[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 6] [House] [Pages 7838-7879] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999 Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 154 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 154 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1480) to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the United States Army Corps of Engineers to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five- minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendments the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with [[Page 7839]] such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. {time} 1030 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour. Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Madam Speaker, H.R. 154 is a structured rule providing 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule makes in order the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purposes of amendment, modified by the amendments printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The rule waives points of order against consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute and makes in order only those amendments printed in part 2 of the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. Furthermore, the rule provides that amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by an opponent and proponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15 minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, H.R. 1480, is the culmination of work that was begun in the 105th Congress on a variety of Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers water projects. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and all committee members for their hard work on this important legislation. The maintenance and improvement of water resource infrastructure is vital to the residents in my own district and to the people and economy of the entire Nation as a whole. Specifically, H.R. 1480 authorizes 95 new water resource projects, makes necessary modifications to six existing projects, and authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct 26 studies on a variety of water resource issues. The bill authorizes $1.9 billion for these development projects, which are funded on a cost-share basis with non- Federal partners. These projects are being authorized only after detailed feasibility studies conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and by a careful review of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H.R. 1480 also addresses the concerns of those who believe that past water resource projects have had unintended impacts on the environment. In particular, the bill establishes a pilot program to explore the feasibility of natural flood control methods, and it makes it easier for nonprofit organizations to participate in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers environmental programs. Madam Speaker, passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 will allow needed maintenance and improvements to our Nation's navigation, irrigation, flood control and power generation infrastructure to move forward. I therefore encourage my colleagues to support H. Res. 154, which I believe is a fair rule, and to support the underlying legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am supporting this rule, in spite of the fact that the rule is not open and it does limit amendments to those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules. While I am perfectly aware that every amendment submitted to the Committee on Rules was made in order, the committee's ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) did point out at the Committee on Rules hearing last night that water resources bills are nearly always considered under open rules, or, in some cases, under suspension of the rules. The Democratic members of the Committee on Rules would not ordinarily support closing down a rule on legislation as important as this water resources development bill. In this case, however, we will not oppose the rule. This is because the majority and minority on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have worked diligently to reach a number of compromises on controversial positions in the committee reported bill, and because every amendment submitted to the Committee on Rules has been made in order either in the manager's amendment or as a freestanding amendment. The major controversy in the committee reported bill has been resolved in an amendment which will be self-executed into the text of the bill by virtue of adoption of the rule. The rule self-executes an amendment which removes language that would have allowed one Member to further development in his district at the expense of his neighbors along the Sacramento and American Rivers. I would like to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) for their willingness to work out an agreement on this thorny issue. In spite of this compromise, the bill does not satisfactorily resolve the issue of flood control for the city of Sacramento, California. Flood control has been and remains a serious and potentially deadly issue for Sacramento. Quite frankly, the flood protection provided in the bill is inadequate, but an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) seeks to improve those flood protection provisions and deserves the support of the House. Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that there are many provisions in this legislation that are strongly supported by communities across the country. In particular, the committee has responded to the request of a community in my congressional district to alter the original flood control plans of the Corps of Engineers. The city of Arlington, Texas, had requested that the committee include a locally preferred plan for flood control for Johnson Creek, a tributary of the Trinity River which flows through the cities of Arlington and Grand Prairie, in lieu of the original Corps plan. This locally preferred plan, which will have a total cost of $20 million and a Federal share of $12 million, would allow the city of Arlington to include recreational facilities and environmental restoration along Johnson Creek, which will benefit the residents of that city on an ongoing basis, while assuring that adequate flood control will protect life and property in the surrounding area. I am particularly pleased that this amendment to the plan and the funding for it have been included in H.R. 1480. Madam Speaker, I know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) are eager to move their legislation, especially now that the controversy on the Sacramento and American Rivers has been resolved. However, I must again point [[Page 7840]] out that a bill like water resources really should be considered under an open rule. Madam Speaker, that being said, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I congratulate my friends on both sides of the aisle for their management of it. I would like to especially congratulate my friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for the role that he has played in helping to fashion a compromise here. I would like to also congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the others who have worked on this measure, and, of course, the many Californians who have played a role in getting to where we are. These projects are particularly important to western States, the 23 that have been authorized in this package that we are going to be considering. My State of California is very, very key, as I mentioned, because access to safe, usable water is obviously very, very critical to our State's survival. This bill addresses past environmental concerns that water resources projects have had unintended impacts on the environment. For example, the bill establishes a pilot program to explore the feasibility of natural flood control methods, and, in addition to that, the bill makes it easier for nonprofit organizations to participate in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers environmental programs. The rule also ensures that no provisions in the bill will interfere with California State water rights, which are balanced with great care by State laws that we have today. In particular, members of my delegation with communities wrestling with major water issues will be given the time that they need to work on compromise language that will be fair to everyone and address the concerns that are there. So I urge strong support of the rule. I congratulate my friends on both sides of the aisle for having fashioned this compromise, and look forward to passage of both the rule and the bill itself. Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, many of our colleagues on our side of the aisle in committee and other Members have expressed surprise that we bring a water resources bill to the floor, any bill from our committee, to the floor under what amounts to a modified closed rule and to a very unusual self-executing provision in the rule that deals with the substantive provision of the bill. My response is that not in my 36 years' experience on the committee have we done such a maneuver on a water resources bill. Generally this is a matter that is brought to the floor under an open rule, as we have nothing to fear. But in this case there were some extenuating circumstances. This water resources bill has been held up for two Congresses over one project, and, even though that one issue of flood control protection for the city of Sacramento and water distribution for potential upstream users has not yet been satisfactorily resolved, it has at least been deferred to another time. That is the purpose of the self-executing provision in the rule. The bill deals with all the rest of what is needed in the rest of this country. Indeed, as the previous speaker said, a good deal of this bill benefits the rest of the State of California outside of Sacramento. So, reluctant as I would be to support this type of procedure for our committee, in this case, this exceptional case, it is a means to get through the problem that has held up all the rest of the country and deal substantively with the needs of other Members, and put off to another time the appropriate protection for the city of Sacramento. So, Madam Speaker, I support the rule, with those caveats. Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this issue. Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I want to rise in strong support of the rule. The chairman and the committee and the Committee on Rules have crafted a rule that provides for the fair consideration of the Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 and a rule that resolves the primary fiscal and environmental concerns that were raised about this legislation. {time} 1045 Specifically, the rule includes an amendment that I offered at the Committee on Rules yesterday that strips all water supply language that was opposed by the environmental community and the fiscal watchdog organizations like Taxpayers for Common Sense. In fact, the leading environmental and taxpayer groups have endorsed my amendment. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, I am proud to report that we have labored long and hard in a bipartisan manner to craft this bill. Essentially, we are going forward with unfinished business. We should have concluded it at the end of the last Congress, but we were not able to do so because of a serious controversy about one region of the country. That controversy has now been resolved. I think that WRDA 1999 specifically deals with the California water supply and Sacramento flood protection provisions in a very responsible way. Once again, let me report the environmental community is endorsing what we are about and so, too, are the fiscal watchdogs. What I did was I listened, I learned, I heard and I heeded. So the bill we are bringing forward today has earned the support of a broad coalition of Republicans and Democrats alike. We are about the Nation's business. We are committed to dealing with infrastructure, and in this bill we are dealing with infrastructure in a very responsible way in the best interests of the entire Nation. Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski). Mr. BORSKI. Madam Speaker, I want to just follow up with my distinguished colleague and chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and explain just briefly, if I may, that in the subcommittee we had a very partisan divide on this issue; and as a matter of fact, in the full committee in reporting the bill, there was still a very partisan struggle, if you will. I am reminded somewhat of the old Mark Twain quote that ``whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting.'' We fought a little bit in the subcommittee, and I particularly want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) for her efforts in subcommittee and full committee to bring this to light. This rule, with the self-enacting rule will, in effect, do what the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) wanted to do in committee. I want to commend our distinguished chairman, because again, he had suggested to us in the strongest terms possible that he would continue to work with us to improve the bill. He has done so, and I support the rule. Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this rule. It is a fair rule that makes in order every amendment that was offered, ensuring an open debate. Let me begin by commending the transportation committee for resolving the issues that held this much needed legislation up over the last year. It is a critically important bill for my home state of Florida and the rest of the country. I am pleased to see that Congress, as evidenced by the funding levels in this bill, has once again turned back the Clinton-Gore administration's assault on beach renourishment projects. These vital projects serve the same function as other flood control projects: they [[Page 7841]] save lives and limit damage to property. I simply cannot understand the Clinton-Gore administration's continued neglect of these important projects. It is irresponsible and it's past time they got the message. I am particularly grateful for the committee's attention to southwest Florida and the captiva project. In addition, I would point out that this bill will help us continue moving forward on the Everglades restoration program. The bill extends the authorization period for the Everglades ``critical projects'' so they can be funded and completed as planned. Once again, Congress has reaffirmed its commitment to the Everglades restoration program and is meeting its obligations to help restore this national treasure. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this is a fair rule and a good bill. I encourage my colleagues to support both. Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to House Resolution 154 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. 1480. {time} 1048 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. 1480) to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the United States Army Corps of Engineers to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Emerson in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, is a comprehensive authorization of the water resources programs of the Army Corps of Engineers. It represents two-and-a-half years of bipartisan effort to preserve and develop the water infrastructure that is so vital to our Nation's safety and economic well-being. First, let me thank and congratulate my colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their tireless efforts. I want to give special thanks to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the subcommittee; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member of the subcommittee. This legislation is unfinished business that should be enacted as soon as possible. The 105th Congress failed to enact the Water Resources Development Act, largely because of a contentious flood control issue in California. The bill we bring to the floor today, however, ends the impasse. It represents a fair and balanced compromise on all fronts. Madam Chairman, this legislation accomplishes three important objectives. First, it reflects the committee's continuing commitment to improving the Nation's water infrastructure and keeping to a regular schedule for authorizations. Second, it responds to policy initiatives to modernize the Corps of Engineers' activities and to achieve programmatic reforms. Third, and this is very important, it takes advantage of the Corps' capabilities and recognizes evolving national priorities by expanding and creating new authorities for protecting and enhancing the environment. Now, is this bill 100 percent perfect, free of controversy? I am sure it is not. We have heard concerns about a few provisions, and intend to address those as the bill progresses. There are also some differences between this legislation and the Senate counterpart that must be resolved. In many cases, people are not getting everything they want here, so many are not totally pleased, but it is a balanced compromise and one that we think deserves support. Madam Chairman, as we move forward with this important legislation, I intend to work with all parties to ensure that the final product reflects a balance of all interests. I also want to assure my colleagues that we do intend to move another water resources bill that will really be the vehicle to address new items and requests that have arisen and are likely to arise in the coming months, and we intend indeed to move that legislation early in the next session. This legislation is a strong bipartisan bill that reflects balance in every sense of the word, and a responsible approach to developing water infrastructure, preserving and enhancing the Federal, State and local partnerships. Madam Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, before yielding, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) for his splendid work over several years of trying to shape this bill and bring it to this point. He has been most diligent and deserves credit for the work product that we bring to the House today with great pride. And now, Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Water Resources. Mr. BORSKI. Madam Chairman, let me thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time and for his outstanding leadership on all issues, but particularly on this water resources issue that is before us today. I also want to congratulate and commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), my friend, the distinguished chairman, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), my good friend and the subcommittee chairman, for, as always, listening to the members of the minority, working with us in a fair and bipartisan manner. The bill before us today is one which we all can support. Madam Chairman, the committee on Transportation and Infrastructure strongly supports biennial legislation for the Corps' water resources program because it provides stability to Corps programs, certainly to local project sponsors, and timely response to changing circumstances. The bill before us today authorizes major flood control navigation, shore protection, and other water resource development projects. These projects have gone through the traditional review and evaluation process of the Corps and have received favorable reports from the Chief of Engineers. Another 16 projects will be authorized to proceed to construction if their Chief's reports are complete by September 30, 1999. This bill also establishes a new flood mitigation and riverine restoration pilot program that is modeled after the administration's proposed Challenge 21 program. It takes a broader approach to address the issues of flood protection, especially by using nonstructural measures and environmental restoration in a coherent manner. I see a great deal of value in this approach and expect overall savings as well as enhancement of the environment. The bill also addresses current policies concerning shore protection and cost share of deep-draft harbors. With regard to shore protection and beach nourishment, I hope the provisions in this bill will bring the administration's policy more in line with congressional intent. The proposed change to harbor cost sharing is intended to proactively deal with potentially deeper draft requirements of new generations of oceangoing vessels. Madam Chairman, we all know that our failure to enact the bill last year [[Page 7842]] during its normal cycle was due entirely to one issue: providing adequate flood protection for Sacramento, California. The bill, as reported by the committee, attempted to address this issue but further complicated the debate by adding numerous provisions relating to water supply. I am pleased that the adoption of the rule removed the offending water supply provisions from the bill. Any Federal involvement in a reallocation of water rights adversely affects the traditional State prerogative jealously guarded by the States and, in particular, by Western States. I do not believe the Federal Government should get involved in such matters. Finally, I am concerned that the bill does not provide the adequate flood protection that Sacramento needs. I support a level of flood protection for Sacramento closer to 200 years, not to 117 in the current bill. That level would allow the issue to be disposed of once and for all. Future WRDAs would not be held hostage by similar disagreements as occurred last year. Madam Chairman, but for the issue of flood protection for Sacramento, H.R. 1480 is a good bill and is worthy of the strong support of the House. Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of our distinguished subcommittee. Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Before anything else, I just wanted to pay tribute to the outstanding professionalism of the entire staff, the staff of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Development and the full committee staff on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mike Strachn and Jeff More, Ben Grumbles, the whole team on our side and on the other side, a team of very able professionals. Secondly, I want to say this proves that we can work things out the way we should. Our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure I think is the envy of a lot of other committees on Capitol Hill, because while we have differences, we come together in a bipartisan manner and we overcome those differences, and the product we have on the floor today is as a result of that. Before us this morning we have a water resources bill that provides billions of dollars for flood protection, navigation improvements, water infrastructure and the enhancement of critical environmental resources. This legislation is critical to our Nation's ports, our Nation's cities, the millions of Americans who live along our Nation's rivers; and yes, this bill is critical to the environment, which is a very important subject that warms my heart. I would like to share with my colleagues a list of some of the environmental provisions in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. It authorizes a $100 million pilot project for nonstructural flood control and riverine environmental restoration. It enhances environmentally sensitive floodplain management measures. It authorizes an aquatic ecosystem restoration project. It reauthorizes a sediment decontamination program. It encourages beneficial reuse of dredge material. The list goes on and on. Madam Chairman, I include the entire list at this point in the Record. Environmental Highlights of H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 A. Programmatic and Policy Changes Authorizes a $100 million pilot program for nonstructural flood control and riverine environmental restoration Advances environmentally sensitive floodplain management measures (including those involving nonstructural features such as buyouts and relocations) Continues Corps' efforts to coordinate with FEMA's hazard mitigation program Authorizes aquatic ecosystem restoration projects and makes programmatic changes to encourage new local sponsors Reauthorizes sediment decontamination program and authorizes the development and testing of innovative dredging technologies to minimize release of contaminants and improve water quality Encourages beneficial reuse of dredged material Promotes a ``systems approach'' to sand management and beach nourishment Expands Corps' efforts to control non-indigenous invasive aquatic plant species Extends authorization for critical projects under the Everglades and South Florida ecosystem restoration program Authorizes in-kind contributions to projects to enhance fish and wildlife resources thereby promoting additional local sponsorship of such projects Encourages the use of innovative treatment technologies for watershed and environmental restoration and protection projects involving water quality Authorizes development of coastal aquatic habitat management plans to address problems associated with toxic micro-organisms and the resulting degradation of ecosystems in tidal and non-tidal wetlands Provides for restoration of abandoned and inactive coal mines B. Regional Programs Reauthorizes and improves the Upper Mississippi Environmental Management Program Directs a comprehensive study of the Great Lakes environment to promote effective planning and management Increases the acreage cap for the Missouri River mitigation project to increase the program's effectiveness Provides financial and technical assistance for management of non-indigenous species in the Great Lakes Provides for aquatic restoration projects on the Lower Missouri River Provides for aquatic resources restoration in the Pacific Northwest Authorizes assistance for integrated water management planning for the State of Texas C. Miscellaneous Projects and Provisions Adds 3 additional projects to the Corps' Clean Lakes Program to improve water quality by reducing silt and sediment Authorizes 3 projects for improvement of the environment under the authority of section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 Authorizes 16 projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration under the authority of section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 Authorizes technical assistance for 8 watersheds for environmental restoration and protection. Madam Chairman, whether it is helping clean up abandoned mines in the West or the development of nonstructural flood control measures in the East, or the establishment of aquatic restoration projects in the South, WRDA 1999 provides critical resources for the enhancement of our environment. In recent years we have seen a gradual greening of the Corps of Engineers, and the legislation before us today continues that trend. Our committee is most responsible for that greening of the Corps. The Corps' traditional functions, flood control and navigation, are also continued in WRDA 1999. Dredging of our great harbors and navigation routes is a central component of this legislation. Moving bulk commodities such as grain and coal by water is essential to our growing economy. {time} 1100 WRDA 1999 provides increased protection for flooding for millions of Americans. Perhaps no place is a better example of that than the city of Sacramento, the capital of California, of why WRDA 1999 is so critically needed. Today the city of Sacramento has only about 77 years of flood protection. The legislation before us today, this day, authorizes over $300 million for projects designed to increase the flood protection for Sacramento to nearly 140 years. As my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member of our subcommittee, has stated so eloquently, and we have no disagreement on this, we want to provide the maximum level of protection for Sacramento, and we are determined to do so. Not only are we investing $300 million in this bill. No, we are expediting studies of the possibility of elevating the Folsom Dam. We are expediting studies of the possibility of doing levee work south of the dam. We are looking at this in a very serious, professional way. That is what we should do, because we want our final decisions to be made not based upon emotions, and we all can get very emotional about these subjects, but based upon facts. That is exactly what we are going to do. We have moved responsibly to dramatically increase the flood protection for the capital of California, and I remain committed to the proposition that we can provide additional flood protection for Sacramento in next year's water bill. [[Page 7843]] The chairman of the full committee has indicated that as soon as this bill is behind us, we are going to start on WRDA 2000. There is a fundamental national interest in moving this legislation forward in a bipartisan, expeditious fashion. WRDA 1999 is important to the lives and livelihood of millions of Americans, from Sacramento to Syracuse, from Savannah to Seattle, from Urbana to Utica. WRDA 1999 deserves our support. Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for their action and hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. I rise today to speak in favor of this legislation. I do it as the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, but also to make my colleagues aware of a rather ironic situation. Section 501 would mandate that the Army Corps of Engineers would take control of some of the projects of the USDA's Natural Resources and Conservation Service. This would be done because of a $1.5 billion backlog in the USDA's small watershed program. Local residents who have sponsored these projects have lost confidence in USDA's ability to provide funding, and they are now looking at other sources of funding. This situation is indicative of the lack of resources and support currently being provided to agriculture. Funding for the NRCS's Small Watershed Program is no greater today than it was in the 1950s. In fact, the program has been virtually cut in half in the last 5 years. As a result, projects typically sit on the backlog list for more than a decade. We cannot blame the sponsors. In essence, they are shopping for the most available source of funding. There simply is not enough funding in the USDA program to live up to existing responsibilities and commitments. In 1937, the United States invested 6 percent of the Federal budget in USDA conservation programs. This is in stark contrast to the .16 percent included in the 1999 Federal budget. In 1937, Congress appropriated $440 million for financial assistance, and $23 million in technical assistance. In 1999 dollars, that would be $5.3 billion. In 1999, the estimated appropriation for USDA conservation financial and technical assistance programs is $1.2 billion. These numbers speak for themselves. I would challenge my colleagues to make conservation spending a priority in order to meet the pressing needs in rural America. Again, I thank the sponsors of this legislation for, in another way, dealing with a part of the problem for many areas, of which this was the only available opportunity that they had. Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), a member of the committee. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Chairman, today we come to the floor with a very important bill, the water bill. I am very, very pleased to be able to support it. It contains many important projects across the country that can be developed with the passage and enactment of this legislation. I would particularly like to thank for their work on our problem in Sacramento our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and their staffs. They have been tremendously helpful, and it has been a very, very difficult problem for us to resolve. I would like to thank my colleagues from the Sacramento region who have been involved with me for months of intense negotiation with our staffs, the gentlemen from California, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Ose, Mr. Herger, and Mr. Matsui. All of us have worked hard to try and come up with a solution. Ultimately that solution that we worked on did not materialize in the exact way that we had desired. But the bottom line is this, Madam Chairman, this bill today enables Sacramento to take a giant step forward in the area of flood control, achieving virtually a 1 hundred percent increase in the level of protection over what we presently have. Madam Chairman, I would be less than candid if I did not say that this is still not what we need. But the truth of the matter is that we will never have what we need until, in one fashion or another, we are able to complete the construction of the Auburn Dam. It is the only solution that provides the level of flood protection for Sacramento. Everything else ultimately falls short. But this is a political process, and one that requires a certain agreement between all the parties. We are moving in the right direction, and when we come to issues of water and flood control and so forth, I think if you are moving in the right direction and making progress, that is something that we have to acknowledge and encourage. We are taking this step today. It is something that will be, I think, a very significant improvement for our community. Moreover, we do not do any harm, such as by passing the disastrous stepped release plan which is in the Senate bill, which would actually make things worse, increase the danger to life and property, and export flood control problems to those down below. So I am grateful to see that. I cannot help but acknowledge that this process has revealed the tremendous problem we also face in our State, which is the shortage of water. Even in an average year we are short of water. In a drought year we are significantly short of water, by about 5 million acre feet a year. We in California are going to have to address that problem, and in my own subcommittee which I chair, next month we will be specifically addressing that problem as we continue oversight over the Cal-Fed process. Water storage has to be developed. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and to also commend him for his diligent work on behalf of his community and people who desperately need the flood control protection. He has been a vigilant advocate for the people he represents. Mr. MATSUI. Madam Chairman, I first would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for his very kind remarks and all of his help over the last decade, but particularly over the last 3 or 4 years that he has given me, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) as the subcommittee ranking member, obviously, and thanks to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for all of the help he has given me as ranking member of the full committee as well. I would like to turn to my colleagues on the other side, the other side of the aisle. Certainly the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) has been extremely helpful in trying to put together a consensus for all of us in the Sacramento region. I want to express my gratitude and thanks to him, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who has been tireless over the last 3 or 4 years on our behalf. The staffs of both majority and minority have been extremely helpful, as well. I do want to express my appreciation. I also want to express my apologies to members of the subcommittee and certainly the Members of the entire House of Representatives. As we know, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) have said, this bill had been delayed from the last Congress to this Congress. It was basically because of the Sacramento problem, and particularly about the flood control issue. I know it was very difficult for the Members of this body, but I appreciate [[Page 7844]] the fact that there was tolerance to me and my constituents. I certainly would hope that I would never have to put my colleagues in that kind of imposition again. I would like to, if I may, just comment a little bit about my problem in Sacramento County. We have about a 100-year protection, now. This bill would get us up to about 137 years protection, because it would modify the existing Folsom Dam in Sacramento County. The problem with this, as all of us know, is the fact that we still would be by far the lowest community in terms of flood protection in this Nation. Just to read off a few, Kansas City currently has 500-year protection; St. Louis, 50-year protection; Dallas, Texas, 500- year; New Orleans, 300 years; Topeka, Kansas, 500 years; and Omaha, Nebraska, Tacoma and the quad cities all have 500-year protection. We now will have, with this bill, 137 years. We wanted to get up to about 170 years, and we are, of course, afraid, because of the rainfall in northern California and the continuing uncertainty of our climate, that we could fall again in terms of hydrology studies. We have approximately 600,000 people at risk. We have over six major regional hospitals. We have 100 public schools. All of these are at risk with respect to Sacramento County. This bill will go a long way, obviously, in making sure that we are given some additional level of protection, but we need more. I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know this, and would want to help us. I would hope that as we proceed along over the next few weeks and perhaps months that we not confuse this issue. Sacramento County needs flood protection, and one of the real concerns that I have is that we have been tied into the whole issue of water supply. I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the previous speaker, that Northern California needs more water. We are the fastest growing region in America. We need more water. But we are trying to work that through right now with the State-Federal compact. We have Bruce Babbitt from the Interior Department. Obviously, former Governor Wilson and now Governor Gray Davis are attempting through Cal- Fed to come up with a solution, because there are various competing interests in California with respect to the limited supply of water. We do need to solve this problem, but it has to be done in a methodical way. But please, I urge my colleagues not to tie flood protection for 600,000 people with this issue that has been raging in the State of California for over 125 years. We are not going to solve the issue of water supply in California as long as it is tied to the whole issue of flood protection, which we need immediately. The issue of water supply has to be an issue that is going to be dealt with from a larger perspective, from a Federal-State perspective, with all the water districts in California. I am not, however, suggesting that my colleague up north of me, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is incorrect. Placer County is growing and it will need water in a few years. But that issue is one we need to work together on, not in an adversarial role on, and flood protection, unfortunately, puts us somewhat at odds. So I want to express my thanks to my colleagues, all of them, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and all of them for all of the tolerance and help they have given my community and myself over the last few months, and I urge adoption of this bill. Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes). Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding time to me. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, H.R. 1480. This is critically needed legislation, and I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for his leadership, and of course, my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for really shepherding this bill, this much-needed bill, through the committee and bringing it to the floor, understanding that it had to go through some tenuous minefields getting fiscal watchdogs, environmental watchdogs to agree to this much-needed legislation. I might remind my colleagues that the ritual here in Congress has been that this program, this important program, has been funded generally and sufficiently by the Congress, not by the administration, for years. Whether it be the current administration or previous administrations, they have not provided the Army Corps of Engineers, in my estimation, the kinds of support they need, and it has been Congress that has come to the rescue. Again this year, it is the United States House of Representatives and this committee that have provided this adequate support. For over 150 years the Corps has done a phenomenal job of protecting our lives and property. If you come from a place like I do, on Long Island, New York, you understand the tremendous importance of the Army Corps program. I might point out in this bill is the Atlantic Coast Monitoring Study, which is a very, very important undertaking that will study tides, erosion data, make future erosion predictions, and try to get ahead, if you will, of Mother Nature, to the extent that we can do that, and provide protection for our coastlines; very, very important. I again thank the committee for recognizing that and bringing the other Federal agencies together with the Army Corps of Engineers to get a final plan in place by June 30 for the Moriches Inlet Island plan. {time} 1115 I thank the committee tremendously for this support. This is a tremendous program. It deserves the support that is demonstrated in this bill today, and I urge my colleagues to support it, and I hope the President will sign it. Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), who has made a very valuable contribution to our committee in her service and has been a leader on these California water projects for the committee. Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those kind words, and I also want to thank him and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) for all their help. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1480, which has incorporated the Tauscher-Petri amendment to strip the controversial American River water supply provisions from H.R. 1480. I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) to self-execute this important amendment as part of the rule. As my colleagues know, H.R. 1480 traditionally funds flood control and port and harbor maintenance projects. This year, however, over $287 million in municipal water supply projects were included in the bill at the last minute which were wrong for the American taxpayer, wrong for the environment and wrong for the development of long-term water policy in my State of California. Over the past 2 weeks I have worked hard with members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Members of the House in general to address the implications of this water grab. The Bay-Delta in my district is the largest estuary on the West Coast and serves as the drinking water source for 22 million Californians. Moreover, it serves as a key component of the State's $24 billion agricultural industry. In California, water is a zero-sum game, and these ill-conceived projects that have been stripped out would have had devastating effects for water for two out of every three Californians. In addition, the projects were terribly expensive. I am pleased to have been joined by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), Taxpayers for Common Sense, [[Page 7845]] Friends of the River and Friends of the Earth, and scores of other taxpayer and environmental organizations in effectively getting that message out. Officials throughout California, including Governor Gray Davis and Attorney General Bill Lockyer expressed extreme apprehension with the projects included in the bill. Once again, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and others for urging the removal of those audacious provisions from H.R. 1480. At the same time, however, I must object to the concurrent removal of the much needed flood control for the city of Sacramento. That city currently has only 85 years of flood protection, making it the largest metropolitan area in the country without an adequate flood control system. That is why I urge support for the Oberstar amendment. Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). Mr. WALSH. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this incredibly important bill. I would also like to thank my good friend and neighbor, colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who chairs the subcommittee, for the hard work he has done in bringing this bill to fruition; also to the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I want to thank them all for this terrific bill. The work that they have done is remarkable, getting it this far, given all the traps along the way. The project that I am supporting has been identified by my community as the number one priority project, and we could not do it without the help of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. This is a critical bill to my community, I strongly support it, and I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, I thank the esteemed ranking member for yielding me time and I would like to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, as well as the full committee chairman and ranking member on what I consider to be an excellent Water Resources Development Act piece of legislation. This bill is vital in three major areas for my State and for many States across the Union. It contains investment in appropriate projects that are vital to the economic infrastructure and the competitiveness of the United States in the international economy. In particular, we have provided for an authorization, should all of the environmental reviews be adequately completed by the Corps of Engineers, for the Columbia River. It is vital if the port of Portland is to compete in the Asia Rim, that they be able to accommodate the new larger class of ships. It is vital in a number of other areas. The environment. Certainly we can say this is probably the most important piece of environmental legislation to pass this Congress. It contains money for a number of projects in my district: Amazon Creek; Springfield Millrace; going to look at nonstructural flood control alternatives for the Willamette River; Skinner Butte Park environmental restoration right in the heart of the largest city of my district; and, finally, it is good for salmon. It contains a large investment in a long overdue Willamette River temperature control project that I have been working on for almost a decade here in Congress. It is a large project, $65 million, but it will correct problems created by the Federal Government when those dams were constructed, which are destroying salmon runs in the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers. All in all, this is an excellent piece of legislation. It is good for the economy, good for the environment, and good for water resources across the United States. Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the chairman of one of our subcommittees. Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Chairman, I too want to make some comments about the water bill of 1999, sort of a retroactive process. There are a lot of good projects in here. As the previous speaker mentioned, there are a number of positive environmental provisions in here. There are several in particular in my district. One of those provisions is to correct a couple of previous mistakes by the Corps of Engineers in Chesapeake City, where a water pipe was cut as a result of dredging in the C&D Canal. Another provision which is under evaluation to be corrected is an area where there is a dredge disposal site by the Corps of Engineers that was not managed properly and the wells of the community right now cannot be used as a result of the acidic leaching from that dredge disposal site. That will be corrected. There is a small community on the ocean side called Snug Harbor. There is going to be some effort into producing nonstructural flood control measures. And the other provision that is in the water bill, that I am very, very pleased with, is a study that has never been done before, not even by the Chesapeake Bay Program, NMFS, or Fish and Wildlife. This is a study to evaluate the nutrient loads into the Chesapeake Bay as a result of dredging across the entire bay. Now, the Chesapeake Bay Program, what we have funded every single year with millions and millions and millions of dollars tries to evaluate the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus and other pollutants that get into the bay from all kinds of sources: from air deposition, from agricultural runoff, from shopping plazas, from housing developments, from roads; all kinds of sources, with one exception, and that is the nutrient pollution problem from dredging. In this bill there is going to be an 18-month study to determine the contribution of pollution nutrient overloads from dredging. And if we are going to restore the Chesapeake Bay to the kind of health that is necessary for that marine ecosystem to be sustained for future generations, this is the kind of thing we really need to do, and this is in this bill and we are very pleased with it. Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend from Minnesota and the chairman of the committee, and I rise in support of this bill and, in particular, section 573, which authorizes $7 million for the Corps of Engineers to work with USDA, Interior, EPA, NOAA and State and local agencies to develop strategies for dealing with toxic microorganisms and the damage they inflict on aquatic ecosystems. I want to congratulate my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wayne Gilchrest) on his support of this provision and his discussions just earlier about some of the studies he has undertaken and his support of making sure the Chesapeake Bay is what we want it to be. Toxic microorganisms, Madam Chairman, are a serious threat. The summer before last, Maryland was struck by the toxic microorganism pfiesteria. Linked to the flow of excess nutrients and the loss of aquatic habitat in our waterways, toxic blooms like pfiesteria seriously impact regional economies and threaten sensitive aquatic resources. Several Federal agencies, including the EPA, NOAA, and the Centers for Disease Control presently are assisting States impacted by these toxic algae blooms. I have worked diligently in the past, through the appropriations process, to ensure that these agencies have the proper resources to undertake this effort. Although they have responded quickly and made substantial progress, no single agency is tasked with taking a comprehensive look at the problem and developing a master plan. Given its expertise in water resources modeling, water quality monitoring, watershed management and restoration, and environmental planning, the Corps of Engineers has a vital role to play in this process. Section 573 simply authorizes $7 million for the Corps' participation in these efforts, and I [[Page 7846]] urge my colleagues to support this important initiative and the bill itself. Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the delegate from Guam (Mr. Underwood). Mr. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding me the time. I rise today to support the passage of H.R. 1480 to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources projects, and I wish to thank the committee's leadership for moving this legislation quickly, well, not quickly, but successfully to the House floor. The projects in this bill are important to the successful development of water-related projects across America. It helps to prepare communities to mitigate themselves against natural disasters and helps redress the destruction of storms past. The projects for Guam are a prime example of repairing damages that were inflicted by a cumulative series of storms that have devastated Guam over the past decade. The most recent one, Supertyphoon Paka, was one of the largest and more powerful storms that have hit Guam in recent years. It inflicted a lot of damage to individual homes and businesses, but, most important, it nearly destroyed the lifeline of our island, which is our port facilities. Seaports are the direct link to an island's economic development activities and without them communities and families suffer. Guam's plan to build a seawall to protect our harbor, the hardening of our piers, and the reconstruction of two of our largest marinas will help our island mitigate against any future damages caused by natural disasters. I might add that the development of these harbor projects are also very important for national defense. I wish to thank again the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster); the subcommittee chairman the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); as well as the two ranking Members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) for their roles in moving this legislation and these projects successfully to the floor. Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on our side? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 12 minutes remaining. Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the organization frequently mentioned in debate here but almost never discussed, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It celebrates its 224th birthday this year. It is the Nation's oldest, largest, and most experienced government organization in the area of water and related land engineering matters. It has provided extraordinary, competent, lifesaving, economic development enhancing service to this country for two and a quarter centuries. Little is it known that the Corps of Engineers, among its many responsibilities, had jurisdiction over Yellowstone Park. {time} 1130 The Corps managed Yellowstone for 30 years. And Lieutenant Dan Kingman of the Corps, later to become chief of engineers, wrote: The plan of development which I have submitted is given upon the supposition and in the earnest hope that it will be preserved as nearly as may be as the hand of nature left it, a source of pleasure to all who visit and a source of wealth to no one. A fewer years later, John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, said: The best service in forest protection, almost the only efficient service, is that rendered by the military. For many years, they have guarded the great Yellowstone Park, and now they are guarding Yosemite. They found it a desert as far as underbrush, grass and flowers are concerned. But, in 2 years, the skin of the mountains is healthy again, blessings on Uncle Sam's soldiers, as they have done the job well, and every pine tree is waving its arms for joy. Another great American said: ``The military engineers are taking upon their shoulders the job of making the Mississippi River over again, a job transcended in size only by the original job of creating it.'' That was Mark Twain. Those two statements together pay tribute to what the Corps of Engineers has done so admirably and the great legacy they have left for all Americans protected in floods, enhanced with river navigation programs, and protecting the great resource of the Great Lakes, one fifth of all the fresh water on the face of the Earth. And that is the spirit in which we normally present the Water Resources Development Act, projects throughout our Nation to promote control of floods, to enhance river navigation, to protect our shores, to protect and restore the environment, to enhance navigation. And that is mostly what this bill before us does today, with one flaw. It fails to give the capital of the world's sixth largest economy, the City of Sacramento, the flood protection it needs and deserves. This deficiency comes from a dispute between two parts of the State of California that has resulted in flood control at Sacramento being held hostage for almost a decade. The amendment made in order by the self-executing rule, and which is now adopted because the rule has been adopted, gives the City of Sacramento only 117 years of flood protection, and that is the estimate of the Corps of Engineers in their 1997 analysis. That is significantly less than the protection given cities of comparable size, the nearly 200 to 500 years protection for Santa Ana, Tacoma, New Orleans, St. Louis, Dallas, Kansas City, Omaha. Surely Sacramento deserves as much flood protection as those cities. Today some 400,000 residents in Sacramento face an unacceptable risk of flood; 160,000 residential structures are in the flood plain in the capital city, 5,000 businesses, 1,200 government facilities, with an estimated value of $37 billion. The 55,000-acre flood plain includes seven of the nine major hospitals in the region and 130 schools. Potential losses from flood in the City of Sacramento range from $7 billion to $16 billion depending on the size of the flood. Even at the lower end of the scale, flood losses in Sacramento would be comparable to the losses experienced in the Northridge earthquake a few years ago, to date the single largest disaster in U.S. history. Now, I do not say these words and make those comments in the abstract. I have traveled several times to Sacramento. I have bicycled along the flood protection walls of the American River. I have traveled to Folsom Dam and further up river to the site once planned and once development begun on the Auburn Dam proposal by the Bureau of Reclamation. I understand what is at stake here. Linking flood protection for Sacramento and reallocation of water through a new dam at Auburn has been in the works for many, many years. But the Bureau of Reclamation already stubbed its toe to the tune of $250 million developing the base for a dam right on the fault line of a major earthquake region in the upper reaches of the American River. The Auburn Dam has already been rejected by the House in 1992 in a vote of 273-140. And it was rejected in 1996 in our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in a vote of 28 ayes, 35 nays. There is no reason to believe the vote would be any different today. So why could we not have just simply accommodated whatever water resource needs there may be for the upper reaches of the American River, and at the same time provide Sacramento its requested 200-year flood protection, and have done it in this bill? I had an amendment in committee to do that. I offered the amendment in committee to make the adjustments to Folsom, to widen the outlets so the gates can discharge more water, raise the level of the dam to allow more water to be discharged in advance of midwinter melt from the Sierra Nevada Mountains, where they get as much as 30 feet of snow and often have midwinter rains that cause not only runoff but melt, to accommodate that [[Page 7847]] runoff, accommodate in a larger basin and protect Sacramento and its residents and facilities, and also improve the levees at Sacramento to accommodate that increased runoff. The amendment was defeated on a straight party-line vote. And now we come to the floor with this legislation that does not do what Sacramento truly deserves and, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) said, does not really provide the water resources needs of the upper reaches of the American River Valley area. There were several arguments made about the amendment that I offered. One was that the levee strengthening proposed for Sacramento in my amendment would create unacceptable risks to areas downstream. But that objection fails on closer scrutiny. The Army Corps of Engineers analyzed that argument and rejected it. The Corps specifically stated this: ``Additional protection can be provided without adversely affecting the reaches below the mouth of the American River without project conditions.'' The Corps' plan includes several different structural and operational modifications to ensure that no flood threat is transferred to downstream interests. In addition, I talked with the City of Sacramento. They have committed to spend $100 million to mitigate any possible further adverse effects downstream. Finally, my amendment specifically required that measures to increase the capacity of the levees be undertaken only after downstream mitigation features will have been constructed. So absent any objective, substantive reason for opposition to the Sacramento amendment, I am left only to surmise that the real basis for opposition was the desire by upstream interests to withhold flood protection from Sacramento in hope that the Auburn Dam at some future time could be revived or that some alternative, far more expensive yet unstudied water distribution plan be enacted. That is not the way to conduct the water resources business of the country. And while I am not prepared to accept this legislation as it is to go forward with the bill on the floor, the bill before us, I will not relent in my purpose of providing for Sacramento the protection that it rightly deserves and to address in a rational and responsible manner the water resources requirements upstream of Sacramento in an appropriate time frame. We should not hold Sacramento hostage. We will have to come back at another time to address this issue. And I am confident that at that future time we will treat the lives and the property of the residents of Sacramento in an appropriate and responsible manner, as this committee has always done, absent these extraneous considerations. Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. BOEHLERT. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and the endless flow of visitors from Sacramento can attest, this Chair of this subcommittee is determined to work cooperatively to provide the maximum level of protection for Sacramento. That is a commitment. Secondly, let me point out, we are nearly doubling the level of protection in this bill, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) himself has indicated, from 77 to 137 years, and we are studying the feasibility and practicability and affordability of additional measures. So we will continue to work together to protect Sacramento. Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I look forward to that happy outcome. Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger). Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster, Speaker Hastert, and the other members of the leadership for their invaluable assistance in reaching a final compromise for our California area flood control. The compromise that is included in this bill is a win for those of us who have sought sincere dialogue and consensus in California flood control issues. More importantly, however, this legislation is also a partial win for northern California. I can testify from personal experience that California has a very real need for increased flood protection. For example, just two years ago the district I represent in norhtern California suffered a horrendous tragedy as a result of an inadequate flood control system. On January 2nd, 1997, a levee in my district near the community of Arboga suddenly broke, and as a result, three people drowned. This tragedy could have been avoided if flood control officials had been allowed to complete repairs on the levee when the problem was first acknowledged six years earlier. In 1955, almost directly across the river from the Arboga break, another levee broke and this time flooded Yuba City. However, instead of three people losing their lives 37 people died. Mr. Speaker and members, we have a natural phenomenon in California where heavy snowfall in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, followed by warm rains results in an overwhelming amount of water that flows into our Sacramento River Valley. There is no levee system in the world that can handle this kind of extreme flows. Until we build a flood control structure that can hold back this overwhelming flow of water and release it in a controlled manner, our levees are set up to fail. As California's first State Engineer, William Hall, said, ``There are two types of levees, those that have failed and those that will.'' This legislation provides $26.6 million to complete flood control repairs along the Yuba River basin, but regrettably, it won't be enough. I hope and pray that it will not take another great tragedy before we are allowed to proceed with the development of a structure that can hold back these waters. Next time, it may not be just three or even 37 people who drown, but rather, if a levee breaks in Sacramento or in my Marysville and Yuba City area, we could be talking about thousands of people drowned by this type of flooding. I do, however, want to commend my colleagues, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Pombo and Mr. Ose for their hard work in reaching this historic compromise for further flood protection in our northern California area in a responsible manner. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation and vote in favor of the 1999 Water Resources Development Act. Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish to emphasize, Madam Chairman, that with the passage of this legislation today, it will represent the 21st piece of legislation that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House has brought to the floor and has seen passed. In addition, thus far, six of our bills of the 21 pieces of legislation that have come to the floor have been signed into law, representing 25 percent of the public laws which have been signed into law thus far this year. So the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is moving vigorously to bring important legislation to the floor. And I certainly want to compliment, on a bipartisan basis, the leadership on the other side of the aisle as well as my colleagues on our committee who have made this possible. I want to particularly, in addition, recognize Dr. Joe Westphal, the Assistant Secretary of the Army, for the valuable steps that he set in motion last fall so that we could proceed; the water experts in the Corps of Engineers, especially Mr. Bob Childs in the Corps' Sacramento office, who has certainly made a major contribution; and to Mr. Dave Mendelsohn and Curt Haensel in our Legislative Counsel's Office for their expertise, patience, and undying efforts. Jack Schenendorf, our chief of staff, is without fear, in my judgment. There never has been a more competent chief of staff in the history of the Congress that I am aware of, in my judgment. I want to thank our water staff for the excellent work which they have done: Ben Grumbles, Jeff More, Carrie Jelsma on the Republican staff, Ken Kopocis, and Art Chan on the Democratic staff. I would also like to thank John Anderson, the detailee of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure from the Corps of Engineers, for his fine work. But the one person who needs to really be singled out for his superb work on the Sacramento River and American River issues, that person is Mike Strachn. His outstanding knowledge of water resource programs and his high standard of professionalism were of tremendous benefit to all Members of the House as we tried to work out these difficult issues. His efforts were in the highest tradition of the House and certainly has set an example for all staffs. [[Page 7848]] {time} 1145 I want to compliment all the individuals on both sides of the aisle, both Members and staff, as well as the administration, who were involved in bringing us to this point today to be able to bring this very important national bipartisan legislation to the floor. I urge its passage. Mrs. FOWLER. Madam Chairman, today, I rise in strong support of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. This bill authorizes vital projects for our nation's coast line and the shoreline of our rivers and tributaries, for dredging in our nation's harbors, and for flood control throughout our States. My district includes over 100 miles of coastline, several ports and navigation channels. It is easy to understand how important this bill is to my district. The corps projects authorized in this bill will protect and create avenues of commerce and transportation. Improvements to our harbors are necessary to open up access to our ports and enhance international trade. It is imperative to continue projects that preserve property and protect our beaches. Shore protection projects are particularly important to Florida and I applaud the committee's work in understanding the need for preserving our beaches--something that the administration has failed to do. This bill protects and maintains our vast and crucial water resources not just in my district but, across the country. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Mr. EVERETT. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Water Resources Development Act (H.R. 1480). This long overdue legislation authorizes important civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers to address critical water resource and management issues facing the Nation. This $4.2 billion national investment in flood control, navigation, and water quality initiatives goes a long way in meeting the water resource needs in virtually every part of the country. In Alabama, we are blessed with many river systems that contribute significant environmental, commercial, and recreational benefits to the State and southeastern region. The Alabama/Coosa/Tallapoosa and the Appalachicola/Chattahoochee/Flint river systems both flow through my district and are important navigable waterways that, in addition to enhancing the environment, help drive the economy. This legislation continues to provide the Corps of Engineers with the necessary funds to continue the operation and maintenance of these systems. Of particular note in my own district in southeast Alabama, flooding has been a problem. In the past decade, Coffee and Geneva counties have been subjected to three major floods that forced the evacuation of the towns of Elba and Geneva. The flooding resulted from heavy tropical storms and hurricanes, which are seasonal occurrences, and caused these old and outdated levees to fail. I am pleased that this legislation includes funds to rebuild both of these two levees to modern standards. Section 520 authorizes $12.9 million to repair and rehabilitate the Elba levee and section 521 authorizes $16.6 million to repair and rehabilitate the Geneva levee. It's important that we move this overdue authorization forward, so I encourage the adoption of this measure in order to go to conference with the Senate to arrive at a final reauthorization bill for these water resource projects. Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I just wanted to take this opportunity to commend and thank the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and its Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, for the good work they have done in assembling this year's version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). As reported, H.R. 1480 authorizes numerous flood control, navigational improvement, beach restoration and ecosystem enhancement projects that will be of significant benefit to millions of Americans. Let me cite one example with which I am particularly familiar. Thirteen years ago, the Des Plaines River, which flows through my congressional district in northeastern Illinois, went on a rampage, flooding over 10,000 homes and businesses, forcing 15,000 people to flee to drier ground, and causing at least $35 million in damages. A year later, there was another major flood along the Des Plaines and several times since the waters of that river have spilled over their banks. Just this past week, in fact, residents in the area were reminded of the threat posed by the Des Plaines, when a pair of rainstorms caused the river to crest 1.4 feet above flood stage in Gurnee, IL. Much to my relief, and not just to mine alone, sections 101 and 408 of H.R. 1480 address this flood threat by authorizing (subject to the timely completion of the final Corps of Engineers report) the construction of the first phase of the Des Plaines River Flood Control Project and an expanded study of the options for Phase II. Assuming their wording remains unchanged and H.R. 1480 is enacted into law, those provisions will allow the Corps of Engineers to proceed expeditiously with work on three floodwater storage areas, the construction of a pair of levees, the raising of an existing dam and development of additional flood control alternatives. As a result, a 25-percent reduction in Des Plaines River flood damages can be expected when the authorized construction work is complete, the benefits of which are anticipated to exceed the costs by a ratio of 1.7 to 1. Furthermore, the groundwork will have been laid for the implementation of additional flood prevention and/or reduction measures. In short, these efforts to mitigate, if not eliminate, flood damages along the Des Plaines are a win-win proposition. Thousands of people in the northern Chicago suburbs will profit because they will not suffer the same, or as severe, disruptions as they have in the past and millions of taxpayers will benefit because they are less likely to be asked to repair the damages that future flooding episodes would otherwise cause. Moreover, the same can be said for a number of the other projects in the bill, one reason being that, much to its credit, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers takes very seriously its obligation to determine that water-resource projects under its jurisdiction have a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio. Also, it should be noted that H.R. 1480 contains a number of provisions aimed at making future flood control and water resource projects as environmentally friendly as possible. To sum up, what we have before us today is a long-awaited bill which authorizes projects that promise substantial and cost-effective returns on the financial investment being made in them. With that thought very much in mind, let me reiterate my thanks to our Transportation and Infrastructure colleagues for bringing this WRDA99 bill before us today and let me urge my colleagues in the House to give H.R. 1480 their full support. It deserves no less. Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, and Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert and Ranking Member Robert Borski for their hard work and tireless effort to pass this long overdue and much needed legislation. I would also like to thank ranking member and friend Jim Oberstar for his special effort in providing the authorization needed to implement an important educational tool for the residents of Minnesota, the Mississippi Place. The Mississippi Place would bring together the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA to offer the nation an opportunity to develop a more complete understanding of the unique resource which the Upper Mississippi River System represents. Located on the banks of the Mississippi River in downtown St. Paul, Mississippi Place will provide these Federal entities an opportunity to partner with State, local, and educational institutions in providing the public with real time learning opportunities on important issues affecting the river. In addition, the Corps and the USGS will operate Mississippi River monitoring stations at Mississippi Place for practical research purposes while still being accessible to the public. Once again, I would like to thank my colleagues for their efforts in finally crafting this bipartisan legislation. Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I have some serious concerns with the potential environmental and economic ramifications of the project authorized to deepen the Delaware River ship channel from 40 to 45 feet. I had prepared a number of amendments to address some of these concerns, but I have agreed to withhold them with the assurance from the chairman that we will address these concerns by working together as the process moves forward. It is essential that as this project moves forward, it does so in an environmentally and economically sound manner. First, let met state that I am concerned with the environmental consequences that the project may have on the State of Delaware. I have heard from many of my constituents and there remains many unanswered questions that the Army Corps of Engineers has yet to address to Delaware's satisfaction. I am concerned with the authority clarified in this bill to allow the local sponsor--the Delaware River Port Authority--to operate a revenue generating dredge spoil disposal operation that is designed to import dredge [[Page 7849]] spoils--that could be contaminated--and dump them at sites along the Delaware River. The Army Corps of Engineers requires a permit for this disposal with checks and balances to prevent environmentally unsafe disposal of the dredge spoils. Even so, it would be a great comfort to me to know that the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) has approved the details because there are many different ways to dispose of dredge spoils, each with a different degree of environmental protection. The method chosen needs to meet Delaware's standards because Delawareans living near these sites are the most at risk. Furthermore, I want to make absolutely certain that the Coastal Zone Management consistency provisions apply to Federal activities relating to the Delaware River channel deepening project. DNREC has given its approval conditioned upon a list of requirements being met, however this conditional approval is not final approval as some have suggested in public meetings. The Army Corps of Engineers has given me assurances that they are fully aware they must meet the growing list of requirements before consistency approval from Delaware is effective. Third, while this project has been authorized since 1992, last week, just prior to committee consideration of this bill, section 347 was included in this bill to relocate a portion of the channel along the Camden area. It is my understanding that this portion has been relocated to deeper water that will not require any dredging or disruption of the existing soils. In fact, this shift in the channel will make the project less expensive for the taxpayer because the Army Corps of Engineers will not have to dredge there. This is an encouraging development, but there should be more public notice for stakeholders and efforts made to inform the congressional delegations involved about changes to the project as originally authorized. Madam Chairman, I also have concerns about the economic risks of this project to the American taxpayer. According to the Army Corps of Engineers benefit-cost analysis, over 80 percent of the benefits have been attributed to six oil facilities along the river channel. However, none of the benefitting oil companies have directly indicated outright support for the project. Although they are not legally required to commit to spending their own capital dollars to deepen their own berths to take advantage of a deeper channel, it seems prudent for Congress or the Army Corps of Engineers to seek assurances that they will make those expenditures before $300 million in taxpayer funds are committed to building the channel. In light of these financial concerns, it seems particularly important that Congress reinforce the intent of Congress in 1992 when the project was first authorized. Report 102-842 accompanying the Water Resource Development Act of 1992 states on page 12: Committee comments.--The Committee believes that the non- Federal cost of the channel deepening should be funded by water transportation users, not surface transportation users. The Committee urges the Delaware River Port Authority to make every effort to ensure that the non-Federal cost of the project is borne by water transportation users. There has been some discussion of bridge toll receipts being raised to help fund the non-Federal cost--$100 million. Although report language is not binding, raising bridge tolls would appear to violate the committee's intent. Before the Delaware River Port Authority raises bridge tolls, at a minimum it should demonstrate its efforts to raise the funds from water transportation users. We must make sure that those projects Congress chooses to finance give Americans a sufficient return both on their tax dollar investment and their investment of natural resources. I look forward to continuing to address these fiscal and environmental concerns. Mr. MOORE. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the managers' amendment to H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, and in support of the underlying legislation. I want to take this opportunity to thank publicly House Transportation Infrastructure Chairman Bud Shuster of Pennsylvania and ranking Democrat Jim Oberstar of Minnesota for their assistance in adding to the managers' amendment language I requested authorizing a badly needed flood control project for Turkey Creek Basin in Kansas City, MO, and Kansas City, KS. This language also is included in S. 507, the Senate companion measure to H.R. 1480, which passed the other body by voice vote on April 19. This project is of significant importance to my congressional district. Turkey Creek flows from its urbanized drainage basis in Johnson County, KS, and into Kansas City, MO, and the Kansas River. Severe flooding has occurred along the basin, most recently in 1993 and again in 1998. An improvement plan has been prepared in partnership with the U.S. Corps of Engineers. This project will provide vitally needed protection for commercial and industrial areas in both cities. I hope that Congress also will approve later this year an appropriation I am seeking to complete design work on this project. Once again, Madam Chairman, I commend the bipartisan leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for bringing this important legislation to the House floor and my constituents and I very much appreciate their timely responsiveness to this request. Mr. RILEY. Madam Chairman, I had planned to offer an amendment today that would have expressed the Sense of Congress that any water agreement entered into between the States of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida should comply with existing Federal environmental water quality protection laws as they are presently written. At the Committee's request, I have decided not to offer my amendment, with the understanding that Chairman Shuster has pledged to work with me to identify an appropriate legislative vehicle for my proposal. I would like to clarify that my amendment would not have altered or expanded the Clean Water Act, it simply urged the States to ensure that water quality should be considered within the scope of all water quantity negotiations as consistent with current Federal law. We need to emphasize that the citizens of these States deserve to have not only the proper quantity of water they need, but also the highest quality of water. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. I represent a district in South Florida with over 90 miles of coastline, and 100 miles of Intracoastal Waterway, so water projects are very important to my constituents. I commend Chairmen Shuster, Boehlert, and all of the members of the Water Resources Subcommittee for their perseverance in getting this bill to the floor. One issue of much concern to my constituents is the continued participation of the federal government to renourish beaches. Despite the Administration's decision to abandon coastal communities across the country, for three years the Committee has continued to ensure adequate funding levels for desperately needed projects. When the Committee finally decided to adjust the cost share formula for new construction projects, I am grateful they provided for a phased-in approach over three years. This will give local sponsors the chance to prepare for a reduced federal share. I am optimistic that the change will provide the needed motivation to the Clinton Administration to send a realistic budget to the Congress next year, with sensible funding levels for shore protection. On a related topic, I am most grateful to the Committee for including a provision in H.R. 1480 that will allow Broward County, Florida to be reimbursed for the federal portion of their beach renourishment project in two phases. Although this language was not included in the Senate version, I hope the language will be included in the final conference report. Finally, the Committee is also to be commended for their willingness to assist the Florida congressional delegation on the Everglades restoration effort. Three provisions in the bill relating to land acquisition and the extension of critical projects authority will ensure the program moves forward unimpeded. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. This Member would like to begin by commending the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking member of the Transportation Committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], the Chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking member of the Subcommittee, for their extraordinary work in developing this bill and bringing it to the floor. This Member appreciates their diligence, persistence, and hard work. This important legislation includes numerous projects designed to improve flood control, navigation, and shore protection. It also promotes environmental restoration and protection efforts across the nation. In particular, this Member is pleased that the bill includes a provision he promoted which helps to ensure that the Missouri River Mitigation Project can be implemented as envisioned. In 1986, Congress authorized over [[Page 7850]] $50 million (more than $79 million in today's dollars if adjusted for inflation) to fund the Missouri River Mitigation Project to restore fish and wildlife habitat that were lost due to the construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan plan. At that time the Corps did not choose to include funding requests for implementing that Act in their budgeting process. That is why this Member, along with other Members who represent the four states bordering the channelized Missouri River (Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri), have worked to provide funding to implement the Missouri River Mitigation Project which has just begun to become a reality during the last few years. This project is specifically needed to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due to the Federally sponsored channelization and stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan era. The islands, wetlands, and flat floodplains that are needed to support the wildlife and waterfowl that once lived along the river are dramatically reduced. And estimated 475,000 acres of habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri and Kansas have been lost because of Federal action in creating the flood control projects and channelization of the Missouri River. Today's fishery resources are estimated to be only one-fifth of those which existed in pre-development days. The success of the project has resulted in a concern related to the original study that outlined habitat needs. Under this study, acreage goals for each state were listed and these goals are generally considered to be an acreage limitation for each state. Nebraska and Kansas have already reached their acreage limits and Missouri is fast approaching its ceiling. Before long, Iowa will also reach its acreage limit. To correct this problem, H.R. 1480 authorizes an increase in mitigation lands authorized to the four states to 25% of the lands lost, or 118,650 acres. In addition, the Corps of Engineers--in conjunction with the four states--is directed to study the amount of funds that would need to be authorized to achieve that acreage goal. This Member is also pleased that H.R. 1480 also includes a provision which provides for the completion of the Wood River Flood Control Project. When completed, this important project in Nebraska's Third Congressional District will provide protection for an estimated 1,755 home and business structures in southern Grand Island, Nebraska. It is also expected to protect more than 5,000 acres of irrigated farmland and 7,000 to 8,000 acres of grassland. Madam Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.S. 1480, the ``Water Resources Development Act.'' The bill authorizes $4.2 billion for projects and programs of the Army Corps of Engineers civil works program. It responds to pressing water infrastructure priorities, policy initiatives to update existing water resources programs,and opportunities to restore, protect, and enhance the aquatic environment. Specifically, H.R. 1480 authorizes 95 new water resources projects, modifies 66 existing authorized projects, and authorizes the Corps. to conduct 26 studies to address a variety of water resources problems and opportunities. The bill, Madam Chairman, is extremely important to my district, especially to the Chino Dairy Preserve in California. The bill calls upon the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the heads of other Federal agencies, to provide technical assistance to State and local agencies in the study, design, and implementation of measures for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration and protection in the Santa Ana River Watershed, with particular emphasis on structural and nonstructural measures in the vicinity of the Chino Dairy Preserve. H.R. 1480 also calls upon the Secretary to conduct a feasibility study to determine the most cost-effective plan for flood damage reduction an environmental restoration and protection in the vicinity of the Chino Dairy Preserve, Santa Ana River Watershed, Orange County, and San Bernardino County, California. I wish to extend my deep appreciation for the leadership shown by Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Borski in drafting this important piece of legislation. I ask my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1480. Mr. WELLER. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act. This important legislation includes a provision that will advance a flood control project important to thousands of my constituents and many residents of Chicago's South Suburbs. H.R. 1480 will advance the construction of the Thornton Reservoir, which is located in my Congressional District, through an innovative approach allowing the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago to work with the Natural Resources Conservation Service to build a transitional reservoir for Thorn Creek. Because of this project, my constituents in the South Suburbs of Chicago will see the much needed benefits of flood control more than a decade earlier than previously anticipated by the Army Corps of Engineers. The innovative approach included in H.R. 1480 will allow the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Chicago to secure credit for the advance work which is critical to the development of the permanent Thornton Reservoir. The approach couples early protection with local/ federal partnering resulting in significant benefits to area communities. Frequent flooding has been a constant problem in the Chicago area. This has consistently been the cause of disruptions in major expressways, as well as rainwater and raw sewage back up into the basements of over 500,000 homes. The solution comes from the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP) through an intricate system of underground tunnels, pumping stations and storage reservoirs used to control this flooding and combined sewage pollution in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. The Thornton Reservoir is a crucial component of the TARP project. Once completed, the Thornton Reservoir will provide 5 billion gallons of floodwater storage. The reservoir will have a service area of 91 square miles and will provide flood relief to 131,000 dwellings in 18 communities. The continuation of the TARP project and the Thornton Reservoir is important to 500,000 families in Chicago's South Suburbs. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1480. Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Madam Chairman, I'm excited to rise in strong support for the Water Resources Development Act today. Three words can sum up my thoughts--finally, finally, finally! This Water Resources bill contains a reauthorization for the Wood River/Warm Slough flood control project in Grand Island, Nebraska. The residents of Grand Island and I have been working on reauthorization and waiting for an opportunity to move it since 1997. Their patience has been tested, but I'm pleased I'm going to be able to report good news today. Construction of the Wood River project was originally authorized in the 1996 Water Resources Development Act. Soon after the initial authorization, the Army Corps of Engineers had to revise its cost estimates for the project. The revision increased the cost by more than 20 percent, thus requiring congressional review and reauthorization. The project eventually will provide flood protection for more than 1,700 structures in Grand Island and protect 5,000 acres of irrigated cropland. The project also will enhance wildlife habitat for many species, including the endangered Whooping Crane, and provide opportunities for wetlands development. This is a good project that deserves our support. I wish to extend my sincere appreciation to the Transportation Committee for expeditiously moving this bill this spring. And thank you very, very much for your work on behalf of the residents of Grand Island, Nebraska. Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I rise today as a co-chair of the upper Mississippi River congressional task force, in support of the upper Mississippi environmental management program which is part of WRDA 99. The EMP is designed to evaluate, restore and enhance river and wetland habitat along a 1200 mile stretch of the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. It is a cooperative effort among the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Service, the Army Corps of Engineers and the 5 upper Mississippi River basin States. The EMP has always had bipartisan support in Congress and the five midwestern States. I, along with Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Gutknecht and Mr. Leach co-chair the 16 member upper Mississippi River congressional task force, which strongly supports expansion of the EMP. WRDA 99 authorizes funding of $33.17 million each year for EMP. EMP was established in 1986 by my predecessor Steve Gunderson. At the time EMP was only authorized for 15 years. This WRDA bill gives EMP a permanent authorization. In the past EMP projects faced funding challenges due to the uncertain future of the program. With adequate funding and permanent authorization the EMP will be able to continue it's outstanding work protecting this great natural resource. The EMP is vital to the environmental and economic well being of the Mississippi River, and it enjoys strong bipartisan support throughout the upper Mississippi region. Navigation along the upper Mississippi River supports 400,000 full and part-time jobs, which [[Page 7851]] produces over $4 billion in individual income. Recreation use totals 12 million visitors each year and 1.2 billion in direct and indirect expenditures annually. Communities along the river from St. Paul, Minnesota to St. Louis, Missouri are striving to enhance the river. The EMP helps to rehabilitate the natural areas up and down the river. I urge the Members to support WRDA and the Environmental Management Program, and I thank the chairman for the time. Mr. HILLEARY. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for his cooperation and assistance in addressing an important concern in my district. I appreciate that the chairman's manager's amendment includes language to allow the Corps of Engineers to conduct a feasibility study on improvements to a regional water supply for Cumberland County, Tennessee. Water Supply has become a critical concern on the Cumberland Plateau. Recent growth and development throughout this region has placed extreme pressure on the six county water utility districts in Cumberland County and the City of Crossville to expand water supplies. The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation worked with the water utility districts and local officials within Cumberland County to form a regional water planning partnership to work together to address their mutual problem. By working together in this partnership, they will be able to resolve water issues, avoid and reduce impacts to natural streams and save time and taxpayers' money. At the request of local and state officials, the Army Corps of Engineers conducted a regional water supply study. This Preliminary Engineering Report was completed earlier this year and provides Cumberland County residents with innovative alternatives for a water supply through the year 2050. This ``state of the art'' model can be used as a process for other local governments to effectively plan the use of their region's water resources. The manager's amendment will help this rapidly growing county by allowing them to continue into the next phase of the process in solving their long-term water supply needs. Again, I want to thank Chairman Shuster for his assistance and urge all my colleagues to support his amendment and the entire bill. Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired. Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed in part 1 of House Report 106-120, is considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and is considered read. The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, is as follows: H.R. 1480 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 1999''. (b) Table of Contents.-- Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 2. Secretary defined. TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS Sec. 101. Project authorizations. Sec. 102. Small flood control projects. Sec. 103. Small bank stabilization projects. Sec. 104. Small navigation projects. Sec. 105. Small projects for improvement of the environment. Sec. 106. Small aquatic ecosystem restoration projects. TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 201. Small flood control authority. Sec. 202. Use of non-Federal funds for compiling and disseminating information on floods and flood damages. Sec. 203. Contributions by States and political subdivisions. Sec. 204. Sediment decontamination technology. Sec. 205. Control of aquatic plants. Sec. 206. Use of continuing contracts required for construction of certain projects. Sec. 207. Support of Army civil works program. Sec. 208. Water resources development studies for the Pacific region. Sec. 209. Everglades and south Florida ecosystem restoration. Sec. 210. Beneficial uses of dredged material. Sec. 211. Harbor cost sharing. Sec. 212. Aquatic ecosystem restoration. Sec. 213. Watershed management, restoration, and development. Sec. 214. Flood mitigation and riverine restoration pilot program. Sec. 215. Shoreline management program. Sec. 216. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse. Sec. 217. Shore damage mitigation. Sec. 218. Shore protection. Sec. 219. Flood prevention coordination. Sec. 220. Annual passes for recreation. Sec. 221. Cooperative agreements for environmental and recreational measures. Sec. 222. Nonstructural flood control projects. Sec. 223. Lakes program. Sec. 224. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests. Sec. 225. Enhancement of fish and wildlife resources. Sec. 226. Sense of Congress; requirement regarding notice. Sec. 227. Periodic beach nourishment. Sec. 228. Environmental dredging. TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS Sec. 301. Missouri River Levee System. Sec. 302. Ouzinkie Harbor, Alaska. Sec. 303. Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas. Sec. 304. Ten- and Fifteen-Mile Bayous, Arkansas. Sec. 305. Loggy Bayou, Red River below Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. Sec. 306. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California. Sec. 307. San Lorenzo River, California. Sec. 308. Terminus Dam, Kaweah River, California. Sec. 309. Delaware River mainstem and channel deepening, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Sec. 310. Potomac River, Washington, District of Columbia. Sec. 311. Brevard County, Florida. Sec. 312. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida. Sec. 313. Fort Pierce, Florida. Sec. 314. Nassau County, Florida. Sec. 315. Miami Harbor Channel, Florida. Sec. 316. Lake Michigan, Illinois. Sec. 317. Springfield, Illinois. Sec. 318. Little Calumet River, Indiana. Sec. 319. Ogden Dunes, Indiana. Sec. 320. Saint Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana. Sec. 321. White River, Indiana. Sec. 322. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Sec. 323. Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana. Sec. 324. Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee, Louisiana. Sec. 325. Twelve-mile Bayou, Caddo Parish, Louisiana. Sec. 326. West Bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), Louisiana. Sec. 327. Tolchester Channel, Baltimore Harbor and channels, Chesapeake Bay, Kent County, Maryland. Sec. 328. Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan. Sec. 329. Jackson County, Mississippi. Sec. 330. Tunica Lake, Mississippi. Sec. 331. Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri. Sec. 332. Meramec River Basin, Valley Park Levee, Missouri. Sec. 333. Missouri River mitigation project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska. Sec. 334. Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska. Sec. 335. Absecon Island, New Jersey. Sec. 336. New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey, New Jersey Sec. 337. Passaic River, New Jersey. Sec. 338. Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey. Sec. 339. Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey. Sec. 340. New York City watershed. Sec. 341. New York State Canal System. Sec. 342. Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, New york. Sec. 343. Broken Bow Lake, Red River Basin, Oklahoma. Sec. 344. Willamette River temperature control, Mckenzie Subbasin, Oregon. Sec. 345. Aylesworth Creek Reservoir, Pennsylvania. Sec. 346. Curwensville Lake, Pennsylvania. Sec. 347. Delaware River, Pennsylvania and Delaware. Sec. 348. Mussers Dam, Pennsylvania. Sec. 349. Nine-Mile Run, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Sec. 350. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania. Sec. 351. South Central Pennsylvania. Sec. 352. Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. Sec. 353. Bowie County Levee, Texas. Sec. 354. Clear Creek, Texas. Sec. 355. Cypress Creek, Texas. Sec. 356. Dallas Floodway Extension, Dallas, Texas. Sec. 357. Upper Jordan River, Utah. Sec. 358. Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia. Sec. 359. Bluestone Lake, Ohio River Basin, West Virginia. Sec. 360. Greenbrier Basin, West Virginia. Sec. 361. Moorefield, West Virginia. Sec. 362. West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control. Sec. 363. Project reauthorizations. Sec. 364. Project deauthorizations. Sec. 365. American and Sacramento Rivers, California. Sec. 366. Martin, Kentucky. TITLE IV--STUDIES Sec. 401. Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers levees and streambanks protection. Sec. 402. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan. Sec. 403. El Dorado, Union County, Arkansas. Sec. 404. Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, California. Sec. 405. Whitewater River Basin, California. [[Page 7852]] Sec. 406. Little Econlackhatchee River Basin, Florida. Sec. 407. Port Everglades Inlet, Florida. Sec. 408. Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois and Wisconsin. Sec. 409. Cameron Parish west of Calcasieu River, Louisiana. Sec. 410. Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana. Sec. 411. Lake Pontchartrain seawall, Louisiana. Sec. 412. Westport, Massachusetts. Sec. 413. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Sec. 414. Cayuga Creek, New York. Sec. 415. Arcola Creek Watershed, Madison, Ohio. Sec. 416. Western Lake Erie Basin, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. Sec. 417. Schuylkill River, Norristown, Pennsylvania. Sec. 418. Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina. Sec. 419. Day County, South Dakota. Sec. 420. Corpus Christi, Texas. Sec. 421. Mitchell's Cut Channel (Caney Fork Cut), Texas. Sec. 422. Mouth of Colorado River, Texas. Sec. 423. Kanawha River, Fayette County, West Virginia. Sec. 424. West Virginia ports. Sec. 425. Great Lakes region comprehensive study. Sec. 426. Nutrient loading resulting from dredged material disposal. Sec. 427. Santee Delta focus area, South Carolina. TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Sec. 501. Corps assumption of NRCS projects. Sec. 502. Construction assistance. Sec. 503. Contaminated sediment dredging technology. Sec. 504. Dam safety. Sec. 505. Great Lakes remedial action plans. Sec. 506. Sea Lamprey control measures in the Great Lakes. Sec. 507. Maintenance of navigation channels. Sec. 508. Measurement of Lake Michigan diversions. Sec. 509. Upper Mississippi River environmental management program. Sec. 510. Atlantic Coast of New York monitoring. Sec. 511. Water control management. Sec. 512. Beneficial use of dredged material. Sec. 513. Design and construction assistance. Sec. 514. Lower Missouri River aquatic restoration projects. Sec. 515. Aquatic resources restoration in the Northwest. Sec. 516. Innovative technologies for watershed restoration. Sec. 517. Environmental restoration. Sec. 518. Expedited consideration of certain projects. Sec. 519. Dog River, Alabama. Sec. 520. Elba, Alabama. Sec. 521. Geneva, Alabama. Sec. 522. Navajo Reservation, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Sec. 523. Augusta and Devalls Bluff, Arkansas. Sec. 524. Beaver Lake, Arkansas. Sec. 525. Beaver Lake trout production facility, Arkansas. Sec. 526. Chino Dairy Preserve, California. Sec. 527. Novato, California. Sec. 528. Orange and San Diego Counties, California. Sec. 529. Salton Sea, California. Sec. 530. Santa Cruz Harbor, California. Sec. 531. Point Beach, Milford, Connecticut. Sec. 532. Lower St. Johns River Basin, Florida. Sec. 533. Shoreline protection and environmental restoration, Lake Allatoona, Georgia. Sec. 534. Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam, Coosa River, Rome, Georgia. Sec. 535. Comprehensive flood impact response modeling system, Coralville Reservoir and Iowa River Watershed, Iowa. Sec. 536. Additional construction assistance in Illinois. Sec. 537. Kanopolis Lake, Kansas. Sec. 538. Southern and Eastern Kentucky. Sec. 539. Southeast Louisiana. Sec. 540. Snug Harbor, Maryland. Sec. 541. Welch Point, Elk River, Cecil County, and Chesapeake City, Maryland. Sec. 542. West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland. Sec. 543. Restoration projects for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Sec. 544. Cape Cod Canal Railroad Bridge, Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. Sec. 545. St. Louis, Missouri. Sec. 546. Beaver Branch of Big Timber Creek, New Jersey. Sec. 547. Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River water levels, New York. Sec. 548. New York-New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey. Sec. 549. Sea Gate Reach, Coney Island, New York, New York. Sec. 550. Woodlawn, New York. Sec. 551. Floodplain mapping, New York. Sec. 552. White Oak River, North Carolina. Sec. 553. Toussaint River, Carroll Township, Ottawa County, Ohio. Sec. 554. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma. Sec. 555. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma, water conveyance facilities. Sec. 556. Skinner Butte Park, Eugene, Oregon. Sec. 557. Willamette River basin, Oregon. Sec. 558. Bradford and Sullivan Counties, Pennsylvania. Sec. 559. Erie Harbor, Pennsylvania. Sec. 560. Point Marion Lock And Dam, Pennsylvania. Sec. 561. Seven Points' Harbor, Pennsylvania. Sec. 562. Southeastern Pennsylvania. Sec. 563. Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna watershed restoration initiative. Sec. 564. Aguadilla Harbor, Puerto Rico. Sec. 565. Oahe Dam to Lake Sharpe, South Dakota, study. Sec. 566. Integrated water management planning, Texas. Sec. 567. Bolivar Peninsula, Jefferson, Chambers, and Galveston Counties, Texas. Sec. 568. Galveston Beach, Galveston County, Texas. Sec. 569. Packery Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas. Sec. 570. Northern West Virginia. Sec. 571. Urbanized peak flood management research. Sec. 572. Mississippi River Commission. Sec. 573. Coastal aquatic habitat management. Sec. 574. Abandoned and inactive noncoal mine restoration. Sec. 575. Beneficial use of waste tire rubber. Sec. 576. Site designation. Sec. 577. Land conveyances. Sec. 578. Namings. Sec. 579. Folsom Dam and Reservoir additional storage and additional flood control studies. Sec. 580. Wallops Island, Virginia. Sec. 581. Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan. SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED. In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Army. TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. (a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--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 subsection: (1) Sand point harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation, Sand Point Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 13, 1998, at a total cost of $11,760,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $6,964,000 and an estimated non- Federal cost of $4,796,000. (2) Rio salado, salt river, phoenix and tempe, arizona.-- The project for flood control and environmental restoration, Rio Salado, Salt River, Phoenix and Tempe, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 20, 1998, at a total cost of $88,048,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $56,355,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $31,693,000. (3) Tucson drainage area, arizona.--The project for flood control, Tucson drainage area, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 20, 1998, at a total cost of $29,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,768,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,132,000. (4) American river watershed, california.-- (A) In general.--The Folsom Dam Modification portion of the Folsom Modification Plan described in the United States Army Corps of Engineers Supplemental Information Report for the American River Watershed Project, California, dated March 1996, as modified by the report entitled ``Folsom Dam Modification Report, New Outlets Plan,'' dated March 1998, prepared by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, at an estimated cost of $150,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $97,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $52,500,000. The Secretary shall coordinate with the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the design and construction of modifications at Folsom Dam authorized by this paragraph. (B) Reoperation measures.--Upon completion of the improvements to Folsom Dam authorized by subparagraph (A), the variable space allocated to flood control within the Reservoir shall be reduced from the current operating range of 400,000-670,000 acre-feet to 400,000-600,000 acre-feet. (C) Makeup of water shortages caused by flood control operation.--The Secretary of the Interior shall enter into, or modify, such agreements with the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency regarding the operation of Folsom Dam and reservoir as may be necessary in order that, notwithstanding any prior agreement or provision of law, 100 percent of the water needed to make up for any water shortage caused by variable flood control operation during any year at Folsom Dam and resulting in a significant impact on recreation at Folsom Reservoir shall be replaced, to the extent the water is available for purchase, by the Secretary of the Interior. (D) Significant impact on recreation.--For the purposes of this paragraph, a significant impact on recreation is defined as any impact that results in a lake elevation at Folsom Reservoir below 435 feet above sea level starting on May 15 and ending on September 15 of any given year. (5) South sacramento county streams, california.--The project for flood control, environmental restoration and recreation, South Sacramento County streams, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a total cost of $65,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $41,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $24,300,000. (6) Upper guadalupe river, california.--The project for flood control and recreation, Upper Guadalupe River, California: Locally Preferred Plan (known as the ``Bypass Channel Plan''), Report of the Chief of Engineers dated [[Page 7853]] August 19, 1998, at a total cost of $140,285,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $44,000,000 and an estimated non- Federal cost of $96,285,000. (7) Yuba river basin, california.--The project for flood control, Yuba River Basin, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 25, 1998, at a total cost of $26,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $17,350,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,250,000. (8) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey- broadkill beach, delaware.--The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-Broadkill Beach, Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 17, 1998, at a total cost of $9,049,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,674,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,375,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $538,200 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $349,800 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $188,400. (9) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey-port mahon, delaware.--The project for ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-Port Mahon, Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 28, 1998, at a total cost of $7,644,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,969,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,675,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $234,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $152,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $82,000. (10) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey- roosevelt inlet-lewes beach, delaware.--The project for navigation mitigation and hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey- Roosevelt Inlet-Lewes Beach, Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated February 3, 1999, at a total cost of $3,393,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,620,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $773,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $196,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $152,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $44,000. (11) Jacksonville harbor, florida.-- (A) In general.--The project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers April 21, 1999, at a total cost of $26,116,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,129,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $16,987,000. (B) Special rule.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Secretary may construct the project to a depth of 40 feet if the non-Federal interest agrees to pay any additional costs above those for the recommended plan. (12) Tampa harbor-big bend channel, florida.--The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 13, 1998, at a total cost of $9,356,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $6,235,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,121,000. (13) Brunswick harbor, georgia.--The project for navigation, Brunswick Harbor, Georgia: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a total cost of $50,717,000, with an estimate Federal cost of $32,966,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $17,751,000. (14) Beargrass creek, kentucky.--The project for flood control, Beargrass Creek, Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 12, 1998, at a total cost of $11,171,300, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,261,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,909,800. (15) Amite river and tributaries, louisiana.--The project for flood control, Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 23, 1996, at a total cost of $112,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $84,675,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $28,225,000. Cost sharing for the project shall be determined in accordance with section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213), as in effect on October 11, 1996. (16) Baltimore harbor anchorages and channels, maryland and virginia.--The project for navigation, Baltimore harbor anchorages and channels, Maryland and Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 8, 1998, at a total cost of $28,430,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $19,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,430,000. (17) Red river lake at crookston, minnesota.--The project for flood control, Red River Lake at Crookston, Minnesota: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated April 20, 1998, at a total cost of $8,950,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,720,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,230,000. (18) Lower cape may meadows, cape may point, new jersey.-- The project for navigation mitigation, ecosystem restoration, and hurricane and storm damage reduction, Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 5, 1999, at a total cost of $15,952,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $12,118,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,834,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $1,114,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $897,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $217,000. (19) New jersey shore protection: townsends inlet to cape may inlet, new jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, New Jersey Shore Protection: Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 28, 1998, at a total cost of $56,503,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $36,727,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $19,776,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $2,000,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,300,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $700,000. (20) Guanajibo river, puerto rico.--The project for flood control, Guanajibo River, Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated February 27, 1996, at a total cost of $27,031,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,273,250 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,757,750. Cost sharing for the project shall be determined in accordance with section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213) as in effect on October 11, 1986. (21) Rio grande de manati, barceloneta, puerto rico.--The project for flood control, Rio Grande De Manati, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 22, 1999, at a total cost of $13,491,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,785,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,706,000. (22) Rio nigua at salinas, puerto rico.--The project for flood control, Rio Nigua at Salinas, Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated April 15, 1997, at a total cost of $13,702,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,645,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,057,000. (23) Salt creek, graham, texas.--The project for flood control, environmental restoration and recreation, Salt Creek, Graham, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a total cost of $10,080,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $6,560,000 and an estimated non- Federal cost of $3,520,000. (b) Projects Subject to Report.--The following projects for water resources development and conservation and other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, recommended in a final report of the Corps of Engineers, if the report is completed not later than September 30, 1999. (1) Nome, alaska.--The project for navigation, Nome, Alaska, at a total cost of $24,608,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $19,660,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,948,000. (2) Seward harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation, Seward Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $12,240,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,364,000 and an estimated non- Federal cost of $7,876,000. (3) Hamilton airfield, california.--The project for wetlands restoration, Hamilton Airfield, California, at a total cost of $55,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $41,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,800,000. (4) Oakland harbor, california.--The project for navigation, Oakland Harbor, California, at a total cost of $256,650,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $143,450,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $113,200,000. (5) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey: reeds beach and pierces point, new jersey.--The project for shore protection and ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay Coastline, Delaware and New Jersey: Reeds Beach and Pierces Point, New Jersey, at a total cost of $4,057,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,637,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,420,000. (6) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey: villas and vicinity, new jersey.--The project for shore protection and ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay Coastline, Delaware and New Jersey: Villas and Vicinity, New Jersey, at a total cost of $7,520,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,888,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,632,000. (7) Delaware coast from cape henelopen to fenwick island, bethany beach/south bethany beach, delaware.--The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Coast from Cape Henelopen to Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach/South Bethany Beach, Delaware, at a total cost of $22,205,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $14,433,000 and an estimated non- Federal cost of $7,772,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $1,584,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,030,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $554,000. (8) Little talbot island, duval county, florida.--The project for hurricane and storm damage prevention, Little Talbot Island, Duval County, Florida, at a total cost of $5,915,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,839,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,076,000. (9) Ponce de leon inlet, florida.--The project for navigation and related purposes, Ponce de Leon Inlet, Volusia County, Florida, at a total cost of $5,454,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,988,000 and an estimated non- Federal cost of $2,466,000. (10) Savannah harbor expansion, georgia.-- (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the project for navigation, Savannah Harbor expansion, Georgia, including implementation of the mitigation plan, with such modifications as the Secretary deems appropriate, at a total cost of $230,174,000 (of which amount a portion is authorized for implementation of the mitigation plan), with an estimated Federal cost of $145,160,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $85,014,000. (B) Conditions.--The project authorized by subparagraph (A) may be carried out only after-- [[Page 7854]] (i) the Secretary, in consultation with affected Federal, State of Georgia, State of South Carolina, regional, and local entities, has reviewed and approved an environmental impact statement for the project that includes-- (I) an analysis of the impacts of project depth alternatives ranging from 42 feet through 48 feet; and (II) a selected plan for navigation and an associated mitigation plan as required by section 906(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283); and (ii) the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Secretary have approved the selected plan and have determined that the mitigation plan adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project. (C) Mitigation requirements.--The mitigation plan shall be implemented in advance of or concurrently with construction of the project. (11) Des plaines river, illinois.--The project for flood control, Des Plaines River, Illinois, at a total cost of $44,300,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $28,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,500,000. (12) New jersey shore protection, brigantine inlet to great egg harbor, brigantine island, new jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, New Jersey shore protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor, Brigantine Island, New Jersey, at a total cost of $4,970,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,230,000 and an estimated non- Federal cost of $1,740,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of $465,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50- year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $302,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $163,000. (13) Columbia river channel, oregon and washington.--The project for navigation, Columbia River Channel, Oregon and Washington, at a total cost of $183,623,000 with an estimated Federal cost $106,132,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $77,491,000. (14) Johnson creek, arlington, texas.--The locally preferred project for flood control, Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas, at a total cost of $20,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $12,000,000 and an estimated non- Federal cost of $8,300,000. (15) Howard hanson dam, washington.--The project for water supply and ecosystem restoration, Howard Hanson Dam, Washington, at a total cost of $75,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $36,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $38,700,000. SEC. 102. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, after completion of such study, shall carry out the project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s): (1) Lancaster, california.--Project for flood control, Lancaster, California, westside stormwater retention facility. (2) Gateway triangle area, florida.--Project for flood control, Gateway Triangle area, Collier County, Florida. (3) Plant city, florida.--Project for flood control, Plant City, Florida. (4) Stone island, lake monroe, florida.--Project for flood control, Stone Island, Lake Monroe, Florida. (5) Ohio river, illinois.--Project for flood control, Ohio River, Illinois. (6) Repaupo creek, new jersey.--Project for flood control, Repaupo Creek, New Jersey. (7) Owasco lake seawall, new york.--Project for flood control, Owasco Lake seawall, New York. (8) Port clinton, ohio.--Project for flood control, Port Clinton, Ohio. (9) North canadian river, oklahoma.--Project for flood control, North Canadian River, Oklahoma. (10) Abington township, pennsylvania.--Project for flood control, Baeder and Wanamaker Roads, Abington Township, Pennsylvania. (11) Port indian, west norriton township, montgomery county, pennsylvania.--Project for flood control, Port Indian, West Norriton Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. (12) Port providence, upper providence township, pennsylvania.--Project for flood control, Port Providence, Upper Providence Township, Pennsylvania. (13) Springfield township, montgomery county, pennsylvania.--Project for flood control, Springfield Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. (14) First creek, knoxville, tennessee.--Project for flood control, First Creek, Knoxville, Tennessee. (15) Metro center levee, cumberland river, nashville, tennessee.--Project for flood control, Metro Center Levee, Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee. (b) Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.-- (1) Maximum federal expenditure.--The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for flood control, Festus and Crystal City, Missouri, shall be $10,000,000. (2) Revision of project cooperation agreement.--The Secretary shall revise the project cooperation agreement for the project referred to in paragraph (1) to take into account the change in the Federal participation in such project pursuant to paragraph (1). (3) Cost sharing.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the project referred to in paragraph (1) under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. SEC. 103. SMALL BANK STABILIZATION PROJECTS. The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, after completion of such study, shall carry out the project under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r): (1) Saint joseph river, indiana.--Project for streambank erosion control, Saint Joseph River, Indiana. (2) Saginaw river, bay city, michigan.--Project for streambank erosion control, Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan. (3) Big timber creek, new jersey.--Project for streambank erosion control, Big Timber Creek, New Jersey. (4) Lake shore road, athol springs, new york.--Project for streambank erosion control, Lake Shore Road, Athol Springs, New York. (5) Marist college, poughkeepsie, new york.--Project for streambank erosion control, Marist College, Poughkeepsie, New York. (6) Monroe county, ohio.--Project for streambank erosion control, Monroe County, Ohio. (7) Green valley, west virginia.--Project for streambank erosion control, Green Valley, West Virginia. SEC. 104. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS. The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, after completion of such study, shall carry out the project under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577): (1) Grand marais, arkansas.--Project for navigation, Grand Marais, Arkansas. (2) Fields landing channel, humboldt harbor, california.-- Project for navigation, Fields Landing Channel, Humboldt Harbor, California. (3) San mateo (pillar point harbor), california.--Project for navigation San Mateo (Pillar Point Harbor), California. (4) Agana marina, guam.--Project for navigation, Agana Marina, Guam. (5) Agat marina, guam.--Project for navigation, Agat Marina, Guam. (6) Apra harbor fuel piers, guam.--Project for navigation, Apra Harbor Fuel Piers, Guam. (7) Apra harbor pier f-6, guam.--Project for navigation, Apra Harbor Pier F-6, Guam. (8) Apra harbor seawall, guam.--Project for navigation including a seawall, Apra Harbor, Guam. (9) Guam harbor, guam.--Project for navigation, Guam Harbor, Guam. (10) Illinois river near chautauqua park, illinois.-- Project for navigation, Illinois River near Chautauqua Park, Illinois. (11) Whiting shoreline waterfront, whiting, indiana.-- Project for navigation, Whiting Shoreline Waterfront, Whiting, Indiana. (12) Naraguagus river, machias, maine.--Project for navigation, Naraguagus River, Machias, Maine. (13) Union river, ellsworth, maine.--Project for navigation, Union River, Ellsworth, Maine. (14) Detroit waterfront, michigan.--Project for navigation, Detroit River, Michigan, including dredging and removal of a reef. (15) Fortescue inlet, delaware bay, new jersey.--Project for navigation for Fortescue Inlet, Delaware Bay, New Jersey. (16) Buffalo and lasalle park, new york.--Project for navigation, Buffalo and LaSalle Park, New York. (17) Sturgeon point, new york.--Project for navigation, Sturgeon Point, New York. SEC. 105. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, after completion of such study, shall carry out the project under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a): (1) Illinois river in the vicinity of havana, illinois.-- Project for the improvement of the environment, Illinois River in the vicinity of Havana, Illinois. (2) Knitting mill creek, virginia.--Project for the improvement of the environment, Knitting Mill Creek, Virginia. (b) Pine Flat Dam, Kings River, California.--The Secretary shall carry out under section 1135(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)) a project to construct a turbine bypass at Pine Flat Dam, Kings River, California, in accordance with the Project Modification Report and Environmental Assessment dated September 1996. SEC. 106. SMALL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS. The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, after completion of such study, shall carry out the project under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330): (1) Contra costa county, bay delta, california.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Contra Costa County, Bay Delta, California. (2) Indian river, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and lagoon restoration, Indian River, Florida. (3) Little wekiva river, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and erosion control, Little Wekiva River, Florida. (4) Cook county, illinois.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and lagoon restoration and protection, Cook County, Illinois. (5) Grand batture island, mississippi.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grand Batture Island, Mississippi. (6) Hancock, harrison, and jackson counties, mississippi.-- Project for aquatic ecosystem [[Page 7855]] restoration and reef restoration along the Gulf Coast, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi. (7) Mississippi river and river des peres, st. louis, missouri.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and recreation, Mississippi River and River Des Peres, St. Louis, Missouri. (8) Hudson river, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Hudson River, New York. (9) Oneida lake, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Oneida Lake, Oneida County, New York. (10) Otsego lake, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Otsego Lake, Otsego County, New York. (11) North fork of yellow creek, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, North Fork of Yellow Creek, Ohio. (12) Wheeling creek watershed, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wheeling Creek watershed, Ohio. (13) Springfield millrace, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Springfield Millrace, Oregon. (14) Upper amazon creek, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Upper Amazon Creek, Oregon. (15) Lake ontelaunee reservoir, berks county, pennsylvania.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and distilling pond facilities, Lake Ontelaunee Reservoir, Berks County, Pennsylvania. (16) Blackstone river basin, rhode island and massachusetts.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and fish passage facilities, Blackstone River Basin, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS SEC. 201. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL AUTHORITY. Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) is amended-- (1) by striking ``construction of small projects'' and inserting ``implementation of small structural and nonstructural projects''; and (2) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting ``$7,000,000''. SEC. 202. USE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS FOR COMPILING AND DISSEMINATING INFORMATION ON FLOODS AND FLOOD DAMAGES. The last sentence of section 206(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a(b)) is amended by inserting before the period the following: ``; except that this limitation on fees shall not apply to funds voluntarily contributed by such entities for the purpose of expanding the scope of the services requested by such entities''. SEC. 203. CONTRIBUTIONS BY STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS. Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701h), is amended by inserting ``or environmental restoration'' after ``flood control''. SEC. 204. SEDIMENT DECONTAMINATION TECHNOLOGY. Section 405 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2239 note; 106 Stat. 4863) is amended-- (1) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following: ``(4) Practical end-use products.--Technologies selected for demonstration at the pilot scale shall be intended to result in practical end-use products. ``(5) Assistance by the secretary.--The Secretary shall assist the project to ensure expeditious completion by providing sufficient quantities of contaminated dredged material to conduct the full-scale demonstrations to stated capacity.''; (2) in subsection (c) by striking the first sentence and inserting the following: ``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $22,000,000 to complete technology testing, technology commercialization, and the development of full scale processing facilities within the New York/New Jersey Harbor.''; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(e) Support.--In carrying out the program under this section, the Secretary is encouraged to utilize contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants with colleges and universities and other non-Federal entities.''. SEC. 205. CONTROL OF AQUATIC PLANTS. Section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a) by inserting ``arundo,'' after ``milfoil,''; (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``$12,000,000'' and inserting ``$15,000,000.''; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(c) Support.--In carrying out this program, the Secretary is encouraged to utilize contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants with colleges and universities and other non- Federal entities.''. SEC. 206. USE OF CONTINUING CONTRACTS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PROJECTS. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall not implement a fully allocated funding policy with respect to a water resources project if initiation of construction has occurred but sufficient funds are not available to complete the project. The Secretary shall enter into continuing contracts for such project. (b) Initiation of Construction Clarified.--For the purposes of this section, initiation of construction for a project occurs on the date of enactment of an Act that appropriates funds for the project from 1 of the following appropriation accounts: (1) Construction, General. (2) Operation and Maintenance, General. (3) Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries. SEC. 207. SUPPORT OF ARMY CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM. The requirements of section 2361 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to any contract, cooperative research and development agreement, cooperative agreement, or grant entered into under section 229 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3703) between the Secretary and Marshall University or entered into under section 350 of this Act between the Secretary and Juniata College. SEC. 208. WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT STUDIES FOR THE PACIFIC REGION. Section 444 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3747) is amended by striking ``interest of navigation'' and inserting ``interests of water resources development, including navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration''. SEC. 209. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION. (a) Program Extension.--Section 528(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769) is amended-- (1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``1999'' and inserting ``2000''; and (2) in subparagraph (C)(i) by striking ``1999'' and inserting ``2003''. (b) Credit.--Section 528(b)(3) of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(D) Credit of past and future activities.--The Secretary may provide a credit to the non-Federal interests toward the non-Federal share of a project implemented under subparagraph (A). The credit shall be for reasonable costs of work performed by the non-Federal interests if the Secretary determines that the work substantially expedited completion of the project and is compatible with and an integral part of the project, and the credit is provided pursuant to a specific project cooperation agreement.''. (c) Caloosahatchee River Basin, Florida.--Section 528(e)(4) of such Act is amended by inserting before the period at the end of the first sentence the following: ``if the Secretary determines that such land acquisition is compatible with and an integral component of the Everglades and South Florida ecosystem restoration, including potential land acquisition in the Caloosahatchee River basin or other areas''. SEC. 210. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL. Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4826-4827) is amended-- (1) in subsection (c) by striking ``cooperative agreement in accordance with the requirements of section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970'' and inserting ``binding agreement with the Secretary''; and (2) by adding at the end the following: ``(g) Non-Federal Interests.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 1962d- 5b(b)), the Secretary, after coordination with the appropriate State and local government officials having jurisdiction over an area in which a project under this section will be carried out, may allow a nonprofit entity to serve as the non-Federal interest for the project.''. SEC. 211. HARBOR COST SHARING. (a) In General.--Sections 101 and 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 and 2241; P.L. 99-662) are amended by striking ``45 feet'' each place it appears and inserting ``53 feet''. (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall only apply to a project, or separable element thereof, on which a contract for physical construction has not been awarded before the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 212. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION. Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3679-3680) is amended-- (1) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following: ``Before October 1, 2003, the Federal share may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.''; and (2) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the following: ``Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), the Secretary, after coordination with the appropriate State and local government officials having jurisdiction over an area in which a project under this section will be carried out, may allow a nonprofit entity to serve as the non-Federal interest for the project.''. SEC. 213. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, RESTORATION, AND DEVELOPMENT. (a) Nonprofit Entity as Non-Federal Interest.--Section 503(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3756) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), the Secretary, after coordination with the appropriate State and local government officials having jurisdiction over an area in which a project under this section will be carried out, may allow a nonprofit entity to serve as the non-Federal interest for the project.''. (b) Project Locations.--Section 503(d) of such Act is amended-- (1) in paragraph (7) by inserting before the period at the end ``, including Clear Lake''; and (2) by adding at the end the following: ``(14) Fresno Slough watershed, California. ``(15) Hayward Marsh, Southern San Francisco Bay watershed, California. ``(16) Kaweah River watershed, California. ``(17) Malibu Creek watershed, California. ``(18) Illinois River watershed, Illinois. [[Page 7856]] ``(19) Catawba River watershed, North Carolina. ``(20) Cabin Creek basin, West Virginia. ``(21) Lower St. Johns River basin, Florida.''. SEC. 214. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION PILOT PROGRAM. (a) In General.--The Secretary may undertake a program for the purpose of conducting projects that reduce flood hazards and restore the natural functions and values of rivers throughout the United States. (b) Studies and Projects.-- (1) Authority.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary may conduct studies to identify appropriate flood damage reduction, conservation, and restoration measures and may design and implement projects described in subsection (a). (2) Consultation and coordination.--The studies and projects carried out under this section shall be conducted, to the maximum extent practicable, in consultation and coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other appropriate Federal agencies, and in consultation and coordination with appropriate State, tribal, and local agencies. (3) Nonstructural approaches.--The studies and projects shall emphasize, to the maximum extent practicable and appropriate, nonstructural approaches to preventing or reducing flood damages. (4) Use of state, tribal, and local studies and projects.-- The studies and projects shall include consideration of and coordination with any State, tribal, and local flood damage reduction or riverine and wetland restoration studies and projects that conserve, restore, and manage hydrologic and hydraulic regimes and restore the natural functions and values of floodplains. (c) Cost-Sharing Requirements.-- (1) Studies.--Studies conducted under this section shall be subject to cost sharing in accordance with section 105 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215). (2) Environmental restoration and nonstructural flood control projects.--The non-Federal interests shall pay 35 percent of the cost of any environmental restoration or nonstructural flood control project carried out under this section. The non-Federal interests shall provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, and relocations necessary for such projects. The value of such land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, and relocations shall be credited toward the payment required under this paragraph. (3) Structural flood control projects.--Any structural flood control measures carried out under this section shall be subject to cost sharing in accordance with section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)). (4) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal interests shall be responsible for all costs associated with operating, maintaining, replacing, repairing, and rehabilitating all projects carried out under this section. (d) Project Justification.-- (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law or requirement for economic justification established pursuant to section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2), the Secretary may implement a project under this section if the Secretary determines that the project-- (A) will significantly reduce potential flood damages; (B) will improve the quality of the environment; and (C) is justified considering all costs and beneficial outputs of the project. (2) Establishment of selection and rating criteria and policies.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in cooperation with State, tribal, and local agencies, shall develop, and transmit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, criteria for selecting and rating projects to be carried out under this section and shall establish policies and procedures for carrying out the studies and projects undertaken under this section. Such criteria shall include, as a priority, the extent to which the appropriate State government supports the project. (e) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall examine the potential for flood damage reductions at appropriate locations, including the following: (1) Upper Delaware River, New York. (2) Willamette River floodplain, Oregon. (3) Pima County, Arizona, at Paseo De Las Iglesias and Rillito River. (4) Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, California. (5) Murrieta Creek, California. (6) Napa County, California, at Yountville, St. Helena, Calistoga, and American Canyon. (7) Santa Clara basin, California, at Upper Guadalupe River and tributaries, San Francisquito Creek, and Upper Penitencia Creek. (8) Pine Mount Creek, New Jersey. (9) Chagrin River, Ohio. (10) Blair County, Pennsylvania, at Altoona and Frankstown Township. (11) Lincoln Creek, Wisconsin. (f) Program Review.-- (1) In general.--The program established under this section shall be subject to an independent review to evaluate the efficacy of the program in achieving the dual goals of flood hazard mitigation and riverine restoration. (2) Report.--Not later than April 15, 2003, the Secretary shall transmit 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 findings of the review conducted under this subsection with any recommendations concerning continuation of the program. (g) Cost Limitations.-- (1) Maximum federal cost per project.--No more than $30,000,000 may be expended by the United States on any single project under this section. (2) Committee resolution procedure.-- (A) Limitation on appropriations.--No appropriation shall be made to construct any project under this section the total Federal cost of construction of which exceeds $15,000,000 if the project 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. (B) Report.--For the purpose of securing consideration of approval under this paragraph, the Secretary shall transmit a report on the proposed project, including all relevant data and information on all costs. (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section-- (1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; (2) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 if $12,500,000 or more is appropriated to carry out subsection (e) for fiscal year 2000; (3) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 if $12,500,000 or more is appropriated to carry out subsection (e) for fiscal year 2001; and (4) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 if $12,500,000 or more is appropriated to carry out subsection (e) for fiscal year 2002. SEC. 215. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. (a) Review.--The Secretary shall review the implementation of the Corps of Engineers' shoreline management program, with particular attention to inconsistencies in implementation among the divisions and districts of the Corps of Engineers and complaints by or potential inequities regarding property owners in the Savannah District including an accounting of the number and disposition of complaints over the last 5 years in the District. (b) Report.--As expeditiously as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit 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 results of the review conducted under subsection (a). SEC. 216. 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 conservation of water and related resources of drainage basins and watersheds within the United States. (b) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material.--In providing assistance under subsection (a), the Secretary shall encourage the beneficial use of dredged material, consistent with the findings of the Secretary under section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326). (c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent. (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004. SEC. 217. SHORE DAMAGE MITIGATION. (a) In General.--Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i; 100 Stat. 4199) is amended by inserting after ``navigation works'' the following: ``and shore damages attributable to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway''. (b) Palm Beach County, Florida.--The project for navigation, Palm Beach County, Florida, authorized by section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 11), is modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake beach nourishment as a dredged material disposal option under the project. (c) Galveston County, Texas.--The Secretary may place dredged material from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway on the beaches along Rollover Pass, Galveston County, Texas, to stabilize beach erosion. SEC. 218. SHORE PROTECTION. (a) Non-Federal Share of Periodic Nourishment.--Section 103(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4085-5086) is amended-- (1) by inserting ``(1) Construction.--'' before ``Costs of constructing''; (2) by inserting at the end the following: ``(2) Periodic nourishment.-- ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the non- Federal share of costs of periodic nourishment measures for shore protection or beach erosion control that are carried out-- ``(i) after January 1, 2001, shall be 40 percent; ``(ii) after January 1, 2002, shall be 45 percent; and ``(iii) after January 1, 2003, shall be 50 percent; ``(B) Benefits to privately owned shores.--All costs assigned to benefits of periodic nourishment measures to privately owned shores (where use of such shores is limited to private interests) or to prevention of losses of [[Page 7857]] private lands shall be borne by the non-Federal interest and all costs assigned to the protection of federally owned shores for such measures shall be borne by the United States.''; and (C) by indenting paragraph (1) (as designated by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph) and aligning such paragraph with paragraph (2) (as added by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph). (b) Utilization of Sand From Outer Continental Shelf.-- Section 8(k)(2)(B) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``an agency of the Federal Government'' and inserting ``a Federal, State, or local government agency''. (c) Report on Nation's Shorelines.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to Congress on the state of the Nation's shorelines. (2) Contents.--The report shall include-- (A) a description of the extent of, and economic and environmental effects caused by, erosion and accretion along the Nation's shores and the causes thereof; (B) a description of resources committed by local, State, and Federal governments to restore and renourish shorelines; (C) a description of the systematic movement of sand along the Nation's shores; and (D) recommendations regarding (i) appropriate levels of Federal and non-Federal participation in shoreline protection, and (ii) utilization of a systems approach to sand management. (3) Utilization of specific location data.--In developing the report, the Secretary shall utilize data from specific locations on the Atlantic, Pacific, Great Lakes, and Gulf of Mexico coasts. (d) National Coastal Data Bank.-- (1) Establishment of data bank.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a national coastal data bank containing data on the geophysical and climatological characteristics of the Nation's shorelines. (2) Content.--To the extent practical, the national coastal data bank shall include data regarding current and predicted shoreline positions, information on federally-authorized shore protection projects, and data on the movement of sand along the Nation's shores, including impediments to such movement caused by natural and manmade features. (3) Access.--The national coastal data bank shall be made readily accessible to the public. SEC. 219. FLOOD PREVENTION COORDINATION. Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a) is amended-- (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections (c) and (d), respectively; and (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following: ``(b) Flood Prevention Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate with the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the heads of other Federal agencies to ensure that flood control projects and plans are complementary and integrated to the extent practicable and appropriate.''. SEC. 220. ANNUAL PASSES FOR RECREATION. Section 208(c)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 460d note; 110 Stat. 3680) is amended by striking ``1999, or the date of transmittal of the report under paragraph (3)'' and inserting ``2003''. SEC. 221. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND RECREATIONAL MEASURES. (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with non-Federal public bodies and non-profit entities for the purpose of facilitating collaborative efforts involving environmental protection and restoration, natural resources conservation, and recreation in connection with the development, operation, and management of water resources projects under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army. (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit 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 that includes-- (1) a listing and general description of the cooperative agreements entered into by the Secretary with non-Federal public bodies and entities under subsection (a); (2) a determination of whether such agreements are facilitating collaborative efforts; and (3) a recommendation on whether such agreements should be further encouraged. SEC. 222. NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS. (a) Analysis of Benefits.--Section 308 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2318; 104 Stat. 4638) is amended-- (1) in the heading to subsection (a) by inserting ``Elements Excluded from'' before ``Benefit-Cost''; (2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e) as subsections (c) through (f), respectively; and (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following: ``(b) Flood Damage Reduction Benefits.--In calculating the benefits of a proposed project for nonstructural flood damage reduction, the Secretary shall calculate benefits of nonstructural projects using methods similar to structural projects, including similar treatment in calculating the benefits from losses avoided from both structural and nonstructural alternatives. In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary should avoid double counting of benefits.''. (b) Reevaluation of Flood Control Projects.--At the request of a non-Federal interest for a flood control project, the Secretary shall conduct a reevaluation of a previously authorized project to consider nonstructural alternatives in light of the amendments made by subsection (a). (c) Cost Sharing.--Section 103(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``At any time during construction of the project, where the Secretary determines that the costs of lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, and relocations in combination with other costs contributed by the non-Federal interests will exceed 35 percent, any additional costs for the project, but not to exceed 65 percent of the total costs of the project, shall be a Federal responsibility and shall be contributed during construction as part of the Federal share.''. SEC. 223. LAKES PROGRAM. Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (110 Stat. 3758) is amended-- (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (15); (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (16) and inserting a semicolon; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, removal of silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation and high nutrient concentration; and ``(18) Osgood Pond, Milford, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation. ``(19) Flints Pond, Hollis, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation.''. SEC. 224. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON- FEDERAL INTERESTS. (a) Construction by Non-Federal Interests.--Section 211(d)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13(d)(1)) is amended-- (1) by striking ``(b) or''; (2) by striking ``Any non-Federal'' and inserting the following: ``(A) Studies and design activities under subsection (b).-- A non-Federal interest may only carry out construction for which studies and design documents are prepared under subsection (b) if the Secretary approves such construction. The Secretary shall approve such construction unless the Secretary determines, in writing, that the design documents do not meet standard practices for design methodologies or that the project is not economically justified or environmentally acceptable or does not meet the requirements for obtaining the appropriate permits required under the Secretary's authority. The Secretary shall not unreasonably withhold approval. Nothing in this subparagraph may be construed to affect any regulatory authority of the Secretary. ``(B) Studies and design activities under subsection (c).-- Any non-Federal''; and (3) by aligning the remainder of subparagraph (B) (as designated by paragraph (2) of this subsection) with subparagraph (A) (as inserted by paragraph (2) of this subsection). (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 211(d)(2) of such Act is amended by inserting ``(other than paragraph (1)(A))'' after ``this subsection''. (c) Reimbursement.-- (1) In general.--Section 211(e)(1) of such Act is amended-- (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (1) by inserting after ``constructed pursuant to this section'' the following: ``and provide credit for the non-Federal share of the project''; (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A); (C) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ``; and''; and (D) by adding at the end the following: ``(C) if the construction work is reasonably equivalent to Federal construction work.''. (2) Special rules.--Section 211(e)(2)(A) of such Act is amended-- (A) by striking ``subject to amounts being made available in advance in appropriations Acts'' and inserting ``subject to appropriations''; and (B) by inserting after ``the cost of such work'' the following: ``, or provide credit (depending on the request of the non-Federal interest) for the non-Federal share of such work,''. (3) Schedule and manner of reimbursements.--Section 211(e) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b-13(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(6) Schedule and manner of reimbursement.-- ``(A) Budgeting.--The Secretary shall budget and request appropriations for reimbursements under this section on a schedule that is consistent with a Federal construction schedule. ``(B) Commencement of reimbursements.--Reimbursements under this section may commence upon approval of a project by the Secretary. ``(C) Credit.--At the request of a non-Federal interest, the Secretary may reimburse the non-Federal interest by providing credit toward future non-Federal costs of the project. ``(D) Scheduling.--Nothing in this paragraph shall affect the President's discretion to schedule new construction starts.''. SEC. 225. ENHANCEMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES. Section 906(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(e)) is amended [[Page 7858]] by inserting after the second sentence the following: ``Not more than 80 percent of the non-Federal share of such first costs may be satisfied through in-kind contributions, including facilities, supplies, and services that are necessary to carry out the enhancement project.''. SEC. 226. SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--It is the sense of Congress that, to the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products purchased with funds made available under this Act should be American made. (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement made in subsection (a). SEC. 227. PERIODIC BEACH NOURISHMENT. (a) In General.--Section 506(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(5) Lee county, florida.--Project for shoreline protection, Lee County, Captiva Island segment, Florida.''. (b) Projects.--Section 506(b)(3) of such Act (110 Stat. 3758) is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (D) as subparagraphs (A) through (C), respectively. SEC. 228. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING. Section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4639-4640) is amended-- (1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``50'' and inserting ``35''; and (2) in subsection (d) by striking ``non-Federal responsibility'' and inserting ``shared as a cost of construction''. TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS SEC. 301. MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM. The project for flood control, Missouri River Levee System, authorized by section 10 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 (58 Stat. 897), is modified to provide that project costs totaling $2,616,000 expended on Units L-15, L-246, and L-385 out of the Construction, General account of the Corps of Engineers before the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note) shall not be treated as part of total project costs. SEC. 302. OUZINKIE HARBOR, ALASKA. (a) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for navigation, Ouzinkie Harbor, Alaska, shall be $8,500,000. (b) Revision of Project Cooperation Agreement.--The Secretary shall revise the project cooperation agreement for the project referred to in subsection (a) to take into account the change in the Federal participation in such project pursuant to subsection (a). (c) Cost Sharing.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the project referred to in subsection (a) under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. SEC. 303. GREERS FERRY LAKE, ARKANSAS. The project for flood control, Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas, authorized by the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and other purposes'', approved June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct water intake facilities for the benefit of Lonoke and White Counties, Arkansas. SEC. 304. TEN- AND FIFTEEN-MILE BAYOUS, ARKANSAS. The project for flood control, St. Francis River Basin, Missouri and Arkansas, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 172), is modified to expand the project boundaries to include Ten- and Fifteen-Mile Bayous near West Memphis, Arkansas. Notwithstanding section 103(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4086), the flood control work at Ten- and Fifteen-Mile Bayous shall not be considered separable elements of the St. Francis Basin project. SEC. 305. LOGGY BAYOU, RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, ARKANSAS, LOUISIANA, OKLAHOMA, AND TEXAS. The project for flood control on the Red River Below Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 647), is modified to direct the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of expanding the project to include mile 0.0 to mile 7.8 of Loggy Bayou between the Red River and Flat River. If the Secretary determines as a result of the study that the project should be expanded, the Secretary may assume responsibility for operation and maintenance of the expanded project. SEC. 306. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA, CALIFORNIA. (a) In General.--The project for flood control, Sacramento River, California, authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the control of the floods of the Mississippi River and of the Sacramento River, California, and for other purposes'', approved March 1, 1917 (39 Stat. 949), and modified by section 102 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649), section 301(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3110), and title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 1841), is further modified to authorize the Secretary-- (1) to carry out the portion of the project at Glenn- Colusa, California, at a total cost of $26,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,000,000 and an estimated non- Federal cost of $6,000,000; and (2) to carry out bank stabilization work in the vicinity of the riverbed gradient facility, particularly in the vicinity of River Mile 208. (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall provide the non-Federal interests for the project referred to in subsection (a) a credit of up to $4,000,000 toward the non-Federal share of the project costs for the direct and indirect costs incurred by the non-Federal sponsor in carrying out activities associated with environmental compliance for the project. Such credit may be in the form of reimbursements for costs which were incurred by the non-Federal interests prior to an agreement with the Corps of Engineers, to include the value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, or dredged material disposal areas. SEC. 307. SAN LORENZO RIVER, CALIFORNIA. The project for flood control and habitat restoration, San Lorenzo River, California, authorized by section 101(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3663), is modified to authorize the Secretary to expand the boundaries of the project to include bank stabilization for a 1,000-foot portion of the San Lorenzo River. SEC. 308. TERMINUS DAM, KAWEAH RIVER, CALIFORNIA. (a) Transfer of Title to Additional Land.--If the non- Federal interests for the project for flood control and water supply, Terminus Dam, Kaweah River, California, authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667), transfers to the Secretary without consideration title to perimeter lands acquired for the project by the non-Federal interests, the Secretary may accept the transfer of such title. (b) Lands, Easement, and Rights-of-Way.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to change, modify, or otherwise affect the responsibility of the non-Federal interests to provide lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary for the Terminus Dam project and to perform operation and maintenance for the project. (c) Operation and Maintenance.--Upon request by the non- Federal interests, the Secretary shall carry out operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project if the non-Federal interests enter into a binding agreement with the Secretary to reimburse the Secretary for 100 percent of the costs of such operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation. (d) Hold Harmless.--The non-Federal interests shall hold the United States harmless for ownership, operation, and maintenance of lands and facilities of the Terminus Dam project title to which is transferred to the Secretary under this section. SEC. 309. DELAWARE RIVER MAINSTEM AND CHANNEL DEEPENING, DELAWARE, NEW JERSEY, AND PENNSYLVANIA. The project for navigation, Delaware River Mainstem and Channel Deepening, Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802), is modified as follows: (1) The Secretary is authorized to provide non-Federal interests credit toward cash contributions required for construction and subsequent to construction for engineering and design and construction management work that is performed by non-Federal interests and that the Secretary determines is necessary to implement the project. Any such credits extended shall reduce the Philadelphia District's private sector performance goals for engineering work by a like amount. (2) The Secretary is authorized to provide to non-Federal interests credit toward cash contributions required during construction and subsequent to construction for the costs of construction carried out by the non-Federal interest on behalf of the Secretary and that the Secretary determines is necessary to implement the project. (3) The Secretary is authorized to enter into an agreement with a non-Federal interest for the payment of disposal or tipping fees for dredged material from a Federal project other than for the construction or operation and maintenance of the new deepening project as described in the Limited Reevaluation Report of May 1997, where the non-Federal interest has supplied the corresponding disposal capacity. (4) The Secretary is authorized to enter into an agreement with a non-Federal interest that will provide that the non- Federal interest may carry out or cause to have carried out, on behalf of the Secretary, a disposal area management program for dredged material disposal areas necessary to construct, operate, and maintain the project and to authorize the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal interest for the costs of the disposal area management program activities carried out by the non-Federal interest. SEC. 310. POTOMAC RIVER, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. The project for flood control authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (69 Stat. 1574), as modified by section 301(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3707), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a Federal cost of $5,965,000. [[Page 7859]] SEC. 311. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. (a) Study.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the non- Federal interest, shall conduct a study of any damage to 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), to determine whether the damage is the result of a Federal navigation project. (b) Conditions.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall utilize the services of an independent coastal expert who shall consider all relevant studies completed by the Corps of Engineers and the project's local sponsor. The study shall be completed within 120 days of the date of enactment of this Act. (c) Mitigation of Damages.--After completion of the study, the Secretary shall mitigate any damage to the shoreline protection project that is the result of a Federal navigation project. The costs of the mitigation shall be allocated to the Federal navigation project as operation and maintenance. SEC. 312. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO INLET, FLORIDA. The project for shoreline protection, Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1090), is modified to authorize the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal interest for the Federal share of the cost of preconstruction planning and design for the project upon execution of a contract to construct the project if the Secretary determines such work is compatible with and integral to the project. SEC. 313. FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. (a) In General.--The project for shore protection and harbor mitigation, Fort Pierce, Florida, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1092) and section 506(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757), is modified to incorporate an additional 1 mile into the project in accordance with a final approved General Reevaluation Report, at a total cost for initial nourishment for the entire project of $9,128,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,073,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,054,500. (b) Period Nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is authorized for the project in accordance with section 506(a)(2) of Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757). (c) Revision of the Project Cooperation Agreement.--The Secretary shall revise the project cooperation agreement for the project referred to in subsection (a) to take into account the change in Federal participation in the project pursuant to subsection (a). SEC. 314. NASSAU COUNTY, FLORIDA. The project for beach erosion control, Nassau County (Amelia fIsland), Florida, authorized by section 3(a)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $17,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,700,000. SEC. 315. MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, 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), is modified to include construction of artificial reefs and related environmental mitigation required by Federal, State, and local environmental permitting agencies for the project. SEC. 316. LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS. The project for storm damage reduction and shoreline erosion protection, Lake Michigan, Illinois, from Wilmette, Illinois, to the Illinois-Indiana State line, authorized by section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664), is modified to authorize the Secretary to provide a credit against the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for costs incurred by the non-Federal interest-- (1) in constructing Reach 2D and Segment 8 of Reach 4 of the project; and (2) in reconstructing Solidarity Drive in Chicago, Illinois, prior to entry into a project cooperation agreement with the Secretary. SEC. 317. SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS. Section 417 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3743) is amended-- (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The Secretary''; and (2) by adding at the end the following: ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of assistance provided under this section before, on, or after the date of enactment of this subsection shall be 50 percent.''. SEC. 318. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, INDIANA. The project for flood control, Little Calumet River, Indiana, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4115), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance with the report of the Corps of Engineers, at a total cost of $167,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $122,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $45,000,000. SEC. 319. OGDEN DUNES, INDIANA. (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of beach erosion in and around the town of Ogden Dunes, Indiana, to determine whether the damage is the result of a Federal navigation project. (b) Mitigation of Damages.--After completion of the study, the Secretary shall mitigate any damage to the beach and shoreline that is the result of a Federal navigation project. The cost of the mitigation shall be allocated to the Federal navigation project as operation and maintenance. SEC. 320. SAINT JOSEPH RIVER, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA. (a) Maximum Total Expenditure.--The maximum total expenditure for the project for streambank erosion, recreation, and pedestrian access features, Saint Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana, shall be $7,800,000. (b) Revision of Project Cooperation Agreement.--The Secretary shall revise the project cooperation agreement for the project referred to in subsection (a) to take into account the change in the Federal participation in such project pursuant to subsection (a). (c) Cost Sharing.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the project referred to in subsection (a) under title I of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 et seq.). SEC. 321. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA. The project for flood control, Indianapolis on West Fork of the 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 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), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake riverfront alterations as described in the Central Indianapolis Waterfront Concept Master Plan, dated February 1994, at a total cost of $110,975,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $52,475,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $58,500,000. SEC. 322. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LOUISIANA. The project for hurricane-flood protection, Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077), is modified-- (1) to direct the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of constructing a pump adjacent to each of the 4 proposed drainage structures for the Saint Charles Parish feature of the project; and (2) to authorize the Secretary to construct such pumps upon completion of the study. SEC. 323. LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LOUISIANA. The project for hurricane protection Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077), is modified to direct the Secretary to convert the Golden Meadow floodgate into a navigation lock if the Secretary determines that the conversion is feasible. SEC. 324. LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE, LOUISIANA. The Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee project, Louisiana, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4117), is modified to direct the Secretary to provide credit to the non-Federal interest toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project. The credit shall be for cost of work performed by the non-Federal interest prior to the execution of a project cooperation agreement as determined by the Secretary to be compatible with and an integral part of the project. SEC. 325. TWELVE-MILE BAYOU, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA. The Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance of the levee along Twelve-Mile Bayou from its junction with the existing Red River Below Denison Dam Levee approximately 26 miles upstream to its terminus at high ground in the vicinity of Black Bayou, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, if the Secretary determines that such maintenance is economically justified and environmentally acceptable and that the levee was constructed in accordance with appropriate design and engineering standards. SEC. 326. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF HARVEY CANAL), LOUISIANA. (a) In General.--The project for flood control and storm damage reduction, West Bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), Louisiana, authorized by section 401(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4128) and section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modified-- (1) to provide that any liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) from the construction of the project is a Federal responsibility; and (2) to authorize the Secretary to carry out operation and maintenance of that portion of the project included in the report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 1, 1995, referred to as ``Algiers Channel'', if the non-Federal sponsor reimburses the Secretary for the amount of such operation and maintenance included in the report of the Chief of Engineers. (b) Combination of Projects.--The Secretary shall carry out work authorized as part of the Westwego to Harvey Canal project, the East of Harvey cannal project, and the Lake Cataouatche modifications as a single project, to be known as the West Bank and vicinity, New Orleans, Louisiana, hurricane protection project, with a combined total cost of $280,300,000. SEC. 327. TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CHESAPEAKE BAY, KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND. The project for navigation, Tolchester Channel, Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Chesapeake Bay, Kent County, Maryland, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 297), is modified to authorize the Secretary to straighten the navigation channel in accordance with the District Engineer's Navigation Assessment Report and Environmental [[Page 7860]] Assessment, dated April 30, 1997. This modification shall be carried out in order to improve navigation safety. SEC. 328. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, CHIPPEWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN. The project for navigation Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan, authorized by section 1149 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254-4255) and modified by section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3717-3718), is further modified to provide that the amount to be paid by non-Federal interests pursuant to section 101(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)) and subsection (a) of such section 330 shall not include any interest payments. SEC. 329. JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. The project for environmental infrastructure, Jackson County, Mississippi, authorized by section 219(c)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) and modified by section 504 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757), is further modified to direct the Secretary to provide a credit, not to exceed $5,000,000, against the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for the costs incurred by the Jackson County Board of Supervisors since February 8, 1994, in constructing the project if the Secretary determines that such costs are for work that the Secretary determines is compatible with and integral to the project. SEC. 330. TUNICA LAKE, MISSISSIPPI. The project for flood control, Mississippi River Channel Improvement Project, Tunica Lake, Mississippi, 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. 534-538), is modified to include construction of a weir at the Tunica Cutoff, Mississippi. SEC. 331. BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, MISSOURI. (a) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for the project for flood control, Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri, authorized pursuant to section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), shall be $15,000,000. (b) Revision of the Project Cooperation Agreement.--The Secretary shall revise the project cooperation agreement for the project referred to in subsection (a) to take into account the change in Federal participation in the project pursuant to subsection (a). (c) Cost Sharing.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the project referred to in subsection (a) under title I of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 et seq.). SEC. 332. MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MISSOURI. The project for flood control, Meramec River Basin, Valley Park Levee, Missouri, authorized by section 2(h) of an Act entitled ``An Act to deauthorize several projects within the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers'' (95 Stat. 1682- 1683) and modified by section 1128 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, (100 Stat. 4246), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a maximum Federal expenditure of $35,000,000. SEC. 333. MISSOURI RIVER MITIGATION PROJECT, MISSOURI, KANSAS, IOWA, AND NEBRASKA. (a) In General.--The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska, authorized by section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143), is modified to increase by 118,650 acres the lands and interests in lands to be acquired for the project. (b) Study.-- (1) In general.--The Secretary, in conjunction with the States of Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri, shall conduct a study to determine the cost of restoring, under the authority of the Missouri River fish and wildlife mitigation project, a total of 118,650 acres of lost Missouri River habitat. (2) Report.--The Secretary shall report to Congress on the results of the study not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 334. WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA. The project for flood control, Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska, authorized by section 101(a)(19) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance with the report of the Corps of Engineers dated June 29, 1998, at a total cost of $17,039,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,730,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,309,000. SEC. 335. ABSECON ISLAND, NEW JERSEY. The project for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, Absecon Island, New Jersey, authorized by section 101(b)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3668), is modified to provide that, if, after October 12, 1996, the non-Federal interests carry out any work associated with the project that is later recommended by the Chief of Engineers and approved by the Secretary, the Secretary may credit the non-Federal interests toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project an amount equal to the Federal share of the cost of such work, without interest. SEC. 336. NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, PORT JERSEY, NEW JERSEY The project for navigation, New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, New York and New Jersey, authorized by section 202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct that portion of the project that is located between Military Ocean Terminal Bayonne and Global Terminal in Bayonne, New Jersey, substantially in accordance with the report of the Corps of Engineers, at a total cost of $103,267,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $76,909,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $26,358,000. SEC. 337. PASSAIC RIVER, NEW JERSEY. Section 101(a)(18)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4608-4609) is amended by inserting ``, including an esplanade for safe pedestrian access with an overall width of 600 feet'' after ``public access to Route 21''. SEC. 338. SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NEW JERSEY. The project for shoreline protection, Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299), is modified-- (1) to include the demolition of Long Branch pier and extension of Ocean Grove pier; and (2) to authorize the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor for the Federal share of costs associated with the demolition of Long Branch pier and the construction of the Ocean Grove pier. SEC. 339. ARTHUR KILL, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY. The project for navigation, Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey, authorized by section 202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098) and modified by section 301(b)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the portion of the project at Howland Hook Marine Terminal substantially in accordance with the report of the Corps of Engineers, dated September 30, 1998, at a total cost of $315,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $183,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $132,500,000. SEC. 340. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED. Section 552(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781) is amended by striking ``$22,500,000'' and inserting ``$42,500,000''. SEC. 341. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM. Section 553(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781) is amended by striking ``$8,000,000'' and inserting ``$18,000,000''. SEC. 342. FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NEW YORK. The project for combined beach erosion control and hurricane protection, Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, Long Island, New York, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 483) and modified by the River and Harbor Act of 1962, the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, and the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, is further modified to direct the Secretary, in coordination with the heads of other Federal departments and agencies, to complete all procedures and reviews expeditiously and to adopt and transmit to Congress not later than June 30, 1999, a mutually acceptable shore erosion plan for the Fire Island Inlet to Moriches Inlet reach of the project. SEC. 343. BROKEN BOW LAKE, RED RIVER BASIN, OKLAHOMA. The project for flood control and water supply, Broken Bow Lake, Red River Basin, Oklahoma, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 309) and modified by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1187), section 102(v) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4808), and section 338 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3720), is further modified to require the Secretary to make seasonal adjustments to the top of the conservation pool at the project as follows (if the Secretary determines that the adjustments will be undertaken at no cost to the United States and will adequately protect impacted water and related resources): (1) Maintain an elevation of 599.5 from November 1 through March 31. (2) Increase elevation gradually from 599.5 to 602.5 during April and May. (3) Maintain an elevation of 602.5 from June 1 to September 30. (4) Decrease elevation gradually from 602.5 to 599.5 during October. SEC. 344. WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, MCKENZIE SUBBASIN, OREGON. (a) In General.--The project for environmental restoration, Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon, authorized by section 101(a)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance with the Feature Memorandum dated July 31, 1998, at a total cost of $64,741,000. (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to Congress on the reasons for the cost growth of the Willamette River project and outline the steps the Corps of Engineers is taking to control project costs, including the application of value engineering and other appropriate measures. In the report, the Secretary shall also include a cost estimate for, and recommendations on the advisability of, adding fish screens to the project. [[Page 7861]] SEC. 345. AYLESWORTH CREEK RESERVOIR, PENNSYLVANIA. The project for flood control, Aylesworth Creek Reservoir, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182), is modified to authorize the Secretary to transfer, in each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $50,000 to the Aylesworth Creek Reservoir Park Authority for recreational facilities. SEC. 346. CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA. Section 562 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3784) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary shall provide design and construction assistance for recreational facilities at Curwensville Lake and, when appropriate, may require the non- Federal interest to provide not more than 25 percent of the cost of designing and constructing such facilities. The Secretary may transfer, in each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003, $100,000 to the Clearfield County Municipal Services and Recreation Authority for recreational facilities.''. SEC. 347. DELAWARE RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND DELAWARE. The project for navigation, Delaware River, Philadelphia to Wilmington, Pennsylvania and Delaware, authorized by section 3(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014), is modified to authorize the Secretary to extend the channel of the Delaware River at Camden, New Jersey, to within 150 feet of the existing bulkhead and to relocate the 40-foot deep Federal navigation channel, eastward within Philadelphia Harbor, from the Ben Franklin Bridge to the Walt Whitman Bridge, into deep water. SEC. 348. MUSSERS DAM, PENNSYLVANIA. Section 209 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4830) is amended by striking subsection (e) and redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (e). SEC. 349. NINE-MILE RUN, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. The Nine-Mile Run project, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, carried out pursuant to section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330; 110 Stat. 3679- 3680), is modified to authorize the Secretary to provide a credit toward the non-Federal share of the project for costs incurred by the non-Federal interest in preparing environmental and feasibility documentation for the project before entering into an agreement with the Corps of Engineers with respect to the project if the Secretary determines such costs are for work that is compatible with and integral to the project. SEC. 350. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA. (a) Recreation Partnership Initiative.--Section 519(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3765) is amended-- (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following: ``(3) Engineering and design services.--The Secretary may perform, at full Federal expense, engineering and design services for project infrastructure expected to be associated with the development of the site at Raystown Lake, Hesston, Pennsylvania.''. (b) Construction Assistance.-- (1) In general.--Consistent with the master plan described in section 318 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4848), the Secretary may provide a grant to Juniata College for the construction of facilities and structures at Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, to interpret and understand environmental conditions and trends. As a condition of the receipt of such financial assistance, officials at Juniata College shall coordinate with the Baltimore District of the Army Corps of Engineers. (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1998, to carry out this subsection. SEC. 351. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA. Section 313(g)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4846) is amended by striking ``$80,000,000'' and inserting ``$180,000,000''. SEC. 352. COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SOUTH CAROLINA. The project for rediversion, Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731) and modified by title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1992 (105 Stat. 516), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to pay to the State of South Carolina not more than $3,750,000 if the Secretary and the State enter into a binding agreement for the State to perform all future operation of, including associated studies to assess the efficacy of, the St. Stephen, South Carolina, fish lift. The agreement must specify the terms and conditions under which payment will be made and the rights of, and remedies available to, the Federal Government to recover all or a portion of such payment in the event the State suspends or terminates operation of the fish lift or fails to operate the fish lift in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary. Maintenance of the fish lift shall remain a Federal responsibility. SEC. 353. BOWIE COUNTY LEVEE, TEXAS. The project for flood control, Red River Below Denison Dam, Texas and Oklahoma, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 647), is modified to direct the Secretary to implement the Bowie County Levee feature of the project in accordance with the plan defined as Alternative B in the draft document entitled ``Bowie County Local Flood Protection, Red River, Texas Project Design Memorandum No. 1, Bowie County Levee'', dated April 1997. In evaluating and implementing this modification, 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. 354. CLEAR CREEK, TEXAS. Section 575 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3789) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(c) Clear Creek, Texas.--In any evaluation of economic benefits and costs for the project for flood control, Clear Creek, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742) that occurs after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall include the costs and benefits of nonstructural measures undertaken, including any buyout or relocation actions, of non-Federal interests within the drainage area of such project before the date of the evaluation in the determination of conditions existing before the construction of the project.''. SEC. 355. CYPRESS CREEK, TEXAS. (a) In General.--The project for flood control, Cypress Creek, Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out a nonstructural flood control project at a total cost of $5,000,000. (b) Reimbursement for Work.--The Secretary may reimburse the non-Federal interest for the Cypress Creek project for work done by the non-Federal interest on the nonstructural flood control project in an amount equal to the estimate of the Federal share, without interest, of the cost of such work-- (1) if, after authorization and before initiation of construction of such nonstructural project, the Secretary approves the plans for construction of such nonstructural project by the non-Federal interest; and (2) if the Secretary finds, after a review of studies and design documents prepared to carry out such nonstructural project, that construction of such nonstructural project is economically justified and environmentally acceptable. SEC. 356. DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, DALLAS, TEXAS. The project for flood control, Dallas Floodway Extension, Dallas, Texas, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091) and modified by section 351 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3724), is further modified-- (1) to add environmental restoration and recreation as project purposes; and (2) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance with the Chain of Wetlands Plan in the report of the Corps of Engineers at a total cost of $123,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $80,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $43,200,000. SEC. 357. UPPER JORDAN RIVER, UTAH. The project for flood control, Upper Jordan River, Utah, authorized by section 101(a)(23) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610) and modified by section 301(a)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3709), is further modified to direct the Secretary to carry out the locally preferred project, entitled ``Upper Jordan River Flood Control Project, Salt Lake County, Utah--Supplemental Information'' and identified in the document of Salt Lake County, Utah, dated July 30, 1998, at a total cost of $12,870,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,580,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,290,000. SEC. 358. ELIZABETH RIVER, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after September 30, 1999, the city of Chesapeake, Virginia, shall not be obligated to make the annual cash contribution required under paragraph 1(9) of the Local Cooperation Agreement dated December 12, 1978, between the Government and the city for the project for navigation, southern branch of Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia. SEC. 359. BLUESTONE LAKE, OHIO RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA. Section 102(ff) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4810) is amended by striking ``take such measures as are technologically feasible'' and inserting ``implement Plan C/G, as defined in the Evaluation Report of the District Engineer, dated December 1996,''. SEC. 360. GREENBRIER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA. Section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790) is amended by striking ``$12,000,000'' and inserting ``$73,000,000.'' SEC. 361. MOOREFIELD, WEST VIRGINIA. Effective October 1, 1999, the project for flood control, Moorefield, West Virginia, authorized by section 101(a)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610-4611), is modified to provide that the non-Federal interest shall not be required to pay the unpaid balance, including interest, of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project. SEC. 362. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL. Section 581(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790) is amended to read as follows: ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may design and construct-- ``(1) flood control measures in the Cheat and Tygart River basins, West Virginia, at a level of protection that is sufficient to prevent any future losses to these communities from flooding [[Page 7862]] such as occurred in January 1996 but no less than a 100-year level of protection; and ``(2) structural and nonstructural flood control, streambank protection, stormwater management, and channel clearing and modification measures in the Lower Allegheny, Lower Monongahela, West Branch Susquehanna, and Juniata River basins, Pennsylvania, at a level of protection that is sufficient to prevent any future losses to communities in these basins from flooding such as occurred in January 1996, but no less than a 100-year level of flood protection with respect to those measures that incorporate levees or floodwalls.''. SEC. 363. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS. (a) Lee Creek, Arkansas and Oklahoma.--The project for flood protection on Lee Creek, Arkansas and Oklahoma, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1078) and deauthorized pursuant to section 1001(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(1)), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary. (b) Indian River County, Florida.--The project for shore protection, Indian River County, Florida, authorized by section 501 of the Water Resources and Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4134) and deauthorized pursuant to section 1001(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(1)), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary. (c) Lido Key, Florida.--The project for shore protection, Lido Key, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1819) and deauthorized pursuant to section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C 579a(b)(2)), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary. (d) St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida.-- (1) In general.--The project for shore protection and storm damage reduction, St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida, authorized by section 501 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and deauthorized pursuant to section 1001(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)), is authorized to include navigation mitigation as a project purpose and to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the General Reevaluation Report dated November 18, 1998, at a total cost of $16,086,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $12,949,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,137,000. (2) Periodic nourishment.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out periodic nourishment for the project for a 50-year period at an estimated average annual cost of $1,251,000, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,007,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $244,000. (e) Cass River, Michigan (Vassar).--The project for flood protection, Cass River, Michigan (Vassar), authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 311) and deauthorized pursuant to section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary. (f) Saginaw River, Michigan (Shiawassee Flats).--The project for flood control, Saginaw River, Michigan (Shiawassee Flats), authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 311) and deauthorized pursuant to section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary. (g) Park River, Grafton, North Dakota.--The project for flood control, Park River, Grafton, North Dakota, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4121) and deauthorized pursuant to section 1001(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary. (h) Memphis Harbor, Memphis, Tennessee.--The project for navigation, Memphis Harbor, Memphis, Tennessee, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4145) and deauthorized pursuant to 1001(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C 579a(a)), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary. SEC. 364. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS. (a) In General.--The following projects or portions of projects are not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act: (1) Bridgeport harbor, connecticut.--That portion of the project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 297), consisting of a 2.4-acre anchorage area, 9 feet deep, and an adjacent 0.6-acre anchorage, 6 feet deep, located on the west side of Johnsons River. (2) Clinton harbor, connecticut.--That portion of the project for navigation, Clinton Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1945, House Document 240, 76th Congress, 1st Session, lying upstream of a line designated by the 2 points N158,592.12, E660,193.92 and N158,444.58, E660,220.95. (3) Bass harbor, maine.--The following portions of the project for navigation, Bass Harbor, Maine, authorized on May 7, 1962, under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577): (A) Beginning at a bend in the project, N149040.00, E538505.00, thence running easterly about 50.00 feet along the northern limit of the project to a point N149061.55, E538550.11, thence running southerly about 642.08 feet to a point, N14877.64, E538817.18, thence running southwesterly about 156.27 feet to a point on the westerly limit of the project, N148348.50, E538737.02, thence running northerly about 149.00 feet along the westerly limit of the project to a bend in the project, N148489.22, E538768.09, thence running northwesterly about 610.39 feet along the westerly limit of the project to the point of origin. (B) Beginning at a point on the westerly limit of the project, N148118.55, E538689.05, thence running southeasterly about 91.92 feet to a point, N148041.43, E538739.07, thence running southerly about 65.00 feet to a point, N147977.86, E538725.51, thence running southwesterly about 91.92 feet to a point on the westerly limit of the project, N147927.84, E538648.39, thence running northerly about 195.00 feet along the westerly limit of the project to the point of origin. (4) Boothbay harbor, maine.--The project for navigation, Boothbay Harbor, Maine, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1912 (37 Stat. 201). (5) Bucksport harbor, maine.--That portion of the project for navigation, Bucksport Harbor, Maine, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1902, consisting of a 16-foot deep channel beginning at a point N268.748.16, E423.390.76, thence running north 47 degrees 02 minutes 23 seconds east 51.76 feet to a point N268.783.44, E423.428.64, thence running north 67 degrees 54 minutes 32 seconds west 1513.94 feet to a point N269.352.81, E422.025.84, thence running south 47 degrees 02 minutes 23 seconds west 126.15 feet to a point N269.266.84, E421.933.52, thence running south 70 degrees 24 minutes 28 seconds east 1546.79 feet to the point of origin. (6) East boothbay harbor, maine.--The project for navigation, East Boothbay Harbor, Maine, authorized by the first section of the Act entitled, ``An Act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes'', approved June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 631). (7) Wells harbor, maine.--The following portions of the project for navigation, Wells Harbor, Maine, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 480): (A) The portion of the 6-foot channel the boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates N177,992.00, E394,831.00, thence running south 83 degrees 58 minutes 14.8 seconds west 10.38 feet to a point N177,990.91, E394,820.68, thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 47.7 seconds west 991.76 feet to a point N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 10.00 feet to a point N177,018.00, E394,628.00, thence running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.8 seconds east 994.93 feet to the point of origin. (B) The portion of the 6-foot anchorage the boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates N177,778.07, E394,336.96, thence running south 51 degrees 58 minutes 32.7 seconds west 15.49 feet to a point N177,768.53, E394,324.76, thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 26.5 seconds west 672.87 feet to a point N177,109.82, E394,187.46, thence running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 10.00 feet to a point N177,107.78, E394,197.25, thence running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 25.4 seconds east 684.70 feet to the point of origin. (C) The portion of the 10-foot settling basin the boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates N177,107.78, E394,197.25, thence running north 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds west 10.00 feet to a point N177,109.82, E394,187.46, thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 15.7 seconds west 300.00 feet to a point N176,816.13, E394,126.26, thence running south 78 degrees 12 minutes 21.4 seconds east 9.98 feet to a point N176,814.09, E394,136.03, thence running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 29.1 seconds east 300.00 feet to the point of origin. (D) The portion of the 10-foot settling basin the boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates N177,018.00, E394,628.00, thence running north 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds west 10.00 feet to a point N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 44.0 seconds west 300.00 feet to a point N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running south 78 degrees 12 minutes 30.3 seconds east 10.03 feet to a point N176,724.31, E394,566.79, thence running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.4 seconds east 300.00 feet to the point of origin. (8) Falmouth harbor, massachusetts.--That portion of the project for navigation, Falmouth Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1948 lying southeasterly of a line commencing at a point N199,286.41, E844,394.91, thence running north 66 degrees 52 minutes 3.31 seconds east 472.95 feet to a point N199,472.21, E844,829.83, thence running north 43 degrees 9 minutes 28.3 seconds east 262.64 feet to a point N199,633.80, E845,009.48, thence running north 21 degrees 40 minutes 11.26 seconds east 808.38 feet to a point N200,415.05, E845,307.98, thence running north 32 degrees 25 minutes 29.01 seconds east 160.76 feet to a point N200,550.75, E845,394.18, thence running north 24 degrees 56 minutes 42.29 seconds east 1,410.29 feet to a point N201,829.48, E845,988.97. (9) Green harbor, massachusetts.--That portion of the project for navigation, Green Harbor, Massachusetts, undertaken pursuant to section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), consisting of the 6-foot deep channel beginning at a point along the west limit of the existing project, North 395990.43, East 831079.16, thence running northwesterly about 752.85 feet to a point, North 396722.80, East 830904.76, thence running northwesterly about 222.79 feet to a point along the west limit of the existing project, North 396844.34, East 830718.04, thence running southwesterly about 33.72 feet along the west limit of the existing project to a point, North 396810.80, East 830714.57, thence running southeasterly about 195.42 feet along the west limit of the existing project to a point, North 396704.19, East [[Page 7863]] 830878.35, thence running about 544.66 feet along the west limit of the existing project to a point, North 396174.35, East 831004.52, thence running southeasterly about 198.49 feet along the west limit of the existing project to the point of beginning. (10) New bedford and fairhaven harbor, massachusetts.--The following portions of the project for navigation, New Bedford and Fairhaven Harbor, Massachusetts: (A) A portion of the 25-foot spur channel leading to the west of Fish Island, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 3 March 1909, beginning at a point with coordinates N232,173.77, E758,791.32, thence running south 27 degrees 36 minutes 52.8 seconds west 38.2 feet to a point N232,139.91, E758,773.61, thence running south 87 degrees 35 minutes 31.6 seconds west 196.84 feet to a point N232,131.64, E758,576.94, thence running north 47 degrees 47 minutes 48.4 seconds west 502.72 feet to a point N232,469.35, E758,204.54, thence running north 10 degrees 10 minutes 20.3 seconds west 438.88 feet to a point N232,901.33, E758,127.03, thence running north 79 degrees 49 minutes 43.1 seconds east 121.69 feet to a point N232,922.82, E758,246.81, thence running south 04 degrees 29 minutes 17.6 seconds east 52.52 feet to a point N232,870.46, E758,250.92, thence running south 23 degrees 56 minutes 11.2 seconds east 49.15 feet to a point N323,825.54, E758,270.86, thence running south 79 degrees 49 minutes 27.0 seconds west 88.19 feet to a point N232,809.96, E758,184.06, thence running south 10 degrees 10 minutes 25.7 seconds east 314.83 feet to a point N232,500.08, E758,239.67, thence running south 56 degrees 33 minutes 56.1 seconds east 583.07 feet to a point N232,178.82, E758,726.25, thence running south 85 degrees 33 minutes 16.0 seconds east to the point of origin. (B) A portion of the 30-foot west maneuvering basin, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 3 July 1930, beginning at a point with coordinates N232,139.91, E758,773.61, thence running north 81 degrees 49 minutes 30.1 seconds east 160.76 feet to a point N232,162.77, E758.932.74, thence running north 85 degrees 33 minutes 16.0 seconds west 141.85 feet to a point N232,173.77, E758,791.32, thence running south 27 degrees 36 minutes 52.8 seconds west to the point of origin. (b) Anchorage Area, Clinton Harbor, Connecticut.--That portion of the Clinton Harbor, Connecticut, navigation project referred to in subsection (a)(2) beginning at a point beginning: N158,444.58, E660,220.95, thence running north 79 degrees 37 minutes 14 seconds east 833.31 feet to a point N158,594.72, E661,040.67, thence running south 80 degrees 51 minutes 53 seconds east 181.21 feet to a point N158,565.95, E661,219.58, thence running north 57 degrees 38 minutes 04 seconds west 126.02 feet to a point N158,633.41, E660,113.14, thence running south 79 degrees 37 minutes 14 seconds west 911.61 feet to a point N158,469.17, E660,216.44, thence running south 10 degrees 22 minutes 46 seconds east 25 feet returning to a point N158,444.58, E660,220.95 is redesignated as an anchorage area. (c) Wells Harbor, Maine.-- (1) Project modification.--The project for navigation, Wells Harbor, Maine, navigation project referred to in subsection (a)(7) is modified to authorize the Secretary to realign the channel and anchorage areas based on a harbor design capacity of 150 craft. (2) Redesignations.-- (A) 6-foot anchorage.--The following portions of the project for navigation, Wells Harbor, Maine, navigation project referred to in subsection (a)(7) shall be redesignated as part of the 6-foot anchorage: (i) The portion of the 6-foot channel the boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates N177,990.91, E394,820.68, thence running south 83 degrees 58 minutes 40.8 seconds west 94.65 feet to a point N177,980.98, E394,726.55, thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.4 seconds west 962.83 feet to a point N177,038.40, E394,530.10, thence running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 90.00 feet to a point N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 47.7 seconds east 991.76 feet to the point of origin. (ii) The portion of the 10-foot inner harbor settling basin the boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence running north 78 degrees 13 minutes 30.5 seconds west 160.00 feet to a point N177,052.69, E394,461.58, thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 45.4 seconds west 299.99 feet to a point N176,759.02, E394,400.34, thence running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds east 160 feet to a point N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 44.0 seconds east 300.00 feet to the point of origin. (B) 6-foot channel.--The following portion of the project for navigation, Wells Harbor, Maine, navigation project referred to in subsection (a)(7) shall be redesignated as part of the 6-foot channel: the portion of the 6-foot anchorage the boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates N178,102.26, E394,751.83, thence running south 51 degrees 59 minutes 42.1 seconds west 526.51 feet to a point N177,778.07, E394,336.96, thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 26.6 seconds west 511.83 feet to a point N177,277.01, E394,232.52, thence running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds east 80.00 feet to a point N177,260.68, E394,310.84, thence running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 24.8 seconds east 482.54 feet to a point N177,733.07, E394,409.30, thence running north 51 degrees 59 minutes 41.0 seconds east 402.63 feet to a point N177,980.98, E394,726.55, thence running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 27.6 seconds east 123.89 feet to the point of origin. (3) Realignment.--The 6-foot anchorage area described in paragraph (2)(B) shall be realigned to include the area located south of the inner harbor settling basin in existence on the date of enactment of this Act beginning at a point with coordinates N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running north 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds west 160.00 feet to a point N176,759.02, E394,400.34, thence running south 11 degrees 47 minutes 03.8 seconds west 45 feet to a point N176,714.97, E394,391.15, thence running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds 160.00 feet to a point N176,682.31, E394,547.78, thence running north 11 degrees 47 minutes 03.8 seconds east 45 feet to the point of origin. (4) Relocation.--The Secretary may relocate the settling basin feature of the project for navigation, Wells Harbor, Maine, navigation project referred to in subsection (a)(7) to the outer harbor between the jetties. (d) Anchorage Area, Green Harbor, Massachusetts.--The portion of the Green Harbor, Massachusetts, navigation project referred to in subsection (a)(9) consisting of a 6- foot deep channel that lies northerly of a line whose coordinates are North 394825.00, East 831660.00 and North 394779.28, East 831570.64 is redesignated as an anchorage area. SEC. 365. AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS, CALIFORNIA. (a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction, American and Sacramento Rivers, California, authorized by section 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662-3663), is modified to direct the Secretary to include the following improvements as part of the overall project: (1) Raising the left bank of the non-Federal levee upstream of the Mayhew Drain for a distance of 4,500 feet by an average of 2.5 feet. (2) Raising the right bank of the American River levee from 1,500 feet upstream to 4,000 feet downstream of the Howe Avenue bridge by an average of 1 feet. (3) Modifying the south levee of the Natomas Cross Canal for a distance of 5 miles to ensure that the south levee is consistent with the level of protection provided by the authorized levee along the east bank of the Sacramento River. (4) Modifying the north levee of the Natomas Cross Canal for a distance of 5 miles to ensure that the height of the levee is equivalent to the height of the south levee as authorized by paragraph (3). (5) Installing gates to the existing Mayhew Drain culvert and pumps to prevent backup of floodwater on the Folsom Boulevard side of the gates. (6) Installation of a slurry wall in the north levee of the American River from the east levee of the Natomas east Main Drain upstream for a distance of approximately 1.2 miles. (7) Installation of a slurry wall in the north levee of the American River from 300 feet west of Jacob Lane north for a distance of approximately 1 mile to the end of the existing levee. (b) Cost Limitations.--Section 101(a)(1)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662) is amended by striking ``at a total cost of'' and all that follows through ``$14,225,000,'' and inserting the following: ``at a total cost of $91,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $68,925,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $22,975,000,''. (c) Cost Sharing.--For purposes of section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213), the modifications authorized by this section shall be subject to the same cost sharing in effect for the project for flood damage reduction, American and Sacramento Rivers, California, authorized by section 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662). SEC. 366. MARTIN, KENTUCKY. The project for flood control, Martin, Kentucky, authorized by section 202(a) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339) is modified to authorize the Secretary to take all necessary measures to prevent future losses that would occur from a flood equal in magnitude to a 100-year frequency event. TITLE IV--STUDIES SEC. 401. UPPER MISSISSIPPI AND ILLINOIS RIVERS LEVEES AND STREAMBANKS PROTECTION. The Secretary shall conduct a study of erosion damage to levees and infrastructure on the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers and the impact of increased barge and pleasure craft traffic on deterioration of levees and other flood control structures on such rivers. SEC. 402. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. (a) Development.--The Secretary shall develop a plan to address water and related land resources problems and opportunities in the Upper Mississippi and Illinois River Basins, extending from Cairo, Illinois, to the headwaters of the Mississippi River, in the interest of systemic flood damage reduction by means of a mixture of structural and nonstructural flood control and floodplain management strategies, continued maintenance of the navigation project, management of bank caving and erosion, watershed nutrient and sediment management, habitat management, recreation needs, and other related purposes. (b) Contents.--The plan shall contain recommendations on future management plans and actions to be carried out by the responsible Federal and non-Federal entities and shall specifically address recommendations to authorize construction of a systemic flood control project in [[Page 7864]] accordance with a plan for the Upper Mississippi River. The plan shall include recommendations for Federal action where appropriate and recommendations for follow-on studies for problem areas for which data or current technology does not allow immediate solutions. (c) Consultation and Use of Existing Data.--The Secretary shall consult with appropriate State and Federal agencies and shall make maximum use of existing data and ongoing programs and efforts of States and Federal agencies in developing the plan. (d) Cost Sharing.--Development of the plan under this section shall be at Federal expense. Feasibility studies resulting from development of such plan shall be subject to cost sharing under section 105 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215). (e) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report that includes the comprehensive plan to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 403. EL DORADO, UNION COUNTY, ARKANSAS. The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of improvements to regional water supplies for El Dorado, Union County, Arkansas. SEC. 404. SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. The Secretary shall conduct a study of the potential water quality problems and pollution abatement measures in the watershed in and around Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, California. SEC. 405. WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. The Secretary shall undertake and complete a feasibility study for flood damage reduction in the Whitewater River basin, California, and, based upon the results of such study, give priority consideration to including the recommended project, including the Salton Sea wetlands restoration project, in the flood mitigation and riverine restoration pilot program authorized in section 214 of this Act. SEC. 406. LITTLE ECONLACKHATCHEE RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA. The Secretary shall conduct a study of pollution abatement measures in the Little Econlackhatchee River basin, Florida. SEC. 407. PORT EVERGLADES INLET, FLORIDA. The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a sand bypass project at Port Everglades Inlet, Florida. SEC. 408. UPPER DES PLAINES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN. (a) In General.--The Secretary is directed to conduct a study of the upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois and Wisconsin, upstream of the confluence with Salt Creek at Riverside, Illinois, to determine the feasibility of improvements in the interests of flood damage reduction, environmental restoration and protection, water quality, recreation, and related purposes. (b) Special Rule.--In conducting the study, the Secretary may not exclude from consideration and evaluation flood damage reduction measures based on restrictive policies regarding the frequency of flooding, drainage area, and amount of runoff. SEC. 409. CAMERON PARISH WEST OF CALCASIEU RIVER, LOUISIANA. The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and environmental restoration, Cameron Parish west of Calcasieu River, Louisiana. SEC. 410. GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LOUISIANA. In carrying out a study of the storm damage reduction benefits to Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana, the Secretary shall include benefits that a storm damage reduction project for Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana, may have on the mainland coast of Louisiana as project benefits attributable to the Grand Isle project. SEC. 411. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN SEAWALL, LOUISIANA. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall complete a post- authorization change report on the project for hurricane- flood protection, Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and vicinity, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077), to incorporate and accomplish structural modifications to the seawall fronting protection along the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain from the New Basin Canal on the west to the Inner harbor Navigation Canal on the east. (b) Report.--The Secretary shall ensure expeditious completion of the post-authorization change report required by subsection (a) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section. SEC. 412. WESTPORT, MASSACHUSETTS. The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a navigation project for the town of Westport, Massachusetts, and the possible beneficial uses of dredged material for shoreline protection and storm damage reduction in the area. In determining the benefits of the project, the Secretary shall include the benefits derived from using dredged material for shoreline protection and storm damage reduction. SEC. 413. SOUTHWEST VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO. The Secretary shall undertake and complete a feasibility study for flood damage reduction in the Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and, based upon the results of such study, give priority consideration to including the recommended project in the flood mitigation and riverine restoration pilot program authorized in section 214 of this Act. SEC. 414. CAYUGA CREEK, NEW YORK. The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood control for Cayuga Creek, New York. SEC. 415. ARCOLA CREEK WATERSHED, MADISON, OHIO. The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of a project to provide environmental restoration and protection for the Arcola Creek watershed, Madison, Ohio. SEC. 416. WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OHIO, INDIANA, AND MICHIGAN. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to develop measures to improve flood control, navigation, water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat in a comprehensive manner in the western Lake Erie basin, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, including watersheds of the Maumee, Ottawa, and Portage Rivers. (b) Cooperation.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall cooperate with interested Federal, State, and local agencies and nongovernmental organizations and consider all relevant programs of such agencies. (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the study, including findings and recommendations. SEC. 417. SCHUYLKILL RIVER, NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA. The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood control for Schuylkill River, Norristown, Pennsylvania, including improvement to existing stormwater drainage systems. SEC. 418. LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH CAROLINA. The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for Lakes Marion and Moultrie to provide water supply, treatment, and distribution to Calhoun, Clarendon, Colleton, Dorchester, Orangeburg, and Sumter Counties, South Carolina. SEC. 419. DAY COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA. The Secretary shall conduct an investigation of flooding and other water resources problems between the James River and Big Sioux watersheds in South Dakota and an assessment of flood damage reduction needs of the area. SEC. 420. CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS. The Secretary shall include, as part of the study authorized in a resolution of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives, dated August 1, 1990, a review of two 175-foot-wide barge shelves on either side of the navigation channel at the Port of Corpus Christi, Texas. SEC. 421. MITCHELL'S CUT CHANNEL (CANEY FORK CUT), TEXAS. The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, Mitchell's Cut Channel (Caney Fork Cut), Texas. SEC. 422. MOUTH OF COLORADO RIVER, TEXAS. The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation at the mouth of the Colorado River, Texas, to provide a minimum draft navigation channel extending from the Colorado River through Parkers Cut (also known as ``Tiger Island Cut''), or an acceptable alternative, to Matagorda Bay. SEC. 423. KANAWHA RIVER, FAYETTE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA. The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of developing a public port along the Kanawha River in Fayette County, West Virginia, at a site known as ``Longacre''. SEC. 424. WEST VIRGINIA PORTS. The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of expanding public port development in West Virginia along the Ohio River and navigable portion of the Kanawha River from its mouth to river mile 91.0 SEC. 425. GREAT LAKES REGION COMPREHENSIVE STUDY. (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of the Great Lakes region to ensure the future use, management, and protection of water and related resources of the Great Lakes basin. Such study shall include a comprehensive management plan specifically for St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair. (b) Report.--Not later than 4 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 that includes the strategic plan for Corps of Engineers programs in the Great Lakes basin and details of proposed Corps of Engineers environmental, navigation, and flood damage reduction projects in the region. (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,400,000 for fiscal years 2000 through 2003. SEC. 426. NUTRIENT LOADING RESULTING FROM DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL. (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of nutrient loading that occurs as a result of discharges of dredged material into open-water sites in the Chesapeake Bay. (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the study. SEC. 427. SANTEE DELTA FOCUS AREA, SOUTH CAROLINA. The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Santee Delta focus area, South Carolina, to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project [[Page 7865]] for enhancing wetlands values and public recreational opportunities in the area. TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS SEC. 501. CORPS ASSUMPTION OF NRCS PROJECTS. (a) Llagas Creek, California.--The Secretary is authorized to complete the remaining reaches of the Natural Resources Conservation Service's flood control project at Llagas Creek, California, undertaken pursuant to section 5 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1005), substantially in accordance with the Natural Resources Conservation Service watershed plan for Llagas Creek, Department of Agriculture, and in accordance with the requirements of local cooperation as specified in section 4 of such Act, at a total cost of $45,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $21,800,000 and an estimated non- Federal cost of $23,200,000. (b) Thornton Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois.-- (1) In general.--The Thornton Reservoir project, an element of the project for flood control, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, Illinois, authorized by section 3(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), is modified to authorize the Secretary to include additional permanent flood control storage attributable to the Natural Resources Conservation Service Thornton Reservoir (Structure 84), Little Calumet River Watershed, Illinois, approved under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). (2) Cost sharing.--Costs for the Thornton Reservoir project shall be shared in accordance with section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213). (3) Transitional storage.--The Secretary of Agriculture may cooperate with non-Federal interests to provide, on a transitional basis, flood control storage for the Natural Resources Conservation Service Thornton Reservoir (Structure 84) in the west lobe of the Thornton quarry in advance of Corps' construction. (4) Crediting.--The Secretary may credit against the non- Federal share of the Thornton Reservoir project all design, lands, easements, rights-of-way (as of the date of authorization), and construction costs incurred by the non- Federal interests before the signing of the project cooperation agreement. (5) Reevaluation report.--The Secretary shall determine the credits authorized by paragraph (4) that are integral to the Thornton Reservoir project and the current total project costs based on a limited reevaluation report. SEC. 502. CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE. Section 219(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4836-4837) is amended by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and inserting the following: ``(5) $25,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(2); ``(6) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(9); ``(7) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(16); and ``(8) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(17).''. SEC. 503. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT DREDGING TECHNOLOGY. (a) Contaminated Sediment Dredging Project.-- (1) Review.--The Secretary shall conduct a review of innovative dredging technologies designed to minimize or eliminate contamination of a water column upon removal of contaminated sediments. The Secretary shall complete such review by June 1, 2001. (2) Testing.--After completion of the review under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall select the technology of those reviewed that the Secretary determines will increase the effectiveness of removing contaminated sediments and significantly reduce contamination of the water column. Not later than December 31, 2001, the Secretary shall enter into an agreement with a public or private entity to test such technology in the vicinity of Peoria Lakes, Illinois. (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000. SEC. 504. DAM SAFETY. (a) Assistance.--The Secretary is authorized to provide assistance to enhance dam safety at the following locations: (1) Healdsburg Veteran's Memorial Dam, California (2) Felix Dam, Pennsylvania (3) Kehly Run Dam, Pennsylvania (4) Owl Creek Reservoir, Pennsylvania (5) Sweet Arrow Lake Dam, Pennsylvania (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated $6,000,000 to carry out this section. SEC. 505. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS. Section 401(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (110 Stat. 3763) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Nonprofit public or private entities may contribute all or a portion of the non-Federal share.''. SEC. 506. SEA LAMPREY CONTROL MEASURES IN THE GREAT LAKES. (a) In General.--In conjunction with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the Secretary is authorized to undertake a program for the control of sea lampreys in and around waters of the Great Lakes. The program undertaken pursuant to this section may include projects which consist of either structural or nonstructural measures or a combination thereof. (b) Cost Sharing.--Projects carried out under this section on lands owned by the United States shall be carried out at full Federal expense. The non-Federal share of the cost of any such project undertaken on lands not in Federal ownership shall be 35 percent. (c) Non-Federal Interests.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), the Secretary, after coordination with the appropriate State and local government officials having jurisdiction over an area in which a project under this section will be carried out, may allow a nonprofit entity to serve as the non-Federal interest for the project. (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2005. SEC. 507. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS. Section 509(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(12) Acadiana Navigation Channel, Louisiana. ``(13) Contraband Bayou, Louisiana, as part of the Calcasieu River and Pass Ship Channel. ``(14) Lake Wallula Navigation Channel, Washington. ``(15) Wadley Pass (also known as McGriff Pass), Suwanee River, Florida.''. SEC. 508. MEASUREMENT OF LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSIONS. Section 1142(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-20 note; 100 Stat. 4253) is amended by striking ``$250,000'' and inserting ``$1,250,000''. SEC. 509. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. (a) Authorized Activities.--Section 1103(e)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(1)) is amended-- (1) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A); (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``long-term resource monitoring program; and'' and inserting ``long-term resource monitoring, computerized data inventory and analysis, and applied research program.''; and (3) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following: ``In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall establish an independent technical advisory committee to review projects, monitoring plans, and habitat and natural resource needs assessments.''. (b) Reports.--Section 1103(e)(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(2)) is amended to read as follows: ``(2) Reports.--Not later than December 31, 2004, and not later than December 31st of every sixth year thereafter, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, shall transmit to Congress a report that-- ``(A) contains an evaluation of the programs described in paragraph (1); ``(B) describes the accomplishments of each of such programs; ``(C) provides updates of a systemic habitat needs assessment; and ``(D) identifies any needed adjustments in the authorization.''. (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1103(e) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 652(e)) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``not to exceed'' and all that follows before the period at the end and inserting ``$22,750,000 for fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter''; (2) in paragraph (4) by striking ``not to exceed'' and all that follows before the period at the end and inserting ``$10,420,000 for fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter''; and (3) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following: ``(5) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out paragraph (1)(A) $350,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2009.''. (d) Transfer of Amounts.--Section 1103(e)(6) of such Act is amended to read as follows: ``(6) Transfer of amounts.--For fiscal year 1999, and each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, may transfer not to exceed 20 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) to the amounts appropriated to carry out the other of such subparagraphs.''. (e) Habitat Needs Assessment.--Section 1103(h)(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 652(h)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary shall complete the on-going habitat needs assessment conducted under this paragraph not later than September 30, 2000, and shall include in each report required by subsection (e)(2) the most recent habitat needs assessment conducted under this paragraph.''. (f) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1103 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 652) is amended-- (1) in subsection (e)(7) by striking ``paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)(B)''; and (2) in subsection (f)(2)-- (A) by striking ``(2)(A)'' and inserting ``(2)''; and (B) by striking subparagraph (B). SEC. 510. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK MONITORING. Section 404(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended by striking ``1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997'' and inserting ``1993 through 2003''. [[Page 7866]] SEC. 511. WATER CONTROL MANAGEMENT. (a) In General.--In evaluating potential improvements for water control management activities and consolidation of water control management centers, the Secretary may consider a regionalized water control management plan but may not implement such a plan until the date on which a report is transmitted under subsection (b). (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate a report containing the following: (1) A description of the primary objectives of streamlining water control management activities. (2) A description of the benefits provided by streamlining water control management activities through consolidation of centers for such activities. (3) A determination of whether or not benefits to users of regional water control management centers will be retained in each district office of the Corps of Engineers that does not have a regional center. (4) A determination of whether or not users of such regional centers will receive a higher level of benefits from streamlining water management control management activities. (5) A list of the Members of Congress who represent a district that currently includes a water control management center that is to be eliminated under a proposed regionalized plan. SEC. 512. BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL. The Secretary is authorized to carry out the following projects under section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326): (1) Bodega bay, california.--A project to make beneficial use of dredged materials from a Federal navigation project in Bodega Bay, California. (2) Sabine refuge, louisiana.--A project to make beneficial use of dredged materials from Federal navigation projects in the vicinity of Sabine Refuge, Louisiana. (3) Hancock, harrison, and jackson counties, mississippi.-- A project to make beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation project in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi. (4) Rose city marsh, orange county, texas.--A project to make beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation project in Rose City Marsh, Orange County, Texas. (5) Bessie heights marsh, orange county, texas.--A project to make beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation project in Bessie Heights Marsh, Orange County, Texas. SEC. 513. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE. Section 507(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3758) is amended to read as follows: ``(2) Expansion and improvement of Long Pine Run Dam and associated water infrastructure in accordance with the requirements of subsections (b) through (e) of section 313 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4845) at a total cost of $20,000,000.''. SEC. 514. LOWER MISSOURI RIVER AQUATIC RESTORATION PROJECTS. (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after funds are made available for such purposes, the Secretary shall complete a comprehensive report-- (1) identifying a general implementation strategy and overall plan for environmental restoration and protection along the Lower Missouri River between Gavins Point Dam and the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers; and (2) recommending individual environmental restoration projects that can be considered by the Secretary for implementation under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330; 110 Stat. 3679- 3680). (b) Scope of Projects.--Any environmental restoration projects recommended under subsection (a) shall provide for such activities and measures as the Secretary determines to be necessary to protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat without adversely affecting private property rights or water related needs of the region surrounding the Missouri River, including flood control, navigation, and enhancement of water supply, and shall include some or all of the following components: (1) Modification and improvement of navigation training structures to protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat. (2) Modification and creation of side channels to protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat. (3) Restoration and creation of fish and wildlife habitat. (4) Physical and biological monitoring for evaluating the success of the projects. (c) Coordination.--To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall integrate projects carried out in accordance with this section with other Federal, tribal, and State restoration activities. (d) Cost Sharing.--The report under subsection (a) shall be undertaken at full Federal expense. SEC. 515. AQUATIC RESOURCES RESTORATION IN THE NORTHWEST. (a) In General.--In cooperation with other Federal agencies, the Secretary is authorized to develop and implement projects for fish screens, fish passage devices, and other similar measures agreed to by non-Federal interests and relevant Federal agencies to mitigate adverse impacts associated with irrigation system water diversions by local governmental entities in the States of Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho. (b) Procedure and Participation.-- (1) Consultation requirement; use of existing data.--In providing assistance under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with other Federal, State, and local agencies and make maximum use of data and studies in existence on the date of enactment of this Act. (2) Participation by non-federal interests.--Participation by non-Federal interests in projects under this section shall be voluntary. The Secretary shall not take any action under this section that will result in a non-Federal interest being held financially responsible for an action under a project unless the non-Federal interest has voluntarily agreed to participate in the project. (c) Cost Sharing.--Projects carried out under this section on lands owned by the United States shall be carried out at full Federal expense. The non-Federal share of the cost of any such project undertaken on lands not in Federal ownership shall be 35 percent. (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999. SEC. 516. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR WATERSHED RESTORATION. The Secretary shall use, and encourage the use of, innovative treatment technologies, including membrane technologies, for watershed and environmental restoration and protection projects involving water quality. SEC. 517. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION. (a) Atlanta, Georgia.--Section 219(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) is amended by inserting before the period ``and watershed restoration and development in the regional Atlanta watershed, including Big Creek and Rock Creek''. (b) Paterson and Passaic Valley, New Jersey.--Section 219(c)(9) of such Act (106 Stat. 4836) is amended to read as follows: ``(9) Paterson, passaic county, and passaic valley, new jersey.--Drainage facilities to alleviate flooding problems on Getty Avenue in the vicinity of St. Joseph's Hospital for the City of Paterson, New Jersey, and Passaic County, New Jersey, and innovative facilities to manage and treat additional flows in the Passaic Valley, Passaic River basin, New Jersey.''. SEC. 518. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROJECTS. The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports for the following projects and proceed directly to project planning, engineering, and design: (1) Arroyo Pasajero, San Joaquin River basin, California, project for flood control. (2) Success Dam, Tule River, California, project for flood control and water supply. (3) Alafia Channel, Tampa Harbor, Florida, project for navigation. SEC. 519. DOG RIVER, ALABAMA. (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to establish, in cooperation with non-Federal interests, a pilot project to restore natural water depths in the Dog River, Alabama, between its mouth and the Interstate Route 10 crossing, and in the downstream portion of its principal tributaries. (b) Form of Assistance.--Assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be in the form of design and construction of water-related resource protection and development projects affecting the Dog River, including environmental restoration and recreational navigation. (c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the project carried out with assistance under this section shall be 90 percent. (d) Lands, Easements, and Rights-of-Way.--The non-Federal sponsor provide all lands, easements, rights of way, relocations, and dredged material disposal areas including retaining dikes required for the project. (e) Operation Maintenance.--The non-Federal share of the cost of operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation of the project carried out with assistance under this section shall be 100 percent. (f) Credit Toward Non-Federal Share.--The value of the lands, easements, rights of way, relocations, and dredged material disposal areas, including retaining dikes, provided by the non-Federal sponsor shall be credited toward the non- Federal share. SEC. 520. ELBA, ALABAMA. The Secretary is authorized to repair and rehabilitate a levee in the city of Elba, Alabama at a total cost of $12,900,000. SEC. 521. GENEVA, ALABAMA. The Secretary is authorized to repair and rehabilitate a levee in the city of Geneva, Alabama at a total cost of $16,600,000. SEC. 522. NAVAJO RESERVATION, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, AND UTAH. (a) In General.--In cooperation with other appropriate Federal and local agencies, the Secretary shall undertake a survey of, and provide technical, planning, and design assistance for, watershed management, restoration, and development on the Navajo Indian Reservation, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. (b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under this section shall be 75 percent. Funds made available under the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) may be used by the Navajo Nation in meeting the non- Federal share of the cost of such activities. [[Page 7867]] (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $12,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999. SEC. 523. AUGUSTA AND DEVALLS BLUFF, ARKANSAS. (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to perform operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation on 37 miles of levees in and around Augusta and Devalls Bluff, Arkansas. (b) Reimbursement.--After performing the operations, 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 operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation. SEC. 524. BEAVER LAKE, ARKANSAS. (a) Water Supply Storage Reallocation.--The Secretary shall reallocate approximately 31,000 additional acre-feet at Beaver Lake, Arkansas, to water supply storage at no additional cost to the Beaver Water District or the Carroll- Boone Water District above the amount that has already been contracted for. At no time may the bottom of the conservation pool be at an elevation that is less than 1,076 feet NGVD. (b) Contract Pricing.--The contract price for additional storage for the Carroll-Boone Water District beyond that which is provided for in subsection (a) shall be based on the original construction cost of Beaver Lake and adjusted to the 1998 price level net of inflation between the date of initiation of construction and the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 525. BEAVER LAKE TROUT PRODUCTION FACILITY, ARKANSAS. (a) Expedited Construction.--The Secretary shall construct, under the authority of section 105 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921) and section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4251- 4252), the Beaver Lake trout hatchery as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than September 30, 2002. (b) Mitigation Plan.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in conjunction with the State of Arkansas, shall prepare a plan for the mitigation of effects of the Beaver Dam project on Beaver Lake. Such plan shall provide for construction of the Beaver Lake trout production facility and related facilities. SEC. 526. CHINO DAIRY PRESERVE, CALIFORNIA. (a) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary, in coordination with the heads of other Federal agencies, shall provide technical assistance to State and local agencies in the study, design, and implementation of measures for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration and protection in the Santa Ana River watershed, California, with particular emphasis on structural and nonstructural measures in the vicinity of the Chino Dairy Preserve. (b) Comprehensive Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a feasibility study to determine the most cost-effective plan for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration and protection in the vicinity of the Chino Dairy Preserve, Santa Ana River watershed, Orange County and San Bernardino County, California. SEC. 527. NOVATO, CALIFORNIA. The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood control under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) at Rush Creek, Novato, California. SEC. 528. ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. The Secretary, in cooperation with local governments, may prepare special area management plans in Orange and San Diego Counties, California, to demonstrate the effectiveness of using such plans to provide information regarding aquatic resources. The Secretary may use such plans in making regulatory decisions and issue permits consistent with such plans. SEC. 529. SALTON SEA, CALIFORNIA. (a) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary, in coordination with other Federal agencies, shall provide technical assistance to Federal, State, and local agencies in the study, design, and implementation of measures for the environmental restoration and protection of the Salton Sea, California. (b) Study.--The Secretary, in coordination with other Federal, State, and local agencies, shall conduct a study to determine the most effective plan for the Corps of Engineers to assist in the environmental restoration and protection of the Salton Sea, California. SEC. 530. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. The Secretary is authorized to modify the cooperative agreement with the Santa Cruz Port District, California, to reflect unanticipated additional dredging effort and to extend such agreement for 10 years. SEC. 531. POINT BEACH, MILFORD, CONNECTICUT. (a) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Point Beach, Milford, Connecticut, shall be $3,000,000. (b) Revision of Project Cooperation Agreement.--The Secretary shall revise the project cooperation agreement for the project referred to in subsection (a) to take into account the change in the Federal participation in such project. (c) Cost Sharing.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the project referred to in subsection (a) under section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 2211). SEC. 532. LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA. (a) Computer Model.-- (1) In general.--The Secretary may apply the computer model developed under the St. Johns River basin feasibility study to assist non-Federal interests in developing strategies for improving water quality in the Lower St. Johns River basin, Florida. (2) Cost sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of assistance provided under this subsection shall be 50 percent. (b) Topographic Survey.--The Secretary is authorized to provide 1-foot contour topographic survey maps of the Lower St. Johns River basin, Florida, to non-Federal interests for analyzing environmental data and establishing benchmarks for subbasins. SEC. 533. SHORELINE PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, LAKE ALLATOONA, GEORGIA. (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is authorized to carry out the following water-related environmental restoration and resource protection activities to restore Lake Allatoona and the Etowah River in Georgia: (1) Lake allatoona/etowah river shoreline restoration design.--Develop pre-construction design measures to alleviate shoreline erosion and sedimentation problems. (2) Little river environmental restoration.--Conduct a feasibility study to evaluate environmental problems and recommend environmental infrastructure restoration measures for the Little River within Lake Allatoona, Georgia. (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999-- (1) $850,000 to carry out subsection (a)(1); and (2) $250,000 to carry out subsection (a)(2). SEC. 534. MAYO'S BAR LOCK AND DAM, COOSA RIVER, ROME, GEORGIA. The Secretary is authorized to provide technical assistance, including planning, engineering, and design assistance, for the reconstruction of the Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam, Coosa River, Rome, Georgia. The non-Federal share of assistance under this section shall be 50 percent. SEC. 535. COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD IMPACT RESPONSE MODELING SYSTEM, CORALVILLE RESERVOIR AND IOWA RIVER WATERSHED, IOWA. (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the University of Iowa, shall conduct a study and develop a Comprehensive Flood Impact Response Modeling System for Coralville Reservoir and the Iowa River watershed, Iowa. (b) Contents of Study.--The study shall include-- (1) an evaluation of the combined hydrologic, geomorphic, environmental, economic, social, and recreational impacts of operating strategies within the Iowa River watershed; (2) development of an integrated, dynamic flood impact model; and (3) development of a rapid response system to be used during flood and other emergency situations. (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report containing the results of the study and modeling system together with such recommendations as the Secretary determines to be appropriate. (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $900,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004. SEC. 536. ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE IN ILLINOIS. The Secretary may carry out the project for Georgetown, Illinois, and the project for Olney, Illinois, referred to in House Report Number 104-741, accompanying Public Law 104-182. SEC. 537. KANOPOLIS LAKE, KANSAS. (a) Water Storage.--The Secretary shall offer to the State of Kansas the right to purchase water storage in Kanopolis Lake, Kansas, at a price calculated in accordance with and in a manner consistent with the terms of the memorandum of understanding entitled ``Memorandum of Understanding Between the State of Kansas and the U.S. Department of the Army Concerning the Purchase of Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Storage'', dated December 11, 1985. (b) Effective Date.--For the purposes of this section, the effective date of that memorandum of understanding shall be deemed to be the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 538. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY. Section 531(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3774) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$25,000,000''. SEC. 539. SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA. Section 533(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3775) is amended by striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting ``$200,000,000''. SEC. 540. SNUG HARBOR, MARYLAND. (a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is authorized-- (1) to provide technical assistance to the residents of Snug Harbor, in the vicinity of Berlin, Maryland, for purposes of flood damage reduction; (2) to conduct a study of a project for nonstructural measures for flood damage reduction in the vicinity of Snug Harbor, Maryland, taking into account the relationship of both the [[Page 7868]] Ocean City Inlet and Assateague Island to the flooding; and (3) after completion of the study, to carry out the project under the authority of section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). (b) FEMA Assistance.--The Director, in coordination with the Secretary and under the authorities of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 note), may provide technical assistance and nonstructural measures for flood damage mitigation in the vicinity of Snug Harbor, Maryland. (c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of assistance under this section shall not exceed $3,000,000. The non-Federal share of such cost shall be determined in accordance with the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 or the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as appropriate. SEC. 541. WELCH POINT, ELK RIVER, CECIL COUNTY, AND CHESAPEAKE CITY, MARYLAND. (a) Spillage of Dredged Materials.--The Secretary shall carry out a study to determine if the spillage of dredged materials that were removed as part of the project for navigation, Inland Waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland, authorized by the first section of the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1030), is a significant impediment to vessels transiting the Elk River near Welch Point, Maryland. If the Secretary determines that the spillage is an impediment to navigation, the Secretary may conduct such dredging as may be required to permit navigation on the river. (b) Damage to Water Supply.--The Secretary shall carry out a study to determine if additional compensation is required to fully compensate the city of Chesapeake, Maryland, for damage to the city's water supply resulting from dredging of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal project. If the Secretary determines that such additional compensation is required, the Secretary may provide the compensation to the city of Chesapeake. SEC. 542. WEST VIEW SHORES, CECIL COUNTY, MARYLAND. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry out an investigation of the contamination of the well system in West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland. If the Secretary determines that the disposal site from any Federal navigation project has contributed to the contamination of the wells, the Secretary may provide alternative water supplies, including replacement of wells, at full Federal expense. SEC. 543. RESTORATION PROJECTS FOR MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST VIRGINIA. Section 539 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3776-3777) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``technical''; (2) in subsection (a)(1) by inserting ``(or in the case of projects located on lands owned by the United States, to Federal interests)'' after ``interests''; (3) in subsection (a)(3) by inserting ``or in conjunction'' after ``consultation''; and (4) by inserting at the end of subsection (d) the following: ``Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 340 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) are authorized for projects undertaken under subsection (a)(1)(B).''. SEC. 544. CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, BUZZARDS BAY, MASSACHUSETTS. (a) Alternative Transportation.--The Secretary is authorized to provide up to $300,000 for alternative transportation that may arise as a result of the operation, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of the Cape Cod Canal Railroad Bridge. (b) Operation and Maintenance Contract Renegotiation.--Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into negotiation with the owner of the railroad right-of-way for the Cape Cod Canal Railroad Bridge for the purpose of establishing the rights and responsibities for the operation and maintenance of the Bridge. The Secretary is authorized to include in any new contract the termination of the prior contract numbered ER- W175-ENG-1. SEC. 545. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. (a) Demonstration Project.--The Secretary, in consultation with local officials, shall conduct a demonstration project to improve water quality in the vicinity of St. Louis, Missouri. (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated $1,700,000 to carry out this section. SEC. 546. BEAVER BRANCH OF BIG TIMBER CREEK, NEW JERSEY. Upon request of the State of New Jersey or a political subdivision thereof, the Secretary may compile and disseminate information on floods and flood damages, including identification of areas subject to inundation by floods, and provide technical assistance regarding floodplain management for Beaver Branch of Big Timber Creek, New Jersey. SEC. 547. LAKE ONTARIO AND ST. LAWRENCE RIVER WATER LEVELS, NEW YORK. Upon request, the Secretary shall provide technical assistance to the International Joint Commission and the St. Lawrence River Board of Control in undertaking studies on the effects of fluctuating water levels on the natural environment, recreational boating, property flooding, and erosion along the shorelines of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River in New York. The Commission and Board are encouraged to conduct such studies in a comprehensive and thorough manner before implementing any change to water regulation Plan 1958-D. SEC. 548. NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY. The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with non-Federal interests to investigate, develop, and support measures for sediment management and reduction of contaminant sources which affect navigation in the Port of New York-New Jersey and the environmental conditions of the New York-New Jersey Harbor estuary. Such investigation shall include an analysis of the economic and environmental benefits and costs of potential sediment management and contaminant reduction measures. SEC. 549. SEA GATE REACH, CONEY ISLAND, NEW YORK, NEW YORK. The Secretary is authorized to construct a project for shoreline protection which includes a beachfill with revetment and T-groin for the Sea Gate Reach on Coney Island, New York, as identified in the March 1998 report prepared for the Corps of Engineers, New York District, entitled ``Field Data Gathering, Project Performance Analysis and Design Alternative Solutions to Improve Sandfill Retention'', at a total cost of $9,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,850,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,150,000. SEC. 550. WOODLAWN, NEW YORK. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide planning, design, and other technical assistance to non-Federal interests for identifying and mitigating sources of contamination at Woodlawn Beach in Woodlawn, New York. (b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of assistance provided under this section shall be 50 percent. SEC. 551. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, NEW YORK. (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 New York. (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 in the State of New York in an electronic format. (c) Participation of FEMA.--The Secretary and the non- Federal sponsor of 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 sponsor or provide reimbursements of project costs. (e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the project shall be 75 percent. (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $12,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1998. SEC. 552. WHITE OAK RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA. The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine if water quality deterioration and sedimentation of the White Oak River, North Carolina, are the result of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway navigation project. If the Secretary determines that the water quality deterioration and sedimentation are the result of the project, the Secretary shall take appropriate measures to mitigate the deterioration and sedimentation. SEC. 553. TOUSSAINT RIVER, CARROLL TOWNSHIP, OTTAWA COUNTY, OHIO. The Secretary is authorized to provide technical assistance for the removal of military ordnance from the Toussaint River, Carroll Township, Ottawa County, Ohio. SEC. 554. SARDIS RESERVOIR, OKLAHOMA. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall accept from the State of Oklahoma or an agent of the State an amount, as determined under subsection (b), as prepayment of 100 percent of the water supply cost obligation of the State under Contract No. DACW56-74-JC-0314 for water supply storage at Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma. (b) Determination of Amount.--The amount to be paid by the State of Oklahoma under subsection (a) shall be subject to adjustment in accordance with accepted discount purchase methods for Federal Government properties as determined by an independent accounting firm designated by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The cost of such determination shall be paid for by the State of Oklahoma or an agent of the State. (c) Effect.--Nothing in this section affects any of the rights or obligations of the parties to the contract referred to in subsection (a). SEC. 555. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA, WATER CONVEYANCE FACILITIES. For the project for construction of the water conveyances authorized by the first section of Public Law 88-253 (77 Stat. 841), the requirement for the Waurika Project Master Conservancy District to repay the $2,900,000 in costs (including interest) resulting from the October 1991 settlement of the claim before the United States Claims Court, and the payment of $1,190,451 of the final cost representing the difference between the 1978 estimate of cost and the actual cost determined after completion of such project in 1991, are waived. SEC. 556. SKINNER BUTTE PARK, EUGENE, OREGON. (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the south bank of the Willamette River, in the area of Skinner Butte Park from Ferry Street Bridge to the Valley River footbridge, to [[Page 7869]] determine the feasibility of carrying out a project to stabilize the river bank, and to restore and enhance riverine habitat, using a combination of structural and bioengineering techniques. (b) Construction.--If, upon completion of the study, the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the Secretary shall participate with non-Federal interests in the construction of the project. (c) Cost Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the project shall be 35 percent. (d) Lands, Easements, and Rights-of-Way.--The non-Federal interest shall provide lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary for construction of the project. The value of such items shall be credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project. (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999. SEC. 557. WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN, OREGON. The Secretary, Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and heads of other appropriate Federal agencies shall, using existing authorities, assist the State of Oregon in developing and implementing a comprehensive basin-wide strategy in the Willamette River basin of Oregon for coordinated and integrated management of land and water resources to improve water quality, reduce flood hazards, ensure sustainable economic activity, and restore habitat for native fish and wildlife. The heads of such Federal agencies may provide technical assistance, staff and financial support for development of the basin-wide management strategy. The heads of Federal agencies shall seek to exercise flexibility in administrative actions and allocation of funding to reduce barriers to efficient and effective implementing of the strategy. SEC. 558. BRADFORD AND SULLIVAN COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. The Secretary is authorized to provide assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in Bradford and Sullivan Counties, Pennsylvania, using the funds and authorities provided in title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-245) under the heading ``Construction, General'' (112 Stat. 1840) for similar projects in Lackawanna, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, and Monroe Counties, Pennsylvania. SEC. 559. ERIE HARBOR, PENNSYLVANIA. The Secretary may reimburse the appropriate non-Federal interest not more than $78,366 for architect and engineering costs incurred in connection with the Erie Harbor basin navigation project, Pennsylvania. SEC. 560. POINT MARION LOCK AND DAM, PENNSYLVANIA. The project for navigation, Point Marion Lock and Dam, Borough of Point Marion, Pennsylvania, as authorized by section 301(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4110), is modified to direct the Secretary, in the operation and maintenance of the project, to mitigate damages to the shoreline, at a total cost of $2,000,000. The cost of the mitigation shall be allocated as an operation and maintenance cost of a Federal navigation project. SEC. 561. SEVEN POINTS' HARBOR, PENNSYLVANIA. (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized, at full Federal expense, to construct a breakwater-dock combination at the entrance to Seven Points' Harbor, Pennsylvania. (b) Operation and Maintenance Costs.--All operation and maintenance costs associated with the facility constructed under this section shall be the responsibility of the lessee of the marina complex at Seven Points' Harbor. (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated $850,000 to carry out this section. SEC. 562. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA. Section 566(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3786) is amended by inserting ``environmental restoration,'' after ``water supply and related facilities,''. SEC. 563. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA-LACKAWANNA WATERSHED RESTORATION INITIATIVE. (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and nongovernmental institutions, is authorized to prepare a watershed plan for the Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna Watershed (USGS Cataloguing Unit 02050107). The plan shall utilize geographic information system and shall include a comprehensive environmental assessment of the watershed's ecosystem, a comprehensive flood plain management plan, a flood plain protection plan, water resource and environmental restoration projects, water quality improvement, and other appropriate infrastructure and measures. (b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of preparation of the plan under this section shall be 50 percent. Services and materials instead of cash may be credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the plan. (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999. SEC. 564. AGUADILLA HARBOR, PUERTO RICO. The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine if erosion and additional storm damage risks that exist in the vicinity of Aguadilla Harbor, Puerto Rico, are the result of a Federal navigation project. If the Secretary determines that such erosion and additional storm damage risks are the result of the project, the Secretary shall take appropriate measures to mitigate the erosion and storm damage. SEC. 565. OAHE DAM TO LAKE SHARPE, SOUTH DAKOTA, STUDY. Section 441 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3747) is amended-- (1) by inserting ``(a) Investigation.--'' before ``The Secretary''; and (2) by adding at the end the following: ``(b) Report.--Not later than September 30, 1999, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the investigation under this section. The report shall include the examination of financing options for regular maintenance and preservation of the lake. The report shall be prepared in coordination and cooperation with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, other Federal agencies, and State and local officials.''. SEC. 566. INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING, TEXAS. (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with other Federal agencies and the State of Texas, shall provide technical, planning, and design assistance to non-Federal interests in developing integrated water management plans and projects that will serve the cities, counties, water agencies, and participating planning regions under the jurisdiction of the State of Texas. (b) Purposes of Assistance.--Assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be in support of non-Federal planning and projects for the following purposes: (1) Plan and develop integrated, near- and long-term water management plans that address the planning region's water supply, water conservation, and water quality needs. (2) Study and develop strategies and plans that restore, preserve, and protect the State's and planning region's natural ecosystems. (3) Facilitate public communication and participation. (4) Integrate such activities with other ongoing Federal and State projects and activities associated with the State of Texas water plan and the State of Texas legislation. (c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent, of which up to \1/2\ of the non-Federal share may be provided as in kind services. (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, $10,000,000 for the fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999. SEC. 567. BOLIVAR PENINSULA, JEFFERSON, CHAMBERS, AND GALVESTON COUNTIES, TEXAS. (a) Shore Protection Project.--The Secretary is authorized to design and construct a shore protection project between the south jetty of the Sabine Pass Channel and the north jetty of the Galveston Harbor Entrance Channel in Jefferson, Chambers, and Galveston Counties, Texas, including beneficial use of dredged material from Federal navigation projects. (b) Applicability of Benefit-Cost Ratio Waiver Authority.-- 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), notwithstanding any limitation on the purpose of projects to which such section applies, to the extent that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project. SEC. 568. GALVESTON BEACH, GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS. The Secretary is authorized to design and construct a shore protection project between the Galveston South Jetty and San Luis Pass, Galveston County, Texas, using innovative nourishment techniques, including beneficial use of dredged material from Federal navigation projects. SEC. 569. PACKERY CHANNEL, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall construct a navigation and storm protection project at Packery Channel, Mustang Island, Texas, consisting of construction of a channel and a channel jetty and placement of sand along the length of the seawall. (b) Ecological and Recreational Benefits.--In evaluating the project, the Secretary shall include the ecological and recreational benefits of reopening the Packery Channel. (c) Applicability of Benefit-Cost Ratio Waiver Authority.-- 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), notwithstanding any limitation on the purpose of projects to which such section applies, to the extent that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project. SEC. 570. NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA. The projects described in the following reports are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, recommended in such reports: (1) Parkersburg, west virginia.--Report of the Corps of Engineers entitled ``Parkersburg/Vienna Riverfront Park Feasibility Study'', dated June 1998, at a total cost of $8,400,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,200,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,200,000. [[Page 7870]] (2) Weirton, west virginia.--Report of the Corps of Engineers entitled ``Feasibility Master Plan for Weirton Port and Industrial Center, West Virginia Public Port Authority'', dated December 1997, at a total cost of $18,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,000,000, and an estimated non- Federal cost of $9,000,000. (3) Erickson/wood county, west virginia.--Report of the Corps of Engineers entitled ``Feasibility Master Plan for Erickson/Wood County Port District, West Virginia Public Port Authority'', dated July 7, 1997, at a total cost of $28,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $14,000,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of $14,000,000. (4) Monongahela river, west virginia.--Monongahela River, West Virginia, Comprehensive Study Reconnaissance Report, dated September 1995, consisting of the following elements: (A) Morgantown Riverfront Park, Morgantown, West Virginia, at a total cost of $1,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $800,000. (B) Caperton Rail to Trail, Monongahela County, West Virginia, at a total cost of $4,425,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,212,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,212,500. (C) Palatine Park, Fairmont, West Virginia, at a total cost of $1,750,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $875,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $875,000. SEC. 571. URBANIZED PEAK FLOOD MANAGEMENT RESEARCH. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop and implement a research program to evaluate opportunities to manage peak flood flows in urbanized watersheds located in the State of New Jersey. (b) Scope of Research.--The research program authorized by subsection (a) shall be accomplished through the New York District. The research shall specifically include the following: (1) Identification of key factors in urbanized watersheds that are under development and impact peak flows in the watersheds and downsteam of the watersheds. (2) Development of peak flow management models for 4 to 6 watersheds in urbanized areas located with widely differing geology, areas, shapes, and soil types that can be used to determine optimal flow reduction factors for individual watersheds. (3) Utilization of such management models to determine relationships between flow and reduction factors and change in imperviousness, soil types, shape of the drainage basin, and other pertinent parameters from existing to ultimate conditions in watersheds under consideration for development. (4) Development and validation of an inexpensive accurate model to establish flood reduction factors based on runoff curve numbers, change in imperviousness, the shape of the basin, and other pertinent factors. (c) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall evaluate policy changes in the planning process for flood control projects based on the results of the research authorized by this section and transmit to Congress a report not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act. (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $3,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999. (e) Flow Reduction Factors Defined.--In this section, the term ``flow reduction factors'' means the ratio of estimated allowable peak flows of stormwater after projected development when compared to pre-existing conditions. SEC. 572. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION. Section 8 of the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928 (Public Law 391, 70th Congress), is amended by striking ``$7,500'' and inserting ``$21,500.'' SEC. 573. COASTAL AQUATIC HABITAT MANAGEMENT. (a) In General.--The Secretary may cooperate with the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, the Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, other appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and affected private entities, in the development of a management strategy to address problems associated with toxic microorganisms and the resulting degradation of ecosystems in the tidal and nontidal wetlands and waters of the United States for the States along the Atlantic Ocean. As part of such management strategy, the Secretary may provide planning, design, and other technical assistance to each participating State in the development and implementation of nonregulatory measures to mitigate environmental problems and restore aquatic resources. (b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of measures undertaken under this section shall not exceed 65 percent. (c) 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. (d) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $7,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999. SEC. 574. ABANDONED AND INACTIVE NONCOAL MINE RESTORATION. (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to provide technical, planning, and design assistance to Federal and non-Federal interests for carrying out projects to address water quality problems caused by drainage and related activities from abandoned and inactive noncoal mines. (b) Specific Measures.--Assistance provided under subsection (a) may be in support of projects for the following purposes: (1) Management of drainage from abandoned and inactive noncoal mines. (2) Restoration and protection of streams, rivers, wetlands, other waterbodies, and riparian areas degraded by drainage from abandoned and inactive noncoal mines. (3) Demonstration of management practices and innovative and alternative treatment technologies to minimize or eliminate adverse environmental effects associated with drainage from abandoned and inactive noncoal mines. (c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of assistance under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent; except that the Federal share with respect to projects located on lands owned by the United States shall be 100 percent. (d) Effect on Authority of the Secretary of the Interior.-- Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary of the Interior under title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1231 et seq.). (e) Technology Database for Reclamation of Abandoned Mines.--The Secretary is authorized to provide assistance to non-Federal and non-profit entities to develop, manage, and maintain a database of conventional and innovative, cost- effective technologies for reclamation of abandoned and inactive noncoal mine sites. Such assistance shall be provided through the rehabilitation of abandoned mine sites program, managed by the Sacramento District Office of the Corps of Engineers. (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000. SEC. 575. BENEFICIAL USE OF WASTE TIRE RUBBER. (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to conduct pilot projects to encourage the beneficial use of waste tire rubber, including crumb rubber, recycled from tires. Such beneficial use may include marine pilings, underwater framing, floating docks with built-in flotation, utility poles, and other uses associated with transportation and infrastructure projects receiving Federal funds. The Secretary shall, when appropriate, encourage the use of waste tire rubber, including crumb rubber, in such federally funded projects. (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1998. SEC. 576. SITE DESIGNATION. Section 102(c)(4) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1412(c)(4)) is amended by striking ``January 1, 2000'' and inserting ``January 1, 2005''. SEC. 577. LAND CONVEYANCES. (a) Exchange of Land in Pike County, Missouri.-- (1) Exchange of land.--Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), at such time as Holnam Inc. conveys all right, title, and interest in and to the land described in paragraph (2)(A) to the United States, the Secretary shall convey all right, title, and interest in the land described in paragraph (2)(B) to Holnam Inc. (2) Description of lands.--The lands referred to in paragraph (1) are the following: (A) Non-federal land.--152.45 acres with existing flowage easements situated in Pike County, Missouri, described a portion of Government Tract Number FM-9 and all of Government Tract Numbers FM-11, FM-10, FM-12, FM-13, and FM-16, owned and administered by the Holnam Inc. (B) Federal land.--152.61 acres situated in Pike County, Missouri, known as Government Tract Numbers FM-17 and a portion of FM-18, administered by the Corps of Engineers. (3) Conditions of exchange.--The exchange of land authorized by paragraph (1) shall be subject to the following conditions: (A) Deeds.-- (i) Federal land.--The instrument of conveyance used to convey the land described in paragraph (2)(B) to Holnam Inc. shall 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. (ii) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the land described in paragraph (2)(A) to the Secretary shall be by a warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary. (B) Removal of improvements.--Holnam Inc. may remove any improvements on the land described in paragraph (2)(A). The Secretary may require Holnam Inc. to remove any improvements on the land described in paragraph (2)(A). In either case, Holnam Inc. shall hold the United States harmless from liability, and the United States shall not incur cost associated with the removal or relocation of any such improvements. (C) Time limit for exchange.--The land exchange authorized by paragraph (1) shall be completed not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. (D) Legal description.--The Secretary shall provide the legal description of the land described in paragraph (2). The legal description shall be used in the instruments of conveyance of the land. (E) Administrative costs.--The Secretary shall require Holnam Inc. to pay reasonable administrative costs associated with the exchange. (4) Value of properties.--If the appraised fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, of the land conveyed to Holnam Inc. by the Secretary under paragraph (1) exceeds the appraised fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, of the land conveyed to the [[Page 7871]] United States by Holnam Inc. under paragraph (1), Holnam Inc. shall make a payment equal to the excess in cash or a cash equivalent to the United States. (b) Candy Lake Project, Osage County, Oklahoma.-- (1) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following definitions apply: (A) Fair market value.--The term ``fair market value'' means the amount for which a willing buyer would purchase and a willing seller would sell a parcel of land, as determined by a qualified, independent land appraiser. (B) Previous owner of land.--The term ``previous owner of land'' means a person (including a corporation) that conveyed, or a descendant of a deceased individual who conveyed, land to the Corps of Engineers for use in the Candy Lake project in Osage County, Oklahoma. (2) Land conveyances.-- (A) In general.--The Secretary shall convey, in accordance with this subsection, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the land acquired by the United States for the Candy Lake project in Osage County, Oklahoma. (B) Previous owners of land.-- (i) In general.--The Secretary shall give a previous owner of land the first option to purchase the land described in subparagraph (A). (ii) Application.-- (I) In general.--A previous owner of land that desires to purchase the land described in subparagraph (A) that was owned by the previous owner of land, or by the individual from whom the previous owner of land is descended, shall file an application to purchase the land with the Secretary not later than 180 days after the official date of notice to the previous owner of land under paragraph (3). (II) First to file has first option.--If more than 1 application is filed to purchase a parcel of land described in subparagraph (A), the first option to purchase the parcel of land shall be determined in the order in which applications for the parcel of land were filed. (iii) Identification of previous owners of land.--As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, identify each previous owner of land. (iv) Consideration.--Consideration for land conveyed under this paragraph shall be the fair market value of the land. (C) Disposal.--Any land described in subparagraph (A) for which an application to purchase the land has not been filed under subparagraph (B)(ii) within the applicable time period shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (D) Extinguishment of easements.--All flowage easements acquired by the United States for use in the Candy Lake project in Osage County, Oklahoma, are extinguished. (3) Notice.-- (A) In general.--The Secretary shall notify-- (i) each person identified as a previous owner of land under paragraph (2)(B)(iii), not later than 90 days after identification, by United States mail; and (ii) the general public, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, by publication in the Federal Register. (B) Contents of notice.--Notice under this paragraph shall include-- (i) a copy of this subsection; (ii) information sufficient to separately identify each parcel of land subject to this subsection; and (iii) specification of the fair market value of each parcel of land subject to this subsection. (C) Official date of notice.--The official date of notice under this paragraph shall be the later of-- (i) the date on which actual notice is mailed; or (ii) the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register. (c) Lake Hugo, Oklahoma, Area Land Conveyance.-- (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convey at fair market value to Choctaw County Industrial Authority, Oklahoma, the property described in paragraph (2). (2) Description.--The property to be conveyed under paragraph (1) is-- (A) that portion of land at Lake Hugo, Oklahoma, above elevation 445.2 located in the N\1/2\ of the NW\1/4\ of Section 24, R 18 E, T 6 S, and the S\1/2\ of the SW\1/4\ of Section 13, R 18 E, T 6 S bounded to the south by a line 50 north on the centerline of Road B of Sawyer Bluff Public Use Area and to the north by the \1/2\ quarter section line forming the south boundary of Wilson Point Public Use Area; and (B) a parcel of property at Lake Hugo, Oklahoma, commencing at the NE corner of the SE\1/4\ SW\1/4\ of Section 13, R 18 E, T 6 S, 100 feet north, then east approximately \1/2\ mile to the county line road between Section 13, R 18 E, T 6 S, and Section 18, R 19 E, T 6 S. (3) Terms and conditions.--The conveyances under this subsection shall be subject to such terms and conditions, including payment of reasonable administrative costs and compliance with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood insurance programs, as the Secretary considers necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. (d) Conveyance of Property in Marshall County, Oklahoma.-- (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of Oklahoma all right, title, and interest of the United States to real property located in Marshall County, Oklahoma, and included in the Lake Texoma (Denison Dam), Oklahoma and Texas, project consisting of approximately 1,580 acres and leased to the State of Oklahoma for public park and recreation purposes. (2) Consideration.--Consideration for the conveyance under paragraph (1) shall be the fair market value of the real property, as determined by the Secretary. All costs associated with the conveyance under paragraph (1) shall be paid by the State of Oklahoma. (3) Description.--The exact acreage and legal description of the real property to be conveyed under paragraph (1) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be paid by the State of Oklahoma. (4) Environmental compliance.--Before making the conveyance under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall-- (A) conduct an environmental baseline survey to determine if there are levels of contamination for which the United States would be responsible under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.); and (B) ensure that the conveyance complies with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). (5) Other terms and conditions.--The conveyance under paragraph (1) shall be subject to such other terms and conditions as the Secretary considers necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the United States, including reservation by the United States of a flowage easement over all portions of the real property to be conveyed that are at or below elevation 645.0 NGVD. (e) Summerfield Cemetery Association, Oklahoma, Land Conveyance.-- (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transfer to the Summerfield Cemetery Association, Oklahoma, all right, title, and interest of the United State in and to the land described in paragraph (3) for use as a cemetery. (2) Reversion.--If the land to be transferred under this subsection ever cease to be used as a not-for-profit cemetery or for other public purposes the land shall revert to the United States. (3) Description.--The land to be conveyed under this subsection is the approximately 10 acres of land located in Leflore County, Oklahoma, and described as follows: indian basin meridian Section 23, Township 5 North, Range 23 East SW SE SW NW NW NE NW SW N\1/2\ SW SW NW. (4) Consideration.--The conveyance under this subsection shall be without consideration. All costs associated with the conveyance shall be paid by the Summerfield Cemetery Association, Oklahoma. (5) Other terms and conditions.--The conveyance under this subsection shall be subject to such other terms and conditions as the Secretary considers necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. (f) Dexter, Oregon.-- (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the Dexter Sanitary District all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a parcel of land consisting of approximately 5 acres located at Dexter Lake, Oregon, under lease to the Dexter Sanitary District. (2) Consideration.--Land to be conveyed under this section shall be conveyed without consideration. If the land is no longer held in public ownership or no longer used for wastewater treatment purposes, title to the land shall revert to the Secretary. (3) Terms and conditions.--The conveyance by the United States shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. (4) Description.--The exact acreage and description of the land to be conveyed under paragraph (1) shall be determined by such surveys as the Secretary considers necessary. The cost of the surveys shall be borne by the Dexter Sanitary District. (g) Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina.-- (1) In general.--Upon execution of an agreement under paragraph (4) and subject to the requirements of this subsection, the Secretary shall convey, without consideration, to the State of South Carolina all right, title, and interest of the United States to the lands described in paragraph (2) that are managed, as of the date of enactment of this Act, by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes in connection with the Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina, project. (2) Description.-- (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the lands to be conveyed under paragraph (1) are described in Exhibits A, F, and H of Army Lease Number DACW21-1-93-0910 and associated Supplemental Agreements or are designated in red in Exhibit A of Army License Number DACW21-3-85-1904; except that all designated lands in the license that are below elevation 346 feet mean sea level or that are less than 300 feet measured horizontally from the top of the power pool are excluded from the conveyance. Management of the excluded lands shall continue in accordance with the terms of Army License Number DACW21-3-85-1904 until the Secretary and the State enter into an agreement under paragraph (4). (B) Survey.--The exact acreage and legal description of the lands to be conveyed under [[Page 7872]] paragraph (1) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary, with the cost of the survey to be paid by the State. The State shall be responsible for all other costs, including real estate transaction and environmental compliance costs, associated with the conveyance. (3) Terms and conditions.-- (A) Management of lands.--All lands that are conveyed under paragraph (1) shall be retained in public ownership and shall be managed in perpetuity for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes in accordance with a plan approved by the Secretary. If the lands are not managed for such purposes in accordance with the plan, title to the lands shall revert to the United States. If the lands revert to the United States under this subparagraph, the Secretary shall manage the lands for such purposes. (B) Terms and conditions.--The Secretary may require such additional terms and conditions in connection with the conveyance as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. (4) Payments.-- (A) Agreements.--The Secretary is authorized to pay to the State of South Carolina not more than $4,850,000 if the Secretary and the State enter into a binding agreement for the State to manage for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes, in perpetuity, the lands conveyed under this subsection and the lands not covered by the conveyance that are designated in red in Exhibit A of Army License Number DACW21-3-85-1904. (B) Terms and conditions.--The agreement shall specify the terms and conditions under which the payment will be made and the rights of, and remedies available to, the Federal Government to recover all or a portion of the payment in the event the State fails to manage the lands in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary. (h) Charleston, South Carolina.--The Secretary is authorized to convey the property of the Corps of Engineers known as the ``Equipment and Storage Yard'', located on Meeting Street in Charleston, South Carolina, in as-is condition for fair-market value with all proceeds from the conveyance to be applied by the Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, to offset a portion of the costs of moving or leasing (or both) an office facility in the city of Charleston. (i) Clarkston, Washington.-- (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the Port of Clarkston, Washington, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a portion of the land described in Army Lease Number DACW68-1-97-22, consisting of approximately 31 acres, the exact boundaries of which shall be determined by the Secretary and the Port of Clarkston. (2) Additional land.--The Secretary may convey to the Port of Clarkston, Washington, at fair market value as determined by the Secretary, such additional land located in the vicinity of Clarkston, Washington, as the Secretary determines to be excess to the needs of the Columbia River Project and appropriate for conveyance. (3) Terms and conditions.--The conveyances made under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be necessary to protect the interests of the United States, including a requirement that the Port of Clarkston pay all administrative costs associated with the conveyances (including the cost of land surveys and appraisals and costs associated with compliance with applicable environmental laws, including regulations). (4) Use of land.--The Port of Clarkston shall be required to pay the fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, of any land conveyed pursuant to paragraph (1) that is not retained in public ownership or is used for other than public park or recreation purposes, except that the Secretary shall have a right of reverter to reclaim possession and title to any such land. (j) Land Conveyance to Matewan, West Virginia.-- (1) In general.--The United States shall convey by quit claim deed to the Town of Matewan, West Virginia, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to four parcels of land deemed excess by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to the structural project for flood control constructed by the Corps of Engineers along the Tug Fork River pursuant to section 202 of Public Law 96-367. (2) Property description.--The parcels of land referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows: (A) A certain parcel of land in the State of West Virginia, Mingo County, Town of Matewan, and being more particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of a 40-foot-wide street right-of-way (known as McCoy Alley), having an approximate coordinate value of N228,695, E1,662,397, in the line common to the land designated as U.S.A. Tract No. 834, and the land designated as U.S.A. Tract No. 837, said point being South 51 deg.52' East 81.8 feet from an iron pin and cap marked M-12 on the boundary of the Matewan Area Structural Project, on the north right-of-way line of said street, at a corner common to designated U.S.A. Tracts Nos. 834 and 836; thence, leaving the right-of-way of said street, with the line common to the land of said Tract No. 834, and the land of said Tract No. 837. South 14 deg.37' West 46 feet to the corner common to the land of said Tract No. 834, and the land of said Tract No. 837; thence, leaving the land of said Tract No. 837, severing the lands of said Project. South 14 deg.37' West 46 feet. South 68 deg.07' East 239 feet. North 26 deg.05' East 95 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way line of said street; thence, with the right-of- way of said street, continuing to sever the lands of said Project. South 63 deg.55' East 206 feet; thence, leaving the right- of-way of said street, continuing to sever the lands of said Project. South 26 deg.16' West 63 feet; thence, with a curve to the left having a radius of 70 feet, a delta of 33 deg.58', an arc length of 41 feet, the chord bearing. South 09 deg.17' West 41 feet; thence, leaving said curve, continuing to sever the lands of said Project. South 07 deg.42' East 31 feet to a point on the right-of- way line of the floodwall; thence, with the right-of-way of said floodwall, continuing to sever the lands of said Project. South 77 deg.04' West 71 feet. North 77 deg.10' West 46 feet. North 67 deg.07' West 254 feet. North 67 deg.54' West 507 feet. North 57 deg.49' West 66 feet to the intersection of the right-of-way line of said floodwall with the southerly right- of-way line of said street; thence, leaving the right-of-way of said floodwall and with the southerly right-of-way of said street, continuing to sever the lands of said Project. North 83 deg.01' East 171 feet. North 89 deg.42' East 74 feet. South 83 deg.39' East 168 feet. South 83 deg.38' East 41 feet. South 77 deg.26' East 28 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.59 acres, more or less. The bearings and coordinate used herein are referenced to the West Virginia State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone. (B) A certain parcel of land in the State of West Virginia, Mingo County, Town of Matewan, and being more particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at an iron pin and cap designated Corner No. M2-2 on the southerly right-of-way line of the Norfolk and Western Railroad, having an approximate coordinate value of N228,755 E1,661,242, and being at the intersection of the right-of-way line of the floodwall with the boundary of the Matewan Area Structural Project; thence, leaving the right-of-way of said floodwall and with said Project boundary, and the southerly right-of-way of said Railroad. North 59 deg.45' East 34 feet. North 69 deg.50' East 44 feet. North 58 deg.11' East 79 feet. North 66 deg.13' East 102 feet. North 69 deg.43' East 98 feet. North 77 deg.39' East 18 feet. North 72 deg.39' East 13 feet to a point at the intersection of said Project boundary, and the southerly right-of-way of said Railroad, with the westerly right-of-way line of State Route 49/10; thence, leaving said Project boundary, and the southerly right-of-way of said Railroad, and with the westerly right-of-way of said road. South 03 deg.21' East 100 feet to a point at the intersection of the westerly right-of-way of said road with the right-of-way of said floodwall; thence, leaving the right-of-way of said road, and with the right-of-way line of said floodwall. South 79 deg.30' West 69 feet. South 78 deg.28' West 222 feet. South 80 deg.11' West 65 feet. North 38 deg.40' West 14 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.53 acre, more or less. The bearings and coordinate used herein are referenced to the West Virginia State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone. (C) A certain parcel of land in the State of West Virginia, Mingo County, Town of Matewan, and being more particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of the Norfolk and Western Railroad, having an approximate coordinate value of N228,936 E1,661,672, and being at the intersection of the easterly right-of-way line of State Route 49/10 with the boundary of the Matewan Area Structural Project; thence, leaving the right-of-way of said road, and with said Project boundary, and the southerly right-of-way of said Railroad. North 77 deg.49' East 89 feet to an iron pin and cap designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M-4. North 79 deg.30' East 74 feet to an iron pin and cap designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M-5-1; thence, leaving the southerly right-of-way of said Railroad, and continuing with the boundary of said Project. South 06 deg.33' East 102 to an iron pipe and cap designated U.S.A. Corner No. M-6-1 on the northerly right-of- way line of State Route 49/28; thence, leaving the boundary of said Project, and with the right-of-way of said road, severing the lands of said Project. North 80 deg.59' West 171 feet to a point at the intersection of the Northerly right-of-way line of said State Route 49/28 with the easterly right-of-way line of said State Route 49/10; thence, leaving the right-of-way of said State Route 49/28 and with the right-of-way of said State Route 49/ 10. North 03 deg.21' West 42 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.27 acre, more or less. The bearings and coordinate used herein are referenced to the West Virginia State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone. (D) A certain parcel of land in the State of West Virginia, Mingo County, Town of Matewan, and being more particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point at the intersection of the easterly right-of-way line of State Route 49/10 with the right-of-way line of the floodwall, having an approximate coordinate value of N228,826 E1,661,679; thence, leaving the right-of-way of [[Page 7873]] said floodwall, and with the right-of-way of said State Route 49/10. North 03 deg.21' West 23 feet to a point at the intersection of the easterly right-of-way line of said State Route 49/10 with the southerly right-of-way line of State Route 49/28; thence, leaving the right-of-way of said State Route 49/10 and with the right-of-way of said State Route 49/ 28. South 80 deg.59' East 168 feet. North 82 deg.28' East 45 feet to an iron pin and cap designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M-8-1 on the boundary of the Western Area Structural Project; thence, leaving the right- of-way of said State Route 49/28, and with said Project boundary. South 08 deg.28' East 88 feet to an iron pin and cap designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M-9-1 point on the northerly right-of-way line of a street (known as McCoy Alley); thence, leaving said Project boundary and with the northerly right- of-way of said street. South 83 deg.01' West 38 feet to a point on the right-of- way line of said floodwall; thence, leaving the right-of-way of said street, and with the right-of-way of said floodwall. North 57 deg.49' West 180 feet. South 79 deg.30' West 34 feet to a point of beginning, containing 0.24 acre, more or less. The bearings and coordinate used herein are referenced to the West Virginia State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone. SEC. 578. NAMINGS. (a) Francis Bland Floodway Ditch, Arkansas.-- (1) Designation.--8-Mile Creek in Paragould, Arkansas, shall be known and designated as the ``Francis Bland Floodway Ditch''. (2) Legal reference.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the creek referred to in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Francis Bland Floodway Ditch''. (b) Lawrence Blackwell Memorial Bridge, Arkansas.-- (1) Designation.--The bridge over lock and dam numbered 4 on the Arkansas River, Arkansas, constructed as part of the project for navigation on the Arkansas River and tributaries, shall be known and designated as the ``Lawrence Blackwell Memorial Bridge''. (2) Legal reference.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the bridge referred to in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lawrence Blackwell Memorial Bridge''. SEC. 579. FOLSOM DAM AND RESERVOIR ADDITIONAL STORAGE AND ADDITIONAL FLOOD CONTROL STUDIES. (a) Folsom Flood Control Studies.-- (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the State of California and local water resources agencies, shall undertake a study of increasing surcharge flood control storage at the Folsom Dam and Reservoir. (2) Limitations.--The study of the Folsom Dam and Reservoir undertaken under paragraph (1) shall assume that there is to be no increase in conservation storage at the Folsom Reservoir. (3) Report.--Not later than March 1, 2000, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the study under this subsection. (b) American and Sacramento Rivers Flood Control Study.-- (1) In general.--The Secretary shall undertake a study of all levees on the American River and on the Sacramento River downstream and immediately upstream of the confluence of such Rivers to access opportunities to increase potential flood protection through levee modifications. (2) Deadline for completion.--Not later than March 1, 2000, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the study undertaken under this subsection. SEC. 580. WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. (a) Emergency Action.--The Secretary shall take emergency action to protect Wallops Island, Virginia, from damaging coastal storms, by improving and extending the existing seawall, replenishing and renourishing the beach, and constructing protective dunes. (b) Reimbursement.--The Secretary shall seek reimbursement from other Federal agencies whose resources are protected by the emergency action taken under subsection (a). (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $8,000,000. SEC. 581. DETROIT RIVER, DETROIT, MICHIGAN. (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to repair and rehabilitate the seawalls on the Detroit River in Detroit, Michigan. (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999, $1,000,000 to carry out this section. The CHAIRMAN. No amendment shall be in order except those printed in part 2 of that report. Each amendment may be offered only in the order specified, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part 2 of House Report 106-120. Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Shuster Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 1 printed in part 2 of House Report 106-120 offered by Mr. Shuster: In section 101(a)(6) of the bill, strike ``at a total cost of'' and all that follows and insert the following: at a total cost of $140,328,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $70,164,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $70,164,000. In section 101(a)(8) of the bill, strike all after ``$3,375,000'' and insert a period. In section 101(a)(9) of the bill, strike all after ``$2,675,000'' and insert a period. In section 101(a)(10) of the bill, strike all after ``$773,000'' and insert a period. In section 101(a)(18) of the bill, strike all after ``$3,834,000'' and insert a period. In section 101(a)(19) of the bill, strike all after ``$19,776,000'' and insert a period. In section 101(a) of the bill, after paragraph (4) insert the following: (5) Oakland harbor, california.--The project for navigation, Oakland Harbor, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 21, 1999, at a total cost of $252,290,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $128,081,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $124,209,000. In section 101(a) of the bill, after paragraph (10) insert the following: (11) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey-villas and vicinity, new jersey.--The project for shore protection and ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-Villas and vicinity, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 21, 1999, at a total cost of $7,520,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,888,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,632,000. (12) Delaware coast from cape henelopen to fenwick island, bethany beach/south bethany beach, delaware.--The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Coast from Cape Henelopen to Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach/South Bethany Beach, Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 21, 1999, at a total cost of $22,205,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $14,433,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,772,000. In section 101(a) of the bill, insert after paragraph (17) the following (and redesignate paragraphs accordingly): (18) Turkey creek basin, kansas city, missouri, and kansas city, kansas.--The project for flood damage reduction, Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas City, Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 21, 1999, at a total cost of $42,875,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $25,596,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $17,279,000. In section 101(b)(7) of the bill, strike all after ``$7,772,000'' and insert a period. In section 101(b)(12) of the bill, strike all after ``$1,740,000'' and insert a period. In section 101(b) of the bill, strike paragraph (4) and insert the following: (4) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey: oakwood beach, new jersey.--The project for shore protection, Delaware Bay Coastline, Delaware and New Jersey: Oakwood Beach, New Jersey, at a total cost of $3,360,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,184,000 and an estimated non- Federal cost of $1,176,000. In section 101(b) of the bill, strike paragraphs (6) and (7) and redesignate accordingly. At the end of section 104 of the bill, insert the following: (18) Fairport harbor, ohio.--Project for navigation, Fairport Harbor, Ohio, including a recreation channel. At the end of title II of the bill, insert the following: SEC. 229. WETLANDS MITIGATION. In carrying out a water resources project that involves wetlands mitigation and that has an impact that occurs within the service area of a mitigation bank, the Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, shall give preference to 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 (November 28, 1995)) or other applicable Federal law (including regulations). Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly. In section 304 of the bill, insert ``River'' after ``St. Francis''. In section 310 of the bill-- (1) insert ``, Potomac River, Washington, District of Columbia,'' after ``for flood control''; [[Page 7874]] (2) strike ``as'' and insert ``and''; and (3) strike ``$5,965,000'' and insert ``$6,129,000''. In section 326 of the bill, strike ``cannal'' and insert ``Canal''. In section 351 of the bill-- (1) insert ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--'' before ``Section''; and (2) add at the end the following: (b) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Section 313(g) of such Act (106 Stat. 4846) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(4) Corps of engineers expenses.--10 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2002 may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer and implement projects under this section at 100 percent Federal expense.''. Strike section 354 of the bill and insert the following: SEC. 354. CLEAR CREEK, TEXAS. Section 575 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3789) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)-- (A) by inserting ``or nonstructural (buyout) actions'' after ``flood control works constructed''; and (B) by inserting ``or nonstructural (buyout) actions'' after ``construction of the project''; and (2) in subsection (b)-- (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3); (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting ``; and''; and (C) by adding at the end the following: ``(4) the project for flood control, Clear Creek, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742).''. In section 356 of the bill, strike ``modified--'' and all that follows and insert the following: modified to add environmental restoration and recreation as project purposes. In section 363(d) of the bill, strike ``(1) In general.-- ''. In section 363(d) of the bill, strike paragraph (2). In section 364(a) of the bill, after paragraph (5) insert the following (and redesignate paragraph (6) as paragraph (7)): (6) Carvers harbor, vinalhaven, maine.--That portion of the project for navigation, Carvers Harbor, Vinalhaven, Maine, authorized by the Act of June 3, 1896 (commonly known as the ``River and Harbor Appropriations Act of 1896'') (29 Stat. 202, chapter 314), consisting of the 16-foot anchorage beginning at a point with coordinates N137,502.04, E895,156.83, thence running south 6 degrees 34 minutes 57.6 seconds west 277.660 feet to a point N137,226.21, E895,125.00, thence running north 53 degrees, 5 minutes 42.4 seconds west 127.746 feet to a point N137,302.92, E895022.85, thence running north 33 degrees 56 minutes 9.8 seconds east 239.999 feet to the point of origin. In section 364(a) of the bill, after paragraph (7), (as so redesignated) insert the following (redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly): (8) Searsport harbor, searsport, maine.--That portion of the project for navigation, Searsport Harbor, Searsport, Maine, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173), consisting of the 35-foot turning basin beginning at a point with coordinates N225,008.38, E395,464.26, thence running north 43 degrees 49 minutes 53.4 seconds east 362.001 feet to a point N225,269.52, E395,714.96, thence running south 71 degrees 27 minutes 33.0 seconds east 1,309.201 feet to a point N224,853.22, E396,956.21, thence running north 84 degrees 3 minutes 45.7 seconds west 1,499.997 feet to the point of origin. In section 364(c) of the bill-- (1) strike ``(a)(7)'' each place it appears and insert ``(a)(9)''; (2) strike ``project for navigation,'' each place it appears; and (3) add at the end the following: (5) Additional actions.--In carrying out the operation and the maintenance of the Wells Harbor, Maine, navigation project referred to in subsection (a)(9), the Secretary shall undertake each of the actions of the Corps of Engineers specified in section IV(B) of the memorandum of agreement relating to the project dated January 20, 1998, including those actions specified in such section IV(B) that the parties agreed to ask the Corps of Engineers to undertake. In section 364(d) of the bill, strike ``(a)(9)'' and insert ``(a)(11)''. At the end of title III of the bill, add the following (and conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly): SEC. 367. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA PILOT PROGRAM. Section 340(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is amended to read as follows: ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out the pilot program under this section $40,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1992. Such sums shall remain available until expended.''. SEC. 368. BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, JACKSON, ALABAMA. The project for navigation, Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, vicinity of Jackson, Alabama, as authorized by section 106 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1987 (100 Stat. 3341-199), is modified to authorize the Secretary to acquire lands for mitigation of the habitat losses attributable to the project, including the navigation channel, dredged material disposal areas, and other areas directly impacted by construction of the project. Notwithstanding section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283), the Secretary may construct the project prior to acquisition of the mitigation lands if the Secretary takes such actions as may be necessary to ensure that any required mitigation lands will be acquired not later than 2 years after initiation of construction of the new channel and such acquisition will fully mitigate any adverse environmental impacts resulting from the project. SEC. 369. TROPICANA WASH AND FLAMINGO WASH, NEVADA. Any Federal costs associated with the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, Nevada, authorized by section 101(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4803), incurred by the non-Federal interest to accelerate or modify construction of the project, in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, shall be considered to be eligible for reimbursement by the Secretary. SEC. 370. COMITE RIVER, LOUISIANA. The Comite River Diversion Project for flood control, authorized as part of the project for flood control, Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, by section 101(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802-4803) and modified by section 301(b)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3709-3710), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to include the costs of highway relocations to be cost shared as a project construction feature if the Secretary determines that such treatment of costs is necessary to facilitate construction of the project. SEC. 371. ST. MARY'S RIVER, MICHIGAN. The project for navigation, St. Mary's River, Michigan, is modified to direct the Secretary to provide an additional foot of overdraft between Point Louise Turn and the Locks and Sault Saint Marie, Michigan, consistent with the channels upstream of Point Louise Turn. The modification shall be carried out as operation and maintenance to improve navigation safety. At the end of section 408 of the bill, add the following: (c) Consultation and Use of Existing Data.--The Secretary shall consult with appropriate State and Federal agencies and shall make maximum use of existing data and ongoing programs and efforts of States and Federal agencies in conducting the study. In section 425(a) of the bill, strike ``Such study'' and all that follows. In section 425(c) of the bill, strike ``$1,400,000'' and insert ``$1,000,000''. At the end of title IV of the bill, insert the following (and conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly): SEC. 428. DEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. The Secretary shall undertake and complete a feasibility study for designating a permanent disposal site for dredged materials from Federal navigation projects in Del Norte County, California. SEC. 429. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN. (a) Plan.--The Secretary, in coordination with State and local governments and appropriate Federal and provincial authorities of Canada, shall develop a comprehensive management plan for St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair. Such plan shall include the following elements: (1) The causes and sources of environmental degradation. (2) Continuous monitoring of organic, biological, metallic, and chemical contamination levels. (3) Timely dissemination of information of such contamination levels to public authorities, other interested parties, and the public. (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report that includes the plan developed under subsection (a), together with recommendations of potential restoration measures. (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $400,000. SEC. 430. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, TENNESSEE. The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of improvements to regional water supplies for Cumberland County, Tennessee. In the matter proposed to be inserted in section 219(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 by section 502 of the bill, strike ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7) and all that follows through paragraph (8) and insert the following: ``(8) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(17); ``(9) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(19); ``(10) $15,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(20); ``(11) $11,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(21); ``(12) $2,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(22); ``(13) $3,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(23); [[Page 7875]] ``(14) $1,500,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(24); ``(15) $2,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(25); ``(16) $8,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(26); ``(17) $8,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(27), of which $3,000,000 shall be available only for providing assistance for the Montoursville Regional Sewer Authority, Lycoming County; ``(18) $10,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(28); and ``(19) $1,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(29).''. At the end of section 517 of the bill, insert the following: (c) Nashua, New Hampshire.--Section 219(c) of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(19) Nashua, new hampshire.--A sewer and drainage system separation and rehabiliation program for Nashua, New Hampshire.''. (d) Fall River and New Bedford, Massachusetts.--Section 219(c) of such Act is further amended by adding at the end the following: ``(20) Fall river and new bedford, massachusetts.-- Elimination or control of combined sewer overflows in the cities of Fall River and New Bedford, Massachusetts.''. (e) Additional Project Descriptions.--Section 219(c) of such Act is further amended by adding at the end the following: ``(21) Findlay township, pennsylvania.--Water and sewer lines in Findlay Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. ``(22) Dillsburg borough authority, pennsylvania.--Water and sewer systems in Franklin Township, York County, Pennsylvania. ``(23) Hampton township, pennsylvania.--Water, sewer, and stormsewer improvements in Hampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. ``(24) Towamencin township, pennsylvania.--Sanitary sewer and water lines in Towamencin Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. ``(25) Dauphin county, pennsylvania.--Combined sewer and water system rehabilitation for the City of Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. ``(26) Lee, norton, wise, and scott counties, virginia.-- Water supply and wastewater treatment in Lee, Norton, Wise, and Scott Counties, Virginia. ``(27) Northeast pennsylvania.--Water-related infrastructure in Lackawanna, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, and Monroe Counties, Pennsylvania, including assistance for the Montoursville Regional Sewer Authority, Lycoming County. ``(28) Calumet region, indiana.--Water-related infrastructure in Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana. ``(29) Clinton county, pennsylvania.--Water-related infrastructure in Clinton County, Pennsylvania.''. At the end of section 518 of the bill, insert the following: (4) Columbia Slough, Portland, Oregon, project for ecosystem restoration. (5) Ohio River Greenway, Indiana, project for environmental restoration and recreation. In section 523(b) of the bill, strike ``the Secretary shall'' and insert ``the Secretary may''. After section 573 of the bill, insert the following: SEC. 574. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA. The Secretary shall expedite completion of the report for the West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, project for waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration, and enhancement modifications along the Mississippi River. Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly. At the end of section 578 of the bill, add the following: (k) Merrisach Lake, Arkansas County, Arkansas.-- (1) Land conveyance.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall convey to eligible private property owners at fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to certain lands acquired for Navigation Pool No. 2, McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, Merrisach Lake Project, Arkansas County, Arkansas. (2) Property description.--The lands to be conveyed under paragraph (1) include those lands lying between elevation 163, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, and the Federal Government boundary line for Tract Numbers 102, 129, 132-1, 132-2, 132-3, 134, 135, 136-1, 136-2, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, and 145, located in sections 18, 19, 29, 30, 31, and 32, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, and the SE\1/ 4\ of Section 36, Township 7 South, Range 3 West, Fifth Principal Meridian, with the exception of any land designated for public park purposes. (3) Terms and conditions.--Any lands conveyed under paragraph (1) shall be subject to-- (A) a perpetual flowage easement prohibiting human habitation and restricting construction activities; (B) the reservation of timber rights by the United States; and (C) such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. (4) Eligible property owner defined.--In this subsection, the term ``eligible private property owner'' means the owner of record of land contiguous to lands owned by the United States in connection with the project referred to in paragraph (1). In section 583(b) of the bill, strike ``The Secretary shall'' and insert ``The Secretary may''. At the end of title V of the bill, add the following (and conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly): SEC. 585. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA. (a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish a pilot program for providing environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in northeastern Minnesota. (b) 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 northeastern Minnesota, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and development. (c) Public Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned. (d) Local Cooperation Agreement.-- (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this section, the Secretary shall enter into a local cooperation 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 local cooperation 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 project costs under each local cooperation 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 design work.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work completed by the non-Federal interest prior to entering into a local cooperation agreement with the Secretary for a project. The credit for the design work shall not exceed 6 percent of the total construction costs of the project. (C) Credit for interest.--In the event 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 a project's 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 its 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. (e) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing in this section shall be construed as waiving, limiting, or otherwise affecting 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. (f) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2001, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the pilot program carried out under this section, together with recommendations concerning whether or not such program should be implemented on a national basis. (g) Northeastern Minnesota Defined.--In this section, the term ``northeastern Minnesota'' means the counties of Cook, Lake, St. Louis, Koochiching, Itasca, Cass, Crow Wing, Aitkin, Carlton, Pine, Kanabec, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Benton, Sherburne, Isanti, and Chisago, Minnesota. (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999. Such sums shall remain available until expended. SEC. 586. ALASKA. (a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish a pilot program for providing environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in Alaska. [[Page 7876]] (b) 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 Alaska, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, and surface water resource protection and development. (c) Ownership Requirements.--The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned or is owned by a native corporation as defined by section 1602 of title 43, United States Code. (d) Local Cooperation Agreements.-- (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this section, the Secretary shall enter into a local cooperation 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 local cooperation 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 local cooperation 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 design work.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work completed by the non-Federal interest prior to entering into a local cooperation agreement with the Secretary for a project. The credit for the design work shall not exceed 6 percent of the total construction costs of the project. (C) Credit for interest.--In the event 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 a project's 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 its 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. (e) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing in this section shall be construed as waiving, limiting, or otherwise affecting 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. (f) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2001, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the pilot program carried out under this section, together with recommendations concerning whether or not such program should be implemented on a national basis. (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999. Such sums shall remain available until expended. SEC. 587. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA. (a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish a pilot program for providing environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in central West Virginia. (b) 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 central West Virginia, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, and surface water resource protection and development. (c) Public Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned. (d) Local Cooperation Agreements.-- (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this section, the Secretary shall enter into a local cooperation 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 local cooperation 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 local cooperation 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 design work.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work completed by the non-Federal interest prior to entering into a local cooperation agreement with the Secretary for a project. The credit for the design work shall not exceed 6 percent of the total construction costs of the project. (C) Credit for interest.--In the event 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 a project's 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 its 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. (e) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing in this section shall be construed as waiving, limiting, or otherwise affecting 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. (f) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2001, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the pilot program carried out under this section, together with recommendations concerning whether or not such program should be implemented on a national basis. (g) Central West Virginia Defined.--In this section, the term ``central West Virginia'' means the counties of Mason, Jackson, Putnam, Kanawha, Roane, Wirt, Calhoun, Clay, Nicholas, Braxton, Gilmer, Lewis, Upshur, Randolph, Pendleton, Hardy, Hampshire, Morgan, Berkeley, and Jefferson, West Virginia. (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999. Such sums shall remain available until expended. SEC. 588. SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AREA WATERSHED RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA. (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to undertake environmental restoration activities included in the Sacramento Metropolitan Water Authority's ``Watershed Management Plan''. These activities shall be limited to cleanup of contaminated groundwater resulting directly from the acts of any Federal agency or Department of the Federal government at or in the vicinity of McClellan Air Force Base, California; Mather Air Force Base, California; Sacramento Army Depot, California; or any location within the watershed where the Federal government would be a responsible party under any Federal environmental law. (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999. SEC. 589. ONONDAGA LAKE. (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to plan, design, and construct projects for the environmental restoration, conservation, and management of Onondaga Lake, New York, and to provide, in coordination with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, financial assistance to the State of New York and political subdivisions thereof for the development and implementation of projects to restore, conserve, and manage Onondaga Lake. (b) Partnership.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall establish a partnership with appropriate Federal agencies (including the Environmental Protection Agency) and the State of New York and political subdivisions thereof for the purpose of project development and implementation. Such partnership shall be dissolved not later than 15 years after the date of enactment of this Act. (c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of a project constructed under subsection (a) shall be not less than 30 percent of the total cost of the project and may be provided through in-kind services. (d) Effect on Liability.--Financial assistance provided under this section shall not relieve from liability any person who would otherwise be liable under Federal or State law for damages, response costs, natural resource damages, restitution, equitable relief, or any other relief. [[Page 7877]] (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out the purposes of this section. SEC. 590. EAST LYNN LAKE, WEST VIRGINIA. The Secretary shall defer any decision relating to the leasing of mineral resources underlying East Lynn Lake, West Virginia, project lands to the Federal entity vested with such leasing authority. SEC. 591. EEL RIVER, CALIFORNIA. The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine if flooding in the city of Ferndale, California, is the result of a Federal flood control project on the Eel River. If the Secretary determines that the flooding is the result of the project, the Secretary shall take appropriate measures (including dredging of the Salt River and construction of sediment ponds at the confluence of Francis, Reas, and Williams Creeks) to mitigate the flooding. SEC. 592. NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall review a report prepared by the non-Federal interest concerning flood protection for the Dark Hollow area of North Little Rock, Arkansas. If the Secretary determines that the report meets the evaluation and design standards of the Corps of Engineers and that the project is economically justified, technically sound, and environmentally acceptable, the Secretary shall carry out the project. (b) Treatment of Design and Plan Preparation Costs.--The costs of design and preparation of plans and specifications shall be included as project costs and paid during construction. SEC. 593. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSISSIPPI PLACE, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA. (a) In General.--The Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement to participate in a project for the planning, design, and construction of infrastructure and other improvements at Mississippi Place, St. Paul, Minnesota. (b) Cost Sharing.-- (1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of the project shall be 50 percent. The Federal share may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs. (2) Credit for non-federal work.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for reasonable costs incurred by the non- Federal interests as a result of participation in the planning, design, and construction of the project. (3) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non- Federal interest shall receive credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for land, easements, rights- of-way, and relocations provided by the non-Federal interest with respect to the project. (4) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance costs for the project shall be 100 percent. (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated $3,000,000 to carry out this section. Modification of Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Shuster Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the manager's amendment be modified with the modification I have placed at the desk. My modification would correct a technical mistake in the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification. The Clerk read as follows: Modification of amendment No. 1 printed in part 2 of House Report 106-120 offered by Mr. Shuster: On page 1, after line 3, strike the next five sentences. On page 2, line 22, strike the period and add at the end ``, and at an estimated average annual cost of $1,584,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,030,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $554,000.'' On page 3, after line 8, strike the next two sentences. On page 5, after ``$6,129,000''.'' and before the next sentence, insert the following: ``In section 314 of the bill, strike ``(Amelia fIsland)'' and insert ``(Amelia Island)''. On page 7, strike the first two sentences. On page 32, after line 14, insert the following: (f) Repeal.--Section 401 of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990 (104 Stat 3010) and section 411 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat 4648) are repealed as of the date of the enactment of this Act. At the end of title III of the bill, add the following new section: SEC. 367. CITY OF CHARLEVOIX REIMBURSEMENT, MICHIGAN. The Secretary shall review and, if consistent with authorized project purposes, reimburse the city of Charlevoix, Michigan, for the Federal share of costs associated with construction of the new revetment connection to the Federal navigation project at Charlevoix Harbor, Michigan. Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly. Mr. SHUSTER (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the Record. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do so for the purpose of yielding to the gentleman for an explanation. Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, this amendment corrects provisions in the manager's amendment that were found to have unintended effects. And it adds two other noncontroversial items. The modification has been worked out with the minority. Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified. There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 154, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a bipartisan, noncontroversial package. It makes technical and conforming changes. It makes modifications to several projects in the reported bill. It includes environmental restoration and infrastructure projects. It includes flood control and navigation projects. It includes studies. It includes provisions based on discussions with other committees. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment continues the tradition of addressing the urgent concerns of Members by including several high priority, time-sensitive projects and provisions that could not be considered in their ordinary and customary time. I do want to thank the chairman of the committee for being so fully cooperative and responsive and participating in the time-honored tradition of our committee in a bipartisan manner. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I wanted to especially on this bill come down here to the floor and compliment the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for including language in this bill relative to a study by the Corps of Engineers on the Western Lake Erie Basin Watershed at the crossroads of the Great Lakes. I want to just put on the record, without the help of these two gentlemen, our part of America could not solve the significant water problem that we have crossing several jurisdictions. This bill is so important. I hope every Member understands how hard these men have worked to really help every single corner of America. We have waited for years for this bill as our cities flood and our rural areas get devastated by extra water because of all of the development that has occurred in our region. We cannot solve this problem without them and without the help of the Corps being the umbrella entity that brings all these multiple jurisdictions together across Indiana, Ohio and Michigan. I just want to thank them for being men of the future and paying attention to places like Toledo, Ohio and the crossroads of the Great Lakes. Our hats are off to them. Madam Chairman, I include the following memorandum for the Record: [[Page 7878]] Memorandum To: Marcy. From: George. Subject: Western Lake Erie Basin Watershed Study Talking Points. Date: April 29, 1999. The 1999 Water Resources Development Act, H.R. 1480, includes a provision authorizing the Western Lake Erie Watershed study. The Western Lake Erie Basin is the crossroads of the Great Lakes. The Maumee River, which empties into Lake Erie at Toledo is the largest tributary to the Great Lakes. My District and the City of Toledo sit at the mouth of the Maumee. The Corps of Engineers and other government agencies have conducted numerous studies in the Western Lake Erie basin, but no one has ever looked at the watershed as a whole. We understand now the indispensable interrelationship between the various elements of the watershed's ecosystem, the water, the farmland, the cities, the suburbs. If we are going to sustain the productive resources of the Western Lake Erie Basin, we must understand how all these elements work together. I hope and expect that this study will lead to an understanding of our region on which we can plan a sustainable future. Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I want to say to the gentlewoman from Ohio, I have not heard such kind words in 6 months. It is good to have those comments. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time. Let me try to continue the kind words as we go along here. To the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and to the chairman of the full committee and to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment on which I serve as well as to our ranking member, let me thank them for finally getting this bill to the floor. This is unfinished business from the 105th Congress. It is certainly one that is important to the people I represent and the region in which I come from. I want to thank particularly my side of the aisle for working with me as well as with the majority to make certain that East Coast residents will continue to have access to the goods that ships carry and the jobs our ports produce. When we talk about international trade, 95 percent of all of the Nation's commerce moves through ports like that of the Port of New York and New Jersey. If we are to take advantage of that trade, then we have to have ocean-going ports that can take care of the next generation of ocean-going ships. This project and the bill that encompasses the project that I am talking about will help my region fight off economic trouble and ensure healthy growth by making the port receptive for more and larger ships for years to come. It will widen, deepen and align the harbor's channels to improve navigational safety to make way for the new generation of ocean-going ships. The bill also contains important environmental considerations insofar as it contains provisions on sediment decontamination and sediment management which are enormous issues in the Port of New York and New Jersey and for that fact in other parts of the country. And it demonstrates the Federal commitment to deepening our harbors and channels which is unfortunately in direct contrast to some of the signals we have been getting within the region from the Governor of New York who has been holding us hostage on issues not related to the port's mission and the Port Authority. We believe that it is important for the 20 million consumers in the region to get products that will be cheaper. We believe for the 180,000 jobs and $20 billion of economic activity that the Port of New York and New Jersey presently enjoys and which all the projections are that will grow dramatically, we believe that in essence for all of the economic opportunity yet to come as a result of international trade that this bill, the Water Resources Development Act, is an appropriate Federal response that will inure to the benefit of the region and to our country as this port is one of the vital natural resources that we have in this country in the promotion of international trade. I want to thank again the chairman of both the full committee and the subcommittee and the ranking member of the full committee and subcommittee for making this a reality. Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), as modified. The amendment, as modified, was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is advised that amendment No. 2 will not be offered. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in part 2 of House Report 106-120. Does any Member rise to offer that amendment? If not, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in part 2 of House Report 106-120. Does any Member rise to offer that amendment? Mr. PICKETT. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia? There was no objection. Mr. PICKETT. Madam Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in a colloquy. I had intended to offer an amendment today concerning a project at Sandbridge Beach in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. I have decided not to offer the amendment if the chairman can assure me that this important project will receive attention by the committee in the future. Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PICKETT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for withholding his amendment. I will state that it is my intention to consider his proposal on the Sandbridge Beach project as we move forward with water resources legislation including our WRDA 2000 bill which we anticipate moving quickly in the next session. Mr. PICKETT. I thank the gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Virginia offering amendment No. 5? Mr. PICKETT. No, Madam Chairman, I am not. The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in part 2 of House Report 106-120. Does any Member rise to offer that amendment? Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? There was no objection. Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I take this time to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for the splendid cooperation that we have always enjoyed on this committee in working out matters. But for a little half billion dollar bump in the road over this California project, this bill would have been disposed of 2 years ago. I appreciate the continuing good will on the part of the gentleman from Pennsylvania and understanding of these problems as well as the chairman of the subcommittee. I also want to express my great appreciation for his patience to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski). I do want to cite for extraordinary commendable service Ken Kopocis, our chief staff member on the Subcommittee on Waters Resources and Environment who has done yeoman's service. The chairman was kind enough to mention him, but I want to reinforce my appreciation for Ken's devoted endeavors, and that of Ward McCarragher and Dave Heymsfeld and Art Chan on our committee who all have given such enormous time and effort to the unfolding of this legislation and bringing us to this point today. We can pass this bill relatively uncontroversial. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, as amended. [[Page 7879]] The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, as amended, was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises. Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Herger) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Emerson, 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. 1480) to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the United States Army Corps of Engineers to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 154, 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. Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 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. 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. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 418, nays 5, not voting 11, as follows: [Roll No. 104] YEAS--418 Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Archer Armey Bachus Baird Baker Baldacci Baldwin Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett (NE) Barrett (WI) Bartlett Barton Bass Bateman Becerra Bentsen Bereuter Berkley Berman Berry Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop Bliley Blumenauer Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonior Bono Borski Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Campbell Canady Cannon Capps Capuano Cardin Carson Castle Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Coble Coburn Collins Combest Condit Conyers Cook Costello Cox Coyne Cramer Crane Crowley Cubin Cummings Cunningham Danner Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis (VA) Deal DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro DeLay DeMint Deutsch Diaz-Balart Dickey Dicks Dingell Dixon Doggett Dooley Doolittle Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson English Eshoo Etheridge Evans Everett Ewing Farr Fattah Filner Fletcher Foley Forbes Ford Fossella Fowler Frank (MA) Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frost Gallegly Ganske Gejdenson Gekas Gephardt Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Gonzalez Goode Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Granger Green (TX) Green (WI) Greenwood Gutierrez Gutknecht Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hansen Hastert Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Herger Hill (IN) Hill (MT) Hilleary Hilliard Hinchey Hinojosa Hobson Hoeffel Hoekstra Holden Holt Hooley Horn Hostettler Houghton Hoyer Hulshof Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inslee Isakson Istook Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Jenkins John Johnson (CT) Johnson, E.B. Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kasich Kelly Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind (WI) King (NY) Kingston Kleczka Klink Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich Kuykendall LaFalce LaHood Lampson Lantos Largent Larson Latham LaTourette Lazio Leach Lee Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Lofgren Lowey Lucas (KY) Lucas (OK) Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Manzullo Markey Martinez Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McCollum McCrery McDermott McGovern McHugh McInnis McIntosh McIntyre McKeon McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Metcalf Mica Millender-McDonald Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Miller, George Minge Mink Moakley Mollohan Moore Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Morella Murtha Myrick Nadler Napolitano Neal Nethercutt Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Ose Owens Oxley Packard Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pease Pelosi Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Phelps Pickering Pickett Pitts Pombo Pomeroy Porter Portman Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Rangel Regula Reyes Reynolds Riley Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Rogan Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Rothman Roukema Roybal-Allard Royce Rush Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sabo Salmon Sanchez Sanders Sandlin Sawyer Saxton Scarborough Schaffer Schakowsky Scott Serrano Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherman Sherwood Shimkus Shows Shuster Simpson Sisisky Skeen Skelton Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Snyder Souder Spence Spratt Stabenow Stark Stearns Stenholm Stump Stupak Sweeney Talent Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thornberry Thune Thurman Tiahrt Tierney Toomey Towns Traficant Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Upton Velazquez Vento Visclosky Walden Walsh Wamp Waters Watkins Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Waxman Weiner Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Wexler Weygand Whitfield Wicker Wilson Wise Wolf Woolsey Wu Young (AK) NAYS--5 Hefley Paul Sanford Sensenbrenner Sununu NOT VOTING--11 Aderholt Blagojevich Brown (CA) Cooksey Engel Slaughter Smith (MI) Strickland Tauzin Wynn Young (FL) {time} 1219 Mr. SENSENBRENNER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' So the bill was passed. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Stated for: Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I missed the vote on H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act because I was detained away from the Capitol and the vote closed as I returned. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' ____________________