Melville, Louisiana, as one of the alternative sites''.

     SEC. 3062. MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LOUISIANA.

       The Mississippi Delta Region project, Louisiana, authorized 
     as part of the project for hurricane-flood protection on Lake 
     Pontchartrain, Louisiana, by section 204 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077) and modified by section 365 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3739), 
     is further modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward 
     the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the costs of 
     relocating oyster beds in the Davis Pond project area if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     Mississippi Delta Region project.

     SEC. 3063. NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LOUISIANA.

       The New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana, project for hurricane 
     protection, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1184), is modified to authorize the 
     Secretary to carry out the work on the St. Jude to City 
     Price, Upper Reach A back levee. The Federal share of the 
     cost of such work shall be 70 percent.

     SEC. 3064. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF HARVEY 
                   CANAL), LOUISIANA.

       Section 328 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 304-305) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``operation and maintenance'' and inserting 
     ``operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, and 
     replacement''; and
       (B) by striking ``Algiers Channel'' and inserting ``Algiers 
     Canal Levees''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project shall be 35 percent.''.

     SEC. 3065. CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE.

       The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 
     for the project being carried out under section 111 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i) for the 
     mitigation of shore damages attributable to the project for 
     navigation, Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine, shall be $26,900,000.

     SEC. 3066. DETROIT RIVER SHORELINE, DETROIT, MICHIGAN.

       (a) In General.--The project for emergency streambank and 
     shoreline protection, Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, 
     Michigan, being carried out under section 14 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), is modified to include 
     measures to enhance public access.
       (b) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of 
     Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be 
     $3,000,000.

     SEC. 3067. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN.

       Section 426 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 326) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 426. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Management plan.--The term `management plan' means 
     the management plan for the St. Clair River and Lake St. 
     Clair, Michigan, that is in effect as of the date of 
     enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2006.
       ``(2) Partnership.--The term `partnership' means the 
     partnership established by the Secretary under subsection 
     (b)(1).
       ``(b) Partnership.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and lead a 
     partnership of appropriate Federal agencies (including the 
     Environmental Protection Agency) and the State of Michigan 
     (including political subdivisions of the State)--
       ``(A) to promote cooperation among the Federal, State, and 
     local governments and other involved parties in the 
     management of the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair 
     watersheds; and
       ``(B) develop and implement projects consistent with the 
     management plan.
       ``(2) Coordination with actions under other law.--
       ``(A) In general.--Actions taken under this section by the 
     partnership shall be coordinated with actions to restore and 
     conserve the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair and 
     watersheds taken under other provisions of Federal and State 
     law.
       ``(B) No effect on other law.--Nothing in this section 
     alters, modifies, or affects any other provision of Federal 
     or State law.
       ``(c) Implementation of St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair 
     Management Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) develop a St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair 
     strategic implementation plan in accordance with the 
     management plan;
       ``(B) provide technical, planning, and engineering 
     assistance to non-Federal interests for developing and 
     implementing activities consistent with the management plan;
       ``(C) plan, design, and implement projects consistent with 
     the management plan; and
       ``(D) provide, in coordination with the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, financial and technical 
     assistance, including grants, to the State of Michigan 
     (including political subdivisions of the State) and 
     interested nonprofit entities for the planning, design, and 
     implementation of projects to restore, conserve, manage, and 
     sustain the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, and associated 
     watersheds.
       ``(2) Specific measures.--Financial and technical 
     assistance provided under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of 
     paragraph (1) may be used in support of non-Federal 
     activities consistent with the management plan.
       ``(d) Supplements to Management Plan and Strategic 
     Implementation Plan.--In consultation with the partnership 
     and after providing an opportunity for public review and 
     comment, the Secretary shall develop information to 
     supplement--
       ``(1) the management plan; and
       ``(2) the strategic implementation plan developed under 
     subsection (c)(1)(A).
       ``(e) Cost Sharing.--
       ``(1) In-kind services.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of technical assistance under subsection (c), the cost of 
     planning, design, and construction of a project under 
     subsection (c), and the cost of development of supplementary 
     information under subsection (d) may be provided through the 
     provision of in-kind services.
       ``(2) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The 
     Secretary shall credit the non-Federal sponsor for the value 
     of any land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material 
     disposal areas, or relocations required in carrying out a 
     project under subsection (c).
       ``(3) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-
     Federal interest for any project carried out under this 
     section may include a nonprofit entity.
       ``(4) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, 
     maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of 
     projects carried out under this section shall be non-Federal 
     responsibilities.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for 
     each fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 3068. ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MICHIGAN.

       The Secretary shall expedite development of the dredged 
     material management plan for the project for navigation, St. 
     Joseph Harbor, Michigan, authorized by section 101 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299).

     SEC. 3069. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, MICHIGAN.

       (a) In General.--The text of section 1149 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``The Secretary shall construct at Federal expense a second 
     lock, of a width not less than 110 feet and a length not less 
     than 1,200 feet, adjacent to the existing lock at Sault 
     Sainte Marie, Michigan, generally in accordance with the 
     report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, 
     dated May 19, 1986, and the limited reevaluation report dated 
     February 2004 at a total cost of $341,714,000.''.
       (b) Conforming Repeals.--The following provisions are 
     repealed:
       (1) Section 107(a)(8) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4620).
       (2) Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3717-3718).
       (3) Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 305).

     SEC. 3070. ADA, MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction, 
     Wild Rice River, Ada, Minnesota, being carried out under 
     section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s), is modified to authorize the Secretary to consider 
     national

[[Page H3627]]

     ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal 
     interest in the project.
       (b) Evaluation of Benefits and Costs.--In evaluating the 
     economic benefits and costs for the project, the Secretary 
     shall not consider the emergency levee adjacent to Judicial 
     Ditch No. 51 in the determination of conditions existing 
     prior to construction of the project.
       (c) Special Rule.--In evaluating and implementing the 
     project, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest 
     to participate in the financing of the project in accordance 
     with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary's 
     evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary 
     to implement the project.

     SEC. 3071. DULUTH HARBOR, MCQUADE ROAD, MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, 
     McQuade Road, Minnesota, being carried out under section 107 
     of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and 
     modified by section 321 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2605), is further modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to provide public access and 
     recreational facilities as generally described in the 
     Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment, McQuade 
     Road Harbor of Refuge, Duluth, Minnesota, dated August 1999.
       (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall provide credit toward the 
     non-Federal share of the cost of the project for the costs of 
     design work carried out before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project.
       (c) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of 
     Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be 
     $9,000,000.

     SEC. 3072. GRAND MARAIS, MINNESOTA.

       The project for navigation, Grand Marais, Minnesota, 
     carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 
     1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) is modified to direct the Secretary to 
     provide credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project the cost of design work carried out before the 
     date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3073. GRAND PORTAGE HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

       The Secretary shall provide credit toward the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the navigation project for Grand Portage 
     Harbor, Minnesota, carried out under section 107 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), for the costs of 
     design work carried out before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3074. GRANITE FALLS, MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is directed to implement 
     under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s) the locally preferred plan for flood damage reduction, 
     Granite Falls, Minnesota, substantially in accordance with 
     the detailed project report dated 2002, at a total cost of 
     $12,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,000,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,000,000.
       (b) Project Financing.--In evaluating and implementing the 
     project under this section, the Secretary shall allow the 
     non-Federal interests to participate in the financing of the 
     project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184), to the 
     extent that the detailed project report evaluation indicates 
     that applying such section is necessary to implement the 
     project.
       (c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the project the cost of design and 
     construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of execution of a partnership agreement for 
     the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
     integral to the project.
       (d) Maximum Funding.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
     that may be expended for the flood damage reduction shall be 
     $8,000,000.

     SEC. 3075. KNIFE RIVER HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

       The project for navigation, Harbor at Knife River, 
     Minnesota, authorized by section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors 
     Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 19), is modified to direct the 
     Secretary to develop a final design and prepare plans and 
     specifications to correct the harbor entrance and mooring 
     conditions at the project.

     SEC. 3076. RED LAKE RIVER, MINNESOTA.

       The project for flood control, Red Lake River, Crookston, 
     Minnesota, authorized by section 101(a)(23) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), is 
     modified to include flood protection for the adjacent and 
     interconnected areas generally known as the Sampson and 
     Chase/Loring neighborhoods, in accordance with the 
     feasibility report supplement for local flood protection, 
     Crookston, Minnesota, at a total cost of $25,000,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $16,250,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $8,750,000.

     SEC. 3077. SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA.

       The project for navigation, Silver Bay, Minnesota, 
     authorized by section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 
     March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 19), is modified to include operation 
     and maintenance of the general navigation facilities as a 
     Federal responsibility.

     SEC. 3078. TACONITE HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

       The project for navigation, Taconite Harbor, Minnesota, 
     carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 
     1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to include operation and 
     maintenance of the general navigation facilities as a Federal 
     responsibility.

     SEC. 3079. TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Two Harbors, 
     Minnesota, being carried out under section 107 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to 
     include construction of a dredged material disposal facility, 
     including actions required to clear the site.
       (b) Lands, Easements, and Rights-of-Way.--Non-Federal 
     interests shall be responsible for providing all lands, 
     easements, rights-of-way, and relocations necessary for the 
     construction of the dredged material disposal facility.
       (c) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of 
     Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be 
     $5,000,000.

     SEC. 3080. DEER ISLAND, HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.

       The project for ecosystem restoration, Deer Island, 
     Harrison County, Mississippi, being carried out under section 
     204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 
     2326), is modified to authorize the non-Federal interest to 
     provide any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project in the form of in-kind services and materials.

     SEC. 3081. PEARL RIVER BASIN, MISSISSIPPI.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall complete a feasibility 
     study for the project for flood damage reduction, Pearl River 
     Watershed, Mississippi.
       (b) Comparison of Alternatives.--The feasibility study 
     shall identify both the plan that maximizes national economic 
     development benefits and the locally preferred plan and shall 
     compare the level of flood damage reduction provided by each 
     plan to that portion of Jackson, Mississippi, located below 
     the Ross Barnett Reservoir Dam.
       (c) Recommended Plan.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     locally preferred plan provides a level of flood damage 
     reduction that is equal to or greater than the level of flood 
     damage reduction provided by the national economic 
     development plan and the locally preferred plan is 
     technically feasible and environmentally protective, the 
     Secretary shall recommend construction of the locally 
     preferred plan.
       (d) Evaluation of Project Cost.--For the purposes of 
     determining compliance with the first section of the Flood 
     Control Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701a), the Secretary 
     shall consider only the costs of the national economic 
     development plan and shall exclude incremental costs 
     associated with the locally preferred plan that are in excess 
     of such costs if the non-Federal interest agrees to pay 100 
     percent of such incremental costs.
       (e) Non-Federal Cost Share.--If the locally preferred plan 
     is authorized for construction, the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of the project shall be the same percentage as the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the national economic 
     development plan plus all additional costs of construction 
     associated with the locally preferred plan.

     SEC. 3082. FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MISSOURI.

       Section 102(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 282) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$12,000,000''.

     SEC. 3083. L-15 LEVEE, MISSOURI.

       The portion of the L-15 levee system that is under the 
     jurisdiction of the Consolidated North County Levee District 
     and situated along the right descending bank of the 
     Mississippi River from the confluence of that river with the 
     Missouri River and running upstream approximately 14 miles 
     shall be considered to be a Federal levee for purposes of 
     cost sharing under section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 
     (33 U.S.C. 701n).

     SEC. 3084. MONARCH-CHESTERFIELD, MISSOURI.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Monarch-
     Chesterfield, Missouri, authorized by section 101(b)(18) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), 
     is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of the 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3085. RIVER DES PERES, MISSOURI.

       The projects for flood control, River Des Peres, Missouri, 
     authorized by section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607) and section 102(13) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
     3668), are each modified to direct the Secretary to credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 
     cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 
     the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3086. ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Antelope Creek, 
     Lincoln, Nebraska, authorized by section 101(b)(19) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is 
     modified--
       (1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design 
     and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
     if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project; and
       (2) to allow the non-Federal interest for the project to 
     use, and to direct the Secretary to accept, funds provided 
     under any other Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in 
     part, the non-Federal share of the project if such funds are 
     authorized to be used to carry out the project.

     SEC. 3087. SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NEBRASKA.

       The project for ecosystem restoration and flood damage 
     reduction, Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, authorized 
     by section 101(b)(20) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is modified--

[[Page H3628]]

       (1) to direct the Secretary to provide credit toward the 
     non-Federal share of the cost of the project or reimbursement 
     for the costs of any work that has been or will be performed 
     by the non-Federal interest before, on, or after the approval 
     of the project partnership agreement, including work 
     performed by the non-Federal interest in connection with the 
     design and construction of 7 upstream detention storage 
     structures, if the Secretary determines that the work is 
     integral to the project;
       (2) to require that in-kind work to be credited under 
     paragraph (1) be subject to audit; and
       (3) to direct the Secretary to accept advance funds from 
     the non-Federal interest as needed to maintain the project 
     schedule.

     SEC. 3088. LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NEW 
                   JERSEY.

       The project for navigation mitigation, ecosystem 
     restoration, shore protection, and hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction, Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New 
     Jersey, authorized by section 101(a)(25) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), is 
     modified to incorporate the project for shoreline erosion 
     control, Cape May Point, New Jersey, carried out under 
     section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal 
     participation in the cost of protecting the shores of 
     publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 
     U.S.C. 426h), if the Secretary determines that such 
     incorporation is feasible.

     SEC. 3089. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NEW JERSEY.

       The project for flood control, Passaic River, New Jersey 
     and New York, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607) and 
     modified by section 327 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2607), is further modified to direct 
     the Secretary to include the benefits and costs of preserving 
     natural flood storage in any future economic analysis of the 
     project.

     SEC. 3090. BUFFALO HARBOR, NEW YORK.

       The project for navigation, Buffalo Harbor, New York, 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 
     (76 Stat. 1176), is modified to include measures to enhance 
     public access, at Federal cost of $500,000.

     SEC. 3091. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.

       Section 554 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3781) is amended by striking ``maximum Federal 
     cost of $5,200,000'' and inserting ``total cost of 
     $20,000,000''.

     SEC. 3092. PORT OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK AND NEW 
                   JERSEY.

       The navigation project, Port of New York and New Jersey, 
     New York and New Jersey, authorized by section 101(a)(2) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576), 
     is modified--
       (1) to authorize the Secretary to allow the non-Federal 
     interest to construct a temporary dredged material storage 
     facility to receive dredged material from the project if--
       (A) the non-Federal interest submits, in writing, a list of 
     potential sites for the temporary storage facility to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate, and the Secretary at least 180 days 
     before the selection of the final site; and
       (B) at least 70 percent of the dredged material generated 
     in connection with the project suitable for beneficial reuse 
     will be used at sites in the State of New Jersey to the 
     extent that there are sufficient sites available; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
     construction of the temporary storage facility if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3093. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM.

       Section 553(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3781) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) New York State Canal System Defined.--In this 
     section, the term `New York State Canal System' means the 524 
     miles of navigable canal that comprise the New York State 
     Canal System, including the Erie, Cayuga-Seneca, Oswego, and 
     Champlain Canals and the historic alignments of these canals, 
     including the cities of Albany, Rochester, and Buffalo.''.

     SEC. 3094. LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, OHIO.

       Section 507(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3758) is amended by striking ``$2,500,000'' 
     and inserting ``$6,000,000''.

     SEC. 3095. MAHONING RIVER, OHIO.

       In carrying out the project for environmental dredging, 
     authorized by section 312(f)(4) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1272(f)(4)), the Secretary 
     is directed to credit toward the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-
     Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement 
     for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
     integral to the project.

     SEC. 3096. DELAWARE RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY, AND 
                   DELAWARE.

       The Secretary may remove debris from the project for 
     navigation, Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and 
     Delaware, Philadelphia to the Sea.

     SEC. 3097. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary may take such action as may be necessary, 
     including construction of a breakwater, to prevent shoreline 
     erosion between .07 and 2.7 miles south of Pennsylvania State 
     Route 994 on the east shore of Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.

     SEC. 3098. SHERADEN PARK STREAM AND CHARTIERS CREEK, 
                   ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sheraden 
     Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, 
     Pennsylvania, being carried out under section 206 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to credit up to $400,000 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for 
     planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project.

     SEC. 3099. SOLOMON'S CREEK, WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, 
     Pennsylvania, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), is 
     modified to include as a project element the project for 
     flood control for Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, 
     Pennsylvania.

     SEC. 3100. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.

       Section 313 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (106 Stat. 4845; 109 Stat. 407; 110 Stat. 3723; 113 Stat. 
     310; 117 Stat. 142) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (g)(1) by striking ``$180,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$200,000,000''; and
       (2) in subsection (h)(2) by striking ``Allegheny, 
     Armstrong, Beford, Blair, Cambria, Clearfield, Fayette, 
     Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, 
     Mifflin, Somerset, Snyder, Washington, and Westmoreland 
     Counties'' and inserting ``Allegheny, Armstrong, Bedford, 
     Blair, Cambria, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, 
     Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Somerset, Washington, and 
     Westmoreland Counties''.

     SEC. 3101. WYOMING VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA.

       In carrying out the project for flood control, Wyoming 
     Valley, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 401(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), the 
     Secretary shall coordinate with non-Federal interests to 
     review opportunities for increased public access.

     SEC. 3102. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS.

       (a) Credit for Planning and Design.--The project for 
     navigation, Cedar Bayou, Texas, reauthorized by section 
     349(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 
     Stat. 2632), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 
     cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-
     Federal interest for the project if the Secretary determines 
     that such work is integral to the project.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--Cost sharing for construction and 
     operation and maintenance of the project shall be determined 
     in accordance with section 101 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211).

     SEC. 3103. FREEPORT HARBOR, TEXAS.

       The project for navigation, Freeport Harbor, Texas, 
     authorized by section 101 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 
     1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is modified.--
       (1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of the 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to remove the sunken vessel 
     ``COMSTOCK'' at Federal expense.

     SEC. 3104. LAKE KEMP, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may not take any legal or 
     administrative action seeking to remove a Lake Kemp 
     improvement before the earlier of January 1, 2020, or the 
     date of any transfer of ownership of the improvement 
     occurring after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Limitation on Liability.--The United States, or any of 
     its officers, agents, or assignees, shall not be liable for 
     any injury, loss, or damage accruing to the owners of a Lake 
     Kemp improvement, their lessees, or occupants as a result of 
     any flooding or inundation of such improvements by the waters 
     of the Lake Kemp reservoir, or for such injury, loss, or 
     damage as may occur through the operation and maintenance of 
     the Lake Kemp dam and reservoir in any manner.
       (c) Lake Kemp Improvement Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``Lake Kemp improvement'' means an improvement 
     (including dwellings) located within the flowage easement of 
     Lake Kemp, Texas, below elevation 1159 feet mean sea level.

     SEC. 3105. LOWER RIO GRANDE BASIN, TEXAS.

       The project for flood control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, 
     Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125), is modified--
       (1) to include as part of the project flood protection 
     works to reroute drainage to Raymondville Drain constructed 
     by the non-Federal interests in Hidalgo County in the 
     vicinity of Edinburg, Texas, if the Secretary determines that 
     such work meets feasibility requirements;
       (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project; and
       (3) to direct the Secretary in calculating the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project, to make a determination, 
     within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     under section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the non-Federal interest's 
     ability to pay.

     SEC. 3106. NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TEXAS.

       The project for ecosystem restoration and storm damage 
     reduction, North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, 
     authorized by section 556 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 353), is modified to include 
     recreation as a project purpose.

     SEC. 3107. PAT MAYSE LAKE, TEXAS.

       The Secretary is directed to accept from the city of Paris, 
     Texas, $3,461,432 as payment in

[[Page H3629]]

     full of monies owed to the United States for water supply 
     storage space in Pat Mayse Lake, Texas, under contract number 
     DA-34-066-CIVENG-65-1272, including accrued interest.

     SEC. 3108. PROCTOR LAKE, TEXAS.

       The Secretary is authorized to purchase fee simple title to 
     all properties located within the boundaries, and necessary 
     for the operation, of the Proctor Lake project, Texas, 
     authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 
     (68 Stat. 1259).

     SEC. 3109. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.

       The project for flood control, San Antonio Channel, Texas, 
     authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 
     (68 Stat. 1259) as part of the comprehensive plan for flood 
     protection on the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers in Texas 
     and modified by section 103 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921) and section 335 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), 
     is further modified to authorize the Secretary to credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 
     cost of design and construction work carried out by the non-
     Federal interest for the project if the Secretary determines 
     that the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3110. LEE, RUSSELL, SCOTT, SMYTH, TAZEWELL, AND WISE 
                   COUNTIES, VIRGINIA.

       The project for flood control, Levisa and Tug Forks of the 
     Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, authorized by 
     section 202 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriation 
     Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339) and modified by section 352 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3724-3725) 
     and section 336 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (114 Stat. 2611), is further modified to direct the 
     Secretary to determine the ability of Lee, Russell, Scott, 
     Smyth, Tazewell, and Wise Counties, Virginia, to pay the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project based solely on the 
     criterion specified in section 103(m)(3)(A)(i) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2213(m)(3)(A)(i)).

     SEC. 3111. TANGIER ISLAND SEAWALL, VIRGINIA.

       Section 577(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3789) is amended by striking ``at a total 
     cost of $1,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $300,000.'' and 
     inserting ``at a total cost of $3,000,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $2,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $750,000.''.

     SEC. 3112. DUWAMISH/GREEN, WASHINGTON.

       The project for ecosystem restoration, Duwamish/Green, 
     Washington, authorized by section 101(b)(26) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2579), is 
     modified--
       (1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before, on, or after 
     the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project; and
       (2) to authorize the non-Federal interest to provide any 
     portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 
     in the form of in-kind services and materials.

     SEC. 3113. YAKIMA RIVER, PORT OF SUNNYSIDE, WASHINGTON.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Yakima 
     River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington, being carried out under 
     section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to 
     credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project.

     SEC. 3114. GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3790; 113 Stat. 312) is amended by striking 
     ``$47,000,000'' and inserting ``$99,000,000''.

     SEC. 3115. LESAGE/GREENBOTTOM SWAMP, WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 30(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1988 (102 Stat. 4030; 114 Stat. 2678) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Historic Structure.--The Secretary shall ensure the 
     preservation and restoration of the structure known as the 
     `Jenkins House', and the reconstruction of associated 
     buildings and landscape features of such structure located 
     within the Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp in accordance with the 
     Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of 
     historic properties. Amounts made available for expenditure 
     for the project authorized by section 301(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4110) shall be 
     available for the purposes of this subsection.''.

     SEC. 3116. NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 557 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 353) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by striking ``favorable'';
       (2) by striking ``$8,400,000'' and inserting 
     ``$12,000,000''; and
       (3) by striking ``$4,200,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$6,000,000''.

     SEC. 3117. MANITOWOC HARBOR, WISCONSIN.

       The project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, 
     authorized by the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1852 (10 
     Stat. 58), is modified to direct the Secretary to deepen the 
     upstream reach of the navigation channel from 12 feet to 18 
     feet, at a total cost of $405,000.

     SEC. 3118. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS.

       Section 21 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 
     (102 Stat. 4027) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``1276.42'' and inserting ``1278.42'';
       (B) by striking ``1218.31'' and inserting ``1221.31''; and
       (C) by striking ``1234.82'' and inserting ``1235.30''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Exception.--The Secretary may operate the headwaters 
     reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water 
     levels established in subsection (a) in accordance with water 
     control regulation manuals (or revisions thereto) developed 
     by the Secretary, after consultation with the Governor of 
     Minnesota and affected tribal governments, landowners, and 
     commercial and recreational users. The water control 
     regulation manuals (and any revisions thereto) shall be 
     effective when the Secretary transmits them to Congress. The 
     Secretary shall report to Congress at least 14 days before 
     operating any such headwaters reservoir below the minimum or 
     above the maximum water level limits specified in subsection 
     (a); except that notification is not required for operations 
     necessary to prevent the loss of life or to ensure the safety 
     of the dam or if the drawdown of lake levels is in 
     anticipation of flood control operations.''.

     SEC. 3119. CONTINUATION OF PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(2) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     579a(b)(2)), the following projects shall remain authorized 
     to be carried out by the Secretary:
       (1) The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship 
     Channel, California, authorized by section 202(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092).
       (2) The project for flood control, Agana River, Guam, 
     authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4127).
       (3) The project for navigation, Fall River Harbor, 
     Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731); except that the authorized 
     depth of that portion of the project extending riverward of 
     the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and 
     Somerset, Massachusetts, shall not exceed 35 feet.
       (b) Limitation.--A project described in subsection (a) 
     shall not be authorized for construction after the last day 
     of the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, unless, during such period, funds have been 
     obligated for the construction (including planning and 
     design) of the project.

     SEC. 3120. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.

       Each of the following projects may be carried out by the 
     Secretary and no construction on any such project may be 
     initiated until the Secretary determines that the project is 
     feasible:
       (1) Menominee harbor and river, michigan and wisconsin.--
     The project for navigation, Menominee Harbor and River, 
     Michigan and Wisconsin, authorized by section 101 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482) and deauthorized 
     on April 15, 2002, in accordance with section 1001(b)(2) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     579a(b)(2)).
       (2) Manitowoc harbor, wisconsin.--That portion of the 
     project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, 
     authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act 
     of August 30, 1852 (10 Stat. 58), consisting of the channel 
     in the south part of the outer harbor, deauthorized by 
     section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 
     1176).
       (3) Hearding island inlet, duluth harbor, minnesota.--The 
     project for dredging, Hearding Island Inlet, Duluth Harbor, 
     Minnesota, authorized by section 22 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4027).

     SEC. 3121. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The following projects are not authorized 
     after the date of enactment of this Act:
       (1) Bridgeport harbor, connecticut.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, 
     authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act 
     of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 919), consisting of an 18-foot 
     channel in Yellow Mill River and described as follows: 
     Beginning at a point along the eastern limit of the existing 
     project, N123,649.75, E481,920.54, thence running 
     northwesterly about 52.64 feet to a point N123,683.03, 
     E481,879.75, thence running northeasterly about 1,442.21 feet 
     to a point N125,030.08, E482,394.96, thence running 
     northeasterly about 139.52 feet to a point along the eastern 
     limit of the existing channel, N125,133.87, E482,488.19, 
     thence running southwesterly about 1,588.98 feet to the point 
     of origin.
       (2) Mystic river, connecticut.--The portion of the project 
     for navigation, Mystic River, Connecticut, authorized by the 
     first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of 
     September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 436) consisting of a 12-foot-
     deep channel, approximately 7,554 square feet in area, 
     starting at a point N193,086.51, E815,092.78, thence running 
     north 59 degrees 21 minutes 46.63 seconds west about 138.05 
     feet to a point N193,156.86, E814,974.00, thence running 
     north 51 degrees 04 minutes 39.00 seconds west about 166.57 
     feet to a point N193,261.51, E814,844.41, thence running 
     north 43 degrees 01 minutes 34.90 seconds west about 86.23 
     feet to a point N193,324.55, E814,785.57, thence running 
     north 06 degrees 42 minutes 03.86 seconds west about 156.57 
     feet to a point N193,480.05, E814,767.30, thence running 
     south 21 degrees 21 minutes 17.94 seconds east about 231.42 
     feet to a point N193,264.52, E814,851.57, thence running 
     south 53 degrees 34 minutes 23.28 seconds east about 299.78 
     feet to the point of origin.
       (3) New london harbor, connecticut.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, New London Harbor, Connecticut, 
     authorized by the

[[Page H3630]]

     River and Harbor Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 
     Stat. 333), that consists of a 23-foot waterfront channel and 
     that is further described as beginning at a point along the 
     western limit of the existing project, N188,802.75, 
     E779,462.81, thence running northeasterly about 1,373.88 feet 
     to a point N189,554.87, E780,612.53, thence running 
     southeasterly about 439.54 feet to a point N189,319.88, 
     E780,983.98, thence running southwesterly about 831.58 feet 
     to a point N188,864.63, E780,288.08, thence running 
     southeasterly about 567.39 feet to a point N188,301.88, 
     E780,360.49, thence running northwesterly about 1,027.96 feet 
     to the point of origin.
       (4) Falmouth harbor, massachusetts.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, Falmouth Harbor, Massachusetts, 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1948 
     (62 Stat. 1172), beginning at a point along the eastern side 
     of the inner harbor N200,415.05, E845,307.98, thence running 
     north 25 degrees 48 minutes 54.3 seconds east 160.24 feet to 
     a point N200,559.20, E845,377.76, thence running north 22 
     degrees 7 minutes 52.4 seconds east 596.82 feet to a point 
     N201,112.15, E845,602.60, thence running north 60 degrees 1 
     minute 0.3 seconds east 83.18 feet to a point N201,153.72, 
     E845,674.65, thence running south 24 degrees 56 minutes 43.4 
     seconds west 665.01 feet to a point N200,550.75, E845,394.18, 
     thence running south 32 degrees 25 minutes 29.0 seconds west 
     160.76 feet to the point of origin.
       (5) Island end river, massachusetts.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, Island End River, Massachusetts, 
     carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 
     1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), described as follows: Beginning at a 
     point along the eastern limit of the existing project, 
     N507,348.98, E721,180.01, thence running northeast about 35 
     feet to a point N507,384.17, E721,183.36, thence running 
     northeast about 324 feet to a point N507,590.51, E721,433.17, 
     thence running northeast about 345 feet to a point along the 
     northern limit of the existing project, N507,927.29, 
     E721,510.29, thence running southeast about 25 feet to a 
     point N507,921.71, E721,534.66, thence running southwest 
     about 354 feet to a point N507,576.65, E721,455.64, thence 
     running southwest about 357 feet to the point of origin.
       (6) City waterway, tacoma, washington.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington, 
     authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor 
     Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 347), 
     consisting of the last 1,000 linear feet of the inner portion 
     of the waterway beginning at station 70+00 and ending at 
     station 80+00.
       (7) Aunt lydia's cove, massachusetts.--
       (A) In general.--The portion of the project for navigation, 
     Aunt Lydia's Cove, Massachusetts, constructed under section 
     107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), 
     consisting of the 8-foot deep anchorage in the cove described 
     in subparagraph (B).
       (B) Description of portion.--The portion of the project 
     described in subparagraph (A) is more particularly described 
     as the portion beginning at a point along the southern limit 
     of the existing project, N254,332.00, E1,023,103.96, thence 
     running northwesterly about 761.60 feet to a point along the 
     western limit of the existing project N255,076.84, 
     E1,022,945.07, thence running southwesterly about 38.11 feet 
     to a point N255,038.99, E1,022,940.60, thence running 
     southeasterly about 267.07 feet to a point N254,772.00, 
     E1,022,947.00, thence running southeasterly about 462.41 feet 
     to a point N254,320.06, E1,023,044.84, thence running 
     northeasterly about 60.31 feet to the point of origin.
       (b) Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut.--The project 
     for navigation, Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut, 
     authorized by section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of March 
     2, 1829, and by the first section of the River and Harbor Act 
     of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1029), and section 364 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3733-
     3734), is further modified to redesignate a portion of the 9-
     foot-deep channel as an anchorage area, approximately 900 
     feet in length and 90,000 square feet in area, and lying 
     generally north of a line with points at coordinates 
     N108,043.45, E452,252.04 and N107,938.74, E452,265.74.
       (c) Saco River, Maine.--The portion of the project for 
     navigation, Saco River, Maine, authorized under section 107 
     of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and 
     described as a 6-foot deep, 10-acre turning basin located at 
     the head of navigation, is redesignated as an anchorage area.
       (d) Union River, Maine.--The project for navigation, Union 
     River, Maine, authorized by the first section of the Act of 
     June 3, 1896 (29 Stat. 215), is modified by redesignating as 
     an anchorage area that portion of the project consisting of a 
     6-foot turning basin and lying northerly of a line commencing 
     at a point N315,975.13, E1,004,424.86, thence running north 
     61 degrees 27 minutes 20.71 seconds west about 132.34 feet to 
     a point N316,038.37, E1,004,308.61.
       (e) Mystic River, Massachusetts.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, Mystic River, Massachusetts, 
     authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor 
     Appropriations Act of July 13, 1892 (27 Stat. 96), between a 
     line starting at a point N515,683.77, E707,035.45 and ending 
     at a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85 and a line starting at a 
     point N514,595.15, E707,746.15 and ending at a point 
     N514,732.94, E707,658.38 shall be relocated and reduced from 
     a 100-foot wide channel to a 50-foot wide channel after the 
     date of enactment of this Act described as follows: Beginning 
     at a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85, thence running 
     southeasterly about 840.50 feet to a point N515,070.16, 
     E707,601.27, thence running southeasterly about 177.54 feet 
     to a point N514,904.84, E707,665.98, thence running 
     southeasterly about 319.90 feet to a point with coordinates 
     N514,595.15, E707,746.15, thence running northwesterly about 
     163.37 feet to a point N514,732.94, E707,658.38, thence 
     running northwesterly about 161.58 feet to a point 
     N514.889.47, E707,618.30, thence running northwesterly about 
     166.61 feet to a point N515.044.62, E707,557.58, thence 
     running northwesterly about 825.31 feet to a point 
     N515,683.77, E707,035.45, thence running northeasterly about 
     50.90 feet returning to a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85.
       (f) Conditions.--The first sentence of section 1001(b)(2) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     579a(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``two years'' and inserting ``year''; and
       (2) by striking ``7'' and inserting ``5''.

     SEC. 3122. LAND CONVEYANCES.

       (a) St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of 
     Arkansas, without monetary consideration and subject to 
     paragraph (2), all right, title, and interest in and to real 
     property within the State acquired by the Federal Government 
     as mitigation land for the project for flood control, St. 
     Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri Project, authorized by 
     the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928 (33 U.S.C. 702a et 
     seq.).
       (2) Terms and conditions.--
       (A) In general.--The conveyance by the United States under 
     this subsection shall be subject to--
       (i) the condition that the State of Arkansas agree to 
     operate, maintain, and manage the real property for fish and 
     wildlife, recreation, and environmental purposes at no cost 
     or expense to the United States; and
       (ii) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     determines to be in the interest of the United States.
       (B) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the real 
     property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in 
     public ownership or the State ceases to operate, maintain, 
     and manage the real property in accordance with this 
     subsection, all right, title, and interest in and to the 
     property shall revert to the United States, at the option of 
     the Secretary.
       (3) Mitigation.--Nothing in this subsection extinguishes 
     the responsibility of the Federal Government or the non-
     Federal interest for the project referred to in paragraph (1) 
     from the obligation to implement mitigation for such project 
     that existed on the day prior to the transfer authorized by 
     this subsection.
       (b) Milford, Kansas.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey by quitclaim 
     deed without consideration to the Geary County Fire 
     Department, Milford, Kansas, all right, title, and interest 
     of the United States in and to real property consisting of 
     approximately 7.4 acres located in Geary County, Kansas, for 
     construction, operation, and maintenance of a fire station.
       (2) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the real 
     property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in 
     public ownership or ceases to be operated and maintained as a 
     fire station, all right, title, and interest in and to the 
     property shall revert to the United States, at the option of 
     the United States.
       (c) Pike County, Missouri.--
       (1) In general.--At such time as S.S.S., Inc., conveys all 
     right, title and interest in and to the real property 
     described in paragraph (2)(A) to the United States, the 
     Secretary shall convey all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to the real property described in 
     paragraph (2)(B) to S.S.S., Inc.
       (2) Land description.--The parcels of land referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are the following:
       (A) Non-federal land.--Approximately 42 acres, the exact 
     legal description to be determined by mutual agreement of 
     S.S.S., Inc., and the Secretary, subject to any existing 
     flowage easements situated in Pike County, Missouri, upstream 
     and northwest, about a 200-foot distance from Drake Island 
     (also known as Grimes Island).
       (B) Federal land.--Approximately 42 acres, the exact legal 
     description to be determined by mutual agreement of S.S.S. 
     Inc., and the Secretary, situated in Pike County, Missouri, 
     known as Government Tract Numbers MIs-7 and a portion of FM-
     46 (both tracts on Buffalo Island), administered by the Corps 
     of Engineers.
       (3) Conditions.--The exchange of real property under 
     paragraph (1) shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (A) Deeds.--
       (i) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the real property 
     described in paragraph (2)(A) to the Secretary shall be by a 
     warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary.
       (ii) Federal land.--The instrument of conveyance used to 
     convey the real property described in paragraph (2)(B) to 
     S.S.S., Inc., shall be by quitclaim deed and contain such 
     reservations, terms, and conditions as the Secretary 
     considers necessary to allow the United States to operate and 
     maintain the Mississippi River 9-Foot Navigation Project.
       (B) Removal of improvements.--S.S.S., Inc., may remove, and 
     the Secretary may require S.S.S., Inc., to remove, any 
     improvements on the land described in paragraph (2)(A).
       (C) Time limit for exchange.--The land exchange under 
     paragraph (1) shall be completed not later than 2 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (4) Value of properties.--If the appraised fair market 
     value, as determined by the Secretary, of the real property 
     conveyed to S.S.S., Inc., by the Secretary under paragraph 
     (1) exceeds the appraised fair market value, as determined by 
     the Secretary, of the real property conveyed to the United 
     States by S.S.S., Inc., under paragraph (1), S.S.S., Inc., 
     shall make a payment to the United States equal to the excess 
     in cash or a cash equivalent that is satisfactory to the 
     Secretary.
       (d) Boardman, Oregon.--Section 501(g)(1) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3751) is 
     amended--

[[Page H3631]]

       (1) by striking ``city of Boardman,'' and inserting ``the 
     Boardman Park and Recreation District, Boardman,''; and
       (2) by striking ``such city'' and inserting ``the city of 
     Boardman''.
       (e) Lowell, Oregon.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may convey without 
     consideration to Lowell School District, by quitclaim deed, 
     all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     land and buildings thereon, known as Tract A-82, located in 
     Lowell, Oregon, and described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Description of property.--The parcel of land authorized 
     to be conveyed under paragraph (1) is as follows: Commencing 
     at the point of intersection of the west line of Pioneer 
     Street with the westerly extension of the north line of 
     Summit Street, in Meadows Addition to Lowell, as platted and 
     recorded at page 56 of Volume 4, Lane County Oregon Plat 
     Records; thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street a 
     distance of 176.0 feet to the true point of beginning of this 
     description; thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street 
     a distance of 170.0 feet; thence west at right angles to the 
     west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 250.0 feet; thence 
     south and parallel to the west line of Pioneer Street a 
     distance of 170.0 feet; thence east 250.0 feet to the true 
     point of beginning of this description in Section 14, 
     Township 19 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, 
     Lane County, Oregon.
       (3) Terms and conditions.--Before conveying the parcel to 
     the school district, the Secretary shall ensure that the 
     conditions of buildings and facilities meet the requirements 
     of applicable Federal law.
       (4) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in 
     public ownership, all right, title, and interest in and to 
     the property shall revert to the United States, at the option 
     of the United States.
       (f) Lowell, Oregon.--
       (1) Release and extinguishment of deed reservations.--
       (A) Release and extinguishment of deed reservations.--The 
     Secretary may release and extinguish the deed reservations 
     for access and communication cables contained in the 
     quitclaim deed, dated January 26, 1965, and recorded February 
     15, 1965, in the records of Lane County, Oregon; except that 
     such reservations may only be released and extinguished for 
     the lands owned by the city of Lowell as described in the 
     quitclaim deed, dated April 11, 1991, in such records.
       (B) Additional release and extinguishment of deed 
     reservations.--The Secretary may also release and extinguish 
     the same deed reservations referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     over land owned by Lane County, Oregon, within the city 
     limits of Lowell, Oregon, to accommodate the development 
     proposals of the city of Lowell/St. Vincent de Paul, Lane 
     County, affordable housing project; except that the Secretary 
     may require, at no cost to the United States--
       (i) the alteration or relocation of any existing 
     facilities, utilities, roads, or similar improvements on such 
     lands; and
       (ii) the right-of-way for such facilities, utilities, or 
     improvements, as a pre-condition of any release or 
     extinguishment of the deed reservations.
       (2) Conveyance.--The Secretary may convey to the city of 
     Lowell, Oregon, at fair market value the parcel of land 
     situated in the city of Lowell, Oregon, at fair market value 
     consisting of the strip of federally-owned lands located 
     northeast of West Boundary Road between Hyland Lane and the 
     city of Lowell's eastward city limits.
       (3) Administrative cost.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) 
     and (2), the city of Lowell, Oregon, shall pay the 
     administrative costs incurred by the United States to execute 
     the release and extinguishment of the deed reservations under 
     paragraph (1) and the conveyance under paragraph (2).
       (g) Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of 
     South Carolina, by quitclaim deed, at fair market value, all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     real property described in paragraph (2) that is managed, as 
     of the date of enactment of this Act, by the South Carolina 
     department of commerce for public recreation purposes for the 
     Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina, project 
     authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 
     (80 Stat. 1420).
       (2) Land description.--Subject to paragraph (3), the real 
     property referred to in paragraph (1) is the parcel contained 
     in the portion of real property described in Army Lease 
     Number DACW21-1-92-0500.
       (3) Reservation of interests.--The United States shall 
     reserve--
       (A) ownership of all real property included in the lease 
     referred to in paragraph (2) that would have been acquired 
     for operational purposes in accordance with the 1971 
     implementation of the 1962 Army/Interior Joint Acquisition 
     Policy; and
       (B) such other rights and interests in and to the real 
     property to be conveyed as the Secretary considers necessary 
     for authorized project purposes, including easement rights-
     of-way to remaining Federal land.
       (4) No effect on shore management policy.--The Shoreline 
     Management Policy (ER-1130-2-406) of the Corps of Engineers 
     shall not be changed or altered for any proposed development 
     of land conveyed under this subsection.
       (5) Cost sharing.--In carrying out the conveyance under 
     this subsection, the Secretary and the State shall comply 
     with all obligations of any cost-sharing agreement between 
     the Secretary and the State with respect to the real property 
     described in paragraph (2) in effect as of the date of the 
     conveyance.
       (6) Land not conveyed.--The State shall continue to manage 
     the real property described in paragraph (3) not conveyed 
     under this subsection in accordance with the terms and 
     conditions of Army Lease Number DACW21-1-92-0500.
       (h) Denison, Texas.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall offer to convey at 
     fair market value to the city of Denison, Texas, all right, 
     title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     approximately 900 acres of land located in Grayson County, 
     Texas, which is currently subject to an application for lease 
     for public park and recreational purposes made by the city of 
     Denison, dated August 17, 2005.
       (2) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage 
     and description of the real property referred to in paragraph 
     (1) shall be determined by a survey paid for by the city 
     of Denison, Texas, that is satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (3) Conveyance.--On acceptance by the city of Denison, 
     Texas, of an offer under paragraph (1), the Secretary may 
     immediately convey the land surveyed under paragraph (2) by 
     quitclaim deed to the city of Denison, Texas.
       (i) Generally Applicable Provisions.--
       (1) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage 
     and the legal description of any real property to be conveyed 
     under this section shall be determined by a survey that is 
     satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (2) Applicability of property screening provisions.--
     Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply 
     to any conveyance under this section.
       (3) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require that any conveyance under this section be subject to 
     such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate and necessary to protect the interests 
     of the United States.
       (4) Costs of conveyance.--An entity to which a conveyance 
     is made under this section shall be responsible for all 
     reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate 
     transaction and environmental documentation costs, associated 
     with the conveyance.
       (5) Liability.--An entity to which a conveyance is made 
     under this section shall hold the United States harmless from 
     any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or 
     after the date of the conveyance, on the real property 
     conveyed. The United States shall remain responsible for any 
     liability with respect to activities carried out, before such 
     date, on the real property conveyed.

     SEC. 3123. EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTERESTS AND USE 
                   RESTRICTIONS.

       (a) Idaho.--
       (1) In general.--With respect to the property covered by 
     each deed in paragraph (2)--
       (A) the reversionary interests and use restrictions 
     relating to port and industrial use purposes are 
     extinguished;
       (B) the restriction that no activity shall be permitted 
     that will compete with services and facilities offered by 
     public marinas is extinguished; and
       (C) the human habitation or other building structure use 
     restriction is extinguished if the elevation of the property 
     is above the standard project flood elevation.
       (2) Affected deeds.--The deeds with the following county 
     auditor's file numbers are referred to in paragraph (1):
       (A) Auditor's Instrument No. 399218 of Nez Perce County, 
     Idaho--2.07 acres.
       (B) Auditor's Instrument No. 487437 of Nez Perce County, 
     Idaho--7.32 acres.
       (b) Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, 
     Tennessee.--
       (1) Release of retained rights, interests, reservations.--
     With respect to land conveyed by the Secretary to the 
     Tennessee Society of Crippled Children and Adults, 
     Incorporated (commonly known as ``Easter Seals Tennessee'') 
     at Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee, 
     under section 211 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 
     1087), the reversionary interests and the use restrictions 
     relating to recreation and camping purposes are extinguished.
       (2) Instrument of release.--As soon as practicable after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     execute and file in the appropriate office a deed of release, 
     amended deed, or other appropriate instrument effectuating 
     the release of interests required by paragraph (1).
       (c) Port of Pasco, Washington.--
       (1) Extinguishment of use restrictions and flowage 
     easement.--With respect to the property covered by the deed 
     in paragraph (3)(A)--
       (A) the flowage easement and human habitation or other 
     building structure use restriction is extinguished if the 
     elevation of the property is above the standard project flood 
     elevation; and
       (B) the use of fill material to raise areas of the property 
     above the standard project flood elevation is authorized, 
     except in any area for which a permit under section 404 of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is 
     required.
       (2) Extinguishment of flowage easement.--With respect to 
     the property covered by each deed in paragraph (3)(B), the 
     flowage easement is extinguished if the elevation of the 
     property is above the standard project flood elevation.
       (3) Affected deeds.--The deeds referred to in paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) are as follows:
       (A) Auditor's File Number 262980 of Franklin County, 
     Washington.
       (B) Auditor's File Numbers 263334 and 404398 of Franklin 
     County, Washington.
       (d) No Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section 
     affects the remaining rights and interests of the Corps of 
     Engineers for authorized project purposes.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

     SEC. 4001. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM.

       Section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (42 U.S.C. 1962d-21) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

[[Page H3632]]

       ``(g) In-Kind Contributions for Study.--The non-Federal 
     interest may provide up to 100 percent of the non-Federal 
     share required under subsection (f) in the form of in-kind 
     services and materials.''.

     SEC. 4002. LAKE ERIE DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the nature 
     and frequency of avian botulism problems in the vicinity of 
     Lake Erie associated with dredged material disposal sites and 
     shall make recommendations to eliminate the conditions that 
     result in such problems.

     SEC. 4003. SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES DROUGHT STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
     Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the 
     Secretary of Commerce, and other appropriate agencies, shall 
     conduct, at Federal expense, a comprehensive study of drought 
     conditions in the southwestern United States, with particular 
     emphasis on the Colorado River basin, the Rio Grande River 
     basin, and the Great Basin.
       (b) Inventory of Actions.--In conducting the study, the 
     Secretary shall assemble an inventory of actions taken or 
     planned to be taken to address drought-related situations in 
     the southwestern United States.
       (c) Purpose.--The purpose of the study shall be to develop 
     recommendations to more effectively address current and 
     future drought conditions in the southwestern United States.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 
     $7,000,000. Such funds shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 4004. DELAWARE RIVER.

       The Secretary shall review, in consultation with the 
     Delaware River Basin Commission and the States of Delaware, 
     Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, the report of the 
     Chief of Engineers on the Delaware River, published as House 
     Document Numbered 522, 87th Congress, Second Session, as it 
     relates to the Mid-Delaware River Basin from Wilmington to 
     Port Jervis, and any other pertinent reports (including the 
     strategy for resolution of interstate flow management issues 
     in the Delaware River Basin dated August 2004 and the 
     National Park Service Lower Delaware River Management Plan 
     (1997-1999)), with a view to determining whether any 
     modifications of recommendations contained in the first 
     report referred to are advisable at the present time, in the 
     interest of flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, 
     and other related problems.

     SEC. 4005. KNIK ARM, COOK INLET, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a study to 
     determine the potential impacts on navigation of construction 
     of a bridge across Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.

     SEC. 4006. KUSKOKWIM RIVER, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, 
     Kuskokwim River, Alaska, in the vicinity of the village of 
     Crooked Creek.

     SEC. 4007. ST. GEORGE HARBOR, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a study to 
     determine the feasibility of providing navigation 
     improvements at St. George Harbor, Alaska.

     SEC. 4008. SUSITNA RIVER, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for hydropower, 
     recreation, and related purposes on the Susitna River, 
     Alaska.

     SEC. 4009. GILA BEND, MARICOPA, ARIZONA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
     damage reduction, Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona.
       (b) Review of Plans.--In conducting the study, the 
     Secretary shall review plans and designs developed by non-
     Federal interests and shall incorporate such plans and 
     designs into the Federal study if the Secretary determines 
     that such plans and designs are consistent with Federal 
     standards.

     SEC. 4010. SEARCY COUNTY, ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of using Greers Ferry Lake as a water supply 
     source for Searcy County, Arkansas.

     SEC. 4011. ELKHORN SLOUGH ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Elkhorn Slough 
     estuary, California, to determine the feasibility of 
     conserving, enhancing, and restoring estuarine habitats by 
     developing strategies to address hydrological management 
     issues.

     SEC. 4012. FRESNO, KINGS, AND KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for 
     Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, California.

     SEC. 4013. LOS ANGELES RIVER REVITALIZATION STUDY, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
     city of Los Angeles, shall--
       (1) prepare a feasibility study for environmental 
     restoration, flood control, recreation, and other aspects of 
     Los Angeles River revitalization that is consistent with the 
     goals of the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan 
     published by the city of Los Angeles; and
       (2) consider any locally-preferred project alternatives 
     developed through a full and open evaluation process for 
     inclusion in the study.
       (b) Use of Existing Information and Measures.--In preparing 
     the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall use, to 
     the maximum extent practicable--
       (1) information obtained from the Los Angeles River 
     Revitalization Master Plan; and
       (2) the development process of that plan.
       (c) Demonstration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to construct 
     demonstration projects in order to provide information to 
     develop the study under subsection (a)(1).
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of any 
     project under this subsection shall be not more than 65 
     percent.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $20,000,000.

     SEC. 4014. LYTLE CREEK, RIALTO, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction and groundwater recharge, Lytle Creek, Rialto, 
     California.

     SEC. 4015. MOKELUMNE RIVER, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water 
     supply along the Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, 
     California.
       (b) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to invalidate, preempt, or create 
     any exception to State water law, State water rights, or 
     Federal or State permitted activities or agreements.

     SEC. 4016. NAPA RIVER, ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     comprehensive study of the Napa River in the vicinity of St. 
     Helena, California, for the purposes of improving flood 
     management through reconnecting the river to its floodplain; 
     restoring habitat, including riparian and aquatic habitat; 
     improving fish passage and water quality; and restoring 
     native plant communities.
       (b) Plans and Designs.--In conducting the study, the 
     Secretary shall review plans and designs developed by non-
     Federal interests and shall incorporate such plans and 
     designs into the Federal study if the Secretary determines 
     that such plans and designs are consistent with Federal 
     standards.

     SEC. 4017. ORICK, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
     damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Orick, 
     California.
       (b) Feasibility of Restoring or Rehabilitating Redwook 
     Creek Levees.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall 
     determine the feasibility of restoring or rehabilitating the 
     Redwood Creek Levees, Humboldt County, California.

     SEC. 4018. RIALTO, FONTANA, AND COLTON, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for 
     Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California.

     SEC. 4019. SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study to 
     determine the feasibility of, and alternatives for, measures 
     to protect water diversion facilities and fish protective 
     screen facilities in the vicinity of river mile 178 on the 
     Sacramento River, California.

     SEC. 4020. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, San 
     Diego County, California, including a review of the 
     feasibility of connecting 4 existing reservoirs to increase 
     usable storage capacity.

     SEC. 4021. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of the beneficial use of dredged 
     material from the San Francisco Bay in the Sacramento-San 
     Joaquin Delta, California, including the benefits and impacts 
     of salinity in the Delta and the benefits to navigation, 
     flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, water quality, 
     salinity control, water supply reliability, and recreation.
       (b) Cooperation.--In conducting the study, the Secretary 
     shall cooperate with the California Department of Water 
     Resources and appropriate Federal and State entities in 
     developing options for the beneficial use of dredged material 
     from San Francisco Bay for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 
     area.
       (c) Review.--The study shall include a review of the 
     feasibility of using Sherman Island as a rehandling site for 
     levee maintenance material, as well as for ecosystem 
     restoration. The review may include monitoring a pilot 
     project using up to 150,000 cubic yards of dredged material 
     and being carried out at the Sherman Island site, examining 
     larger scale use of dredged materials from the San Francisco 
     Bay and Suisun Bay Channel, and analyzing the feasibility of 
     the potential use of saline materials from the San Francisco 
     Bay for both rehandling and ecosystem restoration purposes.

     SEC. 4022. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--In conducting the South San Francisco Bay 
     shoreline study, the Secretary shall--
       (1) review the planning, design, and land acquisition 
     documents prepared by the California State Coastal 
     Conservancy, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and other 
     local interests in developing recommendations for measures to 
     provide flood protection of the South San Francisco Bay 
     shoreline, restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt 
     ponds (including lands owned by the Department of the 
     Interior), and other related purposes; and
       (2) incorporate such planning, design, and land acquisition 
     documents into the Federal study if the Secretary determines 
     that such documents are consistent with Federal standards.
       (b) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the 
     Secretary shall transmit a feasibility report for the South 
     San Francisco Bay shoreline study to the Committee on 
     Transportation

[[Page H3633]]

     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
       (c) Credit.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as 
     a result of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline study the 
     cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 
     the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.
       (2) Limitation.--In no case may work that was carried out 
     more than 5 years before the date of enactment of this Act be 
     eligible for credit under this subsection.

     SEC. 4023. TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Pinto Cove Wash, in the vicinity of Twentynine 
     Palms, California.

     SEC. 4024. YUCCA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, West Burnt Mountain basin, in the vicinity of 
     Yucca Valley, California.

     SEC. 4025. ROARING FORK RIVER, BASALT, COLORADO.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction and other purposes for the Roaring Fork River, 
     Basalt, Colorado.

     SEC. 4026. DELAWARE AND CHRISTINA RIVERS AND SHELLPOT CREEK, 
                   WILMINGTON, DELAWARE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction and related purposes along the Delaware and 
     Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek, Wilmington, Delaware.

     SEC. 4027. COLLIER COUNTY BEACHES, FLORIDA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for hurricane and storm 
     damage reduction and flood damage reduction in the vicinity 
     of Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples beaches, Collier 
     County, Florida.

     SEC. 4028. LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER, FLORIDA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental 
     protection and restoration, including improved water quality, 
     and related purposes, Lower St. Johns River, Florida.

     SEC. 4029. VANDERBILT BEACH LAGOON, FLORIDA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental 
     restoration, water supply, and improvement of water quality 
     at Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.

     SEC. 4030. MERIWETHER COUNTY, GEORGIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, 
     Meriwether County, Georgia.

     SEC. 4031. TYBEE ISLAND, GEORGIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of including the northern end of Tybee Island 
     extending from the north terminal groin to the mouth of 
     Lazaretto Creek as a part of the project for beach erosion 
     control, Tybee Island, Georgia, carried out under section 201 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5).

     SEC. 4032. BOISE RIVER, IDAHO.

       The study for flood control, Boise River, Idaho, authorized 
     by section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 324), is modified--
       (1) to add ecosystem restoration and water supply as 
     project purposes to be studied; and
       (2) to require the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the study the cost, not to 
     exceed $500,000, of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project.

     SEC. 4033. BALLARD'S ISLAND SIDE CHANNEL, ILLINOIS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem 
     restoration, Ballard's Island, Illinois.

     SEC. 4034. SALEM, INDIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project to provide an 
     additional water supply source for Salem, Indiana.

     SEC. 4035. BUCKHORN LAKE, KENTUCKY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood 
     damage reduction, Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky, authorized by 
     section 2 of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 
     1217), to add ecosystem restoration, recreation, and improved 
     access as project purposes, including permanently raising the 
     winter pool elevation of the project.
       (b) In-Kind Contributions.--The non-Federal interest may 
     provide the non-Federal share of the cost of the study in the 
     form of in-kind services and materials.

     SEC. 4036. DEWEY LAKE, KENTUCKY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of modifying the project for Dewey Lake, 
     Kentucky, to add water supply as a project purpose.

     SEC. 4037. LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for 
     flood control, Louisville, Kentucky, authorized by section 4 
     of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), to 
     investigate measures to address the rehabilitation of the 
     project.

     SEC. 4038. FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS AND RHODE ISLAND.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of deepening that portion of the navigation 
     channel of the navigation project for Fall River Harbor, 
     Massachusetts and Rhode Island, authorized by section 101 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), seaward of 
     the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and 
     Somerset, Massachusetts.

     SEC. 4039. CLINTON RIVER, MICHIGAN.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental 
     restoration, Clinton River, Michigan.

     SEC. 4040. HAMBURG AND GREEN OAK TOWNSHIPS, MICHIGAN.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction on Ore Lake and the Huron River for Hamburg and 
     Green Oak Townships, Michigan.

     SEC. 4041. DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study and 
     prepare a report to evaluate the integrity of the bulkhead 
     system located on and in the vicinity of Duluth-Superior 
     Harbor, Duluth, Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin.
       (b) Contents.--The report shall include--
       (1) a determination of causes of corrosion of the bulkhead 
     system;
       (2) recommendations to reduce corrosion of the bulkhead 
     system;
       (3) a description of the necessary repairs to the bulkhead 
     system; and
       (4) an estimate of the cost of addressing the causes of the 
     corrosion and carrying out necessary repairs.

     SEC. 4042. NORTHEAST MISSISSIPPI.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of modifying the project for navigation, 
     Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi, to 
     provide water supply for northeast Mississippi.

     SEC. 4043. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, St. Louis, Missouri, to restore or rehabilitate 
     the levee system feature of the project for flood protection, 
     St. Louis, Missouri, authorized by the first section of the 
     Act entitled ``An Act authorizing construction of certain 
     public works on the Mississippi River for the protection of 
     Saint Louis, Missouri'', approved August 9, 1955 (69 Stat. 
     540).

     SEC. 4044. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL, NEW JERSEY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project in the vicinity of the 
     Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, New Jersey, for the 
     construction of a dredged material disposal transfer facility 
     to make dredged material available for beneficial reuse.

     SEC. 4045. BAYONNE, NEW JERSEY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental 
     restoration, including improved water quality, enhanced 
     public access, and recreation, on the Kill Van Kull, Bayonne, 
     New Jersey.

     SEC. 4046. CARTERET, NEW JERSEY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental 
     restoration, including improved water quality, enhanced 
     public access, and recreation, on the Raritan River, 
     Carteret, New Jersey.

     SEC. 4047. GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Gloucester County, New Jersey, including the 
     feasibility of restoring the flood protection dikes in 
     Gibbstown, New Jersey, and the associated tidegates in 
     Gloucester County, New Jersey.

     SEC. 4048. PERTH AMBOY, NEW JERSEY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for riverfront 
     development, including enhanced public access, recreation, 
     and environmental restoration, on the Arthur Kill, Perth 
     Amboy, New Jersey.

     SEC. 4049. BATAVIA, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for hydropower and 
     related purposes in the vicinity of Batavia, New York.

     SEC. 4050. BIG SISTER CREEK, EVANS, NEW YORK.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
     damage reduction, Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York.
       (b) Evaluation of Potential Solutions.--In conducting the 
     study, the Secretary shall evaluate potential solutions to 
     flooding from all sources, including flooding that results 
     from ice jams.

     SEC. 4051. FINGER LAKES, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration and protection, Finger Lakes, New York, to 
     address water quality and aquatic nuisance species.

     SEC. 4052. LAKE ERIE SHORELINE, BUFFALO, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for storm damage 
     reduction and shoreline protection in the vicinity of 
     Gallagher Beach, Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York.

     SEC. 4053. NEWTOWN CREEK, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out ecosystem restoration 
     improvements on Newtown Creek, Brooklyn and Queens, New York.

     SEC. 4054. NIAGARA RIVER, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for a low-head 
     hydroelectric generating facility in the Niagara River, New 
     York.

[[Page H3634]]

     SEC. 4055. SHORE PARKWAY GREENWAY, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of 
     carrying out a project for shoreline protection in the 
     vicinity of the confluence of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay, 
     Upper New York Bay, Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New 
     York.

     SEC. 4056. UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NEW YORK.

       Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and with the consent of the 
     affected local government, a nonprofit organization may serve 
     as the non-Federal interest for a study for the Upper 
     Delaware River watershed, New York, being carried out under 
     Committee Resolution 2495 of the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, adopted 
     May 9, 1996.

     SEC. 4057. LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of existing water and 
     water quality-related infrastructure in Lincoln County, North 
     Carolina, to assist local interests in determining the most 
     efficient and effective way to connect county infrastructure.

     SEC. 4058. WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, 
     Wilkes County, North Carolina.

     SEC. 4059. YADKINVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, 
     Yadkinville, North Carolina.

     SEC. 4060. LAKE ERIE, OHIO.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out projects for power generation at 
     confined disposal facilities along Lake Erie, Ohio.

     SEC. 4061. OHIO RIVER, OHIO.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage 
     reduction on the Ohio River in Mahoning, Columbiana, 
     Jefferson, Belmont, Noble, Monroe, Washington, Athens, Meigs, 
     Gallia, Lawrence, and Scioto Counties, Ohio.

     SEC. 4062. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FISH PASSAGE 
                   IMPROVEMENTS, OREGON.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem 
     restoration and fish passage improvements on rivers 
     throughout the State of Oregon.
       (b) Requirements.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) work in coordination with the State of Oregon, local 
     governments, and other Federal agencies; and
       (2) place emphasis on--
       (A) fish passage and conservation and restoration 
     strategies to benefit species that are listed or proposed for 
     listing as threatened or endangered species under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
       (B) other watershed restoration objectives.
       (c) Pilot Program.--
       (1) In general.--In conjunction with conducting the study 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary may carry out pilot 
     projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of ecosystem 
     restoration and fish passages.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this subsection.

     SEC. 4063. WALLA WALLA RIVER BASIN, OREGON.

       In conducting the study of determine the feasibility of 
     carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration, Walla Walla 
     River Basin, Oregon, the Secretary shall--
       (1) credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     study the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project; and
       (2) allow the non-Federal interest to provide the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the study in the form of in-kind 
     services and materials.

     SEC. 4064. CHARTIERS CREEK WATERSHED, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Chartiers Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.

     SEC. 4065. KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for 
     flood control, Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Warren, 
     Pennsylvania, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control 
     Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1570), and modified by section 
     2 of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215), 
     section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55 
     Stat. 646), and section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 
     December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887), to review operations of and 
     identify modifications to the project to expand recreational 
     opportunities.

     SEC. 4066. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, 
                   PENNSYLVANIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of 
     structural and nonstructural flood damage reduction, stream 
     bank protection, storm water management, channel clearing and 
     modification, and watershed coordination measures in the 
     Mahoning River basin, Pennsylvania, the Allegheny River 
     basin, Pennsylvania, and the Upper Ohio River basin, 
     Pennsylvania, to provide a level of flood protection 
     sufficient to prevent future losses to communities located in 
     such basins from flooding such as occurred in September 2004, 
     but not less than a 100-year level of flood protection.
       (b) Priority Communities.--In carrying out this section, 
     the Secretary shall give priority to the following 
     Pennsylvania communities: Marshall Township, Ross Township, 
     Shaler Township, Jackson Township, Harmony, Zelienople, 
     Darlington Township, Houston Borough, Chartiers Township, 
     Washington, Canton Township, Tarentum Borough, and East Deer 
     Township.

     SEC. 4067. WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for 
     flood control, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, authorized by 
     section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 
     1570), to investigate measures to rehabilitate the project.

     SEC. 4068. YARDLEY BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, at Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania, including the 
     alternative of raising River Road.

     SEC. 4069. RIO VALENCIANO, JUNCOS, PUERTO RICO.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     reevaluate the project for flood damage reduction and water 
     supply, Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico, authorized by 
     section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197) 
     and section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 
     1828), to determine the feasibility of carrying out the 
     project.
       (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the study the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 4070. CROOKED CREEK, BENNETTSVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, 
     Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina.

     SEC. 4071. BROAD RIVER, YORK COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Broad 
     River, York County, South Carolina.

     SEC. 4072. CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Chattanooga Creek, Dobbs Branch, Chattanooga, 
     Tennessee.

     SEC. 4073. CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Cleveland, Tennessee.

     SEC. 4074. CUMBERLAND RIVER, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for recreation on, 
     riverbank protection for, and environmental protection of, 
     the Cumberland River and riparian habitats in the city of 
     Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee.

     SEC. 4075. LEWIS, LAWRENCE, AND WAYNE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for 
     Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee.

     SEC. 4076. WOLF RIVER AND NONCONNAH CREEK, MEMPHIS TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction along Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, in the 
     vicinity of Memphis, Tennessee, to include the repair, 
     replacement, rehabilitation, and restoration of the following 
     pumping stations: Cypress Creek, Nonconnah Creek, Ensley, 
     Marble Bayou, and Bayou Gayoso.

     SEC. 4077. ABILENE, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, 
     Abilene, Texas.

     SEC. 4078. COASTAL TEXAS ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND 
                   RESTORATION, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop a 
     comprehensive plan to determine the feasibility of carrying 
     out projects for flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm 
     damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration in the coastal 
     areas of the State of Texas.
       (b) Scope.--The comprehensive plan shall provide for the 
     protection, conservation, and restoration of wetlands, 
     barrier islands, shorelines, and related lands and features 
     that protect critical resources, habitat, and infrastructure 
     from the impacts of coastal storms, hurricanes, erosion, and 
     subsidence.
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``coastal areas in the State of Texas'' means the coastal 
     areas of the State of Texas from the Sabine River on the east 
     to the Rio Grande River on the west and includes tidal 
     waters, barrier islands, marshes, coastal wetlands, rivers 
     and streams, and adjacent areas.

     SEC. 4079. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.

       (a) Reevaluation of Environmental Restoration Features.--
     The Secretary shall reevaluate the project for flood damage 
     reduction, environmental restoration, and recreation, 
     authorized by section 101(b)(14) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 280), to develop 
     alternatives to the separable environmental restoration 
     element of the project.
       (b) Study of Additional Flood Damage Reduction Measures.--
     The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of additional flood damage reduction measures and 
     erosion control measures within the boundaries of the project 
     referred to in subsection (a).
       (c) Plans and Designs.--In conducting the studies referred 
     to in subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary shall review 
     plans and designs developed by non-Federal interests and 
     shall use such plans and designs to the extent that the 
     Secretary determines that such plans and designs are 
     consistent with Federal standards.
       (d) Credit Toward Federal Share.--If an alternative 
     environmental restoration element is authorized by law, the 
     Secretary shall credit toward the Federal share of the cost 
     of that project the costs incurred by the Secretary to carry 
     out the separable environmental restoration element of the 
     project referred to in subsection (a). The non-Federal 
     interest shall not

[[Page H3635]]

     be responsible for reimbursing the Secretary for any amount 
     credited under this subsection.
       (e) Credit Toward the Non-Federal Share.--The Secretary 
     shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     studies under subsections (a) and (b), and the cost of any 
     project carried out as a result of such studies the cost of 
     work carried out by the non-Federal interest.

     SEC. 4080. PORT OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of 
     carrying out a project for dredged material disposal in the 
     vicinity of the project for navigation and environmental 
     restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, 
     authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666).

     SEC. 4081. GRAND COUNTY AND MOAB, UTAH.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for 
     Grand County and the city of Moab, Utah, including a review 
     of the impact of current and future demands on the Spanish 
     Valley Aquifer.

     SEC. 4082. SOUTHWESTERN UTAH.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Santa Clara River, Washington, Iron, and Kane 
     Counties, Utah.

     SEC. 4083. CHOWAN RIVER BASIN, VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, environmental restoration, navigation, and erosion 
     control, Chowan River basin, Virginia and North Carolina.

     SEC. 4084. ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON.

       (a) In General.--The study for rehabilitation of the 
     Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington, being carried out 
     under Committee Resolution 2704 of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives adopted September 25, 2002, is modified to 
     include a determination of the feasibility of reducing future 
     damage to the seawall from seismic activity.
       (b) Acceptance of Contributions.--In carrying out the 
     study, the Secretary may accept contributions in excess of 
     the non-Federal share of the cost of the study from the non-
     Federal interest to the extent that the Secretary determines 
     that the contributions will facilitate completion of the 
     study.
       (c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as 
     a result of the study the value of contributions accepted by 
     the Secretary under subsection (b).

     SEC. 4085. MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN, NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration and 
     protection projects in the watersheds of the Monongahela 
     River Basin lying within the counties of Hancock, Ohio, 
     Marshall, Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, 
     Monongalia, Marion, Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston, 
     Tucker, Mineral, Grant, Gilmer, Brooke, and Rithchie, West 
     Virginia, particularly as related to abandoned mine drainage 
     abatement.

     SEC. 4086. KENOSHA HARBOR, WISCONSIN.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, Kenosha 
     Harbor, Wisconsin, including the extension of existing piers.

     SEC. 4087. WAUWATOSA, WISCONSIN.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction and environmental restoration, Menomonee River and 
     Underwood Creek, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, and greater Milwaukee 
     watersheds, Wisconsin.

     SEC. 4088. JOHNSONVILLE DAM, JOHNSONVILLE, WISCONSIN.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Johnsonville 
     Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin, to determine if the structure 
     prevents ice jams on the Sheboygan River.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 5001. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS.

       (a) In General.--Upon request of a non-Federal interest, 
     the Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance of the 
     following navigation channels and breakwaters constructed or 
     improved by the non-Federal interest if the Secretary 
     determines that such maintenance is economically justified 
     and environmentally acceptable and that the channel or 
     breakwater was constructed in accordance with applicable 
     permits and appropriate engineering and design standards:
       (1) Manatee Harbor basin, Florida.
       (2) Bayou LaFourche Channel, Port Fourchon, Louisiana.
       (3) Calcasieu River at Devil's Elbow, Louisiana.
       (4) Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Industrial Park, 
     Memphis Harbor, Tennessee.
       (5) Pix Bayou Navigation Channel, Chambers County, Texas.
       (6) Racine Harbor, Wisconsin.
       (b) Completion of Assessment.--Not later than 6 months 
     after the date of receipt of a request from a non-Federal 
     interest for Federal assumption of maintenance of a channel 
     listed in subsection (a), the Secretary shall make a 
     determination as provided in subsection (a) and advise the 
     non-Federal interest of the Secretary's determination.

     SEC. 5002. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.

       (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 locations referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) Big Creek watershed, Roswell, Georgia.
       (2) Those portions of the watersheds of the Chattahoochee, 
     Etowah, Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee Rivers lying within the 
     counties of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, 
     Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, 
     Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton, Georgia.
       (3) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois.
       (4) Amite River basin, Louisiana.
       (5) East Atchafalaya River basin, Iberville Parish and 
     Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.
       (6) Red River watershed, Louisiana.
       (7) Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska.
       (8) Rio Grande watershed, New Mexico.
       (9) Taunton River basin, Massachusetts.
       (10) Marlboro Township, New Jersey.
       (11) Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks, Greene, 
     Sullivan, and Ulster Counties, New York.
       (12) Greenwood Lake watershed, New York and New Jersey.
       (13) Long Island Sound watershed, New York.
       (14) Ramapo River watershed, New York.
       (15) Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio.
       (16) Those portions of the watersheds of the Beaver, Upper 
     Ohio, Connoquenessing, Lower Allegheny, Kiskiminetas, Lower 
     Monongahela, Youghiogheny, Shenango, and Mahoning Rivers 
     lying within the counties of Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, and 
     Mercer, Pennsylvania.
       (17) Otter Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.
       (18) Unami Creek watershed, Milford Township, Pennsylvania.
       (19) Sauk River basin, Washington.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.

     SEC. 5003. DAM SAFETY.

       (a) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide assistance to 
     enhance dam safety at the following locations:
       (1) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho.
       (2) Hamilton Dam, Saginaw River, Flint, Michigan.
       (3) State Dam, Auburn, New York.
       (4) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York.
       (5) Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania.
       (6) Leaser Lake Dam, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
       (7) Stillwater Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.
       (8) Wissahickon Creek Dam, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
       (b) Special Rule.--The assistance provided under subsection 
     (a) for State Dam, Auburn, New York, shall be for a project 
     for rehabilitation in accordance with the report on State Dam 
     Rehabilitation, Owasco Lake Outlet, New York, dated March 
     1999, if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     feasible.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a) $6,000,000.

     SEC. 5004. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY EVALUATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Upon request of a non-Federal interest, 
     the Secretary shall evaluate the structural integrity and 
     effectiveness of a project for flood damage reduction and, if 
     the Secretary determines that the project does not meet such 
     minimum standards as the Secretary may establish and, absent 
     action by the Secretary, the project will fail, the Secretary 
     may take such action as may be necessary to restore the 
     integrity and effectiveness of the project.
       (b) Priority.--The Secretary shall evaluate under 
     subsection (a) the following projects:
       (1) Project for flood damage reduction, Arkansas River 
     Levees, Arkansas.
       (2) Project for flood damage reduction, Nonconnah Creek, 
     Tennessee.

     SEC. 5005. FLOOD MITIGATION PRIORITY AREAS.

       (a) In General.--Section 212(e) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332(e); 114 Stat. 2599) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraphs (23) and 
     (27);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (28) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(29) Ascension Parish, Louisiana;
       ``(30) East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana;
       ``(31) Iberville Parish, Louisiana;
       ``(32) Livingston Parish, Louisiana; and
       ``(33) Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 212(i)(1) of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 2332(i)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``section--'' and all that follows before the period at the 
     end and inserting ``section $20,000,000''.

     SEC. 5006. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR AUTHORIZED PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 219(e) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 
     Stat. 334) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);

[[Page H3636]]

       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(18);
       ``(10) $27,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(19);
       ``(11) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(20);
       ``(12) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(23);
       ``(13) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(25);
       ``(14) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(26);
       ``(15) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(27);
       ``(16) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(28); and
       ``(17) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(40).''.
       (b) East Arkansas Enterprise Community, Arkansas.--Federal 
     assistance made available under the rural enterprise zone 
     program of the Department of Agriculture may be used toward 
     payment of the non-Federal share of the costs of the project 
     described in section 219(c)(20) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-219) if such 
     assistance is authorized to be used for such purposes.

     SEC. 5007. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS AND CONSTRUCTION 
                   FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS.

       The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports and, 
     if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, 
     shall expedite completion of construction for the following 
     projects:
       (1) False River, Louisiana, being carried out under section 
     206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 
     2330).
       (2) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York, being 
     carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
       (3) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New York, being 
     carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
       (4) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York, being carried 
     out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 
     U.S.C. 701s).
       (5) Oriskany Wildlife Management Area, Rome, New York, 
     being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
       (6) Whitney Point Lake, Otselic River, Whitney Point, New 
     York, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a).
       (7) North River, Peabody, Massachusetts, being carried out 
     under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s).
       (8) Chenango Lake, Chenango County, New York, being carried 
     out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).

     SEC. 5008. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS FOR CERTAIN 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall expedite completion of 
     the reports for the following projects and, if the Secretary 
     determines that a project is justified in the completed 
     report, proceed directly to project preconstruction, 
     engineering, and design:
       (1) Project for water supply, Little Red River, Arkansas.
       (2) Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, 
     Florida.
       (3) Project for ecosystem restoration, University Lake, 
     Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
       (4) Project for navigation, Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas 
     and Louisiana.
       (b) Special Rule for Egmont Key, Florida.--In carrying out 
     the project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, 
     Florida, referred to in subsection (a)(3), the Secretary 
     shall waive any cost share to be provided by non-Federal 
     interests for any portion of the project that benefits 
     federally owned property.

     SEC. 5009. SOUTHEASTERN WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal 
     expense, an assessment of the water resources needs of the 
     river basins and watersheds of the southeastern United 
     States.
       (b) Cooperative Agreements.--In carrying out the 
     assessment, the Secretary may enter into cooperative 
     agreements with State and local agencies, non-Federal and 
     nonprofit entities, and regional researchers.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $7,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5010. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 1103(e)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(7)) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subparagraph (A) the following: 
     ``The non-Federal interest may provide the non-Federal share 
     of the cost of the project in the form of in-kind services 
     and materials.''; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act 
     of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-Federal interest may 
     include for any project undertaken under this section, a 
     nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local 
     government.''.

     SEC. 5011. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENHANCEMENT 
                   PROJECT.

       Section 514(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 343; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by striking 
     ``and 2004'' and inserting ``through 2015''.

     SEC. 5012. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       Section 506(f)(3)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-22; 114 Stat. 2646) is amended by 
     striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``100 percent''.

     SEC. 5013. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT 
                   REMEDIATION.

       Section 401(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1990 (104 Stat. 4644; 33 U.S.C. 1268 note) is amended by 
     striking ``through 2006'' and inserting ``through 2012''.

     SEC. 5014. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODELS.

       Section 516(g)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326b(g)(2)) is amended by striking ``through 
     2006'' and inserting ``through 2012''.

     SEC. 5015. GREAT LAKES NAVIGATION.

       (a) In General.--Using available funds, the Secretary shall 
     expedite the operation and maintenance, including dredging, 
     of the navigation features of the Great Lakes and Connecting 
     Channels for the purpose of supporting commercial navigation 
     to authorized project depths.
       (b) Great Lakes and Connecting Channels Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``Great Lakes and Connecting Channels'' 
     includes Lakes Superior, Huron, Michigan, Erie, and Ontario, 
     all connecting waters between and among such lakes used for 
     commercial navigation, any navigation features in such lakes 
     or waters that are a Federal operation or maintenance 
     responsibility, and areas of the Saint Lawrence River that 
     are operated or maintained by the Federal government for 
     commercial navigation.

     SEC. 5016. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER DISPERSAL BARRIER PROJECT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     appropriate Federal and State agencies, shall study, design, 
     and carry out a project for preventing and reducing the 
     dispersal of aquatic nuisance species through the Upper 
     Mississippi River system. The Secretary shall complete the 
     study, design, and construction of the project not later than 
     6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Dispersal Barrier.--The Secretary, at Federal expense, 
     shall--
       (1) investigate and identify environmentally sound methods 
     for preventing and reducing the dispersal of aquatic nuisance 
     species;
       (2) study, design, and carry out a project for a dispersal 
     barrier, using available technologies and measures, to be 
     located in the lock portion of Lock and Dam 11 in the Upper 
     Mississippi River basin;
       (3) monitor and evaluate, in cooperation with the Director 
     of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the 
     effectiveness of the project in preventing and reducing the 
     dispersal of aquatic nuisance species through the Upper 
     Mississippi River system, and report to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate on the results of the evaluation; and
       (4) operate and maintain the project.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $4,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5017. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS, 
                   DELAWARE, MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VIRGINIA.

       (a) Ex Officio Member.--Notwithstanding section 3001(a) of 
     the 1997 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for 
     Recovery From Natural Disasters, and for Overseas 
     Peacekeeping Efforts, Including Those in Bosnia (Public Law 
     105-18; 111 Stat. 176), section 2.2 of the Susquehanna River 
     Basin Compact (Public Law 91-575), and section 2.2 of the 
     Delaware River Basin Compact (Public Law 87-328), beginning 
     in fiscal year 2002, and each fiscal year thereafter, the 
     Division Engineer, North Atlantic Division, Corps of 
     Engineers--
       (1) shall be the ex officio United States member under the 
     Susquehanna River Basin Compact, the Delaware River Basin 
     Compact, and the Potomac River Basin Compact;
       (2) shall serve without additional compensation; and
       (3) may designate an alternate member in accordance with 
     the terms of those compacts.
       (b) Authorization To Allocate.--The Secretary shall 
     allocate funds to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 
     Delaware River Basin Commission, and the Interstate 
     Commission on the Potomac River Basin (Potomac River Basin 
     Compact (Public Law 91-407)) to fulfill the equitable funding 
     requirements of the respective interstate compacts.
       (c) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Delaware River 
     Basin.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the Delaware River Basin Commission to provide 
     temporary water supply and conservation storage at the 
     Francis E. Walter Dam, Pennsylvania, for any period during 
     which the Commission has determined that a drought warning or 
     drought emergency exists.
       (2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost 
     for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1) 
     shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated 
     with providing the storage.
       (d) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Susquehanna 
     River Basin.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to 
     provide temporary water supply and conservation storage at 
     Federal facilities operated by the Corps of Engineers in the 
     Susquehanna River Basin for any period for which the 
     Commission has determined that a drought warning or drought 
     emergency exists.
       (2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost 
     for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1) 
     shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated 
     with providing the storage.
       (e) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Potomac River 
     Basin.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the Potomac River

[[Page H3637]]

     Basin Commission to provide temporary water supply and 
     conservation storage at Federal facilities operated by the 
     Corps of Engineers in the Potomac River Basin for any period 
     for which the Commission has determined that a drought 
     warning or drought emergency exists.
       (2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost 
     for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1) 
     shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated 
     with providing the storage.

     SEC. 5018. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND 
                   PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       (a) Form of Assistance.--Section 510(a)(2) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759) is amended 
     by striking ``, and beneficial uses of dredged material'' and 
     inserting ``, beneficial uses of dredged material, and 
     restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 510(i) of 
     such Act (110 Stat. 3761) is amended by striking 
     ``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$50,000,000''.

     SEC. 5019. HYPOXIA ASSESSMENT.

       The Secretary may participate with Federal, State, and 
     local agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, regional 
     researchers, and other interested parties to assess hypoxia 
     in the Gulf of Mexico.

     SEC. 5020. POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AND TRIBUTARY 
                   STRATEGY EVALUATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM.

       The Secretary may participate in the Potomac River 
     Watershed Assessment and Tributary Strategy Evaluation and 
     Monitoring Program to identify a series of resource 
     management indicators to accurately monitor the effectiveness 
     of the implementation of the agreed upon tributary strategies 
     and other public policies that pertain to natural resource 
     protection of the Potomac River watershed.

     SEC. 5021. LOCK AND DAM SECURITY.

       (a) Standards.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority, and the Coast Guard, shall develop standards for 
     the security of locks and dams, including the testing and 
     certification of vessel exclusion barriers.
       (b) Site Surveys.--At the request of a lock or dam owner, 
     the Secretary shall provide technical assistance, on a 
     reimbursable basis, to improve lock or dam security.
       (c) Cooperative Agreement.--The Secretary may enter into a 
     cooperative agreement with a nonprofit alliance of public and 
     private organizations that has the mission of promoting safe 
     waterways and seaports to carry out testing and certification 
     activities, and to perform site surveys, under this section.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $3,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5022. REHABILITATION.

       The Secretary, at Federal expense and not to exceed 
     $1,000,000, shall rehabilitate and improve the water-related 
     infrastructure and the transportation infrastructure for the 
     historic property in the Anacostia River Watershed located in 
     the District of Columbia, including measures to address wet 
     weather conditions. To carry out this section, the Secretary 
     shall accept funds provided for such project under any other 
     Federal program.

     SEC. 5023. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR COLUMBIA AND 
                   SNAKE RIVER SALMON SURVIVAL.

       Section 511 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (16 U.S.C. 3301 note; 110 Stat. 3761; 113 Stat. 375) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(6) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$25,000,000''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``$1,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$10,000,000''.

     SEC. 5024. AUBURN, ALABAMA.

       The Secretary may provide technical assistance relating to 
     water supply to the city of Auburn, Alabama. There is 
     authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this 
     section.

     SEC. 5025. PINHOOK CREEK, HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA.

       (a) Project Authorization.--The Secretary shall design and 
     construct the locally preferred plan for flood protection at 
     Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama. In carrying out the 
     project, the Secretary shall utilize, to the extent 
     practicable, the existing detailed project report for the 
     project prepared under the authority of section 205 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
       (b) Participation by Non-Federal Interest.--The Secretary 
     shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the 
     financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) 
     to the extent that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that 
     applying such section is necessary to implement the project.
       (c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 5026. ALASKA.

       Section 570 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 369) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c) by inserting ``environmental 
     restoration,'' after ``water supply and related 
     facilities,'';
       (2) in subsection (e)(3)(B) by striking the last sentence;
       (3) in subsection (h) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$45,000,000''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a 
     non-Federal interest may include for any project undertaken 
     under this section a nonprofit entity with the consent of the 
     affected local government.
       ``(j) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at Federal expense.''.

     SEC. 5027. BARROW, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall carry out, under section 117 of the 
     Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (118 
     Stat. 2944), a nonstructural project for coastal erosion and 
     storm damage prevention and reduction at Barrow, Alaska, 
     including relocation of infrastructure.

     SEC. 5028. COFFMAN COVE, ALASKA.

       The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for 
     navigation, Coffman Cove, Alaska, at a total cost of 
     $3,000,000.

     SEC. 5029. FIRE ISLAND, ALASKA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to provide 
     planning, design, and construction assistance to the non-
     Federal interest for the construction of a causeway between 
     Point Campbell and Fire Island, Alaska, including the 
     beneficial use of dredged material in the construction of the 
     causeway.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5030. FORT YUKON, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall make repairs to the dike at Fort Yukon, 
     Alaska, so that the dike meets Corps of Engineers standards.

     SEC. 5031. KOTZEBUE HARBOR, ALASKA.

       The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for 
     navigation, Kotzebue Harbor, Kotzebue, Alaska, at total cost 
     of $2,200,000.

     SEC. 5032. LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, SEWARD, ALASKA.

       (a) Long-Term Maintenance and Repair.--The Secretary shall 
     assume responsibility for the long-term maintenance and 
     repair of the Lowell Creek Tunnel.
       (b) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine whether alternative methods of flood diversion in 
     Lowell Canyon are feasible.

     SEC. 5033. ST. HERMAN AND ST. PAUL HARBORS, KODIAK, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, 
     necessary removal of rubble, sediment, and rock impeding the 
     entrance to the St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, 
     Alaska, at a Federal cost of $2,000,000.

     SEC. 5034. TANANA RIVER, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, the 
     removal of the hazard to navigation on the Tanana River, 
     Alaska, near the mouth of the Chena River, as described in 
     the January 3, 2005, memorandum from the Commander, 
     Seventeenth Coast Guard District, to the Corps of Engineers, 
     Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska.

     SEC. 5035. VALDEZ, ALASKA.

       The Secretary is authorized to construct a small boat 
     harbor in Valdez, Alaska, at a total cost of $20,000,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $10,500,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $9,500,000.

     SEC. 5036. WHITTIER, ALASKA.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal 
     expense, a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out 
     projects for navigation at Whittier, Alaska, to construct a 
     new boat harbor at the head of Whittier Bay and to expand the 
     existing harbor and, if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project.
       (b) Non-Federal Cost Share.--The non-Federal interest for 
     the project may use, and the Secretary shall accept, funds 
     provided by a Federal agency under any other Federal program, 
     to satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of the project if such funds are authorized to be used 
     to carry out the project.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $35,200,000.

     SEC. 5037. WRANGELL HARBOR, ALASKA.

       (a) General Navigation Features.--In carrying out the 
     project for navigation, Wrangell Harbor, Alaska, authorized 
     by section 101(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), the Secretary shall consider the 
     dredging of the mooring basin and construction of the inner 
     harbor facilities to be general navigation features for 
     purposes of estimating the non-Federal share of project 
     costs.
       (b) Revision of Partnership Agreement.--The Secretary shall 
     revise the partnership agreement for the project to reflect 
     the change required by subsection (a).

     SEC. 5038. AUGUSTA AND CLARENDON, ARKANSAS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to perform 
     operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of authorized and 
     completed levees on the White River between Augusta and 
     Clarendon, Arkansas.
       (b) Reimbursement.--After performing the operation, 
     maintenance, and rehabilitation under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall seek reimbursement from the Secretary of the 
     Interior of an amount equal to the costs allocated to 
     benefits to a Federal wildlife refuge of such operation, 
     maintenance, and rehabilitation.

     SEC. 5039. DES ARC LEVEE PROTECTION, ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary shall review the project for flood control, 
     Des Arc, Arkansas, to determine whether bank and channel 
     scour along the White River threaten the existing project and 
     whether the scour is as a result of a design deficiency. If 
     the Secretary determines that such conditions exist as a 
     result of a deficiency, the Secretary shall carry out 
     measures to eliminate the deficiency.

     SEC. 5040. LOOMIS LANDING, ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage in the 
     vicinity of Loomis Landing, Arkansas, to determine if the 
     damage is the result of a Federal navigation project, and, if 
     the Secretary determines that the damage is the result

[[Page H3638]]

     of a Federal navigation project, the Secretary shall carry 
     out a project to mitigate the damage under section 111 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i).

     SEC. 5041. ST. FRANCIS RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation 
     and streambank erosion in the St. Francis River Basin, 
     Arkansas and Missouri, to determine if the siltation or 
     erosion, or both, are the result of a Federal flood control 
     project and, if the Secretary determines that the siltation 
     or erosion, or both, are the result of a Federal flood 
     control project, the Secretary shall carry out a project to 
     mitigate the siltation or erosion, or both.

     SEC. 5042. CAMBRIA, CALIFORNIA.

       Section 219(f)(48) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$10,300,000'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--$10,300,000'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project not to exceed 
     $3,000,000 for the cost of planning and design work carried 
     out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 
     partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.''; and
       (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 
     (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
     subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

     SEC. 5043. CONTRA COSTA CANAL, OAKLEY AND KNIGHTSEN, 
                   CALIFORNIA; MALLARD SLOUGH, PITTSBURG, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       Sections 512 and 514 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (114 Stat. 2650) are each amended by adding at the 
     end the following: ``All planning, study, design, and 
     construction on the project shall be carried out by the 
     office of the district engineer, San Francisco, 
     California.''.

     SEC. 5044. DANA POINT HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the causes of water 
     quality degradation within Dana Point Harbor, California, to 
     determine if the degradation is the result of a Federal 
     navigation project, and, if the Secretary determines that the 
     degradation is the result of a Federal navigation project, 
     the Secretary shall carry out a project to mitigate the 
     degradation at Federal expense.

     SEC. 5045. EAST SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

       Section 219(f)(22) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 336) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--$25,000,000'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project (i) the cost of 
     design and construction work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before, on, or after the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project; and (ii) the cost of 
     provided for the project by the non-Federal interest.
       ``(C) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal interest may 
     provide any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project in the form of in-kind services and materials.''; 
     and
       (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 
     (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
     subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

     SEC. 5046. EASTERN SANTA CLARA BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

       Section 111(c) of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 
     2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat. 
     2763A-224) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$28,000,000''; and
       (2) by striking ``$7,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$10,000,000''.

     SEC. 5047. LOS OSOS, CALIFORNIA.

       Section 219(c)(27) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 114 Stat. 2763A-219) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(27) Los osos, california.--Wastewater infrastructure, 
     Los Osos, California.''.

     SEC. 5048. PINE FLAT DAM AND RESERVOIR, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall review the Kings River 
     Fisheries Management Program Framework Agreement, dated May 
     29, 1999, among the California Department of Fish and Game, 
     the Kings River Water Association, and the Kings River 
     Conservation District and, if the Secretary determines that 
     the management program is feasible, the Secretary may 
     participate in the management program.
       (b) Prohibition.--Nothing in this section authorizes any 
     project for the raising of, or the construction of, a 
     multilevel intake structure at Pine Flat Dam, California.
       (c) Use of Existing Studies.--In carrying out this section, 
     the Secretary shall use, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     studies in existence on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     including data and environmental documentation in the Report 
     of the Chief of Engineers, Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, 
     Fresno County, California, dated July 19, 2002.
       (d) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to $20,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5049. RAYMOND BASIN, SIX BASINS, CHINO BASIN, AND SAN 
                   GABRIEL BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Comprehensive Plan.--The Secretary, in consultation and 
     coordination with appropriate Federal, State, and local 
     entities, shall develop a comprehensive plan for the 
     management of water resources in the Raymond Basin, Six 
     Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel Basin, California. The 
     Secretary may carry out activities identified in the 
     comprehensive plan to demonstrate practicable alternatives 
     for water resources management.
       (b) Non-Federal Share.--
       (1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out under this section shall be 35 
     percent.
       (2) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under 
     this section the cost of planning, design, and construction 
     work completed by or on behalf of the non-Federal interests 
     for implementation of measures under this section. The amount 
     of such credit shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of such activities.
       (3) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     the cost of operation and maintenance of any measures 
     constructed under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.

     SEC. 5050. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Port of San Francisco, California, may carry out the project 
     for repair and removal, as appropriate, of Piers 30-32, 35, 
     36, 70 (including Wharves 7 and 8), and 80 in San Francisco, 
     California, substantially in accordance with the Port's 
     redevelopment plan.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to 
     be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this subsection.

     SEC. 5051. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WATERFRONT AREA.

       (a) Area to Be Declared Nonnavigable; Public Interest.--
     Unless the Secretary finds, after consultation with local and 
     regional public officials (including local and regional 
     public planning organizations), that the proposed projects to 
     be undertaken within the boundaries of the portion of the San 
     Francisco, California, waterfront area described in 
     subsection (b) are not in the public interest, such portion 
     is declared to be nonnavigable waters of the United States.
       (b) Northern Embarcadero South of Bryant Street.--The 
     portion of the San Francisco, California, waterfront area 
     referred to in subsection (a) is as follows: Beginning at the 
     intersection of the northeasterly prolongation of that 
     portion of the northwesterly line of Bryant Street lying 
     between Beale Street and Main Street with the southwesterly 
     line of Spear Street, which intersection lies on the line of 
     jurisdiction of the San Francisco Port Commission; following 
     thence southerly along said line of jurisdiction as described 
     in the State of California Harbor and Navigation Code Section 
     1770, as amended in 1961, to its intersection with the 
     easterly line of Townsend Street along a line that is 
     parallel and distant 10 feet southerly from the existing 
     southern boundary of Pier 40 produced to its point of 
     intersection with the United States Government pier-head 
     line; thence northerly along said pier-head line to its 
     intersection with a line parallel with, and distant 10 feet 
     easterly from, the existing easterly boundary line of Pier 
     30-32; thence northerly along said parallel line and its 
     northerly prolongation, to a point of intersection with a 
     line parallel with, and distant 10 feet northerly from, the 
     existing northerly boundary of Pier 30-32, thence westerly 
     along last said parallel line to its intersection with the 
     United States Government pier-head line; to the northwesterly 
     line of Bryant Street produced northwesterly; thence 
     southwesterly along said northwesterly line of Bryant Street 
     produced to the point of beginning.
       (c) Requirement That Area Be Improved.--The declaration of 
     nonnavigability under subsection (a) applies only to those 
     parts of the area described in subsection (b) that are or 
     will be bulkheaded, filled, or otherwise occupied by 
     permanent structures and does not affect the applicability of 
     any Federal statute or regulation applicable to such parts 
     the day before the date of enactment of this Act, including 
     sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 
     and 403; 30 Stat. 1151), commonly known as the Rivers and 
     Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, section 404 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.).
       (d) Expiration Date.--If, 20 years from the date of 
     enactment of this Act, any area or part thereof described in 
     subsection (b) is not bulkheaded or filled or occupied by 
     permanent structures, including marina facilities, in 
     accordance with the requirements set out in subsection (c), 
     or if work in connection with any activity permitted in 
     subsection (c) is not commenced within 5 years after issuance 
     of such permits, then the declaration of nonnavigability for 
     such area or part thereof shall expire.

     SEC. 5052. SAN PABLO BAY, CALIFORNIA, WATERSHED AND SUISUN 
                   MARSH ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       (a) San Pablo Bay Watershed, California.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall complete work, as 
     expeditiously as possible, on the ongoing San Pablo Bay 
     watershed, California, study to determine the feasibility of 
     opportunities for restoring, preserving and protecting the 
     San Pablo Bay watershed.
       (2) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2008, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the 
     study.
       (b) Suisun Marsh, California.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     a comprehensive study to

[[Page H3639]]

     determine the feasibility of opportunities for restoring, 
     preserving and protecting the Suisun Marsh, California.
       (c) San Pablo and Suisun Bay Marsh Watershed Critical 
     Restoration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in critical 
     restoration projects that will produce, consistent with 
     Federal programs, projects, and activities, immediate and 
     substantial ecosystem restoration, preservation, and 
     protection benefits in the following sub-watersheds of the 
     San Pablo and Suisun Bay Marsh watersheds:
       (A) The tidal areas of the Petaluma River, Napa-Sonoma 
     Marsh.
       (B) The shoreline of West Contra Costa County.
       (C) Novato Creek.
       (D) Suisun Marsh.
       (E) Gallinas-Miller Creek.
       (2) Types of assistance.--Participation in critical 
     restoration projects under this subsection may include 
     assistance for planning, design, or construction.
       (d) Non-Federal Interests.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a 
     non-Federal interest may include for any project undertaken 
     under this section a nonprofit entity with the consent of the 
     affected local government.
       (e) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of construction of a project under 
     this section--
       (1) the value of any lands, easements, rights-of-way, 
     dredged material disposal areas, or relocations provided by 
     the non-Federal interest for carrying out the project, 
     regardless of the date of acquisition;
       (2) funds received from the CALFED Bay-Delta program; and
       (3) the cost of the studies, design, and construction work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     execution of a partnership agreement for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000.

     SEC. 5053. STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Reevaluation.--The Secretary shall reevaluate the 
     feasibility of the Lower Mosher Slough element and the levee 
     extensions on the Upper Calaveras River element of the 
     project for flood control, Stockton Metropolitan Area, 
     California, carried out under section 211(f)(3) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3683), to 
     determine the eligibility of such elements for reimbursement 
     under section 211 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b-13).
       (b) Special Rules for Reevaluation.--In conducting the 
     reevaluation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall not 
     reject a feasibility determination based on one or more of 
     the policies of the Corps of Engineers concerning the 
     frequency of flooding, the drainage area, and the amount of 
     runoff.
       (c) Reimbursement.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     elements referred to subsection (a) are feasible, the 
     Secretary shall reimburse, subject to appropriations, the 
     non-Federal interest under section 211 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 for the Federal share of the cost of 
     such elements.

     SEC. 5054. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND BREAKWATER, NEW HAVEN 
                   HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.

       (a) Designation.--The western breakwater for the project 
     for navigation, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by 
     the first section of the Act of September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 
     426), shall be known and designated as the ``Charles Hervey 
     Townshend Breakwater''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     breakwater referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to 
     be a reference to the ``Charles Hervey Townshend 
     Breakwater''.

     SEC. 5055. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.

       Section 109 of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 
     (enacted into law by Public Law 106-554) (114 Stat. 2763A-
     222) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subsection (e)(2) the 
     following:
       ``(C) Credit for work prior to execution of the partnership 
     agreement.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project--
       ``(i) the cost of construction work carried out by the non-
     Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement 
     for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
     integral to the project; and
       ``(ii) the cost of land acquisition carried out by the non-
     Federal interest for projects to be carried out under this 
     section.''; and
       (2) in subsection (f) by striking ``$100,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$100,000,000, of which not more than $15,000,000 
     may be used to provide planning, design, and construction 
     assistance to the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority for a water 
     treatment plant, Florida City, Florida''.

     SEC. 5056. LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA.

       The Secretary may carry out necessary repairs for the Lake 
     Worth bulkhead replacement project, West Palm Beach, Florida, 
     at an estimated total cost of $9,000,000.

     SEC. 5057. RILEY CREEK RECREATION AREA, IDAHO.

       The Secretary is authorized to carry out the Riley Creek 
     Recreation Area Operation Plan of the Albeni Falls Management 
     Plan, dated October 2001, for the Riley Creek Recreation 
     Area, Albeni Falls Dam, Bonner County, Idaho.

     SEC. 5058. RECONSTRUCTION OF ILLINOIS FLOOD PROTECTION 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may participate in the 
     reconstruction of an eligible flood control project if the 
     Secretary determines that such reconstruction is not required 
     as a result of improper operation and maintenance of the 
     project by the non-Federal interest.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the costs for 
     the reconstruction of a flood control project authorized by 
     this section shall be the same non-Federal share that was 
     applicable to construction of the project. The non-Federal 
     interest shall be responsible for operation and maintenance 
     and repair of a project for which reconstruction is 
     undertaken under this section.
       (c) Reconstruction Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``reconstruction'', as used with respect to a project, means 
     addressing major project deficiencies caused by long-term 
     degradation of the foundation, construction materials, or 
     engineering systems or components of the project, the results 
     of which render the project at risk of not performing in 
     compliance with its authorized project purposes. In 
     addressing such deficiencies, the Secretary may incorporate 
     current design standards and efficiency improvements, 
     including the replacement of obsolete mechanical and 
     electrical components at pumping stations, if such 
     incorporation does not significantly change the scope, 
     function, and purpose of the project as authorized.
       (d) Eligible Projects.--The following flood control 
     projects are eligible for reconstruction under this section:
       (1) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
       (2) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage District, 
     Illinois.
       (3) Cairo, Illinois Mainline Levee, Cairo, Illinois.
       (4) Goose Pond Pump Station, Cairo, Illinois.
       (5) Cottonwood Slough Pump Station, Alexander County, 
     Illinois.
       (6) 10th and 28th Street Pump Stations, Cairo, Illinois.
       (7) Prairie Du Pont Levee and Sanitary District, including 
     Fish Lake Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
       (8) Flood control levee projects in Brookport, Shawneetown, 
     Old Shawneetown, Golconda, Rosiclare, Harrisburg, and 
     Reevesville, Illinois.
       (e) Justification.--The reconstruction of a project 
     authorized by this section shall not be considered a 
     separable element of the project.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated--
       (1) $15,000,000 to carry out the projects described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (d); and
       (2) $15,000,000 to carry out the projects described in 
     subsection (d)(8).
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 5059. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION.

       (a) Extension of Authorization.--Section 519(c)(2) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2654) is 
     amended by striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2010''.
       (b) In-Kind Services.--Section 519(g)(3) of such Act (114 
     Stat. 2655) is amended by inserting before the period at the 
     end of the first sentence ``if such services are provided not 
     more than 5 years before the date of initiation of the 
     project or activity''.
       (c) Nonprofit Entities and Monitoring.--Section 519 of such 
     Act (114 Stat. 2654) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a 
     non-Federal interest may include for any project undertaken 
     under this section a nonprofit entity, with the consent of 
     the affected local government.
       ``(i) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall develop an Illinois 
     river basin monitoring program to support the plan referred 
     to in subsection (b). Data collected under the monitoring 
     program shall incorporate data provided by the State of 
     Illinois and shall be publicly accessible through electronic 
     means.''.

     SEC. 5060. KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN, ILLINOIS, RESTORATION.

       (a) Kaskaskia River Basin Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``Kaskaskia River Basin'' means the Kaskaskia River, 
     Illinois, its backwaters, its side channels, and all 
     tributaries, including their watersheds, draining into the 
     Kaskaskia River.
       (b) Comprehensive Plan.--
       (1) Development.--The Secretary shall develop, as 
     expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive plan for the 
     purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the 
     Kaskaskia River Basin.
       (2) Technologies and innovative approaches.--The 
     comprehensive plan shall provide for the development of new 
     technologies and innovative approaches--
       (A) to enhance the Kaskaskia River as a transportation 
     corridor;
       (B) to improve water quality within the entire Kaskaskia 
     River Basin;
       (C) to restore, enhance, and preserve habitat for plants 
     and wildlife;
       (D) to ensure aquatic integrity of sidechannels and 
     backwaters and their connectivity with the mainstem river;
       (E) to increase economic opportunity for agriculture and 
     business communities; and
       (F) to reduce the impacts of flooding to communities and 
     landowners.
       (3) Specific components.--The comprehensive plan shall 
     include such features as are necessary to provide for--
       (A) the development and implementation of a program for 
     sediment removal technology, sediment characterization, 
     sediment transport, and beneficial uses of sediment;
       (B) the development and implementation of a program for the 
     planning, conservation, evaluation, and construction of 
     measures for fish and wildlife habitat conservation and 
     rehabilitation, and stabilization and enhancement of land and 
     water resources in the basin;
       (C) the development and implementation of a long-term 
     resource monitoring program;

[[Page H3640]]

       (D) a conveyance study of the Kaskaskia River floodplain 
     from Vandalia, Illinois, to Carlyle Lake to determine the 
     impacts of existing and future waterfowl improvements on 
     flood stages, including detailed surveys and mapping 
     information to ensure proper hydraulic and hydrological 
     analysis;
       (E) the development and implementation of a computerized 
     inventory and analysis system; and
       (F) the development and implementation of a systemic plan 
     to reduce flood impacts by means of ecosystem restoration 
     projects.
       (4) Consultation.--The comprehensive plan shall be 
     developed by the Secretary in consultation with appropriate 
     Federal agencies, the State of Illinois, and the Kaskaskia 
     River Watershed Association.
       (5) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit 
     to Congress a report containing the comprehensive plan.
       (6) Additional studies and analyses.--After transmission of 
     a report under paragraph (5), the Secretary shall conduct 
     studies and analyses of projects related to the comprehensive 
     plan that are appropriate and consistent with this 
     subsection.
       (c) General Provisions.--
       (1) Water quality.--In carrying out activities under this 
     section, the Secretary's recommendations shall be consistent 
     with applicable State water quality standards.
       (2) Public participation.--In developing the comprehensive 
     plan under subsection (b), the Secretary shall implement 
     procedures to facilitate public participation, including 
     providing advance notice of meetings, providing adequate 
     opportunity for public input and comment, maintaining 
     appropriate records, and making a record of the proceedings 
     of meetings available for public inspection.
       (d) Critical Projects and Initiatives.--If the Secretary, 
     in cooperation with appropriate Federal agencies and the 
     State of Illinois, determines that a project or initiative 
     for the Kaskaskia River Basin will produce independent, 
     immediate, and substantial benefits, the Secretary may 
     proceed expeditiously with the implementation of the project.
       (e) Coordination.--The Secretary shall integrate activities 
     carried out under this section with ongoing Federal and State 
     programs, projects, and activities, including the following:
       (1) Farm programs of the Department of Agriculture.
       (2) Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (State of 
     Illinois) and Conservation 2000 Ecosystem Program of the 
     Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
       (3) Conservation 2000 Conservation Practices Program and 
     the Livestock Management Facilities Act administered by the 
     Illinois Department of Agriculture.
       (4) National Buffer Initiative of the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service.
       (5) Nonpoint source grant program administered by the 
     Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
       (6) Other programs that may be developed by the State of 
     Illinois or the Federal Government, or that are carried out 
     by non-profit organizations, to carry out the objectives of 
     the Kaskaskia River Basin Comprehensive Plan.
       (f) In-Kind Services.--The Secretary may credit the cost of 
     in-kind services provided by the non-Federal interest for an 
     activity carried out under this section toward not more than 
     80 percent of the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     activity. In-kind services shall include all State funds 
     expended on programs that accomplish the goals of this 
     section, as determined by the Secretary. The programs may 
     include the Kaskaskia River Conservation Reserve Program, the 
     Illinois Conservation 2000 Program, the Open Lands Trust 
     Fund, and other appropriate programs carried out in the 
     Kaskaskia River Basin.

     SEC. 5061. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, CHICAGO, 
                   ILLINOIS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide assistance for 
     a project to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood 
     inundation areas along the Little Calumet River, Chicago, 
     Illinois.
       (b) Requirements.--Maps developed under the project shall 
     include hydrologic and hydraulic information and shall 
     accurately show the flood inundation of each property by 
     flood risk in the floodplain. The maps shall be produced in a 
     high resolution format and shall be made available to all 
     flood prone areas along the Little Calumet River, Chicago, 
     Illinois, in an electronic format.
       (c) Participation of FEMA.--The Secretary and the non-
     Federal interests for the project shall work with the 
     Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ensure 
     the validity of the maps developed under the project for 
     flood insurance purposes.
       (d) Forms of Assistance.--In carrying out the project, the 
     Secretary may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements 
     with the non-Federal interests or provide reimbursements of 
     project costs.
       (e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project shall be 50 percent.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000.

     SEC. 5062. PROMONTORY POINT, LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS.

       (a) Review.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a third-party 
     review of the Promontory Point project along the Chicago 
     Shoreline, Chicago, Illinois, at a cost not to exceed 
     $450,000.
       (2) Joint review.--The Buffalo and Seattle districts of the 
     Corps of Engineers shall jointly conduct the review.
       (3) Standards.--The review shall be based on the standards 
     under part 68 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, for 
     implementation by the non-Federal sponsor for the Chicago 
     Shoreline, Chicago, Illinois, project.
       (b) Contributions.--The Secretary shall accept from a State 
     or political subdivision of a State voluntarily contributed 
     funds to initiate the third-party review under subsection 
     (a).
       (c) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section affects the 
     authorization for the project for the Chicago Shoreline, 
     Chicago, Illinois.

     SEC. 5063. BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, INDIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of shoaling in the 
     vicinity of Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana, to determine if 
     the shoaling is the result of a Federal navigation project, 
     and, if the Secretary determines that the shoaling is the 
     result of a Federal navigation project, the Secretary shall 
     carry out a project to mitigate the shoaling under section 
     111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426).

     SEC. 5064. CALUMET REGION, INDIANA.

       Section 219(f)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 335; 117 Stat. 1843) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$30,000,000'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--$100,000,000'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning 
     and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before, on, or after the date of the partnership agreement 
     for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
     integral to the project.''; and
       (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 
     (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
     subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

     SEC. 5065. PADUCAH, KENTUCKY.

       The Secretary shall complete a feasibility report for 
     rehabilitation of the project for flood damage reduction, 
     Paducah, Kentucky, and, if the Secretary determines that the 
     project is feasible, the Secretary shall carry out the 
     project at a total cost of $3,000,000.

     SEC. 5066. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.

       Section 531 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3773; 113 Stat. 348; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by 
     adding the following:
       ``(i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at Federal expense.''.

     SEC. 5067. WINCHESTER, KENTUCKY.

       Section 219(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 114 Stat. 2763A-219) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(41) Winchester, kentucky.--Wastewater infrastructure, 
     Winchester, Kentucky.''.

     SEC. 5068. BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.

       Section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended by 
     striking ``$20,000,000'' and inserting ``$35,000,000''.

     SEC. 5069. CALCASIEU SHIP CHANNEL, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall expedite completion of a dredged 
     material management plan for the Calcasieu Ship Channel, 
     Louisiana, and may take interim measures to increase the 
     capacity of existing disposal areas, or to construct new 
     confined or beneficial use disposal areas, for the channel.

     SEC. 5070. CROSS LAKE, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary may accept from the Department of the Air 
     Force, and may use, not to exceed $4,500,000 to assist the 
     city of Shreveport, Louisiana, with its plan to construct a 
     water intake facility.

     SEC. 5071. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA.

       (a) Modification of Study.--The study for waterfront and 
     riverine preservation, restoration, and enhancement, 
     Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, being 
     carried out under Committee Resolution 2570 of the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives adopted July 23, 1998, is modified--
       (1) to add West Feliciana Parish and East Baton Rouge 
     Parish to the geographic scope of the study; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share the cost of the study and the non-Federal share 
     of the cost of any project authorized by law as a result of 
     the study the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the study or project, as the case may be.
       (b) Expedited Consideration.--Section 517(5) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 345) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(5) Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge, West Feliciana, 
     and East Baton Rouge Parishes, Louisiana, project for 
     waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration, and 
     enhancement modifications.''.

     SEC. 5072. CHARLESTOWN, MARYLAND.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a project for 
     nonstructural flood damage reduction and ecosystem 
     restoration at Charlestown, Maryland.
       (b) Land Acquisition.--The flood damage reduction component 
     of the project may include the acquisition of private 
     property from willing sellers.
       (c) Justification.--Any nonstructural flood damage 
     reduction project to be carried out under this section that 
     will result in the conversion of property to use for 
     ecosystem restoration and wildlife habitat shall be justified 
     based on national ecosystem restoration benefits.

[[Page H3641]]

       (d) Use of Acquired Property.--Property acquired under this 
     section shall be maintained in public ownership for ecosystem 
     restoration and wildlife habitat.
       (e) Ability to Pay.--In determining the appropriate non-
     Federal cost share for the project, the Secretary shall 
     determine the ability of Cecil County, Maryland, to 
     participate as a cost-sharing non-Federal interest in 
     accordance with section 103(m) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)).
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $2,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5073. ANACOSTIA RIVER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND 
                   MARYLAND.

       (a) Comprehensive Action Plan.--Not later than one year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in 
     coordination with the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the 
     Governor of Maryland, the county executives of Montgomery 
     County and Prince George's County, Maryland, and other 
     interested entities, shall develop and make available to the 
     public a 10-year comprehensive action plan to provide for the 
     restoration and protection of the ecological integrity of the 
     Anacostia River and its tributaries.
       (b) Public Availability.--On completion of the 
     comprehensive action plan under subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall make the plan available to the public, including on the 
     Internet.

     SEC. 5074. DELMARVA CONSERVATION CORRIDOR, DELAWARE AND 
                   MARYLAND.

       (a) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide technical 
     assistance to the Secretary of Agriculture for use in 
     carrying out the Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program 
     established under subtitle G of title II of the Farm Security 
     and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801 note; 116 
     Stat. 275).
       (b) Coordination and Integration.--In carrying out water 
     resources projects in Delaware and Maryland on the Delmarva 
     Peninsula, the Secretary shall coordinate and integrate those 
     projects, to the maximum extent practicable, with any 
     activities carried out to implement a conservation corridor 
     plan approved by the Secretary of Agriculture under section 
     2602 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
     (16 U.S.C. 3801 note; 116 Stat. 275).

     SEC. 5075. MASSACHUSETTS DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES.

       The Secretary may cooperate with Massachusetts in the 
     management and long-term monitoring of aquatic dredged 
     material disposal sites within the State, and is authorized 
     to accept funds from the State to carry out such activities.

     SEC. 5076. ONTONAGON HARBOR, MICHIGAN.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage in the 
     vicinity of the project for navigation, Ontonagon Harbor, 
     Ontonagon County, Michigan, authorized by section 101 of the 
     Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176, 100 Stat. 
     4213, 110 Stat. 3730), to determine if the damage is the 
     result of a Federal navigation project, and, if the Secretary 
     determines that the damage is the result of a Federal 
     navigation project, the Secretary shall carry out a project 
     to mitigate the damage under section 111 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i).

     SEC. 5077. CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for 
     emergency streambank protection along the Red Lake River in 
     Crookston, Minnesota, and, if the Secretary determines that 
     the project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the 
     project under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 
     U.S.C. 701r); except that the maximum amount of Federal funds 
     that may be expended for the project shall be $6,500,000.

     SEC. 5078. GARRISON AND KATHIO TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA.

       (a) Project Description.--Section 219(f)(61) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-221) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading by striking ``and kathio 
     township'' and inserting ``, crow wing county, mille lacs 
     county, mille lacs indian reservation, and kathio township'';
       (2) by striking ``$11,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$17,000,000'';
       (3) by inserting ``, Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs County, 
     Mille Lacs Indian Reservation (10 Stat. 1165),'' after 
     ``Garrison''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following: ``Such assistance 
     shall be provided directly to the Garrison-Kathio-West Mille 
     Lacs Lake Sanitary District, Minnesota, except for assistance 
     provided directly to the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe at the 
     discretion of the Secretary.''.
       (b) Procedures.--In carrying out the project authorized by 
     such section 219(f)(61), the Secretary may use the cost 
     sharing and contracting procedures available to the Secretary 
     under section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 368).

     SEC. 5079. ITASCA COUNTY, MINNESOTA.

       The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Trout Lake and Canisteo Pit, Itasca County, 
     Minnesota, irrespective of normal policy considerations.

     SEC. 5080. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.

       (a) Conveyance.--The Secretary shall convey to the city of 
     Minneapolis by quitclaim deed and without consideration all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States to the 
     property known as the War Department (Fort Snelling 
     Interceptor) Tunnel in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
       (b) Applicability of Property Screening Provisions.--
     Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply 
     to the conveyance under this section.

     SEC. 5081. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--Section 569 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``Benton, Sherburne,'' 
     and inserting ``Beltrami, Hubbard, Wadena,'';
       (2) by striking the last sentence of subsection (e)(3)(B);
       (3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a 
     non-Federal interest may include for any project undertaken 
     under this section a nonprofit entity.'';
       (4) in subsection (h) by striking ``$40,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$54,000,000''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at Federal expense.''.
       (b) Biwabik, Minnesota.--The Secretary shall reimburse the 
     non-Federal interest for the project for environmental 
     infrastructure, Biwabik, Minnesota, carried out under section 
     569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
     368), for planning, design, and construction costs that were 
     incurred by the non-Federal interest with respect to the 
     project before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project and that were in excess of the non-Federal share of 
     the cost of the project if the Secretary determines that the 
     costs are appropriate.

     SEC. 5082. WILD RICE RIVER, MINNESOTA.

       The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the general 
     reevaluation report, authorized by section 438 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2640), for the 
     project for flood protection, Wild Rice River, Minnesota, 
     authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 
     (84 Stat. 1825), to develop alternatives to the Twin Valley 
     Lake feature, and upon the completion of such report, shall 
     construct the project at a total cost of $20,000,000.

     SEC. 5083. HARRISON, HANCOCK, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, 
                   MISSISSIPPI.

       In carrying out projects for the protection, restoration, 
     and creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats 
     located in Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, 
     Mississippi, under section 204 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), the Secretary shall 
     accept any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project in the form of in-kind services and materials.

     SEC. 5084. MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSOURI AND ILLINOIS.

       As a part of the operation and maintenance of the project 
     for the Mississippi River (Regulating Works), between the 
     Ohio and Missouri Rivers, Missouri and Illinois, authorized 
     by the first section of an Act entitled ``Making 
     appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation 
     of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
     purposes'', approved June 25, 1910, the Secretary may carry 
     out activities necessary to restore and protect fish and 
     wildlife habitat in the middle Mississippi River system. Such 
     activities may include modification of navigation training 
     structures, modification and creation of side channels, 
     modification and creation of islands, and studies and 
     analysis necessary to apply adaptive management principles in 
     design of future work.

     SEC. 5085. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.

       Section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 337) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``project'' and inserting ``projects'';
       (2) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$35,000,000''; and
       (3) by inserting ``and St. Louis County'' before ``, 
     Missouri''.

     SEC. 5086. HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS AREA, NEW JERSEY.

       Section 324 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (106 Stat. 4849; 110 Stat. 3779) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``design'' and inserting ``planning, 
     design,''; and
       (B) by striking ``Hackensack Meadowlands Development'' and 
     all that follows through ``Plan for'' and inserting ``New 
     Jersey Meadowlands Commission for the development of an 
     environmental improvement program for'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the subsection heading by striking ``Required'';
       (B) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may'';
       (C) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Restoration and acquisitions of significant wetlands 
     and aquatic habitat that contribute to the Meadowlands 
     ecosystem.'';
       (D) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``and aquatic habitat'' 
     before the period at the end; and
       (E) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
       ``(7) Research, development, and implementation for a water 
     quality improvement program, including restoration of 
     hydrology and tidal flows and remediation of hot spots and 
     other sources of contaminants that degrade existing or 
     planned sites.'';
       (3) in subsection (c) by inserting before the last sentence 
     the following: ``The non-Federal sponsor may also provide in-
     kind services, not to exceed the non-Federal share of the 
     total project cost, and may also receive credit for 
     reasonable cost of design work completed prior to entering 
     into the partnership agreement with the Secretary for a 
     project to be carried out under the program developed under 
     subsection (a).''; and
       (4) in subsection (d) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$35,000,000''.

     SEC. 5087. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK.

       (a) Development of Program.--Section 404(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``processes'' and inserting ``and related 
     environmental processes'';
       (2) by inserting after ``Atlantic Coast'' the following: 
     ``(and associated back bays)'';

[[Page H3642]]

       (3) by inserting after ``actions'' the following: ``, 
     environmental restoration or conservation measures for 
     coastal and back bays,''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following: ``The plan for 
     collecting data and monitoring information included in such 
     annual report shall be fully coordinated with and agreed to 
     by appropriate agencies of the State of New York.''.
       (b) Annual Reports.--Section 404(b) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Initial Plan.--Not later than 12 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the'' and 
     inserting ``Annual Reports.--The'';
       (2) by striking ``initial plan for data collection and 
     monitoring'' and inserting ``annual report of data collection 
     and monitoring activities''; and
       (3) by striking the last sentence.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 404(c) of 
     such Act (113 Stat. 341) is amended by striking ``and an 
     additional total of $2,500,000 for fiscal years thereafter'' 
     and inserting ``$2,500,000 for fiscal years 2000 through 
     2004, and $7,500,000 for fiscal years beginning after 
     September 30, 2004,''.
       (d) Tsunami Warning System.--Section 404 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Tsunami Warning System.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated $800,000 for the Secretary to carry out a 
     project for a tsunami warning system, Atlantic Coast of New 
     York.''.

     SEC. 5088. COLLEGE POINT, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.

       In carrying out section 312 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4639), the Secretary shall 
     give priority to work in College Point, New York City, New 
     York.

     SEC. 5089. FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of 
     the cost of the project for ecosystem restoration, Flushing 
     Bay and Creek, New York City, New York, the cost of design 
     and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
     if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 5090. HUDSON RIVER, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary may participate with the State of New York, 
     New York City, and the Hudson River Park Trust in carrying 
     out activities to restore critical marine habitat, improve 
     safety, and protect and rehabilitate critical infrastructure. 
     There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry 
     out this section.

     SEC. 5091. MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NEW YORK.

       As part of the operation and maintenance of the Mount 
     Morris Dam, New York, the Secretary may make improvements to 
     the access road for the dam to provide safe access to a 
     Federal visitor's center.

     SEC. 5092. JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, NORTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the 
     calculations necessary to negotiate and execute a revised, 
     permanent contract for water supply storage at John H. 
     Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina, among the 
     Secretary and the Kerr Lake Regional Water System and the 
     city of Henderson, North Carolina.

     SEC. 5093. STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

       Section 219(f)(64) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended by inserting ``water 
     and'' before ``wastewater''.

     SEC. 5094. CINCINNATI, OHIO.

        (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to undertake 
     the ecosystem restoration and recreation components of the 
     Central Riverfront Park Master Plan, dated December 1999, at 
     a total cost of $25,000,000.
       (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 5095. TOUSSAINT RIVER, OHIO.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Toussaint 
     River, Carroll Township, Ohio, authorized by section 107 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified 
     to authorize the Secretary to enter into an agreement with 
     the non-Federal interest under which the Secretary may--
       (1) acquire, and transfer to the non-Federal interest, a 
     dredge and associated equipment with the capacity to perform 
     operation and maintenance of the project; and
       (2) provide the non-Federal interest with a lump-sum 
     payment to cover all future costs of operation and 
     maintenance of the project.
       (b) Agreement.--The Secretary may carry out subsection 
     (a)(1) by entering into an agreement with the non-Federal 
     interest under which the non-Federal interest may acquire the 
     dredge and associated equipment directly and be reimbursed by 
     the Secretary.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $1,800,000 to carry out this section. Of 
     such funds, $500,000 may be used to carry out subsection 
     (a)(1).
       (d) Release.--Upon the acquisition and transfer of a dredge 
     and associated equipment under subsection (a)(1), and the 
     payment of funds under subsection (a)(2), all future Federal 
     responsibility for operation and maintenance of the project 
     is extinguished.

     SEC. 5096. EUGENE, OREGON.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of restoring the millrace in 
     Eugene, Oregon, and, if the Secretary determines that the 
     restoration is feasible, the Secretary shall carry out the 
     restoration.
       (b) Consideration of Noneconomic Benefits.--In determining 
     the feasibility of restoring the millrace, the Secretary 
     shall include noneconomic benefits associated with the 
     historical significance of the millrace and associated with 
     preservation and enhancement of resources.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.

     SEC. 5097. FERN RIDGE DAM, OREGON.

       The Secretary may treat all work carried out for emergency 
     corrective actions to repair the embankment dam at the Fern 
     Ridge Lake project, Oregon, as a dam safety project. The cost 
     of work carried out may be recovered in accordance with 
     section 1203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 467n; 100 Stat. 4263).

     SEC. 5098. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

       Section 219(f)(66) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$20,000,000'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--$20,000,000'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.''; and
       (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 
     (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
     subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

     SEC. 5099. KEHLY RUN DAMS, PENNSYLVANIA.

       Section 504(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 338; 117 Stat. 1842) is amended by striking 
     ``Dams'' and inserting ``Dams No. 1-5''.

     SEC. 5100. LEHIGH RIVER, LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary shall use existing water quality data to 
     model the effects of the Francis E. Walter Dam, at different 
     water levels, to determine its impact on water and related 
     resources in and along the Lehigh River in Lehigh County, 
     Pennsylvania. There is authorized to be appropriated $500,000 
     to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5101. NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA.

       Section 219(f)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 335) is amended by striking ``and Monroe'' 
     and inserting ``Northumberland, Union, Snyder, Luzerne, and 
     Monroe''.

     SEC. 5102. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND 
                   NEW YORK.

       (a) Study and Strategy Development.--Section 567(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3787; 114 
     Stat. 2662) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting 
     ``and carry out'' after ``develop''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``$10,000,000.'' and 
     inserting ``$20,000,000, of which the Secretary may utilize 
     not more than $5,000,000 to design and construct feasible 
     pilot projects during the development of the strategy to 
     demonstrate alternative approaches for the strategy. The 
     total cost for any single pilot project may not exceed 
     $500,000. The Secretary shall evaluate the results of the 
     pilot projects and consider the results in the development of 
     the strategy.''.
       (b) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 567(c) of such Act 
     (114 Stat. 2662) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Cooperation'' 
     and inserting ``Cooperative''; and
       (2) in the first sentence--
       (A) by inserting ``and carrying out'' after ``developing''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``cooperation'' and inserting ``cost-
     sharing and cooperative''.
       (c) Implementation of Strategy.--Section 567(d) of such Act 
     (114 Stat. 2663) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
       (2) in the second sentence of paragraph (1) (as so 
     designated)--
       (A) by striking ``implement'' and inserting ``carry out''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``implementing'' and inserting ``carrying 
     out'';
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Priority project.--In carrying out projects to 
     implement the strategy, the Secretary shall give priority to 
     the project for ecosystem restoration, Cooperstown, New York, 
     described in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin--Cooperstown 
     Area Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study, dated December 
     2004, prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the New York 
     State Department of Environmental Conservation.''; and
       (4) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (1) 
     (as designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection) with 
     paragraph (2) (as added by paragraph (3) of this subsection).
       (d) Credit.--Section 567 of such Act (110 Stat. 3787; 114 
     Stat. 2662) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of a project under this section--
       ``(1) the cost of design and construction work carried out 
     by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 
     partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project; and
       ``(2) the cost of in-kind services and materials provided 
     for the project by the non-Federal interest.''.

     SEC. 5103. CANO MARTIN PENA, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO.

       The Secretary shall review a report prepared by the non-
     Federal interest concerning flood protection and 
     environmental restoration for Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, 
     Puerto Rico, and, if the Secretary determines that the report 
     meets the evaluation and design standards of the Corps of 
     Engineers and that the project is feasible, the Secretary may 
     carry out the project at

[[Page H3643]]

     a total cost of $130,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $85,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $45,000,000.

     SEC. 5104. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX 
                   TRIBE, AND TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT 
                   RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA.

       (a) Disbursement Provisions of the State of South Dakota 
     and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux 
     Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Funds.--
     Section 602(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 386) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in clause (i) by inserting ``and the Secretary of the 
     Treasury'' after ``Secretary''; and
       (B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(ii) Availability of funds.--On notification in 
     accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall make available to the State of South Dakota funds from 
     the State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 
     Restoration Trust Fund established under section 603, to be 
     used to carry out the plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat 
     restoration submitted by the State of South Dakota after the 
     State certifies to the Secretary of the Treasury that the 
     funds to be disbursed will be used in accordance with section 
     603(d)(3) and only after the Trust Fund is fully 
     capitalized.''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking clause (ii) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(ii) Availability of funds.--On notification in 
     accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall make available to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and 
     the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe funds from the Cheyenne River 
     Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and 
     the Lower Brule Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 
     Restoration Trust Fund, respectively, established under 
     section 604, to be used to carry out the plans for 
     terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the 
     Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, 
     respectively, to after the respective tribe certifies to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury that the funds to be disbursed will 
     be used in accordance with section 604(d)(3) and only after 
     the Trust Fund is fully capitalized.''.
       (b) Investment Provisions of the State of South Dakota 
     Terrestrial Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund.--Section 603 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 388; 
     114 Stat. 2664) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Investments.--
       ``(1) Eligible obligations.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     the amounts deposited under subsection (b) and the interest 
     earned on those amounts only in interest-bearing obligations 
     of the United States issued directly to the Fund.
       ``(2) Investment requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     invest the amounts in the Fund in accordance with the 
     requirements of this paragraph.
       ``(B) Separate investments of principal and interest.--
       ``(i) Principal account.--The amounts deposited in the Fund 
     under subsection (b) shall be credited to an account within 
     the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the `principal 
     account') and invested as provided in subparagraph (C).
       ``(ii) Interest account.--The interest earned from 
     investing amounts in the principal account of the Fund shall 
     be transferred to a separate account within the Fund 
     (referred to in this paragraph as the `interest account') and 
     invested as provided in subparagraph (D).
       ``(iii) Crediting.--The interest earned from investing 
     amounts in the interest account of the Fund shall be credited 
     to the interest account.
       ``(C) Investment of principal account.--
       ``(i) Initial investment.--Each amount deposited in the 
     principal account of the Fund shall be invested initially in 
     eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then 
     available until the date on which the amount is divided into 
     3 substantially equal portions and those portions are 
     invested in eligible obligations that are identical (except 
     for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued 
     Treasury obligations having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year 
     maturity, and a 10-year maturity, respectively.
       ``(ii) Subsequent investment.--As each 2-year, 5-year, and 
     10-year eligible obligation matures, the principal of the 
     maturing eligible obligation shall also be invested initially 
     in the shortest-maturity eligible obligation then available 
     until the principal is reinvested substantially equally in 
     the eligible obligations that are identical (except for 
     transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued Treasury 
     obligations having 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year maturities.
       ``(iii) Discontinuance of issuance of obligations.--If the 
     Department of the Treasury discontinues issuing to the public 
     obligations having 2-year, 5-year, or 10-year maturities, the 
     principal of any maturing eligible obligation shall be 
     reinvested substantially equally in eligible obligations that 
     are identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued 
     publicly issued Treasury obligations of the maturities longer 
     than 1 year then available.
       ``(D) Investment of interest account.--
       ``(i) Before full capitalization.--Until the date on which 
     the Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest 
     account of the Fund shall be invested in eligible obligations 
     that are identical (except for transferability) to publicly 
     issued Treasury obligations that have maturities that 
     coincide, to the maximum extent practicable, with the date on 
     which the Fund is expected to be fully capitalized.
       ``(ii) After full capitalization.--On and after the date on 
     which the Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest 
     account of the Fund shall be invested and reinvested in 
     eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then 
     available until the amounts are withdrawn and transferred to 
     fund the activities authorized under subsection (d)(3).
       ``(E) Par purchase price.--The price to be paid for 
     eligible obligations purchased as investments of the 
     principal account shall not exceed the par value of the 
     obligations so that the amount of the principal account shall 
     be preserved in perpetuity.
       ``(F) Highest yield.--Among eligible obligations having the 
     same maturity and purchase price, the obligation to be 
     purchased shall be the obligation having the highest yield.
       ``(G) Holding to maturity.--Eligible obligations purchased 
     shall generally be held to their maturities.
       ``(3) Annual review of investment activities.--Not less 
     frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall review with the State of South Dakota the 
     results of the investment activities and financial status of 
     the Fund during the preceding 12-month period.
       ``(4) Audits.--
       ``(A) In general.--The activities of the State of South 
     Dakota (referred to in this subsection as the `State') in 
     carrying out the plan of the State for terrestrial wildlife 
     habitat restoration under section 602(a) shall be audited as 
     part of the annual audit that the State is required to 
     prepare under the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-
     133 (or a successor circulation).
       ``(B) Determination by auditors.--An auditor that conducts 
     an audit under subparagraph (A) shall--
       ``(i) determine whether funds received by the State under 
     this section during the period covered by the audit were used 
     to carry out the plan of the State in accordance with this 
     section; and
       ``(ii) include the determination under clause (i) in the 
     written findings of the audit.
       ``(5) Modification of investment requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary of the Treasury 
     determines that meeting the requirements under paragraph (2) 
     with respect to the investment of a Fund is not practicable, 
     or would result in adverse consequences for the Fund, the 
     Secretary shall modify the requirements, as the Secretary 
     determines to be necessary.
       ``(B) Consultation.--Before modifying a requirement under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury shall consult 
     with the State regarding the proposed modification.'';
       (2) in subsection (d)(2) by inserting ``of the Treasury'' 
     after ``Secretary''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
       ``(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay expenses 
     associated with investing the Fund and auditing the uses of 
     amounts withdrawn from the Fund--
       ``(1) $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007; and
       ``(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal 
     year.''.
       (c) Investment Provisions for the Cheyenne River Sioux 
     Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Trust Funds.--Section 604 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
     389; 114 Stat. 2665) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Investments.--
       ``(1) Eligible obligations.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     the amounts deposited under subsection (b) and the interest 
     earned on those amounts only in interest-bearing obligations 
     of the United States issued directly to the Funds.
       ``(2) Investment requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     invest the amounts in each of the Funds in accordance with 
     the requirements of this paragraph.
       ``(B) Separate investments of principal and interest.--
       ``(i) Principal account.--The amounts deposited in each 
     Fund under subsection (b) shall be credited to an account 
     within the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the 
     `principal account') and invested as provided in subparagraph 
     (C).
       ``(ii) Interest account.--The interest earned from 
     investing amounts in the principal account of each Fund shall 
     be transferred to a separate account within the Fund 
     (referred to in this paragraph as the `interest account') and 
     invested as provided in subparagraph (D).
       ``(iii) Crediting.--The interest earned from investing 
     amounts in the interest account of each Fund shall be 
     credited to the interest account.
       ``(C) Investment of principal account.--
       ``(i) Initial investment.--Each amount deposited in the 
     principal account of each Fund shall be invested initially in 
     eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then 
     available until the date on which the amount is divided into 
     3 substantially equal portions and those portions are 
     invested in eligible obligations that are identical (except 
     for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued 
     Treasury obligations having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year 
     maturity, and a 10-year maturity, respectively.
       ``(ii) Subsequent investment.--As each 2-year, 5-year, and 
     10-year eligible obligation matures, the principal of the 
     maturing eligible obligation shall also be invested initially 
     in the shortest-maturity eligible obligation then available 
     until the principal is reinvested substantially equally in 
     the eligible obligations that are identical (except for 
     transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued Treasury 
     obligations having 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year maturities.

[[Page H3644]]

       ``(iii) Discontinuation of issuance of obligations.--If the 
     Department of the Treasury discontinues issuing to the public 
     obligations having 2-year, 5-year, or 10-year maturities, the 
     principal of any maturing eligible obligation shall be 
     reinvested substantially equally in eligible obligations that 
     are identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued 
     publicly issued Treasury obligations of the maturities longer 
     than 1 year then available.
       ``(D) Investment of the interest account.--
       ``(i) Before full capitalization.--Until the date on which 
     each Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest 
     account of the Fund shall be invested in eligible obligations 
     that are identical (except for transferability) to publicly 
     issued Treasury obligations that have maturities that 
     coincide, to the maximum extent practicable, with the date on 
     which the Fund is expected to be fully capitalized.
       ``(ii) After full capitalization.--On and after the date on 
     which each Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest 
     account of the Fund shall be invested and reinvested in 
     eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then 
     available until the amounts are withdrawn and transferred to 
     fund the activities authorized under subsection (d)(3).
       ``(E) Par purchase price.--The price to be paid for 
     eligible obligations purchased as investments of the 
     principal account shall not exceed the par value of the 
     obligations so that the amount of the principal account shall 
     be preserved in perpetuity.
       ``(F) Highest yield.--Among eligible obligations having the 
     same maturity and purchase price, the obligation to be 
     purchased shall be the obligation having the highest yield.
       ``(G) Holding to maturity.--Eligible obligations purchased 
     shall generally be held to their maturities.
       ``(3) Annual review of investment activities.--Not less 
     frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall review with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and 
     the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (referred to in this subsection 
     as the `Tribes') the results of the investment activities and 
     financial status of the Funds during the preceding 12-month 
     period.
       ``(4) Audits.--
       ``(A) In general.--The activities of the Tribes in carrying 
     out the plans of the Tribes for terrestrial wildlife habitat 
     restoration under section 602(a) shall be audited as part of 
     the annual audit that the Tribes are required to prepare 
     under the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133 (or 
     a successor circulation).
       ``(B) Determination by auditors.--An auditor that conducts 
     an audit under subparagraph (A) shall--
       ``(i) determine whether funds received by the Tribes under 
     this section during the period covered by the audit were used 
     to carry out the plan of the appropriate Tribe in accordance 
     with this section; and
       ``(ii) include the determination under clause (i) in the 
     written findings of the audit.
       ``(5) Modification of investment requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary of the Treasury 
     determines that meeting the requirements under paragraph (2) 
     with respect to the investment of a Fund is not practicable, 
     or would result in adverse consequences for the Fund, the 
     Secretary shall modify the requirements, as the Secretary 
     determines to be necessary.
       ``(B) Consultation.--Before modifying a requirement under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury shall consult 
     with the Tribes regarding the proposed modification.''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
       ``(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay expenses 
     associated with investing the Funds and auditing the uses of 
     amounts withdrawn from the Funds--
       ``(1) $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007; and
       ``(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal 
     year.''.

     SEC. 5105. FRITZ LANDING, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall--
       (1) conduct a study of the Fritz Landing Agricultural Spur 
     Levee, Tennessee, to determine the extent of levee 
     modifications that would be required to make the levee and 
     associated drainage structures consistent with Federal 
     standards;
       (2) design and construct such modifications; and
       (3) after completion of such modifications, incorporate the 
     levee into the project for flood control, Mississippi River 
     and Tributaries, authorized by the Act entitled ``An Act for 
     the control of floods on the Mississippi River and its 
     tributaries, and for other purposes'', approved May 15, 1928 
     (45 Stat. 534-539), commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act 
     of 1928''.

     SEC. 5106. J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall plan, design, and construct a trail 
     system at the J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee, 
     authorized by section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     authorizing the construction of certain public works on 
     rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 
     purposes'', approved June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), and 
     adjacent public property, including design and construction 
     of support facilities. In carrying out such improvements, the 
     Secretary is authorized to use funds made available by the 
     State of Tennessee from any Federal or State source, or both.

     SEC. 5107. TOWN CREEK, LENOIR CITY, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall design and construct the project for 
     flood damage reduction designated as Alternative 4 in the 
     Town Creek, Lenoir City, Loudon County, Tennessee, 
     feasibility report of the Nashville district engineer, dated 
     November 2000, under the authority of section 205 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), notwithstanding 
     section 1 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (33 
     U.S.C. 701a; 49 Stat. 1570). The non-Federal share of the 
     cost of the project shall be subject to section 103(m) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)).

     SEC. 5108. TENNESSEE RIVER PARTNERSHIP.

       (a) In General.--As part of the operation and maintenance 
     of the project for navigation, Tennessee River, Tennessee, 
     Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, authorized by the first 
     section of the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 
     927), the Secretary may enter into a partnership with a 
     nonprofit entity to remove debris from the Tennessee River in 
     the vicinity of Knoxville, Tennessee, by providing a vessel 
     to such entity, at Federal expense, for such debris removal 
     purposes.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.

     SEC. 5109. UPPER MISSISSIPPI EMBAYMENT, TENNESSEE, ARKANSAS, 
                   AND MISSISSIPPI.

       The Secretary may participate with non-Federal and 
     nonprofit entities to address issues concerning managing 
     groundwater as a sustainable resource through the Upper 
     Mississippi Embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi, 
     and coordinating the protection of groundwater supply and 
     groundwater quality with local surface water protection 
     programs. There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 
     to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5110. BOSQUE RIVER WATERSHED, TEXAS.

       (a) Comprehensive Plan.--The Secretary, in consultation 
     with appropriate Federal, State, and local entities, shall 
     develop, as expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive 
     plan for development of new technologies and innovative 
     approaches for restoring, preserving, and protecting the 
     Bosque River watershed within Bosque, Hamilton, McLennan, and 
     Erath Counties, Texas. The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, may carry out activities identified 
     in the comprehensive plan to demonstrate practicable 
     alternatives for stabilization and enhancement of land and 
     water resources in the basin.
       (b) Services of Public Non-Profit Institutions and Other 
     Entities.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary may 
     utilize, through contracts or other means, the services of 
     public non-profit institutions and such other entities as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate.
       (c) Non-Federal Share.--
       (1) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under 
     this section the cost of planning, design, and construction 
     work completed by or on behalf of the non-Federal interests 
     for implementation of measures constructed with assistance 
     provided under this section. The amount of such credit shall 
     not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of such 
     activities.
       (2) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     the cost of operation and maintenance for measures 
     constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 
     be 100 percent.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000.

     SEC. 5111. DALLAS FLOODWAY, DALLAS TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The project for flood control, Trinity 
     River and tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 2 of the 
     Act entitled, ``An Act authorizing the construction, repair, 
     and preservation of certain public works on rivers and 
     harbors, and for other purposes'', approved March 2, 1945 (59 
     Stat. 18), is modified to--
       (1) direct the Secretary to review the Balanced Vision Plan 
     for the Trinity River Corridor, Dallas, Texas, dated December 
     2003 and amended in March 2004, prepared by the non-Federal 
     interest for the project;
       (2) direct the Secretary to review the Interior Levee 
     Drainage Study Phase-I report, Dallas, Texas, dated September 
     2006, prepared by the non-Federal interest; and
       (3) if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     technically sound and environmentally acceptable, authorize 
     the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of 
     $459,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $298,000,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $161,000,000.
       (b) Credit.--
       (1) In-kind contributions.--The Secretary shall credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 
     cost of planning, design, and construction work carried out 
     by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 
     partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.
       (2) Cash contributions.--The Secretary shall accept funds 
     provided by the non-Federal interest for use in carrying out 
     planning, engineering, and design for the project. The 
     Federal share of such planning, engineering, and design 
     carried out with non-Federal contributions shall be credited 
     against the non-Federal share of the cost of the project.

     SEC. 5112. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--Section 575(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3789; 113 Stat. 311) is 
     amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, whether or not such works or actions are 
     partially funded under the hazard mitigation grant program of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency''.
       (b) Specific Projects.--Section 575(b) of such Act (110 
     Stat. 3789; 113 Stat. 311) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and'' at the end;

[[Page H3645]]

       (2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding the following:
       ``(5) the project for flood control, Upper White Oak Bayou, 
     Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).''.

     SEC. 5113. ONION CREEK, TEXAS.

       In carrying out the study for the project for flood damage 
     reduction, recreation, and ecosystem restoration, Onion 
     Creek, Texas, the Secretary shall include the costs and 
     benefits associated with the relocation of flood-prone 
     residences in the study area for the project in the period 
     beginning 2 years before the date of initiation of the study 
     and ending on the date of execution of the partnership 
     agreement for construction of the project to the extent the 
     Secretary determines such relocations are compatible with the 
     project. The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project the cost of relocation of 
     such flood-prone residences incurred by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the relocation of 
     such residences is integral to the project.

     SEC. 5114. EASTERN SHORE AND SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 219(f)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$20,000,000 for water supply and 
     wastewater infrastructure'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--$20,000,000 for water supply, wastewater 
     infrastructure, and environmental restoration'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.''; and
       (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 
     (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
     subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

     SEC. 5115. DYKE MARSH, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA.

       The Secretary shall accept funds from the National Park 
     Service to restore Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.

     SEC. 5116. BAKER BAY AND ILWACO HARBOR, WASHINGTON.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation 
     in Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington, to determine if 
     the siltation is the result of a Federal navigation project 
     (including diverted flows from the Columbia River) and, if 
     the Secretary determines that the siltation is the result of 
     a Federal navigation project, the Secretary shall carry out a 
     project to mitigate the siltation as part of maintenance of 
     the Federal navigation project.

     SEC. 5117. HAMILTON ISLAND CAMPGROUND, WASHINGTON.

       The Secretary is authorized to plan, design, and construct 
     a campground for Bonneville Lock and Dam at Hamilton Island 
     (also know as ``Strawberry Island'') in Skamania County, 
     Washington.

     SEC. 5118. PUGET ISLAND, WASHINGTON.

       The Secretary is directed to place dredged and other 
     suitable material along portions of the Columbia River 
     shoreline of Puget Island, Washington, between river miles 38 
     to 47 in order to protect economic and environmental 
     resources in the area from further erosion, at a Federal cost 
     of $1,000,000. This action shall be coordinated with 
     appropriate resource agencies and comply with applicable 
     Federal laws.

     SEC. 5119. WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON.

       Section 545 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (114 Stat. 2675) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``may construct'' and 
     inserting ``shall construct''; and
       (2) by inserting ``and ecosystem restoration'' after 
     ``erosion protection'' each place it appears.

     SEC. 5120. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL.

       (a) Cheat and Tygart River Basins, West Virginia.--Section 
     581(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
     Stat. 3790; 113 Stat. 313) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``flood control measures'' and inserting 
     ``structural and nonstructural flood control, streambank 
     protection, stormwater management, and channel clearing and 
     modification measures''; and
       (2) by inserting ``with respect to measures that 
     incorporate levees or floodwalls'' before the semicolon.
       (b) Priority Communities.--Section 581(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Etna, Pennsylvania, in the Pine Creek watershed; and
       ``(8) Millvale, Pennsylvania, in the Girty's Run River 
     basin.''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 581(c) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is 
     amended by striking ``$12,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$90,000,000''.

     SEC. 5121. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 371) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``Nicholas,''; and
       (B) by striking ``Gilmer,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a 
     non-Federal interest may include for any project undertaken 
     under this section a nonprofit entity with the consent of the 
     affected local government.
       ``(j) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at Federal expense.''.

     SEC. 5122. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

       (a) Corps of Engineers.--Section 340 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856; 113 Stat. 320) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Corps of Engineers.--Ten percent of the amounts 
     appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the 
     Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 
     under this section at Federal expense.''.
       (b) Southern West Virginia Defined.--Section 340(f) of such 
     Act is amended by inserting ``Nicholas,'' after 
     ``Greenbrier,''.
       (c) Nonprofit Entities.--Section 340 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a 
     non-Federal interest may include for any project undertaken 
     under this section a nonprofit entity with the consent of the 
     affected local government.''.

     SEC. 5123. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-
                   FEDERAL INTERESTS.

       Section 211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(12) Perris, california.--The project for flood control, 
     Perris, California.
       ``(13) Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois.--An 
     element of the project for flood control, Chicagoland 
     Underflow Plan, Illinois.
       ``(14) Larose to golden meadow, louisiana.--The project for 
     flood control, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
       ``(15) Buffalo bayou, texas.--A project for flood control, 
     Buffalo Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the 
     project authorized by the first section of the River and 
     Harbor Act of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 804) and modified by 
     section 3a of the Flood Control Act of August 11, 1939 (53 
     Stat. 1414).
       ``(16) Halls bayou, texas.--A project for flood control, 
     Halls Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the project 
     for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas, 
     authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610).''.

                      TITLE VI--FLORIDA EVERGLADES

     SEC. 6001. HILLSBORO AND OKEECHOBEE AQUIFER, FLORIDA.

       (a) Modification.--The project for Hillsboro and Okeechobee 
     Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project 
     at a total cost of $42,500,000.
       (b) Treatment.--Section 601(b)(2)(A) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i) by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     project for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and 
     Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
     276), shall be treated for purposes of this section as being 
     in the Plan, except that operation and maintenance costs of 
     the project shall remain a non-Federal responsibility.''; and
       (2) in clause (iii) by inserting after ``subparagraph (B)'' 
     the following: ``and the project for aquifer storage and 
     recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer''.

     SEC. 6002. PILOT PROJECTS.

       Section 601(b)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding clause (i)--
       (A) by striking ``$69,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$71,200,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``$34,500,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$35,600,000''; and
       (2) in clause (i)--
       (A) by striking ``$6,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$8,200,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``$3,000,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$4,100,000''.

     SEC. 6003. MAXIMUM COSTS.

       (a) Maximum Cost of Projects.--Section 601(b)(2)(E) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2683) is 
     amended by inserting ``and section (d)'' before the period at 
     the end.
       (b) Maximum Cost of Program Authority.--Section 601(c)(3) 
     of such Act (114 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(C) Maximum cost of program authority.--Section 902 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) 
     shall apply to the individual project funding limits in 
     subparagraph (A) and the aggregate cost limits in 
     subparagraph (B).''.

     SEC. 6004. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.

       Section 601(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (114 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Project authorization.--The following project for 
     water resources development and conservation and other 
     purposes is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary 
     substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to 
     the conditions, described in the report designated in this 
     paragraph:
       ``(A) Indian river lagoon south, florida.--The project for 
     ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood damage reduction, 
     and protection of water quality, Indian River Lagoon South, 
     Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 6, 
     2004, at a total cost of $1,365,000,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $682,500,000

[[Page H3646]]

     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $682,500,000.
       ``(B) Picayune strand, florida.--The project for 
     environmental restoration, Picayune Strand, Florida: Report 
     of the Chief of Engineers dated September 15, 2005, at a 
     total cost of $375,330,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $187,665,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $187,665,000.
       ``(C) Site 1 impoundment, florida.--The project for 
     environmental restoration, Site 1 Impoundment, Florida: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at 
     a total cost of $80,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $40,420,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $40,420,000.''.

     SEC. 6005. CREDIT.

       Section 601(e)(5)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (114 Stat. 2685) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I);
       (B) by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (II); and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(III) the credit is provided for work carried out before 
     the date of the partnership agreement between the Secretary 
     and the non-Federal sponsor, as defined in an agreement 
     between the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor providing 
     for such credit;''; and
       (2) in clause (ii)--
       (A) by striking ``design agreement or the project 
     cooperation''; and
       (B) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, 
     including in the case of credit provided under clause 
     (i)(III) conditions relating to design and construction''.

     SEC. 6006. OUTREACH AND ASSISTANCE.

       Section 601(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (114 Stat. 2691) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Maximum expenditures.--The Secretary may expend up to 
     $3,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years beginning after 
     September 30, 2004, to carry out this subsection.''.

     SEC. 6007. CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.

       Section 528(b)(3)(C) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769; 113 Stat. 286) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i) by striking ``$75,000,000'' and all that 
     follows through ``2003'' and inserting ``$95,000,000''; and
       (2) in clause (ii) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$30,000,000''.

     SEC. 6008. MODIFIED WATER DELIVERIES.

       (a) In General.--The project, Modified Water Deliveries to 
     Everglades National Park, authorized by section 104 of the 
     Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 
     (16 U.S.C. 410r-8), as described in the General Design 
     Memorandum and Environmental Impact Statement for Modified 
     Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park, June 1992, is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project 
     substantially in accordance with the Revised General 
     Reevaluation Report/Second Supplemental Environmental Impact 
     Statement for the Tamiami Trail Modifications, Modified Water 
     Deliveries to Everglades National Park, August 2005, at a 
     total cost of $144,131,000.
       (b) Use of Funds.--Funds made available under section 
     102(f) of the Everglades National Park Protection and 
     Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-6), may be used to 
     carry out the project modification under subsection (a).
       (c) Source and Allocation of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     Federal costs incurred for construction of the project 
     modification under subsection (a) on or after October 1, 
     2004, shall be shared equally between the Secretary and the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (2) Acceptance and use of funds.--The Secretary may accept 
     and expend funds, without further appropriation, provided 
     from another Federal agency or from non-Federal interests for 
     construction of the project modification under subsection (a) 
     or for carrying out such other work that the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate and consistent with authorized 
     purposes of the modified project.

     SEC. 6009. DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

       The following projects are not authorized after the date of 
     enactment of this Act:
       (1) The uncompleted portions of the project for the C-44 
     Basin Storage Reservoir of the Comprehensive Everglades 
     Restoration Plan, authorized by section 601(b)(2)(C)(i) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2682), 
     at a total cost of $147,800,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $73,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $73,900,000.
       (2) The uncompleted portions of the Martin County, Florida, 
     modifications to the project for Central and Southern 
     Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act 
     of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a total cost of $15,471,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $8,073,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $7,398,000.
       (3) The uncompleted portions of the East Coast Backpumping, 
     St. Lucie-Martin County, Spillway Structure S-311 
     modifications to the project for Central and Southern 
     Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act 
     of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a total cost of $77,118,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $55,124,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $21,994,000.

     SEC. 6010. REGIONAL ENGINEERING MODEL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 
                   RESTORATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall complete the 
     development and testing of the regional engineering model for 
     environmental restoration as expeditiously as practicable.
       (b) Usage.--The Secretary shall consider using, as 
     appropriate, the regional engineering model for environmental 
     restoration in the development of future water resource 
     projects, including projects developed pursuant to section 
     601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
     2680).
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out subsection (a).

                   TITLE VII--LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA

     SEC. 7001. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Coastal louisiana ecosystem.--The term ``coastal 
     Louisiana ecosystem'' means the coastal area of Louisiana 
     from the Sabine River on the west to the Pearl River on the 
     east, including those parts of the Deltaic Plain and the 
     Chenier Plain included within the study area of the Plan.
       (2) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of 
     the State of Louisiana.
       (3) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the report of the Chief 
     of Engineers for ecosystem restoration for the Louisiana 
     Coastal Area dated January 31, 2005.
       (4) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the Coastal 
     Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force 
     established by section 7003.

     SEC. 7002. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
     Governor, shall develop a comprehensive plan for protecting, 
     preserving, and restoring the coastal Louisiana ecosystem.
       (b) Integration of Plan Into Comprehensive Hurricane 
     Protection Study.--In developing the comprehensive plan, the 
     Secretary shall integrate the plan into the analysis and 
     design of the comprehensive hurricane protection study 
     authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 Stat. 
     2247).
       (c) Consistency With Comprehensive Coastal Protection 
     Master Plan.--In developing the comprehensive plan, the 
     Secretary shall ensure that the plan is consistent with the 
     goals, analysis, and design of the comprehensive coastal 
     protection master plan authorized and defined pursuant to Act 
     8 of the First Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana State 
     Legislature, 2005, including--
       (1) investigation and study of the maximum effective use of 
     the water and sediment of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya 
     Rivers for coastal restoration purposes consistent with flood 
     control and navigation;
       (2) a schedule for the design and implementation of large-
     scale water and sediment reintroduction projects and an 
     assessment of funding needs from any source; and
       (3) an investigation and assessment of alterations in the 
     operation of the Old River Control Structure, consistent with 
     flood control and navigation purposes.
       (d) Inclusions.--The comprehensive plan shall include a 
     description of--
       (1) the framework of a long-term program integrated with 
     hurricane and storm damage reduction, flood damage reduction, 
     and navigation activities that provide for the comprehensive 
     protection, conservation, and restoration of the wetlands, 
     estuaries (including the Barataria-Terrebonne estuary), 
     barrier islands, shorelines, and related land and features of 
     the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including protection of 
     critical resources, habitat, and infrastructure from the 
     effects of a coastal storm, a hurricane, erosion, or 
     subsidence;
       (2) the means by which a new technology, or an improved 
     technique, can be integrated into the program referred to in 
     paragraph (1);
       (3) the role of other Federal and State agencies and 
     programs in carrying out such program;
       (4) specific, measurable ecological success criteria by 
     which success of the plan will be measured; and
       (5) proposed projects in order of priority as determined by 
     their respective potential to contribute to--
       (A) creation of coastal wetlands; and
       (B) flood protection of communities ranked by population 
     density and level of protection.
       (e) Considerations.--In developing the comprehensive plan, 
     the Secretary shall consider the advisability of integrating 
     into the program referred to in subsection (d)(1)--
       (1) any related Federal or State project being carried out 
     on the date on which the plan is developed;
       (2) any activity in the Plan; or
       (3) any other project or activity identified in--
       (A) the Mississippi River and Tributaries program;
       (B) the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan;
       (C) the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Plan; or
       (D) the plan of the State of Louisiana entitled ``Coast 
     2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana''.
       (f) Reports to Congress.--
       (1) Initial report.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report containing the comprehensive plan.
       (2) Updates.--Not later that 5 years after the date of 
     submission of a report under paragraph (1), and at least once 
     every 5 years thereafter until implementation of the 
     comprehensive plan is complete, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report containing an update of the plan and an 
     assessment of the progress made in implementing the plan.

     SEC. 7003. LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a program for 
     ecosystem restoration, Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana, 
     substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated January 31, 2005.
       (b) Priorities.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out the program under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to--

[[Page H3647]]

       (A) any portion of the program identified in the report 
     described in subsection (a) as a critical restoration 
     feature;
       (B) any Mississippi River diversion project that--
       (i) will protect a major population area of the 
     Pontchartain, Pearl, Breton Sound, Barataria, or Terrebonne 
     basins; and
       (ii) will produce an environmental benefit to the coastal 
     Louisiana ecosystem;
       (C) any barrier island, or barrier shoreline, project 
     that--
       (i) will be carried out in conjunction with a Mississippi 
     River diversion project; and
       (ii) will protect a major population area;
       (D) any project that will reduce storm surge and prevent or 
     reduce the risk of loss of human life and the risk to public 
     safety; and
       (E) a project to physically modify the Mississippi River-
     Gulf outlet and to restore the areas affected by the 
     Mississippi River-Gulf outlet in accordance with the 
     comprehensive plan to be developed under section 7002(a), 
     subject to the conditions and recommendations in a final 
     report of the Chief of Engineers.

     SEC. 7004. COASTAL LOUISIANA ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND 
                   RESTORATION TASK FORCE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a task force to be 
     known as the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and 
     Restoration Task Force (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Task Force'').
       (b) Membership.--The Task Force shall consist of the 
     following members (or, in the case of the head of a Federal 
     agency, a designee at the level of Assistant Secretary or an 
     equivalent level):
       (1) The Secretary.
       (2) The Secretary of the Interior.
       (3) The Secretary of Commerce.
       (4) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       (5) The Secretary of Agriculture.
       (6) The Secretary of Transportation.
       (7) The Secretary of Energy.
       (8) The Director of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency.
       (9) The Commandant of the Coast Guard.
       (10) The Coastal Advisor to the Governor.
       (11) The Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural 
     Resources.
       (12) A representative of the Governor's Advisory Commission 
     on Coastal Restoration and Conservation.
       (c) Duties.--The Task Force shall make recommendations to 
     the Secretary regarding--
       (1) policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, and 
     activities for addressing conservation, protection, 
     restoration, and maintenance of the coastal Louisiana 
     ecosystem;
       (2) financial participation by each agency represented on 
     the Task Force in conserving, protecting, restoring, and 
     maintaining the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including 
     recommendations--
       (A) that identify funds from current agency missions and 
     budgets; and
       (B) for coordinating individual agency budget requests; and
       (3) the comprehensive plan to be developed under section 
     7002(a).
       (d) Report.--The Task Force shall submit to Congress a 
     biennial report that summarizes the activities of the Task 
     Force.
       (e) Working Groups.--
       (1) General authority.--The Task Force may establish such 
     working groups as the Task Force determines to be necessary 
     to assist the Task Force in carrying out this section.
       (2) Hurricanes katrina and rita.--
       (A) In general.--The Task Force may establish a working 
     group for the purpose of advising the Task Force of 
     opportunities to integrate the planning, engineering, design, 
     implementation, and performance of Corps of Engineers 
     projects for hurricane and storm damage reduction, flood 
     damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and navigation in 
     those areas in Louisiana for which a major disaster has been 
     declared by the President as a result of Hurricane Katrina or 
     Rita.
       (B) Expertise; representation.--In establishing the working 
     group under subparagraph (A), the Task Force shall ensure 
     that the group--
       (i) has expertise in coastal estuaries, diversions, coastal 
     restoration and wetlands protection, ecosystem restoration, 
     hurricane protection, storm damage reduction systems, 
     navigation, and ports; and
       (ii) represents the State of Louisiana and local 
     governments in south Louisiana.
       (f) Compensation.--Members of the Task Force and members of 
     a working group established by the Task Force may not receive 
     compensation for their services as members of the Task Force 
     or working group, as the case may be.
       (g) Travel Expenses.--Travel expenses incurred by members 
     of the Task Force and members of a working group established 
     by the Task Force, in the performance of their service on the 
     Task Force or working group, as the case may be, shall be 
     paid by the agency or entity that the member represents.
       (h) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Task 
     Force or any working group established by the Task Force.

     SEC. 7005. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.

       (a) Review.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the non-
     Federal interest of the project involved, shall review each 
     Federally-authorized water resources project in the coastal 
     Louisiana ecosystem being carried out or completed as of the 
     date of enactment of this Act to determine whether the 
     project needs to be modified--
       (1) under the program authorized by section 7003; or
       (2) to contribute to ecosystem restoration under section 
     7003.
       (b) Modifications.--Subject to subsections (c) and (d), the 
     Secretary may carry out the modifications described in 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Public Notice and Comment.--Before completing the 
     report required under subsection (d), the Secretary shall 
     provide an opportunity for public notice and comment.
       (d) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Before modifying an operation or feature 
     of a project under subsection (b), the Secretary shall submit 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report describing the 
     modification.
       (2) Inclusion.--A report describing a modification under 
     paragraph (1) shall include such information relating to the 
     timeline for and cost of the modification, as the Secretary 
     determines to be relevant.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000.

     SEC. 7006. CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Science and Technology.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a coastal 
     Louisiana ecosystem program substantially in accordance with 
     the Plan, at a total cost of $100,000,000.
       (2) Purposes.--The purposes of the program under paragraph 
     (1) shall be--
       (A) to identify any uncertainty relating to the physical, 
     chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline 
     conditions in coastal Louisiana ecosystem;
       (B) to improve knowledge of the physical, chemical, 
     geological, biological, and cultural baseline conditions in 
     coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and
       (C) to identify and develop technologies, models, and 
     methods to carry out this subsection.
       (3) Working groups.--The Secretary may establish such 
     working groups as the Secretary determines to be necessary to 
     assist the Secretary in carrying out this subsection.
       (4) Contracts and cooperative agreements.--In carrying out 
     this subsection, the Secretary may enter into a contract or 
     cooperative agreement with an individual or entity (including 
     a consortium of academic institutions in Louisiana) with 
     scientific or engineering expertise in the restoration of 
     aquatic and marine ecosystems for coastal restoration and 
     enhancement through science and technology.
       (b) Demonstration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     may carry out demonstration projects substantially in 
     accordance with the Plan and within the coastal Louisiana 
     ecosystem for the purpose of resolving critical areas of 
     scientific or technological uncertainty related to the 
     implementation of the comprehensive plan to be developed 
     under section 7002(a).
       (2) Maximum cost.--
       (A) Total cost.--The total cost for planning, design, and 
     construction of all projects under this subsection shall not 
     exceed $100,000,000.
       (B) Individual project.--The total cost of an individual 
     project under this subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000.
       (c) Initial Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     the following projects substantially in accordance with the 
     Plan:
       (A) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet environmental restoration 
     at a total cost of $105,300,000.
       (B) Small diversion at Hope Canal at a total cost of 
     $68,600,000.
       (C) Barataria basin barrier shoreline restoration at a 
     total cost of $242,600,000.
       (D) Small Bayou Lafourche reintroduction at a total cost of 
     $133,500,000.
       (E) Medium diversion at Myrtle Grove with dedicated 
     dredging at a total cost of $278,300,000.
       (2) Modifications.--
       (A) In general.--In carrying out each project under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall carry out such 
     modifications as may be necessary to the ecosystem 
     restoration features identified in the Plan to address the 
     impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the areas of the 
     project.
       (B) Integration.--The Secretary shall ensure that each 
     modification under subparagraph (A) is taken into account in 
     conducting the study of comprehensive hurricane protection 
     authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2247).
       (3) Construction reports.--Before the Secretary may begin 
     construction of any project under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall submit a report documenting any modifications 
     to the project, including cost changes, to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate.
       (4) Applicability of other provisions.--Notwithstanding 
     section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2280), the cost of a project described in 
     paragraph (1) and any modifications to the project shall not 
     exceed 150 percent of the cost of such project set forth in 
     paragraph (1).
       (d) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material.--The Secretary, 
     substantially in accordance with the Plan, shall implement in 
     the coastal Louisiana ecosystem a program for the beneficial 
     use of material dredged from federally maintained waterways 
     at a total cost of $100,000,000.
       (e) Additional Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out a 
     project for ecosystem restoration for the Chenier Plain, 
     Louisiana, and the following projects referred to in the Plan 
     if the Secretary determines such projects are feasible:
       (A) Land Bridge between Caillou Lake and the Gulf of Mexico 
     at a total cost of $56,300,000.
       (B) Gulf Shoreline at Point Au Fer Island at a total cost 
     of $43,400,000.
       (C) Modification of Caernarvon Diversion at a total cost of 
     $20,700,000.

[[Page H3648]]

       (D) Modification of Davis Pond Diversion at a total cost of 
     $64,200,000.
       (2) Reports.--Not later than December 31, 2009, the 
     Secretary shall submit feasibility reports on the projects 
     described in paragraph (1) to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
       (3) Construction.--No appropriations shall be made to 
     construct any project under this subsection if the report 
     under paragraph (2) has not been approved by resolutions 
     adopted by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate.

     SEC. 7007. NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE.

       (a) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of a study or project under this 
     title the cost of work carried out in the coastal Louisiana 
     ecosystem by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 
     execution of the partnership agreement for the study or 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the study or project.
       (b) Sources of Funds.--The non-Federal interest may use, 
     and the Secretary shall accept, funds provided under any 
     other Federal program to satisfy, in whole or in part, the 
     non-Federal share of the construction of any project carried 
     out under this section if such funds are authorized to be 
     used to carry out such project.
       (c) Treatment of Credit Between Projects.--Any credit 
     provided under this section toward the non-Federal share of 
     the cost of a study or project under this title may be 
     applied toward the non-Federal share of the cost of any other 
     study or project under this title.
       (d) Periodic Monitoring.--
       (1) In general.--To ensure that the contributions of the 
     non-Federal interest equal the non-Federal share of the cost 
     of a study or project under this title during each 5-year 
     period beginning after the date of commencement of the first 
     study or project under this title, the Secretary shall--
       (A) monitor for each study or project under this title the 
     non-Federal provision of cash, in-kind services and 
     materials, and land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, 
     and disposal areas; and
       (B) manage the requirement of the non-Federal interest to 
     provide for each such study or project cash, in-kind services 
     and materials, and land, easements, rights-of-way, 
     relocations, and disposal areas.
       (2) Other monitoring.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     monitoring separately for the study phase, construction 
     phase, preconstruction engineering and design phase, and 
     planning phase for each project authorized on or after date 
     of enactment of this Act for all or any portion of the 
     coastal Louisiana ecosystem.
       (e) Audits.--Credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, 
     relocations, and disposal areas (including land value and 
     incidental costs) provided under this section, and the cost 
     of work provided under this section, shall be subject to 
     audit by the Secretary.

     SEC. 7008. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 209 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other provision 
     of law, in carrying out any project or activity under this 
     title or any other provision of law to protect, conserve, and 
     restore the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, the Secretary may 
     determine that--
       (1) the project or activity is justified by the 
     environmental benefits derived by the coastal Louisiana 
     ecosystem; and
       (2) no further economic justification for the project or 
     activity is required if the Secretary determines that the 
     project or activity is cost effective.
       (b) Limitation on Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to any separable element of a project intended to 
     produce benefits that are predominantly unrelated to the 
     protection, preservation, and restoration of the coastal 
     Louisiana ecosystem.

     SEC. 7009. INDEPENDENT REVIEW.

       The Secretary shall establish the Louisiana Water Resources 
     Council which shall serve as the exclusive peer review panel 
     for projects under this title as required by section 2037 of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 7010. EXPEDITED REPORTS.

       The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports for 
     the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that 
     a project is justified in the completed report, proceed 
     directly to project preconstruction engineering and design:
       (1) The projects identified in the study of comprehensive 
     hurricane protection authorized by title I of the Energy and 
     Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2447).
       (2) A project for ecosystem restoration for the Chenier 
     Plain, Louisiana.
       (3) The project for Multipurpose Operation of Houma 
     Navigation Lock.
       (4) The project for Terrebonne Basin Barrier Shoreline 
     Restoration.
       (5) The project for Small Diversion at Convent/Blind River.
       (6) The project for Amite River Diversion Canal 
     Modification.
       (7) The project for Medium Diversion at White's Ditch.
       (8) The project to convey Atchafalaya River Water to 
     Northern Terrebonne Marshes.
       (9) The projects identified in the Southwest Coastal 
     Louisiana hurricane and storm damage reduction study 
     authorized by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives on December 7, 
     2005.

     SEC. 7011. REPORTING.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 6 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report including a description 
     of--
       (1) the projects authorized and undertaken under this 
     title;
       (2) the construction status of the projects;
       (3) the cost to date and the expected final cost of each 
     project undertaken under this title; and
       (4) the benefits and environmental impacts of the projects.
       (b) External Review.--The Secretary shall enter into a 
     contract with the National Academy of Sciences under which 
     the National Academy of Sciences shall perform and submit to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate an external review of the 
     demonstration program authorized by subsection 7006(b).

     SEC. 7012. NEW ORLEANS AND VICINITY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to--
       (1) raise levee heights where necessary and otherwise 
     enhance the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Project and the 
     West Bank and Vicinity Project to provide the levels of 
     protection necessary to achieve the certification required 
     for participation in the national flood insurance program 
     under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 
     2001 et seq.);
       (2) modify the 17th Street, Orleans Avenue, and London 
     Avenue drainage canals and install pumps and closure 
     structures at or near the lakefront at Lake Pontchartrain;
       (3) armor critical elements of the New Orleans hurricane 
     and storm damage reduction system;
       (4) modify the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal to increase 
     the reliability of the flood protection system for the city 
     of New Orleans;
       (5) replace or modify certain non-Federal levees in 
     Plaquemines Parish to incorporate the levees into the New 
     Orleans to Venice Hurricane Protection Project;
       (6) reinforce or replace flood walls in the existing Lake 
     Pontchartrain and Vicinity Project and the existing West Bank 
     and Vicinity Project to improve performance of the flood and 
     storm damage reduction systems;
       (7) perform one time stormproofing of interior pump 
     stations to ensure the operability of the stations during 
     hurricanes, storms, and high water events;
       (8) repair, replace, modify and improve non-Federal levees 
     and associated protection measures in Terrebonne Parish; and
       (9) reduce the risk of storm damage to the greater New 
     Orleans metropolitan area by restoring the surrounding 
     wetlands through measures to begin to reverse wetland losses 
     in areas affected by navigation, oil and gas, and other 
     channels and through modification of the Caernarvon 
     Freshwater Diversion structure or its operations.
       (b) Funding Authority.--Activities authorized by subsection 
     (a) and section 7013 shall be carried out in a manner that is 
     consistent with the cost-sharing requirements specified in 
     the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, 
     the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 
     (Public Law 109-234).
       (c) Conditions.--The Secretary shall notify the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate if estimates for the expenditure of funds 
     on any single project or activity identified in subsection 
     (a) exceeds the amount specified for that project or activity 
     in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, 
     the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 
     (Public Law 109-234). No appropriation in excess of 25 
     percent above the amount specified for a project or activity 
     in such Act shall be made until an increase in the level of 
     expenditure has been approved by resolutions adopted by the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate.

     SEC. 7013. MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Mississippi 
     River-Gulf outlet, authorized by the Act entitled ``An Act to 
     authorize construction of the Mississippi River-Gulf 
     outlet'', approved March 29, 1956 (70 Stat. 65), as modified 
     by section 844 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (100 Stat. 4177), is not authorized.
       (b) Plan for Closure and Restoration.--The Secretary shall 
     carry out a study and implement a project to physically 
     modify the Mississippi River-Gulf outlet and to restore the 
     areas affected by the Mississippi River-Gulf outlet in 
     accordance with the plan to be developed under section 
     7002(a), subject to the conditions and recommendations in a 
     final report of the Chief of Engineers if a favorable report 
     of the Chief is completed not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act. The plan shall incorporate the 
     recommendations of the Interim Mississippi River Gulf Outlet 
     Deep-Draft De-Authorization Report submitted to Congress in 
     December 2006.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report on the project described 
     in subsection (b).
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 for the costs of carrying out 
     the study and developing the report of the Chief of Engineers 
     required by subsection (b). Such costs shall be a Federal 
     expense.

   TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATER-WAY SYSTEM

     SEC. 8001. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the project for 
     navigation and ecosystem improvements for

[[Page H3649]]

     the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 15, 2004.
       (2) Upper mississippi river and illinois waterway system.--
     The term ``Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway 
     System'' means the projects for navigation and ecosystem 
     restoration authorized by Congress for--
       (A) the segment of the Mississippi River from the 
     confluence with the Ohio River, River Mile 0.0, to Upper St. 
     Anthony Falls Lock in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, River 
     Mile 854.0; and
       (B) the Illinois Waterway from its confluence with the 
     Mississippi River at Grafton, Illinois, River Mile 0.0, to 
     T.J. O'Brien Lock in Chicago, Illinois, River Mile 327.0.

     SEC. 8002. NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS AND RESTORATION.

       Except as modified by this title, the Secretary shall 
     undertake navigation improvements and restoration of the 
     ecosystem for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Water 
     System substantially in accordance with the Plan and subject 
     to the conditions described therein.

     SEC. 8003. AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF NAVIGATION 
                   IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Small Scale and Nonstructural Measures.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) construct mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18, 20, 
     22, 24, and LaGrange Lock or other alternative locations that 
     are economically and environmentally feasible;
       (B) provide switchboats at Locks 20 through 25; and
       (C) conduct development and testing of an appointment 
     scheduling system.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--The total cost of 
     projects authorized under this subsection shall be 
     $235,000,000. Such costs are to be paid 1/2 from amounts 
     appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 
     from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust 
     Fund. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       (b) New Locks.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall construct new 1,200-
     foot locks at Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper 
     Mississippi River and at LaGrange Lock and Peoria Lock on the 
     Illinois Waterway.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--The total cost of 
     projects authorized under this subsection shall be 
     $1,795,000,000. Such costs are to be paid 1/2 from amounts 
     appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 
     from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust 
     Fund. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       (c) Concurrence.--The mitigation required for the projects 
     authorized under subsections (a) and (b), including any 
     acquisition of lands or interests in lands, shall be 
     undertaken or acquired concurrently with lands and interests 
     in lands for the projects authorized under subsections (a) 
     and (b), and physical construction required for the purposes 
     of mitigation shall be undertaken concurrently with the 
     physical construction of such projects.

     SEC. 8004. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) Operation.--To ensure the environmental sustainability 
     of the existing Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway 
     System, the Secretary shall modify, consistent with 
     requirements to avoid adverse effects on navigation, the 
     operation of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois 
     Waterway System to address the cumulative environmental 
     impacts of operation of the system and improve the ecological 
     integrity of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River.
       (b) Ecosystem Restoration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, consistent 
     with requirements to avoid adverse effects on navigation, 
     ecosystem restoration projects to attain and maintain the 
     sustainability of the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi 
     River and Illinois River in accordance with the general 
     framework outlined in the Plan.
       (2) Projects included.--Ecosystem restoration projects may 
     include--
       (A) island building;
       (B) construction of fish passages;
       (C) floodplain restoration;
       (D) water level management (including water drawdown);
       (E) backwater restoration;
       (F) side channel restoration;
       (G) wing dam and dike restoration and modification;
       (H) island and shoreline protection;
       (I) topographical diversity;
       (J) dam point control;
       (K) use of dredged material for environmental purposes;
       (L) tributary confluence restoration;
       (M) spillway, dam, and levee modification to benefit the 
     environment; and
       (N) land and easement acquisition.
       (3) Cost sharing.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), the Federal share of the cost of carrying out an 
     ecosystem restoration project under this subsection shall be 
     65 percent.
       (B) Exception for certain restoration projects.--In the 
     case of a project under this section for ecosystem 
     restoration, the Federal share of the cost of carrying out 
     the project shall be 100 percent if the project--
       (i) is located below the ordinary high water mark or in a 
     connected backwater;
       (ii) modifies the operation of structures for navigation; 
     or
       (iii) is located on federally owned land.
       (C) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection affects the 
     applicability of section 906(e) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(e)).
       (D) Nongovernmental organizations.--Notwithstanding section 
     221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), 
     for any project carried out under this title, a non-Federal 
     sponsor may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of 
     the affected local government.
       (4) Land acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire land or an 
     interest in land for an ecosystem restoration project from a 
     willing seller through conveyance of--
       (A) fee title to the land; or
       (B) a flood plain conservation easement.
       (c) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall carry out a long term 
     resource monitoring, computerized data inventory and 
     analysis, and applied research program for the Upper 
     Mississippi River and Illinois River to determine trends in 
     ecosystem health, to understand systemic changes, and to help 
     identify restoration needs. The program shall build upon the 
     monitoring program established under section 
     1103(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(1)(A)(ii)).
       (d) Ecosystem Restoration Preconstruction Engineering and 
     Design.--
       (1) Restoration design.--Before initiating the construction 
     of any individual ecosystem restoration project, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) establish ecosystem restoration goals and identify 
     specific performance measures designed to demonstrate 
     ecosystem restoration;
       (B) establish the without-project condition or baseline for 
     each performance indicator; and
       (C) for each separable element of the ecosystem 
     restoration, identify specific target goals for each 
     performance indicator.
       (2) Outcomes.--Performance measures identified under 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall include specific measurable 
     environmental outcomes, such as changes in water quality, 
     hydrology, or the well-being of indicator species the 
     population and distribution of which are representative of 
     the abundance and diversity of ecosystem-dependent aquatic 
     and terrestrial species.
       (3) Restoration design.--Restoration design carried out as 
     part of ecosystem restoration shall include a monitoring plan 
     for the performance measures identified under paragraph 
     (1)(A), including--
       (A) a timeline to achieve the identified target goals; and
       (B) a timeline for the demonstration of project completion.
       (e) Consultation and Funding Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out the environmental 
     sustainability, ecosystem restoration, and monitoring 
     activities authorized in this section, the Secretary shall 
     consult with the Secretary of the Interior and the States of 
     Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.
       (2) Funding agreements.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     enter into agreements with the Secretary of the Interior, the 
     Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, and natural 
     resource and conservation agencies of the States of Illinois, 
     Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to provide for the 
     direct participation of and transfer of funds to such 
     entities for the planning, implementation, and evaluation of 
     projects and programs established by this section.
       (f) Specific Projects Authorization.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this subsection $1,580,000,000, of which not more 
     than $226,000,000 shall be available for projects described 
     in subsection (b)(2)(B) and not more than $43,000,000 shall 
     be available for projects described in subsection (b)(2)(J). 
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       (2) Limitation on available funds.--Of the amounts made 
     available under paragraph (1), not more than $35,000,000 in 
     any fiscal year may be used for land acquisition under 
     subsection (b)(4).
       (3) Individual project limit.--Other than for projects 
     described in subparagraphs (B) and (J) of subsection (b)(2), 
     the total cost of any single project carried out under this 
     subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000.
       (4) Monitoring.--In addition to amounts authorized under 
     paragraph (1), there are authorized $10,420,000 per fiscal 
     year to carry out the monitoring program under subsection (c) 
     if such sums are not appropriated pursuant to section 
     1103(e)(4) the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 652(e)(4)).
       (g) Implementation Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than June 30, 2008, and every 4 
     years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 
     on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives an implementation report that--
       (A) includes baselines, milestones, goals, and priorities 
     for ecosystem restoration projects; and
       (B) measures the progress in meeting the goals.
       (2) Advisory panel.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint and convene an 
     advisory panel to provide independent guidance in the 
     development of each implementation report under paragraph 
     (1).
       (B) Panel members.--Panel members shall include--
       (i) one representative of each of the State resource 
     agencies (or a designee of the Governor of the State) from 
     each of the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, 
     and Wisconsin;
       (ii) one representative of the Department of Agriculture;
       (iii) one representative of the Department of 
     Transportation;
       (iv) one representative of the United States Geological 
     Survey;
       (v) one representative of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service;
       (vi) one representative of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (vii) one representative of affected landowners;
       (viii) two representatives of conservation and 
     environmental advocacy groups; and

[[Page H3650]]

       (ix) two representatives of agriculture and industry 
     advocacy groups.
       (C) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall serve as chairperson 
     of the advisory panel.
       (D) Application of federal advisory committee act.--The 
     Advisory Panel and any working group established by the 
     Advisory Panel shall not be considered an advisory committee 
     under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (h) Ranking System.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Advisory Panel, shall develop a system to rank proposed 
     projects.
       (2) Priority.--The ranking system shall give greater weight 
     to projects that restore natural river processes, including 
     those projects listed in subsection (b)(2).

     SEC. 8005. COMPARABLE PROGRESS.

       (a) In General.--As the Secretary conducts pre-engineering, 
     design, and construction for projects authorized under this 
     title, the Secretary shall--
       (1) select appropriate milestones;
       (2) determine, at the time of such selection, whether the 
     projects are being carried out at comparable rates; and
       (3) make an annual report to Congress, beginning in fiscal 
     year 2008, regarding whether the projects are being carried 
     out at a comparable rate.
       (b) No Comparable Rate.--If the Secretary or Congress 
     determines under subsection (a)(2) that projects authorized 
     under this title are not moving toward completion at a 
     comparable rate, annual funding requests for the projects 
     shall be adjusted to ensure that the projects move toward 
     completion at a comparable rate in the future.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 110-100. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Oberstar

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 110-100, as modified by the earlier order of the House.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Oberstar:
       In section 1001(21) of the bill, add at the end the 
     following:
       (C) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, maintenance, 
     repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the Houma 
     Navigation Canal lock complex and the Gulf Intracoastal 
     Waterway floodgate features that provide for inland waterway 
     transportation shall be a Federal responsibility in 
     accordance with section 102 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212).
       In section 1001 of the bill, after paragraph (41) insert 
     the following (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs 
     accordingly):
       (42) Riverside oxbow, texas.--The project for environmental 
     restoration, Riverside Oxbow, Texas: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated May 29, 2003, at a total cost of 
     $27,110,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,210,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,900,000.
       In section 1002(b) of the bill, after paragraph (4) insert 
     the following (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs 
     accordingly):
       (5) Wildwood creek, yucaipa, california.--The Secretary 
     shall review the locally prepared plan for the project for 
     flood damage, Wildwood Creek, California, referred to in 
     subsection (a) and, if the Secretary determines that the plan 
     meets the evaluation and design standards of the Corps of 
     Engineers and that the plan is feasible, the Secretary may 
     use the plan to carry out the project and shall provide 
     credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project for the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project.
       In section 1003 of the bill, before paragraph (1) insert 
     the following (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs 
     accordingly):
       (1) Aliso creek, california.--Projects for emergency 
     streambank protection, Aliso Creek, California.
       In section 1006(a) of the bill, after paragraph (2) insert 
     the following (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs 
     accordingly):
       (3) Aliso creek, california.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Aliso Creek, California.
       In section 1006(a) of the bill, after paragraph (15) insert 
     the following (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs 
     accordingly):
       (16) Kalamazoo river watershed, battle creek, michigan.--
     Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Kalamazoo River 
     watershed, Battle Creek, Michigan.
       In section 1006 of the bill, strike subsection (b) (and 
     strike the subsection designation and heading for subsection 
     (a)).
       In section 2015(a)(1)(B) of the bill, after ``Guam,'' 
     insert ``the State of Hawaii,''.
       In section 2039(a) of the bill, insert before ``the 
     Secretary shall include'' the following: ``and for the 
     project for navigation, Houma Navigation Canal, Louisiana, 
     being conducted pursuant to the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103-316),''.
       At the end of title II of the bill, add the following (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 2041. SUPPORT OF ARMY CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 2361 of title 10, 
     United States Code, the Secretary is authorized to provide 
     assistance through contracts, cooperative agreements, and 
     grants to--
       (1) the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, for 
     establishment and operation of the Southeastern Water 
     Resources Institute to study sustainable development and 
     utilization of water resources in the southeastern United 
     States;
       (2) Lewis and Clark Community College, Illinois, for the 
     Great Rivers National Research and Education Center 
     (including facilities that have been or will be constructed 
     at one or more locations in the vicinity of the confluence of 
     the Illinois River, the Missouri River, and the Mississippi 
     River), a collaborative effort of Lewis and Clark Community 
     College, the University of Illinois, the Illinois Department 
     of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, and other 
     entities, for the study of river ecology, developing 
     watershed and river management strategies, and educating 
     students and the public on river issues; and
       (3) the University of Texas at Dallas for support and 
     operation of the International Center for Decision and Risk 
     Analysis to study risk analysis and control methods for 
     transboundary water resources management in the southwestern 
     United States and other international water resources 
     management problems.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out subsection 
     (a)(1) $5,000,000, to carry out subsection (a)(2) $5,000,000, 
     and to carry out subsection (a)(3) $5,000,000. Such sums 
     shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 2042. FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGES.

       Section 3(c) of the Act of August 11, 1888 (33 U.S.C. 622; 
     25 Stat. 423), is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7)(B) by adding at the end the following: 
     ``This subparagraph shall not apply to the Federal hopper 
     dredges Essayons and Yaquina of the Corps of Engineers.''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) Ready reserve for the hopper dredge mcfarland.--The 
     Secretary shall place the Federal hopper dredge McFarland of 
     the Corps of Engineers in ready reserve status not later than 
     October 1, 2008.''.
       Strike section 3020 of the bill and insert the following:

     SEC. 3020. SACRAMENTO AND AMERICAN RIVERS FLOOD CONTROL, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide credit to the 
     Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, in the amount of 
     $20,503,000, for the non-reimbursed Federal share of costs 
     incurred by the Agency in connection the project for flood 
     control and recreation, Sacramento and American Rivers, 
     California (Natomas Levee features), authorized by section 
     9159 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 
     (106 Stat. 1944).
       (b) Allocation of Credit.--The Secretary shall allocate the 
     amount to be credited under subsection (a) toward the non-
     Federal share of such projects as are requested by the 
     Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.
       In section 3023 of the bill, strike ``a study for the 
     reallocation of water storage'' and insert ``a study of water 
     conservation and water quality''.
       In section 3079(c) of the bill, strike ``$5,000,000'' and 
     insert ``$7,000,000''.
       After section 3087 of the bill, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents, accordingly):

     SEC. 3088. WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NEBRASKA.

       The project for ecosystem restoration and flood damage 
     reduction, authorized by section 101(b)(21) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project 
     at a total cost of $21,664,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $14,082,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $7,582,000.
       Strike section 3110 of the bill (and redesignate subsequent 
     sections, and conform the table of contents, accordingly).
       After section 3113 of the bill, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents, accordingly):

     SEC. 3114. BLUESTONE LAKE, OHIO RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 102(ff) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4810, 110 Stat. 3726, 113 Stat. 312) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(ff) Bluestone Lake, Ohio River Basin, West Virginia.--
       ``(1) In general.--The project for flood control, Bluestone 
     Lake, Ohio River Basin, West Virginia, authorized by section 
     4 of the Flood Control Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 1217) is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to implement Plan C/G, as 
     defined in the Evaluation Report of the District Engineer 
     dated December 1996, to prohibit the release of drift

[[Page H3651]]

     and debris into waters downstream of the project, except for 
     that organic matter necessary to maintain and enhance the 
     biological resources of such waters and such nonobtrusive 
     items of debris as may not be economically feasible to 
     prevent being released through such project, including 
     measures to prevent the accumulation of drift and debris at 
     the project, the collection and removal of drift and debris 
     on the segment of the New River upstream of the project, and 
     the removal (through use of temporary or permanent systems) 
     and disposal of accumulated drift and debris at Bluestone 
     Dam.
       ``(2) Cooperative agreement.--In carrying out the 
     downstream cleanup under the plan referred to in paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement 
     with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 
     for the department to carry out the cleanup, including 
     contracting and procurement services, contract administration 
     and management, transportation and disposal of collected 
     materials, and disposal fees.
       ``(3) Initial cleanup.--The Secretary may provide the 
     department up to $150,000 from funds previously appropriated 
     for this purpose for the Federal share of the costs of the 
     initial cleanup under the plan.''.
       In section 3119(a) of the bill, redesignate paragraph (3) 
     as paragraph (4) and insert after paragraph (2) the 
     following:
       (3) The project for navigation, Baltimore Harbor and 
     Channels, Maryland and Virginia, authorized by section 101 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818).
       In section 3121(a) of the bill, after paragraph (3) insert 
     the following (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs 
     accordingly):
       (4) Rockland harbor, maine.--The portion of the project for 
     navigation, Rockland Harbor, Maine, authorized by the Act of 
     June 3, 1896 (29 Stat. 202), consisting of a 14-foot channel 
     located in Lermond Cove and beginning at a point with 
     coordinates N9977.37, E340290.02, thence running easterly 
     about 200.00 feet to a point with coordinates N99978.49, 
     E340490.02, thence running northerly about 138.00 feet to a 
     point with coordinates N100116.49, E340289.25, thence running 
     westerly about 200.00 feet to a point with coordinates 
     N100115.37, E340289.25, thence running southerly about 138.00 
     feet to the point of origin.
       In section 3123 of the bill, after subsection (a) insert 
     the following (and redesignate subsequent subsections 
     accordingly):
       (b) Lake Texoma, Oklahoma.--
       (1) Release of reversionary interest.--Any reversionary 
     interest relating to public parks and recreation on the land 
     conveyed by the Secretary to the State of Oklahoma at Lake 
     Texoma pursuant to the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize the 
     sale of certain lands to the State of Oklahoma'', approved 
     June 16, 1953 (67 Stat. 63), is terminated as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Instrument of release.--As soon as practicable after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     execute and file in the appropriate office a deed of release, 
     an amended deed, or another appropriate instrument to release 
     each reversionary interest described in subsection (a).
       (3) Preservation of reserved rights.--Release of a 
     reversionary interest in accordance with this section shall 
     not be construed to affect any other right excepted or 
     reserved for the United States in a deed of conveyance made 
     pursuant to such Act of June 16, 1953.
       After section 4010 of the bill, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents, accordingly):

     SEC. 4011. ALISO CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for streambank 
     protection and environmental restoration along Aliso Creek, 
     California.
       Strike section 4038 of the bill (and redesignate subsequent 
     sections, and conform the table of contents, accordingly).
       Strike section 4079 of the bill (and redesignate subsequent 
     sections, and conform the table of contents, accordingly).
       In section 5001(a) of the bill, after paragraph (1) insert 
     the following (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs 
     accordingly):
       (2) West turning basin, Canaveral Harbor, Florida.
       In section 5002(d) of the bill, before paragraph (1) insert 
     the following (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs 
     accordingly):
       (1) Charlotte Harbor watershed, Florida.
       In section 5002(d) of the bill, after paragraph (14) insert 
     the following (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs 
     accordingly):
       (15) Tuscarawas River basin, Ohio.
       In section 5003(a)(2) of the bill, strike ``Saginaw'' and 
     insert ``Flint''.
       In section 5007 of the bill, before paragraph (1) insert 
     the following (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs 
     accordingly):
       (1) Daytona Beach shore protection project, Florida.
       (2) Flagler Beach shore protection project, Florida.
       (3) St. Johns County shore protection project, Florida.
       After section 5015 of the bill, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents, accordingly)

     SEC. 5016. GREAT LAKES PILOT PROJECT.

       Using available funds, the Secretary, in coordination with 
     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
     Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Director of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Director of the 
     Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, shall carry out a 
     pilot project, on an emergency basis, to control and prevent 
     further spreading of viral hemorrhagic septicemia in the 
     Great Lakes and their connecting channels.

     SEC. 5017. SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized, using amounts 
     contributed by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
     Corporation under subsection (b), to carry out projects for 
     operations, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation, 
     including associated maintenance dredging, of the Eisenhower 
     and Snell lock facilities and related navigational 
     infrastructure for the Saint Lawrence Seaway, at a total cost 
     of $134,650,000.
       (b) Source of Funds.--The Secretary is authorized to accept 
     funds from the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 
     to carry out projects under this section. Such funds may 
     include amounts made available to the Corporation from the 
     Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the general fund of the 
     Treasury of the United States pursuant to section 210 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238).
       Strike section 5029 of the bill and insert the following:

     SEC. 5029. FIRE ISLAND, ALASKA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to provide 
     planning, design, and construction assistance to the non-
     Federal interest for the construction of a barge landing 
     facility on Fire Island, Alaska.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.
       After section 5046 of the bill, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents, accordingly):

     SEC. 5047. LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA.

       Section 219(f)(50) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``water'' the following: ``and 
     wastewater''; and
       (2) by striking ``$14,500,000'' and inserting 
     ``$24,500,000''.
       After section 5056 of the bill, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents, accordingly):

     SEC. 5057. EAST CENTRAL AND NORTHEAST FLORIDA.

       (a) East Central and Northeast Florida Region Defined.--In 
     this section, the term ``East Central and Northeast Florida 
     Region'' means Flagler County, St. Johns County, Putman 
     County (east of the St. Johns River), Seminole County, 
     Volusia County, the towns of Winter Park, Maitland, and 
     Palatka, Florida.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish 
     a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
     interests in the East Central and Northeast Florida Region.
       (c) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may 
     be in the form of design and construction assistance for 
     water-related environmental infrastructure and resource 
     protection and development projects in the East Central and 
     Northeast Florida Region, including projects for wastewater 
     treatment and related facilities, water supply and related 
     facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water 
     resource protection and development.
       (d) Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide 
     assistance for a project under this section only if the 
     project is publicly owned.
       (e) Partnership Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership 
     agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design 
     and construction of the project to be carried out with the 
     assistance.
       (2) Requirements.--Each partnership agreement for a project 
     entered into under this subsection shall provide for the 
     following:
       (A) Plan.--Development by the Secretary, in consultation 
     with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities 
     or resource protection and development plan, including 
     appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
       (B) Legal and institutional structures.--Establishment of 
     such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to 
     ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by 
     the non-Federal interest.
       (3) Cost sharing.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal share of the project costs 
     under each partnership agreement entered into under this 
     subsection shall be 75 percent. The Federal share may be 
     provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project 
     costs.
       (B) Credit for work.--The non-Federal interests shall 
     receive credit for the reasonable cost of design work on a 
     project completed by the non-Federal interest before entering 
     into a partnership agreement with the Secretary for such 
     project.
       (C) Credit for interest.--In case of a delay in the funding 
     of the non-Federal share of a project that is the subject of 
     an agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest 
     shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in 
     providing the non-Federal share of the project's costs.
       (D) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
     Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
     rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal

[[Page H3652]]

     share of project costs (including all reasonable costs 
     associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 
     construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on 
     publicly owned or controlled land), but such credit may not 
     exceed 25 percent of total project costs.
       (E) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with 
     assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section waives, limits, or otherwise affects the 
     applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 
     would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with 
     assistance provided under this section.
       (g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 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.
       (h) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at Federal expense.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 5058. LAKE LANIER, GEORGIA.

       The Secretary may assist local interests with planning, 
     design, and construction of facilities at the Lake Lanier 
     Olympic Center, Georgia, at a total cost of $5,300,000.
       After section 5062 of the bill, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents, accordingly):

     SEC. 5063. SOUTHWEST ILLINOIS.

       (a) Southwest Illinois Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Southwest Illinois'' means the counties of Madison, St. 
     Clair, Monroe, Randolph, Perry, Franklin, Jackson, Union, 
     Alexander, Pulaski, and Williamson, Illinois.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish 
     a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
     interests in Southwest Illinois.
       (c) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may 
     be in the form of design and construction assistance for 
     water-related environmental infrastructure and resource 
     protection and development projects in Southwest Illinois, 
     including projects for wastewater treatment and related 
     facilities, water supply and related facilities, and surface 
     water resource protection and development.
       (d) Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide 
     assistance for a project under this section only if the 
     project is publicly owned.
       (e) Partnership Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership 
     agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design 
     and construction of the project to be carried out with the 
     assistance.
       (2) Requirements.--Each partnership agreement entered into 
     under this subsection shall provide for the following:
       (A) Plan.--Development by the Secretary, in consultation 
     with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities 
     or resource protection and development plan, including 
     appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
       (B) Legal and institutional structures.--Establishment of 
     such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to 
     ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by 
     the non-Federal interest.
       (3) Cost sharing.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal share of the project costs 
     under each partnership agreement entered into under this 
     subsection shall be 75 percent. The Federal share may be in 
     the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
       (B) Credit for work.--The non-Federal interests shall 
     receive credit for the reasonable cost of design work on a 
     project completed by the non-Federal interest before entering 
     into a partnership agreement with the Secretary for such 
     project.
       (C) Credit for interest.--In case of a delay in the funding 
     of the non-Federal share of a project that is the subject of 
     an agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest 
     shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in 
     providing the non-Federal share of the project's costs.
       (D) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
     Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
     rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share 
     of project costs (including all reasonable costs associated 
     with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned 
     or controlled land), but not to exceed 25 percent of total 
     project costs.
       (E) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with 
     assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section waives, limits, or otherwise affects the 
     applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 
     would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with 
     assistance provided under this section.
       (g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 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.
       (h) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at Federal expense.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       After section 5064 of the bill, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents, accordingly):

     SEC. 5065. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, MISSOURI RIVER, IOWA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide assistance for 
     a project to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood 
     inundation areas in the State of Iowa, along the Missouri 
     River.
       (b) Requirements.--Maps developed under the project shall 
     include hydrologic and hydraulic information and shall 
     accurately portray the flood hazard areas in the floodplain. 
     The maps shall be produced in a high resolution format and 
     shall be made available to the State of Iowa in an electronic 
     format.
       (c) Participation of FEMA.--The Secretary and the non-
     Federal interests for the project shall work with the 
     Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ensure 
     the validity of the maps developed under the project for 
     flood insurance purposes.
       (d) Forms of Assistance.--In carrying out the project, the 
     Secretary may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements 
     with the non-Federal interests or provide reimbursements of 
     project costs.
       (e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project shall be 50 percent.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000.
       In section 5065 of the bill, before ``and, if'' insert the 
     following: ``authorized by section 4 of the Flood Control Act 
     of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217)''.
       Strike section 5070 of the bill (and redesignate subsequent 
     sections, and conform the table of contents, accordingly).
       After section 5070 of the bill, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents, accordingly):

     SEC. 5071. EAST ATCHAFALAYA BASIN AND AMITE RIVER BASIN 
                   REGION, LOUISIANA.

       (a) East Atchafalaya Basin and Amite River Basin Region 
     Defined.--In this section, the term ``East Atchafalaya Basin 
     and Amite River Basin Region'' means the following parishes 
     and municipalities in the State of Louisiana: Ascension, East 
     Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Iberville, Livingston, Pointe 
     Coupee, St. Helena, West Baton Rouge, and West Feliciana.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish 
     a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
     interests in the East Atchafalaya Basin and Amite River Basin 
     Region.
       (c) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may 
     be in the form of design and construction assistance for 
     water-related environmental infrastructure and resource 
     protection and development projects in the East Atchafalaya 
     Basin and Amite River Basin Region, including projects for 
     wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and 
     related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface 
     water resource protection and development.
       (d) Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide 
     assistance for a project under this section only if the 
     project is publicly owned.
       (e) Partnership Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership 
     agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design 
     and construction of the project to be carried out with the 
     assistance.
       (2) Requirements.--Each partnership agreement of a project 
     entered into under this subsection shall provide for the 
     following:
       (A) Plan.--Development by the Secretary, in consultation 
     with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities 
     or resource protection and development plan, including 
     appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
       (B) Legal and institutional structures.--Establishment of 
     such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to 
     ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by 
     the non-Federal interest.
       (3) Cost sharing.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal share of the project costs 
     under each partnership agreement entered into under this 
     subsection shall be 75 percent. The Federal share may be 
     provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project 
     costs.
       (B) Credit for work.--The non-Federal interests shall 
     receive credit for the reasonable cost of design work on a 
     project completed by the non-Federal interest before entering 
     into a partnership agreement with the Secretary for such 
     project.
       (C) Credit for interest.--In case of a delay in the funding 
     of the non-Federal share of a project that is the subject of 
     an agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest 
     shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in 
     providing the non-Federal share of the project's costs.

[[Page H3653]]

       (D) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
     Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
     rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share 
     of project costs (including all reasonable costs associated 
     with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned 
     or controlled land), but such credit may not exceed 25 
     percent of total project costs.
       (E) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with 
     assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section waives, limits, or otherwise affects the 
     applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 
     would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with 
     assistance provided under this section.
       (g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 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.
       (h) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at Federal expense.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       After section 5098 of the bill, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents, accordingly):

     SEC. 5099. CLINTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

       Section 219(f)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 335) is amended by striking ``$1,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$2,000,000''.
       After section 5104 of the bill, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents, accordingly):

     SEC. 5105. EAST TENNESSEE.

       (a) East Tennessee Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``East Tennessee'' means the counties of Blount, Knox, 
     Loudon, McMinn, Monroe, and Sevier, Tennessee.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish 
     a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
     interests in East Tennessee.
       (c) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may 
     be in the form of design and construction assistance for 
     water-related environmental infrastructure and resource 
     protection and development projects in East Tennessee, 
     including projects for wastewater treatment and related 
     facilities, water supply and related facilities, 
     environmental restoration, and surface water resource 
     protection and development.
       (d) Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide 
     assistance for a project under this section only if the 
     project is publicly owned.
       (e) Partnership Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership 
     agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design 
     and construction of the project to be carried out with the 
     assistance.
       (2) Requirements.--Each partnership agreement entered into 
     under this subsection shall provide for the following:
       (A) Plan.--Development by the Secretary, in consultation 
     with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities 
     or resource protection and development plan, including 
     appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
       (B) Legal and institutional structures.--Establishment of 
     such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to 
     ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by 
     the non-Federal interest.
       (3) Cost sharing.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal share of the project cost 
     under each partnership agreement entered into under this 
     subsection shall be 75 percent. The Federal share may be in 
     the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
       (B) Credit for work.--The non-Federal interests shall 
     receive credit for the reasonable cost of design work on a 
     project completed by the non-Federal interest before entering 
     into a partnership agreement with the Secretary for such 
     project.
       (C) Credit for interest.--In case of a delay in the funding 
     of the non-Federal share of a project that is the subject of 
     an agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest 
     shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in 
     providing the non-Federal share of the project cost.
       (D) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
     Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
     rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share 
     of project cost (including all reasonable costs associated 
     with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned 
     or controlled land), but not to exceed 25 percent of total 
     project cost.
       (E) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with 
     assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section waives, limits, or otherwise affects the 
     applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 
     would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with 
     assistance provided under this section.
       (g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 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.
       (h) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at Federal expense.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       After section 5110 of the bill, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents, accordingly):

     SEC. 5111. DALLAS COUNTY REGION, TEXAS.

       (a) Dallas County Region Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``Dallas County region'' means the city of Dallas, and 
     the municipalities of DeSoto, Duncanville, Lancaster, Wilmer, 
     Hutchins, Balch Springs, Cedar Hill, Glenn Heights, and 
     Ferris, Texas.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish 
     a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
     interests in the Dallas County region.
       (c) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may 
     be in the form of design and construction assistance for 
     water-related environmental infrastructure and resource 
     protection and development projects in the Dallas County 
     region, including projects for wastewater treatment and 
     related facilities, water supply and related facilities, 
     environmental restoration, and surface water resource 
     protection and development.
       (d) Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide 
     assistance for a project under this section only if the 
     project is publicly owned.
       (e) Partnership Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership 
     agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design 
     and construction of the project to be carried out with the 
     assistance.
       (2) Requirements.--Each partnership agreement entered into 
     under this subsection shall provide for the following:
       (A) Plan.--Development by the Secretary, in consultation 
     with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities 
     or resource protection and development plan, including 
     appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
       (B) Legal and institutional structures.--Establishment of 
     such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to 
     ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by 
     the non-Federal interest.
       (3) Cost sharing.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal share of the project costs 
     under each partnership agreement entered into under this 
     subsection shall be 75 percent. The Federal share may be in 
     the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
       (B) Credit for work.--The non-Federal interests shall 
     receive credit for the reasonable cost of design work on a 
     project completed by the non-Federal interest before entering 
     into a partnership agreement with the Secretary for such 
     project.
       (C) Credit for interest.--In case of a delay in the funding 
     of the non-Federal share of a project that is the subject of 
     an agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest 
     shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in 
     providing the non-Federal share of the project's costs.
       (D) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
     Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
     rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share 
     of project costs (including all reasonable costs associated 
     with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned 
     or controlled land), but such credit may not exceed 25 
     percent of total project costs.
       (E) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with 
     assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section waives, limits, or otherwise affects the 
     applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 
     would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with 
     assistance provided under this section.
       (g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 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.
       (h) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at Federal expense.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       After section 5112 of the bill, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections,

[[Page H3654]]

     and conform the table of contents, accordingly):

     SEC. 5113. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction, 
     environmental restoration, and recreation, Johnson Creek, 
     Arlington, Texas, authorized by section 101(b)(14) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat 280), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project 
     substantially in accordance with the report entitled 
     ``Johnson Creek: A Vision of Conservation'', dated March 30, 
     2006, at a total cost of $80,000,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $52,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $28,000,000, if the Secretary determines that the project 
     is feasible.
       (b) Non-Federal Share.--
       (1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind 
     services or materials.
       (2) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest for implementation of the project, if 
     the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.
       (c) Special Rule.--In evaluating and implementing the 
     project, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest 
     to participate in the financing of the project in accordance 
     with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (100 Stat. 4184).
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 134 of the Energy and 
     Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2263) 
     is repealed.
       In section 5121 of the bill, strike ``and'' at the end of 
     paragraph (1)(B), redesignate paragraph (2) as paragraph (3), 
     and insert after paragraph (1) the following:
       (2) in subsection (h) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$20,000,000''; and
       After section 5123 of the bill, insert the following (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 5124. WAGE SURVEYS.

       Employees of the United States Army Corps of Engineers who 
     are paid wages determined under the last undesignated 
     paragraph under the heading ``Administrative Provisions'' of 
     chapter V of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1982 (5 
     U.S.C. 5343 note; 96 Stat. 832) shall be allowed, through 
     appropriate employee organization representatives, to 
     participate in wage surveys under such paragraph to the same 
     extent as are prevailing rate employees under subsection 
     (c)(2) of section 5343 of title 5, United States Code. 
     Nothing in such section 5343 shall be considered to affect 
     which agencies are to be surveyed under such paragraph.

     SEC. 5125. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS.

       Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335-337; 114 Stat. 2763A-220-
     221) is amended--
       (1) by striking the undesignated paragraph relating to 
     Charleston, South Carolina, and inserting the following:
       ``(72) Charleston, south carolina.--$10,000,000 for 
     wastewater infrastructure, including wastewater collection 
     systems, and stormwater system improvements, Charleston, 
     South Carolina.'';
       (2) by redesignating the paragraph (71) relating to Placer 
     and El Dorado Counties, California, as paragraph (73);
       (3) by redesignating the paragraph (72) relating to Lassen, 
     Plumas, Butte, Sierra, and Nevada Counties, California, as 
     paragraph (74);
       (4) by striking the paragraph (71) relating to 
     Indianapolis, Indiana, and inserting the following:
       ``(75) Indianapolis, indiana.--$6,430,000 for environmental 
     infrastructure for Indianapolis, Indiana.'';
       (5) by redesignating the paragraph (73) relating to St. 
     Croix Falls, Wisconsin, as paragraph (76); and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(77) St. clair county, alabama.--$5,000,000 for water 
     related infrastructure, St. Clair County, Alabama.
       ``(78) Crawford county, arkansas.--$35,000,000 for water 
     supply infrastructure, Crawford County, Arkansas.
       ``(79) Alameda and contra costa counties, california.--
     $25,000,000 for recycled water treatment facilities within 
     the East Bay Municipal Utility District service area, Alameda 
     and Contra Costa Counties, California.
       ``(80) Arcadia, sierra madre, and upland, california.--
     $33,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Arcadia, 
     Sierra Madre, and Upland, California, including $13,000,000 
     for stormwater infrastructure for Upland, California.
       ``(81) Big bear area regional wastewater agency, 
     california.--$15,000,000 for water reclamation and 
     distribution, Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency, 
     California.
       ``(82) Brawley colonia, imperial county, california.--
     $1,400,000 for water infrastructure to improve water quality 
     in the Brawley Colonia Water District, Imperial County, 
     California.
       ``(83) Contra costa water district, california.--
     $23,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure for the 
     Contra Costa Water District, California.
       ``(84) East bay, san francisco, and santa clara areas, 
     california.--$4,000,000 for a desalination project to serve 
     the East Bay, San Francisco, and Santa Clara areas, 
     California.
       ``(85) Imperial county, california.--$10,000,000 for 
     wastewater infrastructure, including a wastewater 
     disinfection facility and polishing system, to improve water 
     quality in the vicinity of Calexico, California, on the 
     southern New River, Imperial County, California.
       ``(86) Los angeles county, california.--$3,000,000 for 
     wastewater and water related infrastructure, Diamond Bar, La 
     Habra Heights, and Rowland Heights, Los Angeles County, 
     California.
       ``(87) New river, california.--$10,000,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure to improve water quality in the New River, 
     California.
       ``(88) Orange county, california.--$15,000,000 for 
     wastewater and water related infrastructure, Anaheim, Brea, 
     La Habra, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Yorba 
     Linda, Orange County, California.
       ``(89) San bernardino county, california.--$9,000,000 for 
     wastewater and water related infrastructure, Chino and Chino 
     Hills, San Bernardino County, California.
       ``(90) Santa clara county, california.--$5,500,000 for an 
     advanced recycling water treatment plant in Santa Clara 
     County, California.
       ``(91) Southern los angeles county, california.--
     $15,000,000 for environmental infrastructure for the 
     groundwater basin optimization pipeline, Southern Los Angeles 
     County, California.
       ``(92) Stockton, california.--$33,000,000 for water 
     treatment and distribution infrastructure, Stockton, 
     California.
       ``(93) Sweetwater reservoir, san diego county, 
     california.--$375,000 to improve water quality, and remove 
     nonnative aquatic species from the Sweetwater Reservoir, San 
     Diego County, California.
       ``(94) Whittier, california.--$8,000,000 for water, 
     wastewater, and water related infrastructure, Whittier, 
     California.
       ``(95) Montezuma and la plata counties, colorado.--
     $1,000,000 for water and wastewater related infrastructure 
     for the Ute Mountain project, Montezuma and La Plata 
     Counties, Colorado.
       ``(96) Otero, bent, crowley, kiowa, and prowers counties, 
     colorado.--$35,000,000 for water transmission infrastructure, 
     Otero, Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, and Prowers Counties, Colorado.
       ``(97) Pueblo and otero counties, colorado.--$34,000,000 
     for water transmission infrastructure, Pueblo and Otero 
     Counties, Colorado.
       ``(98) Ledyard and montville, connecticut.--$7,113,000 for 
     water infrastructure, Ledyard and Montville, Connecticut.
       ``(99) Anacostia river, district of columbia and 
     maryland.--$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure and 
     resource protection and development to enhance water quality 
     and living resources in the Anacostia River watershed, 
     District of Columbia and Maryland.
       ``(100) Washington, district of columbia.--$35,000,000 for 
     implementation of a combined sewer overflow long-term control 
     plan, Washington, District of Columbia.
       ``(101) Charlotte county, florida.--$3,000,000 for water 
     supply infrastructure, Charlotte County, Florida.
       ``(102) Charlotte, lee, and collier counties, florida.--
     $20,000,000 for water supply interconnectivity 
     infrastructure, Charlotte, Lee, and Collier Counties, 
     Florida.
       ``(103) Collier county, florida.--$5,000,000 for water 
     infrastructure to improve water quality in the vicinity of 
     the Gordon River, Collier County, Florida.
       ``(104) Jacksonville, florida.--$25,000,000 for wastewater 
     related infrastructure, including septic tank replacements, 
     Jacksonville, Florida.
       ``(105) Sarasota county, florida.--$10,000,000 for water 
     and wastewater infrastructure in Sarasota County, Florida.
       ``(106) South seminole and north orange county, florida.--
     $30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure for the South 
     Seminole and North Orange Wastewater Transmission Authority, 
     Florida.
       ``(107) Fayetteville, grantville, lagrange, pine mountain 
     (harris county), douglasville, and carrollton, georgia.--
     $24,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, 
     Fayetteville, Grantville, LaGrange, Pine Mountain (Harris 
     County), Douglasville, and Carrollton, Georgia.
       ``(108) Meriwether and spalding counties, georgia.--
     $7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, 
     Meriwether and Spalding Counties, Georgia.
       ``(109) North vernon and butlerville, indiana.--$1,700,000 
     for wastewater infrastructure, North Vernon and Butlerville, 
     Indiana.
       ``(110) Salem, washington county, indiana.--$3,200,000 for 
     water supply infrastructure, Salem, Washington County, 
     Indiana.
       ``(111) Central kentucky.--$10,000,000 for water related 
     infrastructure and resource protection and development, 
     Scott, Franklin, Woodford, Anderson, Fayette, Mercer, 
     Jessamine, Boyle, Lincoln, Garrard, Madison, Estill, Powell, 
     Clark, Montgomery, and Bourbon Counties, Kentucky.
       ``(112) Plaquemine, louisiana.--$7,000,000 for sanitary 
     sewer and wastewater infrastructure, Plaquemine, Louisiana.
       ``(113) Shreveport, louisiana.--$20,000,000 for water 
     supply infrastructure in Shreveport, Louisiana.
       ``(114) Central iron range sanitary sewer district, 
     minnesota.--$12,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure for the 
     Central Iron Range Sanitary Sewer District to serve the 
     cities of Hibbing, Chisholm, Buhl, and Kinney, and Balkan and 
     Great Scott Townships, Minnesota.
       ``(115) Grand rapids, minnesota.--$5,000,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Grand Rapids, Minnesota.

[[Page H3655]]

       ``(116) City of biloxi, city of gulfport, and harrison 
     county, mississippi.--$15,000,000 for water and wastewater 
     related infrastructure, city of Biloxi, city of Gulfport, and 
     Harrison County, Mississippi.
       ``(117) Jackson, mississippi.--$25,000,000 for water and 
     wastewater infrastructure, Jackson, Mississippi.
       ``(118) Clark county, nevada.--$30,000,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Clark County, Nevada.
       ``(119) Henderson, nevada.--$5,000,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Henderson, Nevada.
       ``(120) Paterson, new jersey.--$35,000,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Paterson, New Jersey.
       ``(121) Ellicottville, new york.--$2,000,000 for water 
     supply, water, and wastewater infrastructure in 
     Ellicottville, New York.
       ``(122) Sennett, new york.--$1,500,000 for water 
     infrastructure, Town of Sennett, New York.
       ``(123) Wellsville, new york.--$2,000,000 for water supply, 
     water, and wastewater infrastructure in Wellsville, New York.
       ``(124) Springport and fleming, new york.--$10,000,000 for 
     water related infrastructure, including water mains, pump 
     stations, and water storage tanks, Springport and Fleming, 
     New York.
       ``(125) Cabarrus county, north carolina.--$4,500,000 for 
     water related infrastructure, Cabarrus County, North 
     Carolina.
       ``(126) Charlotte, north carolina.--$11,000,000 for phase 
     II of the Briar Creek wastewater project, Charlotte, North 
     Carolina.
       ``(127) Richmond county, north carolina.--$13,500,000 for 
     water related infrastructure, Richmond County, North 
     Carolina.
       ``(128) Union county, north carolina.--$6,000,000 for 
     wastewater infrastructure, Union County, North Carolina.
       ``(129) Saipan, northern mariana islands.--$20,000,000 for 
     water related infrastructure, Saipan, Northern Mariana 
     Islands.
       ``(130) Lake county, ohio.--$1,500,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Lake County, Ohio.
       ``(131) Mentor-on-lake, ohio.--$625,000 for water and 
     wastewater infrastructure, Mentor-on-Lake, Ohio.
       ``(132) Willowick, ohio.--$665,000 for water and wastewater 
     infrastructure, Willowick, Ohio.
       ``(133) Albany, oregon.--$35,000,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure to improve habitat restoration, Albany, 
     Oregon.
       ``(134) Borough of stockerton, borough of tatamy, and 
     palmer township, pennsylvania.--$10,000,000 for stormwater 
     control measures, particularly to address sinkholes, in the 
     vicinity of the Borough of Stockerton, the Borough of Tatamy, 
     and Palmer Township, Pennsylvania.
       ``(135) Hatfield borough, pennsylvania.--$310,000 for 
     wastewater related infrastructure for Hatfield Borough, 
     Pennsylvania.
       ``(136) Lehigh county, pennsylvania.--$5,000,000 for 
     stormwater control measures and storm sewer improvements, 
     Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
       ``(137) North wales borough, pennsylvania.--$1,516,584 for 
     wastewater related infrastructure for North Wales Borough, 
     Pennsylvania.
       ``(138) Pen argyl, pennsylvania.--$5,250,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania.
       ``(139) Philadelphia, pennsylvania.--$1,600,000 for 
     wastewater related infrastructure for Philadelphia, 
     Pennsylvania.
       ``(140) Vera cruz, pennsylvania.--$5,500,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Vera Cruz, Pennsylvania.
       ``(141) Commonwealth of puerto rico.--$35,000,000 for water 
     and wastewater infrastructure in the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico.
       ``(142) Charleston, south carolina.--$1,000,000 for 
     stormwater control measures and storm sewer improvements, 
     Spring Street/Fishburne Street drainage project, Charleston, 
     South Carolina.
       ``(143) Crooked creek, marlboro county, south carolina.--
     $25,000,000 for a project for water storage and water supply 
     infrastructure on Crooked Creek, Marlboro County, South 
     Carolina.
       ``(144) Myrtle beach, south carolina.--$8,000,000 for 
     environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, 
     Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
       ``(145) North myrtle beach, south carolina.--$8,000,000 for 
     environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, North 
     Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
       ``(146) Surfside, south carolina.--$8,000,000 for 
     environmental infrastructure, including stormwater system 
     improvements and ocean outfalls, Surfside, South Carolina.
       ``(147) Athens, tennessee.--$16,000,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Athens, Tennessee.
       ``(148) Central texas.--$20,000,000 for water and 
     wastewater infrastructure in Bosque, Brazos, Burleson, 
     Grimes, Hill, Hood, Johnson, Madison, McLennan, Limestone, 
     Robertson, and Somervell Counties, Texas.
       ``(149) El paso county, texas.--$25,000,000 for water 
     related infrastructure and resource protection, including 
     stormwater management, and development, El Paso County, 
     Texas.
       ``(150) Ft. bend county, texas.--$20,000,000 for water and 
     wastewater infrastructure, Ft. Bend County, Texas.
       ``(151) Duchesne, iron, and uintah counties, utah.--
     $10,800,000 for water related infrastructure, Duchesne, Iron, 
     and Uintah Counties, Utah.
       ``(152) Northern west virginia.--$20,000,000 for water and 
     wastewater infrastructure in Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel, 
     Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, Monongalia, Marion, 
     Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston, Tucker, Mineral, Grant, 
     Gilmer, Brooke, Ritchie Counties, West Virginia.
       ``(153) United states virgin islands.--$25,000,000 for 
     wastewater infrastructure for the St. Croix Anguilla 
     wastewater treatment plant and the St. Thomas Charlotte 
     Amalie wastewater treatment plant, United States Virgin 
     Islands.
       ``(154) Cheyenne river sioux reservation (dewey and ziebach 
     counties) and perkins and meade counties, south dakota.--
     $25,000,000 for water supply infrastructure for the Cheyenne 
     River Sioux Reservation in Dewey and Ziebach Counties, and 
     for communities in Perkins and Meade Counties, South 
     Dakota.''.
       After section 6002 of the bill, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents, accordingly):

     SEC. 6003. INITIAL PROJECTS.

       Section 601(b)(2)(C) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (114 Stat. 2682) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking ``at a 
     total cost of $1,100,918,000'' and all that follows before 
     the colon;
       (2) in clause (iv)--
       (A) by striking ``$100,335,000'' and inserting 
     ``$162,630,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``$50,167,500'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$81,315,000'';
       (3) in clause (v)--
       (A) by striking ``$124,837,000'' and inserting 
     ``$385,010,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``$62,418,500'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$192,505,000''; and
       (4) in clause (vi)--
       (A) by striking ``$89,146,000'' and inserting 
     ``$199,340,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``$44,573,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$99,670,000''.
       In section 7002(e)(3) of the bill, strike subparagraph (D) 
     and insert the following:
       (D) the plan of the State of Louisiana entitled 
     ``Integrated Ecosystem Restoration and Hurricane Protection--
     Louisiana's Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable 
     Coast''.
       At the end of section 7006(a) of the bill, insert the 
     following:
       (5) Applicability of the federal advisory committee act.--A 
     working group established under this subsection shall not be 
     considered to be an advisory committee under the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
       In section 7007(b) of the bill, strike ``this section'' and 
     insert ``this title''.
       In section 7013 of the bill, strike subsection (a) and 
     insert the following:
       (a) Deauthorization.--
       (1) In general.--The navigation channel portion of the 
     project for navigation, Mississippi River-Gulf outlet, 
     authorized by the Act entitled, ``An Act to authorize 
     construction of the Mississippi River-Gulf outlet'', approved 
     March 29, 1956 (70 Stat. 65), as modified by section 844 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4177), 
     and further modified by section 326 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3717), which extends from 
     the Gulf of Mexico to mile 60 at the southern bank of the 
     Gulf Intracoastal Waterway is not authorized.
       (2) Scope.--Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to modify 
     or deauthorize the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Replacement 
     Project, authorized by the Act referred to in paragraph (1).
       In section 8004(c) of the bill, strike ``build upon'' and 
     insert ``adopt and continue''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This is the so-called traditional manager's amendment that we have 
worked on for weeks in a bipartisan manner across the aisle within the 
committee to work out technical changes and modifications to the bill 
that came to the attention of the committee after consideration of the 
bill in March. A project of this magnitude always has some issues that 
we need to resolve, and we have done that quite well in this manager's 
amendment.
  Among some of the highlights are a provision that is of great 
importance to the 35 million people who live along the Great Lakes. 
There is a provision to direct the Secretary of the Army, along with 
directors of other agencies and entities, to carry out an emergency 
project to control and prevent spreading a viral hemorrhagic septicemia 
(VHS) virus in the Great Lakes and the connecting channels. I alluded 
to this issue at the outset of my remarks at the beginning of the 
legislation. It is an infectious viral disease of

[[Page H3656]]

fish and has caused fish kills throughout the lakes. It has been a 
problem in Europe, it is a problem in Japan, and now we have confirmed 
presence in Lake Ontario, Lake St. Clair, Erie, St. Lawrence River. It 
was discovered in Lake Huron. It is migrating up the lakes, killing 
fish in its wake caused by ballast water that is infected on vessels 
plying the Great Lakes.
  It spreads rapidly. We don't really know how it spreads, but we need 
to attack this issue now. There is a multibillion dollar fishery 
industry throughout the Great Lakes, sport fish and commercial fishery, 
and this provision will help us deal with and hopefully find a way to 
contain this devastating virus.
  We also have authorizations for new projects in water and wastewater-
related infrastructure. For years, these were traditionally practices 
of the Environmental Protection Agency, but they have run out of money, 
frankly. Even though we have passed the State Revolving Loan fund bill 
in this committee to deal with the matter, there still are huge needs. 
No one better than the Corps of Engineers is equipped to deal with the 
needs of environmental infrastructure. So in cooperation with the 
Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service program, the State 
Revolving Loan fund of the EPA, Corps of Engineers will help 
communities rebuild their infrastructure and provide for public health 
and economic vitality of our towns all across America. The needs of 
communities have not gone away; the ability to deal with them has 
simply diminished.
  The Corps can do this work; they have proven they can. And we have a 
very vigorous and I think constructive environmental infrastructure 
program in the manager's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would yield such time as she may wish to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I support the manager's amendment on this water resources bill.
  The manager's amendment reflects project and policy revisions that 
have come to the attention of the subcommittee that I chair, and the 
subcommittee of Water Resources Environment.
  Since the bill was passed out of committee, the Transportation and 
Infrastructure, in March, the amendment contains authorizations that 
are by no means inequitable to those that were contained in the bill 
that passed out of committee. Likewise, the projects in the manager's 
amendment were not considered on a partisan basis but on a need basis 
and merit. And this has been a long tradition in our committee, and I 
hope we will always have that.
  I support the amendment. And I want to express my appreciation to the 
persons who did do all of the certifications and all the new paperwork 
we have to do. And I want to thank the ranking member on the 
subcommittee as well as the full committee and our general chairman. 
Thank you so very much.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
although I am not in opposition and therefore ask unanimous consent to 
claim such time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Louisiana is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to speak for a moment as to 
process and my appreciation for the manner in which the chairman 
handled this particular legislation. At the time of some of the 
subcommittee consideration, there were some Members who had not 
completed the necessary documents for submission of their projects in 
the required form, and the chairman made clear that should a Member 
provide the necessary information in a timely manner, that their 
projects would be included for consideration. And the manager's 
amendment reflects the closure of that verbal agreement in allowing 
many Members to complete the necessary documentation, therefore 
enabling the committee to include their projects of interest in the 
final mark before the House this evening. That is a model of how 
appropriate legislative consideration should be engaged, and I want to 
express appreciation to him.
  I can verify for him if there is ever any question that there are a 
large number of Members who have a very deep and abiding interest in 
this subject matter, I have a list. And they also are appreciative of 
the willingness to give opportunity for appropriate consideration.
  The manager's amendment is extraordinarily important in that it 
touches about a hundred projects which otherwise would not be included. 
I certainly hope that those present will support the adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would yield such time as the gentleman 
may consume to my ranking member, Mr. Mica.
  Mr. MICA. Might I inquire of the Chair as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First of all, I rise in strong support of the manager's amendment. 
Mr. Oberstar, after the election, became the Chair, I became the 
ranking member of the Transportation Committee. And we inherited, 
indeed, a huge backlog of projects. We also inherited a bill that 
required earmarking because they are Members' projects, and everyone 
knows the problems that we have had with earmarks in the past. So I can 
assure the Members that on both sides of the aisle we have done 
everything possible to vet these projects. I am also sorry that we 
can't put even more projects in.
  We just had Mrs. Bono here, and her heart and soul in her work in 
Congress, which is something she inherited, actually the work, too, of 
her late husband, Sonny Bono, a good friend and colleague.

                              {time}  1730

  She wanted that so badly in this, and it is so important, the 
restoration of the Salton Sea, for her district. You can see how 
important these projects are to Members and their districts. So we have 
a good work product.
  Let me make one point I did not make in opposition to the 
administration's position on this piece of legislation in that it cost 
too much. If you look at 2000 when we started these projects, maybe 
they did cost $5 million. I can tell you that just with inflation and 
the cost of doing construction projects, having been in the development 
business, that every day we delay will cost us more; and that is why 
these projects cost us more, and that is why I am in opposition to the 
administration's point there.
  We have evenly divided the projects. I don't think we could have had 
a fairer distribution. They are Republican, they are not Democrat, but 
they are of national and district importance, and I think we have done 
as good a job as you can. I am sure you can find something wrong or 
questionable, if anyone seeks to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the manager's amendment, and I urge 
all Members on both sides of the aisle to move and urge the passage of 
this bill, not only through the House but through the other body and 
conference, so that we can do a better job for the people that we 
represent in these important environmental and water resources 
projects.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. BAKER. I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I certainly 
would be remiss if I did not comment on his effort to provide for 
transparency and disclosure of Members' requests. It was a new process. 
We had a lot of new paperwork to engage in. But at the end of the day, 
I think the public interest is well served and every Member is well 
served by having such disclosure made in a timely manner; and for his 
leadership in providing that counsel, I am most appreciative.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we have labored mightily to comply with 
the new rules of the House, to cut every one of the projects back with 
each of the Members, each of 300 Members who had a project in the last 
Congress that carried over to this Congress. We have worked very 
diligently to serve as a filter for Members, to filter out problems 
that they had, projects that really might not comply,

[[Page H3657]]

that should not be considered at this stage.
  We bring forward to you a bill that has been on the Internet, that is 
fully vetted, and should pass with overwhelming support.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on the amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Boswell

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 110-100.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 147, after line 2, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents accordingly):

     SEC. 3055. RATHBUN LAKE, IOWA.

       (a) Right of First Refusal.--The Secretary shall provide, 
     in accordance with the recommendations in the Rathbun Lake 
     Reallocation Report approved by the Chief of Engineers on 
     July 22, 1985, the Rathbun Regional Water Association with 
     the right of first refusal to contract for or purchase any 
     increment of the remaining allocation (8,320 acre-feet) of 
     water supply storage in Rathbun Lake, Iowa.
       (b) Payment of Cost.--The Rathbun Regional Water 
     Association shall pay the cost of any water supply storage 
     allocation provided under subsection (a).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Boswell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before I explain the amendment, I would like to thank Ms. Johnson and 
Mr. Oberstar for their hard work. We have finally got something out 
here to work with. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana and the 
gentleman from Florida for working together with us. It is something 
that our country needed very, very badly, and was overdue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment that is highly 
important to the State of Iowa constituents and also a number of folks 
in northern Missouri. As a member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, I would like to especially give my 
appreciation for this opportunity that is before us today.
  My amendment is critical to the future availability of quality 
drinking water for farmers, residents and businesses in southern Iowa 
and northern Missouri. Rathbun Regional Water Association is the 
largest rural water system in Iowa and one of the largest in the United 
States. Rathbun Regional Water Association supplies potable water to 
60,000 people in the rural areas of 15 counties and 41 communities in 
southern Iowa and northern Missouri from the association's water 
treatment plant at Rathbun Lake. Rathbun Lake is the source of raw 
water for the treatment plant.
  Rathbun Rural Water Association has experienced steady growth in the 
demand for potable water. In response to this demand, Rathbun Rural 
Water Association doubled the capacity of its treatment plant in 2000 
and made improvements to its distribution system.
  Rathbun Rural Water Association has completed an analysis of future 
water demand in its service territory. This analysis indicates that 
Rathbun Regional Water Association must take steps to meet continued 
growth in demand for potable water. The ability to secure the rights of 
the remaining drinking water pool in Lake Rathbun, a facility managed 
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is critical to meet demand.
  There are 15,000 acre-feet of water supply storage in Rathbun Lake. 
Rathbun Regional Water Association has purchased the rights to 6,680 
acre-feet of this water and storage from the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers. It is essential that they be able to acquire the rights of 
the remaining over 8,000 acre-feet of water supply storage in Rathbun 
Lake in order to satisfy the growing demand for potable water in its 
service territory. This remaining acre-feet in water would provide 
access to approximately 2.7 billion gallons of water.
  The amendment submitted today takes two critical steps to ensure the 
availability of water for the region. First, it directs the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers to grant Rathbun Rural Water the right of first 
refusal to contract for any increment of the remaining water supply 
storage allocation in Rathbun Lake. This language is in accordance with 
the recommendations in the Rathbun Lake Reallocation Report approved by 
the chief of engineers on July 22, 1985.
  Second, it allows Rathbun Regional Water Association to contract for 
the remaining water supply storage allocation in total, or 
incrementally as dictated by the demand of the potable water demand in 
the association's service territory, at such time as the full amount of 
storage may be purchased.
  This amendment ensures access to quality water supply for rural 
residents, small communities and businesses in southern Iowa and 
northern Missouri. It enables Rathbun Rural Water to better manage the 
expense of purchasing water storage allocation in a manner that reduces 
the financial burden on its customers and ensures the vitality of 
Rathbun Regional Water Association to fulfill its commitment to an 
extensive rural area.
  I join with my colleague from Iowa, Congressman Loebsack, in this 
request, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, though I am not 
in opposition to the amendment, to claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa. We have had a bipartisan agreement on this.
  I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wish to compliment the gentleman on his 
amendment. We have reviewed it. We have no objection to its 
consideration and adoption.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) and our former 
colleague from Iowa, Mr. Leach, have long worked with the committee on 
this issue of Rathbun Lake. It is as much a tribute to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) as to our former colleague, Mr. Leach. The 
gentleman has described the issue very well.
  In initial consideration of this legislation, there was a PAYGO 
issue, and the gentleman from Iowa has worked with us on both sides of 
the aisle to resolve the matter. We no longer have an impact on direct 
Federal spending in the amendment. Therefore, it passes our committee 
standards.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment and appreciate the 
support of the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Oberstar, and the gentleman from 
Louisiana, I appreciate your help and your work with us on this. I 
would join again with Congressman Loebsack and urge passage of this 
amendment.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support the 
amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Boswell.
  Congressman Boswell has been working with the Committee to resolve 
scoring issues related to modifications for the Rathbun Lake, Iowa 
project that had surfaced since the project was last included in the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2005.
  It is my understanding that these issues have now been settled.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on the amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Boswell).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 110-100.
  Does any Member seek recognition?


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Stupak

  The CHAIRMAN. If not, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 110-100.

[[Page H3658]]

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Stupak:
       Page 116, after line 8, insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents of the bill accordingly):

     SEC. 2041. CRITERIA FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HARBOR 
                   DREDGING PROJECTS.

       The Secretary shall budget and request appropriations for 
     operation and maintenance of harbor dredging projects based 
     only upon criteria used for such projects in fiscal year 2004 
     and shall not use a budget standard for such projects based 
     on the amount of tonnage a harbor handles.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, in fiscal year 2006, the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and the Office of Management and Budget set new guidelines 
for maintenance dredging of commercial harbors in their budget for 
fiscal year 2006. The Corps excluded harbors that move less than 1 
million tons of cargo each year.
  The House is on record that the Corps' neglect of these harbors is 
unwise and unreasonable. With Members' help during consideration of 
WRDA, the Stupak-Hoekstra-Delahunt amendment to prohibit the Corps from 
using a tonnage-based standard was included in the House bill by voice 
vote.
  Now the Corps is back with a similar tonnage-based formula. This 
formula essentially credits $2 for maintenance dredging for every ton 
of product moved. The harbor is then provided only the amount from the 
formula, regardless of the actual cost to dredge a harbor. This policy 
not only discriminates against rural America by significantly limiting 
dredging of harbors in smaller communities, but it is pound wise and 
penny foolish.
  For example, under the Corps proposal, my harbor in Ontonogan, 
Michigan, will move just over 300,000 tons of material, so the Corps 
will provide $643,000 worth of maintenance dredging, even though its 
dredging cost is more than $1 million.
  Again, there are almost 300 harbors across this country that face the 
same problem. Our small harbors will never be able to adequately 
dredge, but will silt in with each passing year. Thus, pound wise, 
penny foolish.
  These Corps guidelines will have a detrimental effect on small-town, 
rural America, causing job losses, increased hardship for business, and 
endanger our Nation's entire shipping infrastructure.
  Each harbor that has been maintained by the Corps for years has 
unique characteristics other than just the amount of tonnage it moves. 
For example, annual dredging helps prevent flooding in Ontonogan, and 
dredging plays an essential role in preserving the economy and lifeline 
of this harbor town. By only considering the amount of tonnage a harbor 
handles, the administration ignores the benefits provided to businesses 
and residents that depend on electricity, flood mitigation and other 
purposes beyond the tonnage handled.
  With this new policy, the Corps also disregards the fact that 
approximately two-thirds of all shipping in the United States either 
starts or finishes at a small port. By ignoring the smaller 
communities, the Corps is also significantly harming the Nation's 
economy.
  With the Corps' proposed maintenance dredging guidelines, in each 
year our small harbors' maintenance remains uncertain. Without this 
Stupak-Hoekstra-Delahunt amendment, the economic vitality and the dream 
of economic expansion for these 300 communities remain uncertain.
  As the House considers this WRDA legislation, I am again offering 
this amendment with Congressmen Hoekstra and Delahunt, which keeps the 
maintenance dredging the same as it has been before the Corps and OMB 
came up with these tonnage proposals.
  For the sake of our Nation's small harbors, from which two-thirds of 
all shipping in the United States either starts or finishes at small 
ports, I encourage my colleagues to adopt our amendment, which would 
ensure that all harbor maintenance is funded fairly, regardless of the 
amount of tonnage a harbor handles.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  Mr. BAKER. Reserving the right to object, if I may make an inquiry of 
the gentleman, we have a cosponsor on our side of the amendment. Will 
the gentleman be happy to yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I will yield time to the gentleman, of 
course.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. OBERSTAR. In the preceding Congress, this amendment was offered 
on the floor during consideration of the WRDA bill, and it passed by 
voice vote; WRDA passed by 406 votes. It requires adequate budgeting by 
the administration for maintenance of small, low-use harbors. These are 
relatively smaller harbors; they may not handle thousands of containers 
or millions of tons of bulk commodities shipped on the Great Lakes, as 
we do in the Harbor of Duluth, but they are important projects and 
facilities that place lives and livelihoods at risk on the fierce 
storms of the Great Lakes, because these are also harbors of refuge. So 
I strongly support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding and I am thankful for 
his support and help on this amendment.
  I would also like to thank my colleague from Michigan for bringing 
this amendment together. I think we both recognize the importance of 
this amendment. My congressional district, I think we kind of represent 
God's country. I represent about 200 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline. 
I don't think I want to get into an argument with my colleague from 
Michigan as to how much shoreline he represents from the Great Lakes, 
but it is well in excess of that number.
  But we both have recognized that the current Corps guidelines present 
a distinct hardship to our communities, many of the communities along 
the Great Lakes. We don't meet the newest guidelines that establish the 
roughly 1 million tons or whatever of cargo that need to flow through a 
harbor. And this is a change in the Corps' position. For the last 14 
years that my colleague and I have been in Congress, the Corps has done 
a very, very good job and recognized its responsibility for taking care 
of these small and medium-sized harbors which they classify as 
recreational harbors.
  But they are much more than recreational harbors. For many of our 
communities they do, we do transfer cargo through these ports, but the 
harbors form the economic development zone for these communities. And 
if the harbors and the channels are not dredged, this economic lifeline 
goes away. And when the economic lifeline goes away, eventually these 
communities go away.
  This is a policy that Congress needs to address because, from a 
disappointing standpoint, the administration has made an administrative 
decision that these harbors will not be taken care of. Congress needs 
to speak on this issue. I am glad that we can move this forward in a 
bipartisan basis and send a piece of legislation to the administration 
that no longer provides them with the latitude as to whether these 
harbors will be dredged or not. These harbors need to be dredged. They 
will be dredged. This is exactly the appropriate message to send.
  I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for taking the 
initiative in bringing this legislation forward.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his statement. 
I just wanted to point out that the Great Lakes have gone through 15 
years, in the 1960s, into the 1970s, into the 1980s, nearly a 20-year 
period of abnormally high level. Now we are going

[[Page H3659]]

through a seventh year of low water drought in the watershed of the 
Great Lakes. The Corps of Engineers has avoided dredging costs all 
during those two decades of high water on the Great Lakes. It is time 
now to recoup, to do the dredging that is needed, especially for these 
small harbors, harbors of refuge, small commercial harbors. And the 
gentleman's amendment will ensure that this issue stays on the agenda 
of this and future administrations. So I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to thank Chairman 
Oberstar. He has been a great help throughout my whole career here, but 
especially on issues confronting the Great Lakes and WRDA and other 
areas of his expertise in transportation infrastructure. And Mr. Baker 
has also been a friend and very helpful, as has Ms. Johnson.
  It is a bipartisan piece of legislation. I would hope that the 
Members support it. If we are going to truly care about waterborne 
commerce and transportation in this Nation, we must remember that two-
thirds of all commerce on our Nation's waterways start and begin at the 
small ports the Army Corps no longer wishes to dredge and maintain. We 
need support on this amendment, and I ask for your support.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, for my district--coastal Massachusetts--
our waterways are as important as our roadways. They are also a vital 
part of the Nation's transportation infrastructure.
  It is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers to help keep 
our harbors, rivers and other channels in navigable condition. In New 
England, the Corps is responsible for maintaining 171 ports and harbor 
channels, yet the Bush Administration budget includes funding to take 
care of just one. That is because the rules for Army Corps projects 
were changed by the Bush Administration to now favor large, commercial 
waterways. This constitutes an abandonment of Federal responsibility 
and quite simply, is an assault on smaller communities all over the 
country, putting lives and the economic health of coastal communities 
at risk.
  The rationale for these changes is that financial constraints require 
us to abruptly change Army Corps' priorities to favor projects with 
``true value to the Nation.'' This sounds good--but is dangerously 
misleading. The changed formula focuses only on commercial tonnage and 
mileage, so smaller projects do not have a chance--even though they are 
critical to the economy and public safety.
  When waterways close due to sediment build-up, the commercial fishing 
industry suffers. Tourism is compromised. And our transport stops--
sometimes dead in the water. The Coast Guard can't undertake ``search 
and rescue'' because they can't move--literally.
  Just as a deteriorating highway or bridge needs repair, our waterways 
need maintenance. If the traffic through a harbor requires an eight-
foot draft and sediment builds up, leaving only five feet available, 
vessels cannot pass. It is larger, commercial vessels like tankers, 
fishing boats and barges that face the greatest difficulty and are most 
likely to run aground.
  Entire portions of our local economy are organized around the sea and 
the easy transport of people and products in and out of our harbors. 
When you consider our island communities--such as Martha's Vineyard, 
Nantucket, and Cuttyhunk--the waterways carry all the necessities for 
local citizens, everything from food and water to lumber and heating 
oil.
  In Chatham Harbor, which hosts the largest fleet of commercial 
fishing vessels in my district, we face a constant problem with 
shoaling. It is a 900-foot channel and when it is not clear, millions 
of dollars are at risk. Each year it is now a fight to keep the fishing 
industry on Cape Cod in business.
  It's the same thing with Green Harbor in Marshfield, where we have 
the second highest lobster catch harbor in New England. In Woods Hole, 
we have a major Coast Guard station which launches many cutter search-
and-rescue missions a year. Without regular dredging, that emergency 
equipment is land-bound. In that same harbor, the Federal government 
has invested millions in a state-of-the-art NOAA research vessel, the 
Bigelow. But, these WHOI vessels and Navy vessels cannot do essential 
research because the harbor is clogged with sentiment.
  For coastal communities, our waterways are critical to their economic 
well-being. I urge my colleagues to support this Amendment and support 
our mariners, our fishermen, the Coast Guard, and small coastal 
communities throughout the country.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed 
in House Report 110-100.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
       Strike section 2036 of the bill and insert the following 
     (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 2036. PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall issue revised 
     principles and guidelines for use in the formulation, 
     evaluation, and implementation of water resources projects. 
     Subject to the requirements of this section, the revised 
     principles and guidelines shall apply to water resources 
     projects carried out by the Secretary instead of the 
     principles and guidelines for such projects in effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Content.--The principles and guidelines shall, among 
     other things--
       (1) provide for the consideration of environmental 
     restoration costs and benefits under Corps of Engineers 
     economic models;
       (2) incorporate new techniques in risk and uncertainty 
     analysis;
       (3) eliminate biases and disincentives for nonstructural 
     flood damage reduction projects as compared to structural 
     flood damage reduction projects;
       (4) incorporate new analytical techniques;
       (5) encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
     restoration of aquatic ecosystems; and
       (6) ensure that water resources projects are justified by 
     benefits that accrue to the public at large.
       (c) Proposed Principles and Guidelines.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish in the 
     Federal Register proposed principles and guidelines under 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Consultation.--In developing the proposed principles 
     and guidelines, the Secretary shall consult with the 
     Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the 
     Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development, the Secretary of Transportation, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
     Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the 
     National Academy of Sciences, and the Council on 
     Environmental Quality.
       (3) Public participation.--The Secretary shall provide 
     notice and an opportunity for the public to participate in 
     the development of the proposed principles and guidelines.
       (d) Public Comment Following Issuance of Proposed 
     Principles and Guidelines.--After publication of the proposed 
     principles and guidelines, the Secretary shall provide an 
     opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed 
     principles and guidelines. The comment period shall not be 
     fewer than 60 days.
       (e) Final Principles and Guidelines.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days following the last 
     day of the comment period under subsection (d), the Secretary 
     shall issue final principles and guidelines under subsection 
     (a).
       (2) Applicability.--After the date of issuance of the final 
     principles and guidelines, the final principles and 
     guidelines shall apply--
       (A) to all water resources projects carried out by the 
     Secretary, other than projects for which the Secretary has 
     commenced a feasibility report before the date of such 
     issuance;
       (B) at the request of a non-Federal interest, to a water 
     resources project for which the Secretary has commenced a 
     feasibility report before the date of such issuance; and
       (C) to reevaluation or modification of a water resources 
     project, other than a reevaluation or modification that has 
     been commenced by the Secretary before the date of such 
     issuance.
       (f) Existing Studies.--Principles and guidelines issued 
     under subsection (a) shall not affect the validity of any 
     completed study of a water resources development project.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply requires the Secretary of the 
Army to update the principles and guidelines used by the Army Corps of 
Engineers in formulating, evaluating, and implementing water resource 
projects. As I said on the floor earlier today, they have not been 
updated since 1983. It is embarrassing that the Corps is operating 
under guidance a quarter century old.
  We have learned a lot in the last 25 months, as I look to my 
colleague from Louisiana, about Katrina and others in

[[Page H3660]]

terms of the Corps. Imagine how things have changed in the last 25 
years.
  Under this amendment, the Army Secretary would incorporate the latest 
scientific and economic knowledge, eliminate biases and disincentives, 
would be required to consult with the public and other Federal agencies 
while updating the principles and guidelines.
  I want to be clear about what it would not do. It would not impact 
any project already underway or impact any project that is in the bill 
that has been created here today. It would not prevent the Corps from 
doing structural projects and would not delay any projects at all. It 
is why it is supported by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the 
professionals who actually do the work, taxpayer organizations, and 
environmental groups.
  The National Academy of Sciences in a report from the year 2000 
pointed out that the current principles and guidelines were state-of-
the-art thinking when it was written, and some of the concepts and 
paradigms that underpin it are relevant today. However, in over 20 
years since it has been updated and revised, it needs to be revised to 
reflect contemporary management paradigms; analytical methods; 
legislative directives; social, economic, and political realities.
  I deeply appreciate the work with the committee's staff, the Chair 
and subcommittee Chair in getting this to this point.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I am certainly appreciative of the 
gentleman's interest and have worked with him closely on a number of 
matters through the course of the years. And just in this instance we 
have a matter of policy difference.
  The P planning process utilized by the Corps does not begin with an 
idea that something must be done. It is not a process through which a 
commercial activity will automatically or inordinately be concluded 
must be implemented. The plan that is proposed must seek certain levels 
of justification; that is an iterative process where various parties 
are heard from over time.
  As to the element of whether the P has been modified or not, I have 
done some work on the matter over the last days, knowing of the 
gentleman's interest in this amendment. And I can go back further over 
time, but on September 30 of 1999, the Corps issued Engineering 
Regulation 1165-2-501, which speaks directly to the gentleman's 
interest to encourage to the maximum extent practicable the restoration 
of aquatic ecosystems.
  From the gentleman's amendment, the 1999 issuance speaks directly to 
a nonmonetary output compatible with P selection criteria; meaning, 
we should look at things broader than just dollars and cents.
  On April 22, 2000, regulation 1105-2-200 recognized the national 
ecosystem restoration plan on a par with national economic development.
  March 26, 2002, chief of engineers issues the environmental operating 
principles affirming sustainable development.
  May 1, 2003: to provide for procedural guidance for formulating and 
evaluating projects consistent with environmental sustainability.
  There was another on May 5, 2005. But to ensure the gentleman has 
time for his question, I will wrap up by saying, I have been assured by 
the Corps that they are working as diligently as one can work to 
accommodate environmental sensitivities while at the same time assuring 
that projects move forward in a timely manner.
  The reason for my concern, as the gentleman knows, I am highly 
sensitized to our recovery from the Katrina-Rita days, and I know the 
gentleman's amendment is worded in such a fashion that, if it is 
authorized prior to the adoption of this language, it has no effect. 
But going forward, we are going to be doing this stuff for a very long 
time in our State.
  The unintended consequences of these additional standards are going 
to be costly to local sponsors, and they are going to require 
significant additional programmatic time to achieve, not to ignore the 
gentleman's concerns that ecosystem restoration is a valuable and 
salutary goal that we should pursue.
  I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I want to be clear that what you just stated that our 
goals, the things that you just cited, have never been incorporated 
into the principles and guidelines, have they?
  Mr. BAKER. Yes. We may have a dispute as to the meaning of the words 
that we have on the page, but I will be happy to provide the gentleman.
  May 5, 2005: planning in a collaborative environment to build on 
modernized guidance, improve Corps projects through greater 
collaboration with all stakeholders. I am skipping a little bit here. 
Broaden project selection criteria to encompass net beneficial effects 
in all four P accounts; national economic development, regional 
development, economic development, environmental quality, and other 
social effects.
  So it goes beyond even environmental aspects in their planning 
process.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. And my question was, Is it not true that the Corps 
has not adopted those things into the principles and guidelines?
  Mr. BAKER. All I can speak to from my knowledge is Corps-issued 
Engineering Circular 1105-2-409 on May 5, 2005.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Engineering Circular that has not been incorporated 
into their principles and guidelines.
  Mr. BAKER. The distinction between a statutory adoption and a 
circular being issued is managerial direction to people who are 
implementing the programmatic requirements. It may be a difference of 
no distinction to the gentleman; but my opinion is, after spending some 
time with the Corps individuals, they feel they are on top of and are 
trying as best they can within financial constraints to achieve the 
goals the gentleman is prescribing. My worry is this will now transfer 
a financial liability to the local sponsor which does not now exist and 
may well, because of the times outlined in the gentleman's amendment, 
protract the timely construction of worthwhile projects.
  I, for example, am not sure whether this applies to aids to 
navigation. I don't know. I am not suggesting it does, but the way the 
amendment is constructed, I am worried about scope and reach. And 
please understand, I want to be helpful to the gentleman's interest. I 
am not at all averse to constructing projects in an environmentally 
safe and sound manner. I am just not sure that the goals the gentleman 
seeks are the results we would get out of the adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
  Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blumenauer amendment, the bill 
before us, which would require the Army Corps of Engineers to revise 
the principles and guidelines under which the Secretary formulates and 
evaluates water resource projects.
  It has been almost 25 years since any type of revision has been made 
to the Corps' decision-making process for formulating, evaluating, and 
implementing a project. The National Academy of Sciences has twice 
recommended that these guidelines be updated.
  We want to be sure that we have a fair and impartial analysis of 
projects and that we don't set in place a procedure that inevitably 
leads to the largest projects getting built, not the most cost-
effective ones.
  The amendment is supported by many organizations, including the 
American Rivers, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and Republicans for 
Environmental Protection.
  Up-to-date scientific engineering and environmental tools should be 
taken into account when looking at projects. As Representative 
Blumenauer has said, it is time to bring the Corps into the 20th and 
21st centuries.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, as you know, this legislation 
will authorize projects that are vitally important to our communities, 
to our citizens, to our environment.

[[Page H3661]]

  This amendment is intended to begin the process of reforming the Army 
Corps of Engineers process so it can be done better. I support and 
applaud the leadership of the Committee on Transportation and the 
cosponsors of this amendment. We must establish transparency, 
collaboration and accountability within the Corps of Engineers so as to 
better serve our communities.
  What this amendment does is begin that process by citing improvements 
that can be made in the principles and the guidelines. This is 
essential because some of the things that have happened that have been 
adverse to our communities and to our citizens have been foreseeable 
and predictable. The reforms that we are beginning to take with this 
amendment are to foresee, predict and avoid.
  Secondly, independent peer review. I want to recognize the work of 
the committee of including that in this legislation. It is my hope that 
going forward in the conference committee that will actually be 
strengthened.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be 
given an additional 2 minutes for a total of 4 minutes for debate on 
this amendment only.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time is divided. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding me this 
time, and I thank the majority side for agreeing to this unanimous 
consent request.
  I simply wanted to rise to say this. During my 6 years as chairman of 
the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, I do not believe we 
had a better member or more active member than the gentleman from 
Oregon, and I certainly have the greatest admiration and respect for 
him and his concern about this legislation.
  I simply wanted to rise to say this. I don't believe this Congress 
could pass a stronger environmental bill than this legislation that is 
before us at this time; Chairman Oberstar has continually made sure of 
that. And when we started with this bill several years ago, some people 
wanted no Corps reform at all; some people wanted so much Corps reform 
that really they were trying to stop every project that was included in 
this bill.
  Mr. Costello, who was my ranking member at that time, we compromised, 
we worked out things.
  I want to commend the staff for their work in this regard, and we put 
in many environmental concerns the first time around. Then we put in 
even more the second time around when we passed this bill.
  We are now here again. We have given reform on peer review now so 
that all the major projects, all the projects over $50 million are 
subject to peer review. We have put in environmental reform and Corps 
reform in regard to mitigation issues. We have put in Corps reform in 
regard to project planning so that all the concerns of all the 
environmental groups who want to be involved in this process will be 
included.
  I just want to point that out, how environmentally strong this 
legislation is thanks to not only our efforts on this side and the 
staff and Mr. Baker, but also Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Costello, 
Chairwoman Johnson with a lot of contribution from the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) himself.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Costello).
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of confusion over the 
Blumenauer amendment, and let me just say that the Blumenauer amendment 
does not affect the language on independent review. The Blumenauer 
amendment will make the study process more efficient, and for that 
reason I ask my colleagues to support the Blumenauer amendment and 
support the bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our distinguished chairman.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I appreciate the concerns of the distinguished ranking member of the 
subcommittee about time and cost. We certainly don't want to add any 
more time than Corps projects already take to evolve, nor do we want to 
foist additional costs on local governments.
  The language of the amendment of the gentleman, though, is simply to 
take current practice that the Corps has in its principles and 
guidelines, but to make those principles and guidelines into current 
law. I have talked with the Corps representatives in the chief's 
office, and they say, well, we're looking for direction from Congress.
  This language will not add time, will not create costs that are not 
already being incurred under our existing practice, and in that spirit, 
I think the amendment should be accepted.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Then I will close.
  I deeply appreciate the words of support that have been offered here 
by my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri); from my distinguished 
chairman, Mr. Oberstar; and from the former ranking member of the Water 
Resources Committee, Mr. Costello.
  I want to be clear that what was offered up by my friend, the 
distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, in no way undermines 
what I said. These principles and guidelines have not been updated. 
There are procedures and circulars discussed by the gentlemen from LA. 
They have not been incorporated into an updated, revised principle and 
guideline for the Corps of Engineers.
  That is why the National Academy of Public Administration, one of the 
many scientific organizations to recommend updating the principles and 
guidelines, they released their recommendation after the circular that 
the gentleman from Louisiana mentioned. His information simply is not 
current in terms of how the Corps is operating and all the independent 
bodies, the Science Board, the public administrators, why the American 
Engineering Association, as well as taxpayers and environmental groups 
say it is past time to fix this situation.
  For those of you who care about getting something actually through 
Congress, you ought to support this amendment. One of the hang-ups 
between the House and the Senate has been this issue of reform. The 
Senate has stronger language than this. I think it will help bridge the 
gap. I urge its adoption.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on the amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Kirk

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed 
in House Report 110-100.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Kirk:
       At the end of title II of the bill, add the following (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 2041. SMALL PROJECTS FOR THE REHABILITATION AND REMOVAL 
                   OF DAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a small dam 
     removal or rehabilitation project if the Secretary determines 
     that the project will improve the quality of the environment 
     or is in the public interest.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--A non-Federal interest shall provide 35 
     percent of the cost of the removal or remediation of any 
     project carried out under this section, including provision 
     of all land, easements, rights-of-way, and necessary 
     relocations.
       (c) Agreements.--Construction of a project under this 
     section shall be commenced only after a non-Federal interest 
     has entered into a binding agreement with the Secretary to 
     pay--
       (1) the non-Federal share of the costs of construction 
     required by this section; and
       (2) 100 percent of any operation and maintenance cost.
       (d) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal 
     funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any 
     single location.
       (e) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section $25,000,000 for each fiscal year.


[[Page H3662]]




          Modification to Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Kirk

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment concerns removing small dams 
from rivers, especially in my congressional district; and working with 
the chairman and the minority, what I would like to do now is ask 
unanimous consent to modify the amendment as agreed to by both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Kirk:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following on page 40, after line 23, (and redesignate 
     subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       (13) Lake county, illinois.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Ryerson Forest Preserve Dam, Dam 1A, Dam 1B, and 
     Dam 1C, Lake County, Illinois.

  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is approved.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 319, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, the scope of this amendment now is focused 
exclusively on Lake County, Illinois, and mainly the watershed of the 
Des Plaines River. This is a river in which several outdated and unused 
dams are preventing the return of higher-end predator fish, 
specifically pike and walleye, through the upper Des Plaines and Fox 
River Valleys.
  Now, I have worked on this amendment and consulted with my colleague, 
Congresswoman Melissa Bean, and we both agree on a bipartisan basis 
that the return of these high-end predator fish will not only help 
restore the environment of upper Lake County and its Fox River and Des 
Plaines watersheds, but also will be a help to sports fishing and 
boating in these areas.
  For these reasons, the removal of these very small but damaging 
structures will go a long way to restoring the ecosystems along the 
lines of the Chicago Paddlers Association and the Nature Conservancy 
and their recommendations.
  I want to particularly thank John Mica and his staff, especially Amy 
Steinmann for her work on this, as well as Chairman Oberstar for his 
help on this because this is going to make a big difference in the 
ecosystem of Lake County, Illinois, and we hope to invite all of you, 
maybe Mr. Baker as well, to come for a day, hopefully 5 years from now, 
of exciting sports fishing in northern Illinois.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in 
opposition, though I am not in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. And I do so to speak deliberately, carefully and 
thoughtfully so that the Speaker pro tempore can reach the House floor 
in order that the committee may rise and report the bill to the House 
with sundry amendments and that we can conclude action on the bill. I 
mean, let's be honest about what we're doing here in the spirit of 
transparency.
  But the gentleman from Illinois speaks for himself and also the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean) who shares this river with him and 
also our former Speaker, Mr. Hastert, whom I saw on the House floor 
just prior to consideration of the legislation. So he thought this 
would be a good idea because he would be able to do some walleye 
fishing on the river, and we are all for fishing walleyes, and the 
gentleman has had a very, very clear and narrowly drawn objective.
  I am glad we have been able to work this out in a manner that suits 
his concerns and allays the fears and concerns of those in the Western 
States that thought this was going to be a major hindrance to 
hydroelectric projects.
  So I thank the gentleman for tailoring the language of the amendment 
to the needs at hand and to allay the broader concerns.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may require to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).
  Mr. BAKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just wanted to express a word of appreciation to the gentleman for 
revision of his amendment as it now appears before Members. He worked 
diligently with the staff in order to assure that some concerns that 
had been raised had been alleviated, and we find ourselves at a point 
where we have an amendment to which I do not believe there is 
objection.
  At some point later in the evening I assume we will agree to adopt it 
and then later we will take up the underlying bill and pass that as 
well.
  I assume that the gentleman has sufficiently consumed enough time to 
where the managerial matters of his earlier interests may have now been 
resolved, I hope.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIRK. I would just like to state to the gentleman that I thank 
you very much for your senior leadership on this bipartisan 
legislation. I would hope that we could all agree that pike and walleye 
fishing should not be reserved for those citizens of only Wisconsin and 
Minnesota and can now return to the citizens of northern Illinois, who 
will see this ecosystem restored.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. OBERSTAR. How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I want to use this opportunity to thank the Chair of 
the Subcommittee on Water Resources, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson), for the superb work she has done shaping the 
bill and bringing us to this point; and to the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Baker of Louisiana, whom I previously eulogized for 
his work in the gulf; and our full committee ranking member, Mr. Mica.
  This has truly been an effort bringing this bill forward, and 
essential to this team have been the staff. I am always grateful for 
the staff because that is where I started in this body 44 years ago, as 
clerk of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, the predecessor of the 
Committee on Public Works. It was the first committee of the Congress 
in the first Congress in 1789.
  I want to thank Ryan Seiger of the majority staff; Ted Ilston, Beth 
Goldstein, Mike Brain, Rod Hall of Congresswoman Johnson's staff; Dave 
Heymsfeld of the full committee; John Anderson, a distinguished long-
time professional on the minority side; Geoff Bowman, Tim Lundquist, 
Jim Coon of the full committee staff; and Charlie Ziegler, whom I have 
known for so many years, a friend of long-standing. I don't have old 
friends anymore, friends of long standing, when you get to my age.
  In the Legislative Counsel's Office, Curt Haensel and the ever-
talented Dave Mendelsohn. All have worked together, pitched in to help 
us bring this bill to this point. We are ready now to conclude action 
on the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Welch of Vermont) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ross, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1495) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 319, he reported 
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.

[[Page H3663]]

  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on 
the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


           Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Walden of Oregon

  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. At this time in its present form I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Walden of Oregon moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1495 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with 
     instructions to report back the same forthwith with the 
     following amendment:

     SEC. 5124. RENEWABLE HYDROELECTRIC POWER.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) inventory, and, to the maximum extent economically 
     feasible, develop and maintain, all lands, properties, and 
     projects under the jurisdiction of the Secretary for the 
     potential of increasing hydroelectric power production or 
     constructing new hydroelectric power facilities thereon;
       (2) study the potential effects of proposals to remove 
     Federal hydroelectric dams under the jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary, including--
       (A) the impacts on domestic energy costs to consumers;
       (B) the need to import more energy to make up for lost 
     production from such dams;
       (C) the types of fossil-fuel based or other energy sources 
     (including clean nuclear power) that are likely to be 
     utilized to compensate for the lost energy associated with 
     dam removal; and
       (D) any impacts on existing or future agricultural 
     production of biofuels or other alternative energy feedstocks 
     as a result of the loss of water to America's family farmers; 
     and
       (3) to the maximum extent economically feasible, carry out 
     projects under the jurisdiction of the Secretary in a manner 
     that seeks to maintain lock systems where the systems are 
     essential for maintaining navigable waterways used for 
     commercial shipping and transport.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) Initial report.--Not later than one year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report containing the results of the inventory 
     conducted under subsection (a)(1), the results of the study 
     conducted under subsection (a)(2), and a description of 
     actions taken by the Secretary to increase hydroelectric 
     power production.
       (2) Updates.--The Secretary shall update the report at 
     least once every 5 years and submit the updated reports to 
     Congress.
       (c) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to supersede, limit, or otherwise affect any 
     provision of law in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
  I want to first commend the gentleman from Minnesota. He has a tough 
job; he has done it well on this committee. I have enjoyed my work over 
the years on issues where we have agreed. I bring this motion to 
recommit to the floor for a couple of reasons.
  The first deals with the issue of global warming and America's energy 
independence. I was appointed recently to the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming. We have had a lot of hearings 
there and in the Energy and Commerce Committee and in the Energy and 
Air Quality Subcommittee about how do we make America both energy 
independent and reduce our carbon emissions and greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  Obviously, coming from the Pacific Northwest, we are blessed in that 
a large percentage of our electrical generation comes from these large 
hydropower projects. Hydropower for America means no greenhouse gas 
emissions, virtually, virtually none. I suppose you could say there is 
some in the creation of the cement that goes into the concrete that 
makes up the dams, but once they are built, they are 90 percent 
efficient and no carbon emissions. So, obviously, there is discussion 
out there in the courts and elsewhere about reducing hydropower by 
eliminating dams.
  I think it would help us in our work, in both the Select Committee on 
Energy and Independence, and on global warming, to know what the 
impacts are and if you remove the hydropower system in any course or 
place, what the impacts on domestic energy cost to consumers would be; 
what would the need be to import more energy as replacement, because 
obviously that is one of the issues that we look at. If you take out a 
particular power generation capacity, and especially one that is 90 
percent efficient and doesn't emit green house gases, then what's the 
carbon footprint for the replacement power?
  We would look at that and call for a report on the types of fossil-
based fuels or other energy sources, perhaps including clean nuclear, 
to replace this power that would likely be utilized.
  In addition, we ask for a report on maintenance of the lock system as 
well, which is extraordinarily important. I want to point out that in 
2004 alone, more than 160 million tons of carbon emissions were avoided 
in the United States when 268 million megawatt hours of 
hydroelectricity were generated. Hydropower offsets more carbon 
emissions than all other renewable energy sources combined.
  If they were to be removed, the dams in the Northwest, it would take 
six and a half 500-megawatt coal-fired plants to replace the energy 
generated, not that anybody is talking about replacing them all. That, 
though, would increase CO
2
 emissions by 47.4 billion pounds, 
47.4 billion pounds.
  Let's look at this in replacement of shipping terms, if we don't take 
care of locks. In the Columbia and Snake River system, certainly in the 
Columbia River, certainly at John Day, there are issues about these 
antiquated locks that are having real maintenance needs, and yet we 
lack funding in some cases to deal with it.
  A tow of four 3,500-ton grain barges equates to 400 trucks each at 
400 horsepower. For example Tidewater Barge Company, a single example, 
Tidewater ships about 6 million tons up and down the Columbia River 
each year. These 6 million tons would require 171,200 trucks if the 
barging capability was removed. Over 171,000 trucks. So you can see why 
I am concerned about lock maintenance and the need to continue down 
that path. This motion to recommit would do that.
  I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As I understand the amendment, it is to require a study, an 
inventory, and an assessment of our hydroelectric capacity that is 
under the Secretary's jurisdiction, further to examine the advisability 
of perhaps private ownership of those facilities for the public 
interest, or whether we should enhance the government-owned and -
operated facilities.
  So it is an examination of our energy resources to determine how we 
should best go forward, and the Congress does not require today the 
expenditure of any new money for such purpose other than that to 
accomplish the study.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I think as spelled out in this motion to 
recommit, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. BAKER. I thank the gentleman. With that understanding, I would 
just express support for the gentleman.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Certainly anything that would be required here, 
because it does require the Corps to inventory, develop and maintain 
all lands, properties, et cetera, for the potential of producing 
hydropower. Obviously, though, we waive no environmental laws. Anything 
that would be authorized or result or interpreted that way from this 
language would require appropriation. There would be all the reviews 
that are required for any other law.
  I urge support of the motion to recommit.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.

[[Page H3664]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. First of all, we had a very clear agreement within the 
committee on the Democratic and Republican side not to take new items 
that were not in the 109th Congress Water Resources Development Act. We 
have vigorously adhered to that, kept a great many projects out.
  This proposal is not only new, but it is massive, it is huge, it is 
not a study of potential effects. It has very clear declarative 
language: the Secretary shall inventory, develop and maintain all 
lands, properties, projects, meaning hydroelectric projects. The 
language at the very outset prohibits any action that may be proposed, 
as is being considered along the Snake River, to remove dams for 
environmental purposes, and by directing the Secretary to undertake 
this action, creates a PAYGO issue. There is a clear budgetary 
consequence in that language.
  This motion goes well beyond the intent of the Water Resources 
Development Act. It goes beyond the bipartisan agreement we have in 
bringing this bill to the floor. It authorizes unlimited projects 
without consideration of environmental impacts or consideration of 
taxpayer expense.

                              {time}  1830

  It impacts legislation that we already have in this bill. It goes far 
beyond the scope that we intended in WRDA.
  We can consider the gentleman's proposal in future authorizations of 
WRDA and in hearings that we will undertake, but this amendment has no 
place during floor consideration of this bill at this late hour when it 
clearly brings into play items well beyond the scope of the agreement 
between the Democrats and Republicans on the bill and well beyond the 
scope of the purpose of the legislation. It imposes vast, potential new 
expenditures and requirements upon the Secretary, some of which are not 
even well understood at this point.
  So I oppose the motion, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 194, 
nays 226, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 233]

                               YEAS--194

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--226

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cantor
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fattah
     Higgins
     Israel
     Jones (NC)
     Lampson
     McCollum (MN)
     Millender-McDonald
     Rohrabacher
     Walsh (NY)
     Wicker


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1859

  Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. MITCHELL, Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas, Ms. 
JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. FARR and Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. McHUGH, STEARNS and EHLERS changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 394, 
nays 25, not voting 14, as follows:

[[Page H3665]]

                             [Roll No. 234]

                               YEAS--394

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--25

     Bachmann
     Bilbray
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Chabot
     Feeney
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Jordan
     Lamborn
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Pence
     Royce
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Tiberi
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Cantor
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fattah
     Higgins
     Israel
     Jones (NC)
     Lampson
     Millender-McDonald
     Paul
     Pickering
     Rohrabacher
     Walsh (NY)
     Wicker


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1908

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________