CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2476 April 29, 1999going on in Kosovo because of the enor-mous loss of life, but because we sim-ply do not like him.

Madam Speaker, it is a shame thatwe would fall to partisanship whilethousands and thousands and hundredsof thousands of women and children arebeing murdered and moved from theirhomes. What have we wrought?

Martin Luther King said injusticeanywhere is injustice everywhere. Myquestion to my Republican friends:Where is the outrage?

Stop the partisanship. Let us unifyaround saving lives, and standing upfor American principles and believingthat we must fight this humanitarianwar.f

CALLING ON THE PRESIDENT TOPROVIDE LEADERSHIP

(Mr. BLUNT asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, therewas no vote taken yesterday not tosupport our military. There was a votetaken not to endorse a policy that weshould have been asked weeks ago be-fore the bombing started to be part of.There was a vote not to endorse a pol-icy that has not been explained to thisCongress the way it should have beenexplained by the administration.

We have heard of vile partisanship onthis House yesterday, but over 2 dozenmembers of the Democratic partyvoted with Republicans, Republicansvoted with Democrats. We would beglad to have those 2 dozen members ofthat party if they do not want them.

This was not a statement about vilepartisanship. This was a statementabout principle. This is about whetherforeign policy is driven by the Con-stitution or by CNN, and the Constitu-tion says the President and the Con-gress should be involved in that.

I call on the President to provide theleadership that this Congress needs.f

THIS PLACE IS GETTINGCURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER

(Mr. MCDERMOTT asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute.)

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Madam Speaker,yesterday, as I listened to that debate,I thought of my time in the Vietnamwar when I listened to soldiers andsailors and marines talk about what itwas like fighting a war when the Amer-ican people did not support them. I gotto wonder what people think sitting onthe flight line in Aviano in Italy today,asking themselves:

Where is the Congress? Are we goingout there risking our lives, and they donot support us?

Now I watched last night when theleadership of this House stood by thatback retail and did not turn a singlevote around. Amazing. One can be theleader of this House, and they cannotchange a single vote. They do not evenspeak to anybody to change a vote.

Now next week we will see it all dif-ferent. Then we will have an appropria-tions act out here, and we will want togive money to an effort that we do notsupport.

Madam Speaker, Lewis Carroll mustbe writing the script because this placeis getting curiouser and curiouser.f

WHY IS SPARTANBURG HIGHSCHOOL SO SUCCESSFUL?

(Mr. DEMINT asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. DEMINT. Madam Speaker, on amore positive note, the upstate regionof South Carolina is home toSpartanburg High School, a four-timewinner of the National Blue RibbonAward. It is the only school in our Na-tion to achieve this honor four times.

Why Spartanburg High so successful?Caring parents, quality students, com-mitted teachers, creative administra-tors, an active school board and en-couraging community. The people havetaken control of their school and havesucceeded in spite of misguided federalprograms and paperwork.

Do not just take my word for it. Yes-terday the Spartanburg Herald Journalwrote an editorial praising Congressfor passing legislation to give schoolsmore flexibility. It read:

Federal lawmakers need to do moreto free state and local educators sothey can run their schools as they seefit. Education is a State and local mat-ter.

I could not have said it better myself.f

LAST NIGHT’S VOTE NOT TOSUPPORT NATO

(Mr. PASTOR asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. PASTOR. Madam Speaker, Icould understand a year ago when themajority, because of their hate forPresident Clinton, made the impeach-ment process a partisan procedure. Butlast night I could not believe that thevote to not support NATO was done be-cause of the hate the majority has forthe President.

What message have we sent toNATO? What message have we sent toour troops? That we do not supportthem.

The ironic thing is today, this after-noon, I am going to be asked to vote onthe supplemental that doubles the re-quest, and yet I am being asked to votefor a supplemental that the majoritydoes not support, does not support theaction of the NATO cause.

In the words of the great Congress-man, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.TRAFICANT), all I can say is:

Beam me up, Scotty.f

AMENDING RULES OF HOUSE FOR106TH CONGRESS

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington.Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous con-

sent that the Committee on Rules bedischarged from further considerationof the resolution (H. Res. 153) amendingHouse Resolution 5, One Hundred SixthCongress, as amended by House Resolu-tion 129, One Hundred Sixth Congress,and ask for its immediate consider-ation.

The Clerk read the title of the resolu-tion.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs.EMERSON). Is there objection to the re-quest of the gentleman from Wash-ington?

There was no objection.The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-

lows:H. RES. 153

Resolved,SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF HOUSE RESOLUTION

5.Section 2(f)(1) of House Resolution 5, One

Hundred Sixth Congress, agreed to January6, 1999 (as amended by House Resolution 129,One Hundred Sixth Congress, agreed toMarch 24, 1999), is amended by striking‘‘April 30, 1999’’ and inserting ‘‘May 14, 1999’’.

The resolution was agreed to.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.f

WATER RESOURCESDEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington.Madam Speaker, by direction of theCommittee on Rules, I call up HouseResolution 154 and ask for its imme-diate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-lows:

H. RES. 154Resolved, That at any time after the adop-

tion of this resolution the Speaker may, pur-suant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare theHouse resolved into the Committee of theWhole House on the state of the Union forconsideration of the bill (H.R. 1480) to pro-vide for the conservation and development ofwater and related resources, to authorize theUnited States Army Corps of Engineers toconstruct various projects for improvementsto rivers and harbors of the United States,and for other purposes. The first reading ofthe bill shall be dispensed with. General de-bate shall be confined to the bill and shallnot exceed one hour equally divided and con-trolled by the chairman and ranking minor-ity member of the Committee on Transpor-tation and Infrastructure. After general de-bate the bill shall be considered for amend-ment under the five-minute rule. It shall bein order to consider as an original bill for thepurpose of amendment under the five-minuterule the amendment in the nature of a sub-stitute recommended by the Committee onTransportation and Infrastructure nowprinted in the bill, modified by the amend-ments printed in part 1 of the report of theCommittee on Rules accompanying this res-olution. That amendment in the nature of asubstitute shall be considered as read. Allpoints of order against that amendment inthe nature of a substitute are waived. Noamendment to that amendment in the na-ture of a substitute shall be in order exceptthose printed in part 2 of the report of theCommittee on Rules. Each amendment maybe offered only in the order printed in the re-port, may be offered only by a Member des-ignated in the report, shall be considered asread, shall be debatable for the time speci-fied in the report equally divided and con-trolled by the proponent and an opponent,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2477April 29, 1999shall not be subject to an amendment, andshall not be subject to a demand for divisionof the question in the House or in the Com-mittee of the Whole. The chairman of theCommittee of the Whole may: (1) postponeuntil a time during further consideration inthe Committee of the Whole a request for arecorded vote on any amendment; and (2) re-duce to five minutes the minimum time forelectronic voting on any postponed questionthat follows another electronic vote withoutintervening business, provided that the min-imum time for electronic voting on the firstin any series of questions shall be 15 min-utes. At the conclusion of consideration ofthe bill for amendments the Committee shallrise and report the bill to the House withsuch amendments as may have been adopted.Any Member may demand a separate vote inthe House on any amendment adopted in theCommittee of the Whole to the bill or to theamendment in the nature of a substitutemade in order as original text. The previousquestion shall be considered as ordered onthe bill and amendments thereto to finalpassage without intervening motion exceptone motion to recommit with or without in-structions.

b 1030

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs.EMERSON). The gentleman from Wash-ington (Mr. HASTINGS) is recognized for1 hour.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington.Madam Speaker, for purposes of debateonly, I yield the customary 30 minutesto the distinguished gentleman fromTexas (Mr. FROST), pending which Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume. During consideration of this res-olution, all time yielded is for the pur-pose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington askedand was given permission to revise andextend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington.Madam Speaker, H.R. 154 is a struc-tured rule providing 1 hour of generaldebate to be equally divided and con-trolled between the chairman andranking minority member of the Com-mittee on Transportation and Infra-structure. The rule makes in order theCommittee on Transportation and In-frastructure amendment in the natureof a substitute as an original bill forthe purposes of amendment, modifiedby the amendments printed in part 1 ofthe report of the Committee on Rulesaccompanying this resolution.

The rule waives points of orderagainst consideration of the amend-ment in the nature of a substitute andmakes in order only those amendmentsprinted in part 2 of the Committee onRules report accompanying the resolu-tion.

Furthermore, the rule provides thatamendments made in order may be of-fered only in the order printed in thereport, may be offered only by theMember designated in the report, shallbe considered as read, be debatable forthe time specified in the report, equal-ly divided and controlled by an oppo-nent and proponent, shall not be sub-ject to amendment, and shall not besubject to demand for a division of thequestion in the House or in the Com-mittee of the Whole.

The rule allows for the Chairman ofthe Committee of the Whole to post-pone votes during consideration of thebill and to reduce voting time to 5 min-utes on a postponed question if thevote follows a 15 minute vote.

Finally, the rule provides for one mo-tion to recommit with or without in-structions.

Madam Speaker, the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1999, H.R.1480, is the culmination of work thatwas begun in the 105th Congress on avariety of Bureau of Reclamation andU.S. Army Corps of Engineers waterprojects. In fact, I would like to takethis opportunity to commend thechairman of the Committee on Trans-portation and Infrastructure and allcommittee members for their hardwork on this important legislation.

The maintenance and improvementof water resource infrastructure isvital to the residents in my own dis-trict and to the people and economy ofthe entire Nation as a whole.

Specifically, H.R. 1480 authorizes 95new water resource projects, makesnecessary modifications to six existingprojects, and authorizes the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers to conduct 26 stud-ies on a variety of water resourceissues. The bill authorizes $1.9 billionfor these development projects, whichare funded on a cost-share basis withnon-Federal partners. These projectsare being authorized only after detailedfeasibility studies conducted by theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers and by acareful review of the Committee onTransportation and Infrastructure.

H.R. 1480 also addresses the concernsof those who believe that past water re-source projects have had unintendedimpacts on the environment. In par-ticular, the bill establishes a pilot pro-gram to explore the feasibility of nat-ural flood control methods, and itmakes it easier for nonprofit organiza-tions to participate in U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers environmental programs.

Madam Speaker, passage of theWater Resources Development Act of1999 will allow needed maintenance andimprovements to our Nation’s naviga-tion, irrigation, flood control andpower generation infrastructure tomove forward. I therefore encouragemy colleagues to support H. Res. 154,which I believe is a fair rule, and tosupport the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the bal-ance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am supporting thisrule, in spite of the fact that the ruleis not open and it does limit amend-ments to those printed in the report ofthe Committee on Rules. While I amperfectly aware that every amendmentsubmitted to the Committee on Ruleswas made in order, the committee’sranking member, the gentleman fromMinnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR) did pointout at the Committee on Rules hearinglast night that water resources billsare nearly always considered under

open rules, or, in some cases, undersuspension of the rules.

The Democratic members of theCommittee on Rules would not ordi-narily support closing down a rule onlegislation as important as this waterresources development bill. In thiscase, however, we will not oppose therule. This is because the majority andminority on the Committee on Trans-portation and Infrastructure haveworked diligently to reach a number ofcompromises on controversial posi-tions in the committee reported bill,and because every amendment sub-mitted to the Committee on Rules hasbeen made in order either in the man-ager’s amendment or as a freestandingamendment.

The major controversy in the com-mittee reported bill has been resolvedin an amendment which will be self-ex-ecuted into the text of the bill by vir-tue of adoption of the rule. The ruleself-executes an amendment which re-moves language that would have al-lowed one Member to further develop-ment in his district at the expense ofhis neighbors along the Sacramentoand American Rivers. I would like tocommend the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. BOEHLERT) and the gentle-woman from California (Mrs.TAUSCHER) for their willingness towork out an agreement on this thornyissue.

In spite of this compromise, the billdoes not satisfactorily resolve the issueof flood control for the city of Sac-ramento, California. Flood control hasbeen and remains a serious and poten-tially deadly issue for Sacramento.Quite frankly, the flood protection pro-vided in the bill is inadequate, but anamendment to be offered by the gen-tleman from Minnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR)seeks to improve those flood protectionprovisions and deserves the support ofthe House.

Madam Speaker, I would like topoint out that there are many provi-sions in this legislation that arestrongly supported by communitiesacross the country. In particular, thecommittee has responded to the re-quest of a community in my congres-sional district to alter the originalflood control plans of the Corps of En-gineers.

The city of Arlington, Texas, had re-quested that the committee include alocally preferred plan for flood controlfor Johnson Creek, a tributary of theTrinity River which flows through thecities of Arlington and Grand Prairie,in lieu of the original Corps plan.

This locally preferred plan, whichwill have a total cost of $20 million anda Federal share of $12 million, wouldallow the city of Arlington to includerecreational facilities and environ-mental restoration along JohnsonCreek, which will benefit the residentsof that city on an ongoing basis, whileassuring that adequate flood controlwill protect life and property in thesurrounding area. I am particularlypleased that this amendment to the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2478 April 29, 1999plan and the funding for it have beenincluded in H.R. 1480.

Madam Speaker, I know that thegentleman from Pennsylvania (Chair-man SHUSTER) and the gentleman fromMinnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR) are eager tomove their legislation, especially nowthat the controversy on the Sac-ramento and American Rivers has beenresolved. However, I must again pointout that a bill like water resourcesreally should be considered under anopen rule.

Madam Speaker, that being said, I re-serve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington.Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure toyield such time as he may consume tothe gentleman from California (Mr.DREIER), the distinguished chairman ofthe Committee on Rules.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I risein strong support of this rule, and Icongratulate my friends on both sidesof the aisle for their management of it.I would like to especially congratulatemy friend the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. BOEHLERT) for the role thathe has played in helping to fashion acompromise here. I would like to alsocongratulate the gentleman fromPennsylvania (Chairman SHUSTER) andthe others who have worked on thismeasure, and, of course, the many Cali-fornians who have played a role in get-ting to where we are.

These projects are particularly im-portant to western States, the 23 thathave been authorized in this packagethat we are going to be considering. MyState of California is very, very key, asI mentioned, because access to safe, us-able water is obviously very, very crit-ical to our State’s survival.

This bill addresses past environ-mental concerns that water resourcesprojects have had unintended impactson the environment. For example, thebill establishes a pilot program to ex-plore the feasibility of natural floodcontrol methods, and, in addition tothat, the bill makes it easier for non-profit organizations to participate inU.S. Army Corps of Engineers environ-mental programs.

The rule also ensures that no provi-sions in the bill will interfere withCalifornia State water rights, whichare balanced with great care by Statelaws that we have today. In particular,members of my delegation with com-munities wrestling with major waterissues will be given the time that theyneed to work on compromise languagethat will be fair to everyone and ad-dress the concerns that are there.

So I urge strong support of the rule.I congratulate my friends on both sidesof the aisle for having fashioned thiscompromise, and look forward to pas-sage of both the rule and the bill itself.

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield2 minutes to the gentleman from Min-nesota (Mr. OBERSTAR).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, Ithank the gentleman for yielding metime.

Madam Speaker, many of our col-leagues on our side of the aisle in com-mittee and other Members have ex-pressed surprise that we bring a waterresources bill to the floor, any billfrom our committee, to the floor underwhat amounts to a modified closed ruleand to a very unusual self-executingprovision in the rule that deals withthe substantive provision of the bill.

My response is that not in my 36years’ experience on the committeehave we done such a maneuver on awater resources bill. Generally this is amatter that is brought to the floorunder an open rule, as we have nothingto fear. But in this case there weresome extenuating circumstances.

This water resources bill has beenheld up for two Congresses over oneproject, and, even though that oneissue of flood control protection for thecity of Sacramento and water distribu-tion for potential upstream users hasnot yet been satisfactorily resolved, ithas at least been deferred to anothertime. That is the purpose of the self-executing provision in the rule.

The bill deals with all the rest ofwhat is needed in the rest of this coun-try. Indeed, as the previous speakersaid, a good deal of this bill benefitsthe rest of the State of California out-side of Sacramento.

So, reluctant as I would be to supportthis type of procedure for our com-mittee, in this case, this exceptionalcase, it is a means to get through theproblem that has held up all the rest ofthe country and deal substantivelywith the needs of other Members, andput off to another time the appropriateprotection for the city of Sacramento.

So, Madam Speaker, I support therule, with those caveats.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington.Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes tothe distinguished gentleman from NewYork (Mr. BOEHLERT), the chairman ofthe subcommittee dealing with thisissue.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, Ithank my colleague for yielding metime.

Madam Speaker, I want to rise instrong support of the rule. The chair-man and the committee and the Com-mittee on Rules have crafted a rulethat provides for the fair considerationof the Water Resources and Develop-ment Act of 1999 and a rule that re-solves the primary fiscal and environ-mental concerns that were raised aboutthis legislation.

b 1045

Specifically, the rule includes anamendment that I offered at the Com-mittee on Rules yesterday that stripsall water supply language that was op-posed by the environmental commu-nity and the fiscal watchdog organiza-tions like Taxpayers for CommonSense. In fact, the leading environ-mental and taxpayer groups have en-dorsed my amendment.

As the chairman of the Sub-committee on Water Resources and En-

vironment, I am proud to report thatwe have labored long and hard in a bi-partisan manner to craft this bill. Es-sentially, we are going forward withunfinished business. We should haveconcluded it at the end of the last Con-gress, but we were not able to do so be-cause of a serious controversy aboutone region of the country. That con-troversy has now been resolved.

I think that WRDA 1999 specificallydeals with the California water supplyand Sacramento flood protection provi-sions in a very responsible way. Onceagain, let me report the environmentalcommunity is endorsing what we areabout and so, too, are the fiscal watch-dogs.

What I did was I listened, I learned, Iheard and I heeded. So the bill we arebringing forward today has earned thesupport of a broad coalition of Repub-licans and Democrats alike. We areabout the Nation’s business. We arecommitted to dealing with infrastruc-ture, and in this bill we are dealingwith infrastructure in a very respon-sible way in the best interests of theentire Nation.

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield2 minutes to the gentleman from Penn-sylvania (Mr. BORSKI).

Mr. BORSKI. Madam Speaker, I wantto just follow up with my distinguishedcolleague and chairman of our sub-committee, the gentleman from NewYork (Mr. BOEHLERT) and explain justbriefly, if I may, that in the sub-committee we had a very partisan di-vide on this issue; and as a matter offact, in the full committee in reportingthe bill, there was still a very partisanstruggle, if you will.

I am reminded somewhat of the oldMark Twain quote that ‘‘whiskey is fordrinking and water is for fighting.’’ Wefought a little bit in the subcommittee,and I particularly want to commendthe gentlewoman from California (Mrs.TAUSCHER) for her efforts in sub-committee and full committee to bringthis to light.

This rule, with the self-enacting rulewill, in effect, do what the gentle-woman from California (Mrs.TAUSCHER) wanted to do in committee.I want to commend our distinguishedchairman, because again, he had sug-gested to us in the strongest terms pos-sible that he would continue to workwith us to improve the bill. He hasdone so, and I support the rule.

Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I encouragemy colleagues to support this rule. It is a fairrule that makes in order every amendmentthat was offered, ensuring an open debate.

Let me begin by commending the transpor-tation committee for resolving the issues thatheld this much needed legislation up over thelast year. It is a critically important bill for myhome state of Florida and the rest of the coun-try. I am pleased to see that Congress, as evi-denced by the funding levels in this bill, hasonce again turned back the Clinton-Gore ad-ministration’s assault on beach renourishmentprojects. These vital projects serve the samefunction as other flood control projects: they

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2479April 29, 1999save lives and limit damage to property. I sim-ply cannot understand the Clinton-Gore ad-ministration’s continued neglect of these im-portant projects. It is irresponsible and it’s pasttime they got the message.

I am particularly grateful for the committee’sattention to southwest Florida and the captivaproject. In addition, I would point out that thisbill will help us continue moving forward onthe Everglades restoration program. The billextends the authorization period for the Ever-glades ‘‘critical projects’’ so they can be fund-ed and completed as planned. Once again,Congress has reaffirmed its commitment tothe Everglades restoration program and ismeeting its obligations to help restore this na-tional treasure.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this is a fairrule and a good bill. I encourage my col-leagues to support both.

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I haveno further requests for time, and Iyield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington.Madam Speaker, I yield back the bal-ance of my time, and I move the pre-vious 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 toHouse Resolution 154 and rule XVIII,the Chair declares the House in theCommittee of the Whole House on theState of the Union for the consider-ation of the bill, H.R. 1480.

b 1048

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolveditself into the Committee of the WholeHouse on the State of the Union for theconsideration of the bill (H.R. 1480) toprovide for the conservation and devel-opment of water and related resources,to authorize the United States ArmyCorps of Engineers to construct variousprojects for improvements to riversand harbors of the United States, andfor other purposes, with Mrs. EMERSONin the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

rule, the bill is considered as havingbeen read the first time.

Under the rule, the gentleman fromPennsylvania (Mr. SHUSTER) and thegentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.BORSKI), each will control 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. SHUSTER).

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume. H.R. 1480, the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1999, is a com-prehensive authorization of the waterresources programs of the Army Corpsof Engineers. It represents two-and-a-half years of bipartisan effort to pre-serve and develop the water infrastruc-ture that is so vital to our Nation’ssafety and economic well-being.

First, let me thank and congratulatemy colleagues on the Committee onTransportation and Infrastructure fortheir tireless efforts. I want to give

special thanks to the gentleman fromMinnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR), the rankingmember of the full committee; the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. BOEH-LERT), the chairman of the sub-committee; and the gentleman fromPennsylvania (Mr. BORSKI), the rank-ing member of the subcommittee.

This legislation is unfinished busi-ness that should be enacted as soon aspossible. The 105th Congress failed toenact the Water Resources Develop-ment Act, largely because of a conten-tious flood control issue in California.

The bill we bring to the floor today,however, ends the impasse. It rep-resents a fair and balanced compromiseon all fronts.

Madam Chairman, this legislationaccomplishes three important objec-tives. First, it reflects the committee’scontinuing commitment to improvingthe Nation’s water infrastructure andkeeping to a regular schedule for au-thorizations.

Second, it responds to policy initia-tives to modernize the Corps of Engi-neers’ activities and to achieve pro-grammatic reforms.

Third, and this is very important, ittakes advantage of the Corps’ capabili-ties and recognizes evolving nationalpriorities by expanding and creatingnew authorities for protecting and en-hancing the environment.

Now, is this bill 100 percent perfect,free of controversy? I am sure it is not.We have heard concerns about a fewprovisions, and intend to address thoseas the bill progresses. There are alsosome differences between this legisla-tion and the Senate counterpart thatmust be resolved. In many cases, peo-ple are not getting everything theywant here, so many are not totallypleased, but it is a balanced com-promise and one that we think deservessupport.

Madam Chairman, as we move for-ward with this important legislation, Iintend to work with all parties to en-sure that the final product reflects abalance of all interests. I also want toassure my colleagues that we do intendto move another water resources billthat will really be the vehicle to ad-dress new items and requests that havearisen and are likely to arise in thecoming months, and we intend indeedto move that legislation early in thenext session.

This legislation is a strong bipartisanbill that reflects balance in every senseof the word, and a responsible approachto developing water infrastructure,preserving and enhancing the Federal,State and local partnerships.

Madam Chairman, I strongly urge mycolleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the bal-ance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman,before yielding, I would like to takethis opportunity to commend the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. BOR-SKI) for his splendid work over severalyears of trying to shape this bill andbring it to this point. He has been most

diligent and deserves credit for thework product that we bring to theHouse today with great pride.

And now, Madam Chairman, I yieldsuch time as he may consume to thegentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.BORSKI), the ranking Democrat on theSubcommittee on Water Resources.

Mr. BORSKI. Madam Chairman, letme thank the distinguished rankingmember for yielding me this time andfor his outstanding leadership on allissues, but particularly on this waterresources issue that is before us today.I also want to congratulate and com-mend the gentleman from Pennsyl-vania (Mr. SHUSTER), my friend, thedistinguished chairman, and the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. BOEH-LERT), my good friend and the sub-committee chairman, for, as always,listening to the members of the minor-ity, working with us in a fair and bi-partisan manner. The bill before ustoday is one which we all can support.

Madam Chairman, the committee onTransportation and Infrastructurestrongly supports biennial legislationfor the Corps’ water resources programbecause it provides stability to Corpsprograms, certainly to local projectsponsors, and timely response tochanging circumstances.

The bill before us today authorizesmajor flood control navigation, shoreprotection, and other water resourcedevelopment projects. These projectshave gone through the traditional re-view and evaluation process of theCorps and have received favorable re-ports from the Chief of Engineers. An-other 16 projects will be authorized toproceed to construction if their Chief’sreports are complete by September 30,1999.

This bill also establishes a new floodmitigation and riverine restorationpilot program that is modeled after theadministration’s proposed Challenge 21program. It takes a broader approachto address the issues of flood protec-tion, especially by using nonstructuralmeasures and environmental restora-tion in a coherent manner. I see a greatdeal of value in this approach and ex-pect overall savings as well as enhance-ment of the environment.

The bill also addresses current poli-cies concerning shore protection andcost share of deep-draft harbors. Withregard to shore protection and beachnourishment, I hope the provisions inthis bill will bring the administration’spolicy more in line with congressionalintent. The proposed change to harborcost sharing is intended to proactivelydeal with potentially deeper draft re-quirements of new generations ofoceangoing vessels.

Madam Chairman, we all know thatour failure to enact the bill last yearduring its normal cycle was due en-tirely to one issue: providing adequateflood protection for Sacramento, Cali-fornia. The bill, as reported by thecommittee, attempted to address thisissue but further complicated the de-bate by adding numerous provisions re-lating to water supply. I am pleased

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2480 April 29, 1999that the adoption of the rule removedthe offending water supply provisionsfrom the bill. Any Federal involvementin a reallocation of water rights ad-versely affects the traditional Stateprerogative jealously guarded by theStates and, in particular, by WesternStates. I do not believe the FederalGovernment should get involved insuch matters.

Finally, I am concerned that the billdoes not provide the adequate floodprotection that Sacramento needs. Isupport a level of flood protection forSacramento closer to 200 years, not to117 in the current bill. That level wouldallow the issue to be disposed of onceand for all. Future WRDAs would notbe held hostage by similar disagree-ments as occurred last year.

Madam Chairman, but for the issueof flood protection for Sacramento,H.R. 1480 is a good bill and is worthy ofthe strong support of the House.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, Iam pleased to yield 5 minutes to thegentleman from New York (Mr. BOEH-LERT), the chairman of our distin-guished subcommittee.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding methis time.

Before anything else, I just wanted topay tribute to the outstanding profes-sionalism of the entire staff, the staffof the Subcommittee on Water Re-sources and Development and the fullcommittee staff on the Committee onTransportation and Infrastructure.Mike Strachn and Jeff More, BenGrumbles, the whole team on our sideand on the other side, a team of veryable professionals.

Secondly, I want to say this provesthat we can work things out the waywe should. Our Committee on Trans-portation and Infrastructure I think isthe envy of a lot of other committeeson Capitol Hill, because while we havedifferences, we come together in a bi-partisan manner and we overcomethose differences, and the product wehave on the floor today is as a result ofthat.

Before us this morning we have awater resources bill that provides bil-lions of dollars for flood protection,navigation improvements, water infra-structure and the enhancement of crit-ical environmental resources. This leg-islation is critical to our Nation’sports, our Nation’s cities, the millionsof Americans who live along our Na-tion’s rivers; and yes, this bill is crit-ical to the environment, which is avery important subject that warms myheart.

I would like to share with my col-leagues a list of some of the environ-mental provisions in the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1999. It au-thorizes a $100 million pilot project fornonstructural flood control andriverine environmental restoration. Itenhances environmentally sensitivefloodplain management measures. Itauthorizes an aquatic ecosystem res-toration project. It reauthorizes a sedi-

ment decontamination program. It en-courages beneficial reuse of dredge ma-terial. The list goes on and on.

Madam Chairman, I include the en-tire list at this point in the RECORD.ENVIRONMENTAL HIGHLIGHTS OF H.R. 1480, THEWATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999

A. PROGRAMMATIC AND POLICY CHANGES

Authorizes a $100 million pilot program fornonstructural flood control and riverine en-vironmental restoration

Advances environmentally sensitive flood-plain management measures (including thoseinvolving nonstructural features such asbuyouts and relocations)

Continues Corps’ efforts to coordinate withFEMA’s hazard mitigation program

Authorizes aquatic ecosystem restorationprojects and makes programmatic changesto encourage new local sponsors

Reauthorizes sediment decontaminationprogram and authorizes the development andtesting of innovative dredging technologiesto minimize release of contaminants and im-prove water quality

Encourages beneficial reuse of dredged ma-terial

Promotes a ‘‘systems approach’’ to sandmanagement and beach nourishment

Expands Corps’ efforts to control non-in-digenous invasive aquatic plant species

Extends authorization for critical projectsunder the Everglades and South Florida eco-system restoration program

Authorizes in-kind contributions toprojects to enhance fish and wildlife re-sources thereby promoting additional localsponsorship of such projects

Encourages the use of innovative treat-ment technologies for watershed and envi-ronmental restoration and protectionprojects involving water quality

Authorizes development of coastal aquatichabitat management plans to address prob-lems associated with toxic micro-organismsand the resulting degradation of ecosystemsin tidal and non-tidal wetlands

Provides for restoration of abandoned andinactive coal mines

B. REGIONAL PROGRAMS

Reauthorizes and improves the Upper Mis-sissippi Environmental Management Pro-gram

Directs a comprehensive study of the GreatLakes environment to promote effectiveplanning and management

Increases the acreage cap for the MissouriRiver mitigation project to increase the pro-gram’s effectiveness

Provides financial and technical assistancefor management of non-indigenous species inthe Great Lakes

Provides for aquatic restoration projectson the Lower Missouri River

Provides for aquatic resources restorationin the Pacific Northwest

Authorizes assistance for integrated watermanagement planning for the State of Texas

C. MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS AND PROVISIONS

Adds 3 additional projects to the Corps’Clean Lakes Program to improve water qual-ity by reducing silt and sediment

Authorizes 3 projects for improvement ofthe environment under the authority of sec-tion 1135 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1986

Authorizes 16 projects for aquatic eco-system restoration under the authority ofsection 206 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996

Authorizes technical assistance for 8 wa-tersheds for environmental restoration andprotection.

Madam Chairman, whether it is help-ing clean up abandoned mines in the

West or the development of non-structural flood control measures inthe East, or the establishment ofaquatic restoration projects in theSouth, WRDA 1999 provides critical re-sources for the enhancement of our en-vironment. In recent years we haveseen a gradual greening of the Corps ofEngineers, and the legislation before ustoday continues that trend. Our com-mittee is most responsible for thatgreening of the Corps.

The Corps’ traditional functions,flood control and navigation, are alsocontinued in WRDA 1999. Dredging ofour great harbors and navigationroutes is a central component of thislegislation. Moving bulk commoditiessuch as grain and coal by water is es-sential to our growing economy.

b 1100

WRDA 1999 provides increased protec-tion for flooding for millions of Ameri-cans. Perhaps no place is a better ex-ample of that than the city of Sac-ramento, the capital of California, ofwhy WRDA 1999 is so critically needed.

Today the city of Sacramento hasonly about 77 years of flood protection.The legislation before us today, thisday, authorizes over $300 million forprojects designed to increase the floodprotection for Sacramento to nearly140 years.

As my colleague, the gentleman fromPennsylvania (Mr. BORSKI), the rank-ing member of our subcommittee, hasstated so eloquently, and we have nodisagreement on this, we want to pro-vide the maximum level of protectionfor Sacramento, and we are determinedto do so. Not only are we investing $300million in this bill. No, we are expe-diting studies of the possibility of ele-vating the Folsom Dam. We are expe-diting studies of the possibility ofdoing levee work south of the dam. Weare looking at this in a very serious,professional way.

That is what we should do, becausewe want our final decisions to be madenot based upon emotions, and we allcan get very emotional about thesesubjects, but based upon facts. That isexactly what we are going to do.

We have moved responsibly to dra-matically increase the flood protectionfor the capital of California, and I re-main committed to the propositionthat we can provide additional floodprotection for Sacramento in nextyear’s water bill.

The chairman of the full committeehas indicated that as soon as this billis behind us, we are going to start onWRDA 2000. There is a fundamental na-tional interest in moving this legisla-tion forward in a bipartisan, expedi-tious fashion.

WRDA 1999 is important to the livesand livelihood of millions of Ameri-cans, from Sacramento to Syracuse,from Savannah to Seattle, from Ur-bana to Utica. WRDA 1999 deserves oursupport.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, Iam pleased to yield 2 minutes to the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2481April 29, 1999gentleman from Texas (Mr. STENHOLM),ranking member of the Committee onAgriculture.

Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding timeto me.

I would like to thank the gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania (Chairman SHU-STER), the ranking member, the gen-tleman from Minnesota (Mr. OBER-STAR), the gentleman from Pennsyl-vania (Mr. BORSKI), and the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. BOEHLERT) fortheir action and hard work in bringingthis bill to the floor.

I rise today to speak in favor of thislegislation. I do it as the ranking mem-ber of the Committee on Agriculture,but also to make my colleagues awareof a rather ironic situation.

Section 501 would mandate that theArmy Corps of Engineers would takecontrol of some of the projects of theUSDA’s Natural Resources and Con-servation Service. This would be donebecause of a $1.5 billion backlog in theUSDA’s small watershed program.

Local residents who have sponsoredthese projects have lost confidence inUSDA’s ability to provide funding, andthey are now looking at other sourcesof funding. This situation is indicativeof the lack of resources and supportcurrently being provided to agri-culture.

Funding for the NRCS’s Small Water-shed Program is no greater today thanit was in the 1950s. In fact, the programhas been virtually cut in half in thelast 5 years. As a result, projects typi-cally sit on the backlog list for morethan a decade.

We cannot blame the sponsors. In es-sence, they are shopping for the mostavailable source of funding. There sim-ply is not enough funding in the USDAprogram to live up to existing respon-sibilities and commitments.

In 1937, the United States invested 6percent of the Federal budget in USDAconservation programs. This is in starkcontrast to the .16 percent included inthe 1999 Federal budget. In 1937, Con-gress appropriated $440 million for fi-nancial assistance, and $23 million intechnical assistance. In 1999 dollars,that would be $5.3 billion.

In 1999, the estimated appropriationfor USDA conservation financial andtechnical assistance programs is $1.2billion. These numbers speak for them-selves. I would challenge my colleaguesto make conservation spending a pri-ority in order to meet the pressingneeds in rural America.

Again, I thank the sponsors of thislegislation for, in another way, dealingwith a part of the problem for manyareas, of which this was the only avail-able opportunity that they had.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, Iam pleased to yield 5 minutes to thedistinguished gentleman from Cali-fornia (Mr. DOOLITTLE), a member ofthe committee.

(Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and wasgiven permission to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Chairman,today we come to the floor with a veryimportant bill, the water bill. I amvery, very pleased to be able to supportit. It contains many important projectsacross the country that can be devel-oped with the passage and enactmentof this legislation.

I would particularly like to thank fortheir work on our problem in Sac-ramento our chairman, the gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. SHUSTER), andour subcommittee chairman, the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. BOEHLERT)and their staffs. They have been tre-mendously helpful, and it has been avery, very difficult problem for us toresolve.

I would like to thank my colleaguesfrom the Sacramento region who havebeen involved with me for months ofintense negotiation with our staffs, thegentlemen from California, Mr. POMBO,Mr. OSE, Mr. HERGER, and Mr. MATSUI.All of us have worked hard to try andcome up with a solution.

Ultimately that solution that weworked on did not materialize in theexact way that we had desired. But thebottom line is this, Madam Chairman,this bill today enables Sacramento totake a giant step forward in the area offlood control, achieving virtually a 1hundred percent increase in the level ofprotection over what we presentlyhave.

Madam Chairman, I would be lessthan candid if I did not say that this isstill not what we need. But the truth ofthe matter is that we will never havewhat we need until, in one fashion oranother, we are able to complete theconstruction of the Auburn Dam. It isthe only solution that provides thelevel of flood protection for Sac-ramento. Everything else ultimatelyfalls short.

But this is a political process, andone that requires a certain agreementbetween all the parties. We are movingin the right direction, and when wecome to issues of water and flood con-trol and so forth, I think if you aremoving in the right direction and mak-ing progress, that is something that wehave to acknowledge and encourage.

We are taking this step today. It issomething that will be, I think, a verysignificant improvement for our com-munity. Moreover, we do not do anyharm, such as by passing the disastrousstepped release plan which is in theSenate bill, which would actuallymake things worse, increase the dangerto life and property, and export floodcontrol problems to those down below.So I am grateful to see that.

I cannot help but acknowledge thatthis process has revealed the tremen-dous problem we also face in our State,which is the shortage of water. Even inan average year we are short of water.In a drought year we are significantlyshort of water, by about 5 million acrefeet a year.

We in California are going to have toaddress that problem, and in my ownsubcommittee which I chair, next

month we will be specifically address-ing that problem as we continue over-sight over the Cal-Fed process. Waterstorage has to be developed.

I strongly encourage my colleaguesto support this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, Iam pleased to yield 5 minutes to thegentleman from California (Mr. MAT-SUI), and to also commend him for hisdiligent work on behalf of his commu-nity and people who desperately needthe flood control protection. He hasbeen a vigilant advocate for the peoplehe represents.

Mr. MATSUI. Madam Chairman, Ifirst would like to thank the gen-tleman from Minnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR)for his very kind remarks and all of hishelp over the last decade, but particu-larly over the last 3 or 4 years that hehas given me, along with the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. BOR-SKI) as the subcommittee rankingmember, obviously, and thanks to thegentleman from Minnesota (Mr. OBER-STAR) for all of the help he has givenme as ranking member of the full com-mittee as well.

I would like to turn to my colleagueson the other side, the other side of theaisle. Certainly the gentleman fromPennsylvania (Chairman SHUSTER) hasbeen extremely helpful in trying to puttogether a consensus for all of us in theSacramento region. I want to expressmy gratitude and thanks to him, alongwith the gentleman from New York(Mr. BOEHLERT), who has been tirelessover the last 3 or 4 years on our behalf.The staffs of both majority and minor-ity have been extremely helpful, aswell. I do want to express my apprecia-tion.

I also want to express my apologiesto members of the subcommittee andcertainly the Members of the entireHouse of Representatives. As we know,as the gentleman from Pennsylvania(Mr. BORSKI) and the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. BOEHLERT) have said,this bill had been delayed from the lastCongress to this Congress. It was basi-cally because of the Sacramento prob-lem, and particularly about the floodcontrol issue.

I know it was very difficult for theMembers of this body, but I appreciatethe fact that there was tolerance to meand my constituents. I certainly wouldhope that I would never have to put mycolleagues in that kind of impositionagain.

I would like to, if I may, just com-ment a little bit about my problem inSacramento County. We have about a100-year protection, now. This billwould get us up to about 137 years pro-tection, because it would modify theexisting Folsom Dam in SacramentoCounty.

The problem with this, as all of usknow, is the fact that we still would beby far the lowest community in termsof flood protection in this Nation. Justto read off a few, Kansas City currentlyhas 500-year protection; St. Louis, 50-year protection; Dallas, Texas, 500-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2482 April 29, 1999year; New Orleans, 300 years; Topeka,Kansas, 500 years; and Omaha, Ne-braska, Tacoma and the quad cities allhave 500-year protection.

We now will have, with this bill, 137years. We wanted to get up to about 170years, and we are, of course, afraid, be-cause of the rainfall in northern Cali-fornia and the continuing uncertaintyof our climate, that we could fall againin terms of hydrology studies.

We have approximately 600,000 peopleat risk. We have over six major re-gional hospitals. We have 100 publicschools. All of these are at risk withrespect to Sacramento County. Thisbill will go a long way, obviously, inmaking sure that we are given someadditional level of protection, but weneed more. I think my colleagues onboth sides of the aisle know this, andwould want to help us.

I would hope that as we proceedalong over the next few weeks and per-haps months that we not confuse thisissue. Sacramento County needs floodprotection, and one of the real con-cerns that I have is that we have beentied into the whole issue of water sup-ply.

I agree with the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. DOOLITTLE), the pre-vious speaker, that Northern Californianeeds more water. We are the fastestgrowing region in America. We needmore water. But we are trying to workthat through right now with the State-Federal compact.

We have Bruce Babbitt from the Inte-rior Department. Obviously, formerGovernor Wilson and now GovernorGray Davis are attempting throughCal-Fed to come up with a solution, be-cause there are various competing in-terests in California with respect tothe limited supply of water.

We do need to solve this problem, butit has to be done in a methodical way.But please, I urge my colleagues not totie flood protection for 600,000 peoplewith this issue that has been raging inthe State of California for over 125years. We are not going to solve theissue of water supply in California aslong as it is tied to the whole issue offlood protection, which we need imme-diately.

The issue of water supply has to bean issue that is going to be dealt withfrom a larger perspective, from a Fed-eral-State perspective, with all thewater districts in California.

I am not, however, suggesting thatmy colleague up north of me, the gen-tleman from California (Mr. DOO-LITTLE) is incorrect. Placer County isgrowing and it will need water in a fewyears. But that issue is one we need towork together on, not in an adversarialrole on, and flood protection, unfortu-nately, puts us somewhat at odds.

So I want to express my thanks tomy colleagues, all of them, the gentle-woman from California (Mrs.TAUSCHER) and all of them for all of thetolerance and help they have given mycommunity and myself over the lastfew months, and I urge adoption of thisbill.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, Iam pleased to yield 2 minutes to thedistinguished gentleman from NewYork (Mr. FORBES).

(Mr. FORBES asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, Ithank the distinguished chairman foryielding time to me.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strongsupport of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1999, H.R. 1480. This iscritically needed legislation, and Iwant to thank the chairman of the fullcommittee, the gentleman from Penn-sylvania (Mr. SHUSTER) for his leader-ship, and of course, my friend, the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. BOEHLERT)for really shepherding this bill, thismuch-needed bill, through the com-mittee and bringing it to the floor, un-derstanding that it had to go throughsome tenuous minefields getting fiscalwatchdogs, environmental watchdogsto agree to this much-needed legisla-tion.

I might remind my colleagues thatthe ritual here in Congress has beenthat this program, this important pro-gram, has been funded generally andsufficiently by the Congress, not by theadministration, for years. Whether itbe the current administration or pre-vious administrations, they have notprovided the Army Corps of Engineers,in my estimation, the kinds of supportthey need, and it has been Congressthat has come to the rescue.

Again this year, it is the UnitedStates House of Representatives andthis committee that have provided thisadequate support. For over 150 yearsthe Corps has done a phenomenal job ofprotecting our lives and property. Ifyou come from a place like I do, onLong Island, New York, you understandthe tremendous importance of theArmy Corps program.

I might point out in this bill is theAtlantic Coast Monitoring Study,which is a very, very important under-taking that will study tides, erosiondata, make future erosion predictions,and try to get ahead, if you will, ofMother Nature, to the extent that wecan do that, and provide protection forour coastlines; very, very important.

I again thank the committee for rec-ognizing that and bringing the otherFederal agencies together with theArmy Corps of Engineers to get a finalplan in place by June 30 for theMoriches Inlet Island plan.

b 1115I thank the committee tremendously

for this support. This is a tremendousprogram. It deserves the support thatis demonstrated in this bill today, andI urge my colleagues to support it, andI hope the President will sign it.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentlewomanfrom California (Mrs. TAUSCHER), whohas made a very valuable contributionto our committee in her service andhas been a leader on these Californiawater projects for the committee.

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman,I thank the gentleman for those kindwords, and I also want to thank himand the ranking member, the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. BOR-SKI) for all their help.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support ofH.R. 1480, which has incorporated theTauscher-Petri amendment to strip thecontroversial American River watersupply provisions from H.R. 1480. I ap-preciate the work of the gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. SHUSTER) andthe gentleman from New York (Mr.BOEHLERT) and the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. DREIER) to self-executethis important amendment as part ofthe rule.

As my colleagues know, H.R. 1480 tra-ditionally funds flood control and portand harbor maintenance projects. Thisyear, however, over $287 million in mu-nicipal water supply projects were in-cluded in the bill at the last minutewhich were wrong for the Americantaxpayer, wrong for the environmentand wrong for the development of long-term water policy in my State of Cali-fornia. Over the past 2 weeks I haveworked hard with members of the Com-mittee on Transportation and Infra-structure and Members of the House ingeneral to address the implications ofthis water grab.

The Bay-Delta in my district is thelargest estuary on the West Coast andserves as the drinking water source for22 million Californians. Moreover, itserves as a key component of theState’s $24 billion agricultural indus-try. In California, water is a zero-sumgame, and these ill-conceived projectsthat have been stripped out would havehad devastating effects for water fortwo out of every three Californians. Inaddition, the projects were terribly ex-pensive.

I am pleased to have been joined bythe gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.PETRI), Taxpayers for Common Sense,Friends of the River and Friends of theEarth, and scores of other taxpayer andenvironmental organizations in effec-tively getting that message out. Offi-cials throughout California, includingGovernor Gray Davis and AttorneyGeneral Bill Lockyer expressed ex-treme apprehension with the projectsincluded in the bill.

Once again, I want to thank the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. BOEHLERT)and others for urging the removal ofthose audacious provisions from H.R.1480.

At the same time, however, I mustobject to the concurrent removal of themuch needed flood control for the cityof Sacramento. That city currently hasonly 85 years of flood protection, mak-ing it the largest metropolitan area inthe country without an adequate floodcontrol system. That is why I urge sup-port for the Oberstar amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, Iyield 1 minute to the gentleman fromNew York (Mr. WALSH).

Mr. WALSH. Madam Chairman, Ithank the chairman for his leadership

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2483April 29, 1999on this incredibly important bill. Iwould also like to thank my goodfriend and neighbor, colleague, the gen-tleman from New York (Mr. BOEH-LERT), who chairs the subcommittee,for the hard work he has done in bring-ing this bill to fruition; also to theranking member, the gentleman fromMinnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR). I want tothank them all for this terrific bill.The work that they have done is re-markable, getting it this far, given allthe traps along the way.

The project that I am supporting hasbeen identified by my community asthe number one priority project, andwe could not do it without the help ofthe Committee on Transportation andInfrastructure and the Army Corps ofEngineers and the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. This is a critical billto my community, I strongly supportit, and I urge all my colleagues to sup-port this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromOregon (Mr. DEFAZIO).

Mr. DEFAZIO. Madam Chairman, Ithank the esteemed ranking memberfor yielding me time and I would liketo congratulate the chairman of thesubcommittee and the ranking mem-ber, as well as the full committeechairman and ranking member on whatI consider to be an excellent Water Re-sources Development Act piece of legis-lation.

This bill is vital in three major areasfor my State and for many Statesacross the Union. It contains invest-ment in appropriate projects that arevital to the economic infrastructureand the competitiveness of the UnitedStates in the international economy.

In particular, we have provided for anauthorization, should all of the envi-ronmental reviews be adequately com-pleted by the Corps of Engineers, forthe Columbia River. It is vital if theport of Portland is to compete in theAsia Rim, that they be able to accom-modate the new larger class of ships.

It is vital in a number of other areas.The environment. Certainly we can saythis is probably the most importantpiece of environmental legislation topass this Congress. It contains moneyfor a number of projects in my district:Amazon Creek; Springfield Millrace;going to look at nonstructural floodcontrol alternatives for the WillametteRiver; Skinner Butte Park environ-mental restoration right in the heartof the largest city of my district; and,finally, it is good for salmon. It con-tains a large investment in a long over-due Willamette River temperature con-trol project that I have been workingon for almost a decade here in Con-gress. It is a large project, $65 million,but it will correct problems created bythe Federal Government when thosedams were constructed, which are de-stroying salmon runs in the McKenzieand Willamette Rivers.

All in all, this is an excellent piece oflegislation. It is good for the economy,good for the environment, and good for

water resources across the UnitedStates.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the gentleman fromMaryland (Mr. GILCHREST), the chair-man of one of our subcommittees.

Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Chairman,I too want to make some commentsabout the water bill of 1999, sort of aretroactive process.

There are a lot of good projects inhere. As the previous speaker men-tioned, there are a number of positiveenvironmental provisions in here.There are several in particular in mydistrict. One of those provisions is tocorrect a couple of previous mistakesby the Corps of Engineers in Chesa-peake City, where a water pipe was cutas a result of dredging in the C&DCanal.

Another provision which is underevaluation to be corrected is an areawhere there is a dredge disposal site bythe Corps of Engineers that was notmanaged properly and the wells of thecommunity right now cannot be usedas a result of the acidic leaching fromthat dredge disposal site. That will becorrected.

There is a small community on theocean side called Snug Harbor. There isgoing to be some effort into producingnonstructural flood control measures.

And the other provision that is in thewater bill, that I am very, very pleasedwith, is a study that has never beendone before, not even by the Chesa-peake Bay Program, NMFS, or Fishand Wildlife. This is a study to evalu-ate the nutrient loads into the Chesa-peake Bay as a result of dredgingacross the entire bay.

Now, the Chesapeake Bay Program,what we have funded every single yearwith millions and millions and millionsof dollars tries to evaluate the amountof nitrogen and phosphorus and otherpollutants that get into the bay fromall kinds of sources: from air deposi-tion, from agricultural runoff, fromshopping plazas, from housing develop-ments, from roads; all kinds of sources,with one exception, and that is the nu-trient pollution problem from dredg-ing. In this bill there is going to be an18-month study to determine the con-tribution of pollution nutrient over-loads from dredging.

And if we are going to restore theChesapeake Bay to the kind of healththat is necessary for that marine eco-system to be sustained for future gen-erations, this is the kind of thing wereally need to do, and this is in this billand we are very pleased with it.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the distinguishedgentleman from the State of Maryland(Mr. HOYER).

Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, Ithank my friend from Minnesota andthe chairman of the committee, and Irise in support of this bill and, in par-ticular, section 573, which authorizes $7million for the Corps of Engineers towork with USDA, Interior, EPA, NOAAand State and local agencies to develop

strategies for dealing with toxic micro-organisms and the damage they inflicton aquatic ecosystems.

I want to congratulate my friend andcolleague, the gentleman from Mary-land (Mr. WAYNE GILCHREST) on hissupport of this provision and his dis-cussions just earlier about some of thestudies he has undertaken and his sup-port of making sure the ChesapeakeBay is what we want it to be.

Toxic microorganisms, Madam Chair-man, are a serious threat. The summerbefore last, Maryland was struck bythe toxic microorganism pfiesteria.Linked to the flow of excess nutrientsand the loss of aquatic habitat in ourwaterways, toxic blooms like pfiesteriaseriously impact regional economiesand threaten sensitive aquatic re-sources.

Several Federal agencies, includingthe EPA, NOAA, and the Centers forDisease Control presently are assistingStates impacted by these toxic algaeblooms. I have worked diligently in thepast, through the appropriations proc-ess, to ensure that these agencies havethe proper resources to undertake thiseffort. Although they have respondedquickly and made substantial progress,no single agency is tasked with takinga comprehensive look at the problemand developing a master plan.

Given its expertise in water resourcesmodeling, water quality monitoring,watershed management and restora-tion, and environmental planning, theCorps of Engineers has a vital role toplay in this process. Section 573 simplyauthorizes $7 million for the Corps’participation in these efforts, and Iurge my colleagues to support this im-portant initiative and the bill itself.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, Iyield 2 minutes to the delegate fromGuam (Mr. UNDERWOOD).

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chair-man, I thank the gentleman from Min-nesota for yielding me the time. I risetoday to support the passage of H.R.1480 to provide for the conservation anddevelopment of water and related re-sources projects, and I wish to thankthe committee’s leadership for movingthis legislation quickly, well, notquickly, but successfully to the Housefloor.

The projects in this bill are impor-tant to the successful development ofwater-related projects across America.It helps to prepare communities tomitigate themselves against naturaldisasters and helps redress the destruc-tion of storms past.

The projects for Guam are a primeexample of repairing damages thatwere inflicted by a cumulative series ofstorms that have devastated Guamover the past decade. The most recentone, Supertyphoon Paka, was one ofthe largest and more powerful stormsthat have hit Guam in recent years. Itinflicted a lot of damage to individualhomes and businesses, but, most impor-tant, it nearly destroyed the lifeline ofour island, which is our port facilities.Seaports are the direct link to an is-land’s economic development activities

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2484 April 29, 1999and without them communities andfamilies suffer.

Guam’s plan to build a seawall toprotect our harbor, the hardening ofour piers, and the reconstruction oftwo of our largest marinas will helpour island mitigate against any futuredamages caused by natural disasters. Imight add that the development ofthese harbor projects are also very im-portant for national defense.

I wish to thank again the chairmanof the committee, the gentleman fromPennsylvania (Mr. SHUSTER); the sub-committee chairman the gentlemanfrom New York (Mr. BOEHLERT); as wellas the two ranking Members, the gen-tleman from Minnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR)and the gentleman from Pennsylvania(Mr. BORSKI) for their roles in movingthis legislation and these projects suc-cessfully to the floor.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman,may I inquire as to how much time isremaining on our side?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemanfrom Minnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR) has 12minutes remaining.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume.

Madam Chairman, I would like totake this opportunity to pay tribute tothe organization frequently mentionedin debate here but almost never dis-cussed, the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers. It celebrates its 224th birthdaythis year. It is the Nation’s oldest,largest, and most experienced govern-ment organization in the area of waterand related land engineering matters.It has provided extraordinary, com-petent, lifesaving, economic develop-ment enhancing service to this countryfor two and a quarter centuries.

Little is it known that the Corps ofEngineers, among its many responsibil-ities, had jurisdiction over YellowstonePark.

b 1130

The Corps managed Yellowstone for30 years. And Lieutenant Dan Kingmanof the Corps, later to become chief ofengineers, wrote:

The plan of development which I have sub-mitted is given upon the supposition and inthe earnest hope that it will be preserved asnearly as may be as the hand of nature leftit, a source of pleasure to all who visit anda source of wealth to no one.

A fewer years later, John Muir,founder of the Sierra Club, said:

The best service in forest protection, al-most the only efficient service, is that ren-dered by the military. For many years, theyhave guarded the great Yellowstone Park,and now they are guarding Yosemite. Theyfound it a desert as far as underbrush, grassand flowers are concerned. But, in 2 years,the skin of the mountains is healthy again,blessings on Uncle Sam’s soldiers, as theyhave done the job well, and every pine tree iswaving its arms for joy.

Another great American said: ‘‘Themilitary engineers are taking upontheir shoulders the job of making theMississippi River over again, a jobtranscended in size only by the original

job of creating it.’’ That was MarkTwain.

Those two statements together paytribute to what the Corps of Engineershas done so admirably and the greatlegacy they have left for all Americansprotected in floods, enhanced withriver navigation programs, and pro-tecting the great resource of the GreatLakes, one fifth of all the fresh wateron the face of the Earth.

And that is the spirit in which wenormally present the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act, projects throughoutour Nation to promote control offloods, to enhance river navigation, toprotect our shores, to protect and re-store the environment, to enhancenavigation.

And that is mostly what this bill be-fore us does today, with one flaw. Itfails to give the capital of the world’ssixth largest economy, the City of Sac-ramento, the flood protection it needsand deserves.

This deficiency comes from a disputebetween two parts of the State of Cali-fornia that has resulted in flood con-trol at Sacramento being held hostagefor almost a decade. The amendmentmade in order by the self-executingrule, and which is now adopted becausethe rule has been adopted, gives theCity of Sacramento only 117 years offlood protection, and that is the esti-mate of the Corps of Engineers in their1997 analysis.

That is significantly less than theprotection given cities of comparablesize, the nearly 200 to 500 years protec-tion for Santa Ana, Tacoma, New Orle-ans, St. Louis, Dallas, Kansas City,Omaha. Surely Sacramento deserves asmuch flood protection as those cities.

Today some 400,000 residents in Sac-ramento face an unacceptable risk offlood; 160,000 residential structures arein the flood plain in the capital city,5,000 businesses, 1,200 government fa-cilities, with an estimated value of $37billion. The 55,000-acre flood plain in-cludes seven of the nine major hos-pitals in the region and 130 schools.

Potential losses from flood in theCity of Sacramento range from $7 bil-lion to $16 billion depending on the sizeof the flood. Even at the lower end ofthe scale, flood losses in Sacramentowould be comparable to the losses ex-perienced in the Northridge earthquakea few years ago, to date the single larg-est disaster in U.S. history.

Now, I do not say these words andmake those comments in the abstract.I have traveled several times to Sac-ramento. I have bicycled along theflood protection walls of the AmericanRiver. I have traveled to Folsom Damand further up river to the site onceplanned and once development begunon the Auburn Dam proposal by theBureau of Reclamation. I understandwhat is at stake here.

Linking flood protection for Sac-ramento and reallocation of waterthrough a new dam at Auburn has beenin the works for many, many years.But the Bureau of Reclamation already

stubbed its toe to the tune of $250 mil-lion developing the base for a damright on the fault line of a major earth-quake region in the upper reaches ofthe American River.

The Auburn Dam has already beenrejected by the House in 1992 in a voteof 273–140. And it was rejected in 1996 inour Committee on Transportation andInfrastructure in a vote of 28 ayes, 35nays. There is no reason to believe thevote would be any different today.

So why could we not have just simplyaccommodated whatever water re-source needs there may be for theupper reaches of the American River,and at the same time provide Sac-ramento its requested 200-year floodprotection, and have done it in thisbill?

I had an amendment in committee todo that. I offered the amendment incommittee to make the adjustments toFolsom, to widen the outlets so thegates can discharge more water, raisethe level of the dam to allow morewater to be discharged in advance ofmidwinter melt from the Sierra Ne-vada Mountains, where they get asmuch as 30 feet of snow and often havemidwinter rains that cause not onlyrunoff but melt, to accommodate thatrunoff, accommodate in a larger basinand protect Sacramento and its resi-dents and facilities, and also improvethe levees at Sacramento to accommo-date that increased runoff.

The amendment was defeated on astraight party-line vote. And now wecome to the floor with this legislationthat does not do what Sacramentotruly deserves and, as the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. MATSUI) said, doesnot really provide the water resourcesneeds of the upper reaches of the Amer-ican River Valley area.

There were several arguments madeabout the amendment that I offered.One was that the levee strengtheningproposed for Sacramento in my amend-ment would create unacceptable risksto areas downstream. But that objec-tion fails on closer scrutiny.

The Army Corps of Engineers ana-lyzed that argument and rejected it.The Corps specifically stated this: ‘‘Ad-ditional protection can be providedwithout adversely affecting the reachesbelow the mouth of the American Riverwithout project conditions.’’

The Corps’ plan includes several dif-ferent structural and operational modi-fications to ensure that no flood threatis transferred to downstream interests.In addition, I talked with the City ofSacramento. They have committed tospend $100 million to mitigate any pos-sible further adverse effects down-stream.

Finally, my amendment specificallyrequired that measures to increase thecapacity of the levees be undertakenonly after downstream mitigation fea-tures will have been constructed.

So absent any objective, substantivereason for opposition to the Sac-ramento amendment, I am left only to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2485April 29, 1999surmise that the real basis for opposi-tion was the desire by upstream inter-ests to withhold flood protection fromSacramento in hope that the AuburnDam at some future time could be re-vived or that some alternative, farmore expensive yet unstudied waterdistribution plan be enacted.

That is not the way to conduct thewater resources business of the coun-try. And while I am not prepared to ac-cept this legislation as it is to go for-ward with the bill on the floor, the billbefore us, I will not relent in my pur-pose of providing for Sacramento theprotection that it rightly deserves andto address in a rational and responsiblemanner the water resources require-ments upstream of Sacramento in anappropriate time frame.

We should not hold Sacramento hos-tage. We will have to come back at an-other time to address this issue. And Iam confident that at that future timewe will treat the lives and the propertyof the residents of Sacramento in anappropriate and responsible manner, asthis committee has always done, ab-sent these extraneous considerations.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman,will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gen-tleman from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. As the gentlemanfrom California (Mr. MATSUI) and theendless flow of visitors from Sac-ramento can attest, this Chair of thissubcommittee is determined to workcooperatively to provide the maximumlevel of protection for Sacramento.That is a commitment.

Secondly, let me point out, we arenearly doubling the level of protectionin this bill, as the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. MATSUI) himself has in-dicated, from 77 to 137 years, and weare studying the feasibility and prac-ticability and affordability of addi-tional measures. So we will continue towork together to protect Sacramento.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, Ilook forward to that happy outcome.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, Iam pleased to yield such time as hemay consume to the gentleman fromCalifornia (Mr. HERGER).

(Mr. HERGER asked and was givenpermission to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, I wouldlike to thank Chairman SHUSTER, SpeakerHASTERT, and the other members of the lead-ership for their invaluable assistance in reach-ing a final compromise for our California areaflood control. The compromise that is includedin this bill is a win for those of us who havesought sincere dialogue and consensus inCalifornia flood control issues. More impor-tantly, however, this legislation is also a partialwin for northern California. I can testify frompersonal experience that California has a veryreal need for increased flood protection. Forexample, just two years ago the district I rep-resent in norhtern California suffered a horren-dous tragedy as a result of an inadequateflood control system. On January 2nd, 1997, alevee in my district near the community ofArboga suddenly broke, and as a result, three

people drowned. This tragedy could havebeen avoided if flood control officials had beenallowed to complete repairs on the levee whenthe problem was first acknowledged six yearsearlier. In 1955, almost directly across theriver from the Arboga break, another leveebroke and this time flooded Yuba City. How-ever, instead of three people losing their lives37 people died. Mr. Speaker and members,we have a natural phenomenon in Californiawhere heavy snowfall in the Sierra NevadaMountains, followed by warm rains results inan overwhelming amount of water that flowsinto our Sacramento River Valley. There is nolevee system in the world that can handle thiskind of extreme flows. Until we build a floodcontrol structure that can hold back this over-whelming flow of water and release it in a con-trolled manner, our levees are set up to fail.As California’s first State Engineer, WilliamHall, said, ‘‘There are two types of levees,those that have failed and those that will.’’This legislation provides $26.6 million to com-plete flood control repairs along the YubaRiver basin, but regrettably, it won’t beenough. I hope and pray that it will not takeanother great tragedy before we are allowedto proceed with the development of a structurethat can hold back these waters. Next time, itmay not be just three or even 37 people whodrown, but rather, if a levee breaks in Sac-ramento or in my Marysville and Yuba Cityarea, we could be talking about thousands ofpeople drowned by this type of flooding. I do,however, want to commend my colleagues,Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. POMBO andMr. OSE for their hard work in reaching thishistoric compromise for further flood protectionin our northern California area in a responsiblemanner. I therefore urge my colleagues tosupport this legislation and vote in favor of the1999 Water Resources Development Act.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume.

I wish to emphasize, Madam Chair-man, that with the passage of this leg-islation today, it will represent the21st piece of legislation that the Com-mittee on Transportation and Infra-structure of the House has brought tothe floor and has seen passed.

In addition, thus far, six of our billsof the 21 pieces of legislation that havecome to the floor have been signed intolaw, representing 25 percent of the pub-lic laws which have been signed intolaw thus far this year.

So the Committee on Transportationand Infrastructure is moving vigor-ously to bring important legislation tothe floor. And I certainly want to com-pliment, on a bipartisan basis, theleadership on the other side of the aisleas well as my colleagues on our com-mittee who have made this possible.

I want to particularly, in addition,recognize Dr. Joe Westphal, the Assist-ant Secretary of the Army, for the val-uable steps that he set in motion lastfall so that we could proceed; the waterexperts in the Corps of Engineers, espe-cially Mr. Bob Childs in the Corps’ Sac-ramento office, who has certainly madea major contribution; and to Mr. DaveMendelsohn and Curt Haensel in ourLegislative Counsel’s Office for theirexpertise, patience, and undying ef-forts.

Jack Schenendorf, our chief of staff,is without fear, in my judgment. Therenever has been a more competent chiefof staff in the history of the Congressthat I am aware of, in my judgment.

I want to thank our water staff forthe excellent work which they havedone: Ben Grumbles, Jeff More, CarrieJelsma on the Republican staff, KenKopocis, and Art Chan on the Demo-cratic staff.

I would also like to thank John An-derson, the detailee of the Committeeon Transportation and Infrastructurefrom the Corps of Engineers, for hisfine work.

But the one person who needs to real-ly be singled out for his superb work onthe Sacramento River and AmericanRiver issues, that person is MikeStrachn. His outstanding knowledge ofwater resource programs and his highstandard of professionalism were of tre-mendous benefit to all Members of theHouse as we tried to work out thesedifficult issues. His efforts were in thehighest tradition of the House and cer-tainly has set an example for all staffs.

b 1145

I want to compliment all the individ-uals on both sides of the aisle, bothMembers and staff, as well as the ad-ministration, who were involved inbringing us to this point today to beable to bring this very important na-tional bipartisan legislation to thefloor. I urge its passage.

Mrs. FOWLER. Madam Chairman, today, Irise in strong support of the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1999.

This bill authorizes vital projects for our na-tion’s coast line and the shoreline of our riversand tributaries, for dredging in our nation’sharbors, and for flood control throughout ourStates.

My district includes over 100 miles of coast-line, several ports and navigation channels. Itis easy to understand how important this bill isto my district.

The corps projects authorized in this bill willprotect and create avenues of commerce andtransportation. Improvements to our harborsare necessary to open up access to our portsand enhance international trade. It is impera-tive to continue projects that preserve propertyand protect our beaches. Shore protectionprojects are particularly important to Floridaand I applaud the committee’s work in under-standing the need for preserving our beach-es—something that the administration hasfailed to do.

This bill protects and maintains our vast andcrucial water resources not just in my districtbut, across the country.

I encourage my colleagues to join me insupporting this important legislation.

Mr. EVERETT. Madam Chairman, I rise instrong support of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act (H.R. 1480). This long overduelegislation authorizes important civil worksprojects of the Army Corps of Engineers to ad-dress critical water resource and managementissues facing the Nation. This $4.2 billion na-tional investment in flood control, navigation,and water quality initiatives goes a long way inmeeting the water resource needs in virtuallyevery part of the country.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2486 April 29, 1999In Alabama, we are blessed with many river

systems that contribute significant environ-mental, commercial, and recreational benefitsto the State and southeastern region. The Ala-bama/Coosa/Tallapoosa and theAppalachicola/Chattahoochee/Flint river sys-tems both flow through my district and are im-portant navigable waterways that, in additionto enhancing the environment, help drive theeconomy. This legislation continues to providethe Corps of Engineers with the necessaryfunds to continue the operation and mainte-nance of these systems.

Of particular note in my own district insoutheast Alabama, flooding has been a prob-lem. In the past decade, Coffee and Genevacounties have been subjected to three majorfloods that forced the evacuation of the townsof Elba and Geneva. The flooding resultedfrom heavy tropical storms and hurricanes,which are seasonal occurrences, and causedthese old and outdated levees to fail. I ampleased that this legislation includes funds torebuild both of these two levees to modernstandards. Section 520 authorizes $12.9 mil-lion to repair and rehabilitate the Elba leveeand section 521 authorizes $16.6 million to re-pair and rehabilitate the Geneva levee.

It’s important that we move this overdue au-thorization forward, so I encourage the adop-tion of this measure in order to go to con-ference with the Senate to arrive at a final re-authorization bill for these water resourceprojects.

Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I just want-ed to take this opportunity to commend andthank the members of the Transportation andInfrastructure Committee, and its Sub-committee on Water Resources and Environ-ment, for the good work they have done in as-sembling this year’s version of the Water Re-sources Development Act (WRDA). As re-ported, H.R. 1480 authorizes numerous floodcontrol, navigational improvement, beach res-toration and ecosystem enhancement projectsthat will be of significant benefit to millions ofAmericans.

Let me cite one example with which I amparticularly familiar. Thirteen years ago, theDes Plaines River, which flows through mycongressional district in northeastern Illinois,went on a rampage, flooding over 10,000homes and businesses, forcing 15,000 peopleto flee to drier ground, and causing at least$35 million in damages. A year later, therewas another major flood along the DesPlaines and several times since the waters ofthat river have spilled over their banks. Justthis past week, in fact, residents in the areawere reminded of the threat posed by the DesPlaines, when a pair of rainstorms caused theriver to crest 1.4 feet above flood stage inGurnee, IL.

Much to my relief, and not just to minealone, sections 101 and 408 of H.R. 1480 ad-dress this flood threat by authorizing (subjectto the timely completion of the final Corps ofEngineers report) the construction of the firstphase of the Des Plaines River Flood ControlProject and an expanded study of the optionsfor Phase II. Assuming their wording remainsunchanged and H.R. 1480 is enacted into law,those provisions will allow the Corps of Engi-neers to proceed expeditiously with work onthree floodwater storage areas, the construc-tion of a pair of levees, the raising of an exist-ing dam and development of additional floodcontrol alternatives. As a result, a 25-percent

reduction in Des Plaines River flood damagescan be expected when the authorized con-struction work is complete, the benefits ofwhich are anticipated to exceed the costs bya ratio of 1.7 to 1. Furthermore, the ground-work will have been laid for the implementa-tion of additional flood prevention and/or re-duction measures.

In short, these efforts to mitigate, if noteliminate, flood damages along the DesPlaines are a win-win proposition. Thousandsof people in the northern Chicago suburbs willprofit because they will not suffer the same, oras severe, disruptions as they have in the pastand millions of taxpayers will benefit becausethey are less likely to be asked to repair thedamages that future flooding episodes wouldotherwise cause. Moreover, the same can besaid for a number of the other projects in thebill, one reason being that, much to its credit,the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers takes veryseriously its obligation to determine that water-resource projects under its jurisdiction have afavorable benefit-to-cost ratio. Also, it shouldbe noted that H.R. 1480 contains a number ofprovisions aimed at making future flood controland water resource projects as environ-mentally friendly as possible.

To sum up, what we have before us todayis a long-awaited bill which authorizes projectsthat promise substantial and cost-effective re-turns on the financial investment being madein them. With that thought very much in mind,let me reiterate my thanks to our Transpor-tation and Infrastructure colleagues for bring-ing this WRDA99 bill before us today and letme urge my colleagues in the House to giveH.R. 1480 their full support. It deserves noless.

Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I would liketo express my thanks and appreciation to theTransportation and Infrastructure CommitteeChairman BUD SHUSTER and Ranking MemberJIM OBERSTAR, and Water Resources and En-vironment Subcommittee Chairman SHER-WOOD BOEHLERT and Ranking Member ROB-ERT BORSKI for their hard work and tireless ef-fort to pass this long overdue and much need-ed legislation. I would also like to thank rank-ing member and friend JIM OBERSTAR for hisspecial effort in providing the authorizationneeded to implement an important educationaltool for the residents of Minnesota, the Mis-sissippi Place. The Mississippi Place wouldbring together the Army Corps of Engineers,the U.S. Geological Survey, the EnvironmentalProtection Agency and NASA to offer the na-tion an opportunity to develop a more com-plete understanding of the unique resourcewhich the Upper Mississippi River System rep-resents. Located on the banks of the Mis-sissippi River in downtown St. Paul, Mis-sissippi Place will provide these Federal enti-ties an opportunity to partner with State, local,and educational institutions in providing thepublic with real time learning opportunities onimportant issues affecting the river. In addition,the Corps and the USGS will operate Mis-sissippi River monitoring stations at Mis-sissippi Place for practical research purposeswhile still being accessible to the public. Onceagain, I would like to thank my colleagues fortheir efforts in finally crafting this bipartisanlegislation.

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I havesome serious concerns with the potential envi-ronmental and economic ramifications of theproject authorized to deepen the Delaware

River ship channel from 40 to 45 feet. I hadprepared a number of amendments to addresssome of these concerns, but I have agreed towithhold them with the assurance from thechairman that we will address these concernsby working together as the process moves for-ward. It is essential that as this project movesforward, it does so in an environmentally andeconomically sound manner.

First, let met state that I am concerned withthe environmental consequences that theproject may have on the State of Delaware. Ihave heard from many of my constituents andthere remains many unanswered questionsthat the Army Corps of Engineers has yet toaddress to Delaware’s satisfaction.

I am concerned with the authority clarified inthis bill to allow the local sponsor—the Dela-ware River Port Authority—to operate a rev-enue generating dredge spoil disposal oper-ation that is designed to import dredgespoils—that could be contaminated—anddump them at sites along the Delaware River.The Army Corps of Engineers requires a per-mit for this disposal with checks and balancesto prevent environmentally unsafe disposal ofthe dredge spoils. Even so, it would be a greatcomfort to me to know that the Delaware De-partment of Natural Resources and Environ-mental Control (DNREC) has approved thedetails because there are many different waysto dispose of dredge spoils, each with a dif-ferent degree of environmental protection. Themethod chosen needs to meet Delaware’sstandards because Delawareans living nearthese sites are the most at risk.

Furthermore, I want to make absolutely cer-tain that the Coastal Zone Management con-sistency provisions apply to Federal activitiesrelating to the Delaware River channel deep-ening project. DNREC has given its approvalconditioned upon a list of requirements beingmet, however this conditional approval is notfinal approval as some have suggested inpublic meetings. The Army Corps of Engineershas given me assurances that they are fullyaware they must meet the growing list of re-quirements before consistency approval fromDelaware is effective.

Third, while this project has been authorizedsince 1992, last week, just prior to committeeconsideration of this bill, section 347 was in-cluded in this bill to relocate a portion of thechannel along the Camden area. It is my un-derstanding that this portion has been relo-cated to deeper water that will not require anydredging or disruption of the existing soils. Infact, this shift in the channel will make theproject less expensive for the taxpayer be-cause the Army Corps of Engineers will nothave to dredge there. This is an encouragingdevelopment, but there should be more publicnotice for stakeholders and efforts made to in-form the congressional delegations involvedabout changes to the project as originally au-thorized.

Madam Chairman, I also have concernsabout the economic risks of this project to theAmerican taxpayer. According to the ArmyCorps of Engineers benefit-cost analysis, over80 percent of the benefits have been attrib-uted to six oil facilities along the river channel.However, none of the benefitting oil compa-nies have directly indicated outright support forthe project. Although they are not legally re-quired to commit to spending their own capitaldollars to deepen their own berths to take ad-vantage of a deeper channel, it seems prudent

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2487April 29, 1999for Congress or the Army Corps of Engineersto seek assurances that they will make thoseexpenditures before $300 million in taxpayerfunds are committed to building the channel.

In light of these financial concerns, it seemsparticularly important that Congress reinforcethe intent of Congress in 1992 when theproject was first authorized. Report 102–842accompanying the Water Resource Develop-ment Act of 1992 states on page 12:

Committee comments.—The Committeebelieves that the non-Federal cost of thechannel deepening should be funded by watertransportation users, not surface transpor-tation users. The Committee urges the Dela-ware River Port Authority to make every ef-fort to ensure that the non-Federal cost ofthe project is borne by water transportationusers.

There has been some discussion of bridgetoll receipts being raised to help fund the non-Federal cost—$100 million. Although reportlanguage is not binding, raising bridge tollswould appear to violate the committee’s intent.Before the Delaware River Port Authorityraises bridge tolls, at a minimum it shoulddemonstrate its efforts to raise the funds fromwater transportation users.

We must make sure that those projectsCongress chooses to finance give Americansa sufficient return both on their tax dollar in-vestment and their investment of natural re-sources. I look forward to continuing to ad-dress these fiscal and environmental con-cerns.

Mr. MOORE. Madam Chairman, I rise insupport of the managers’ amendment to H.R.1480, the Water Resources Development Actof 1999, and in support of the underlying legis-lation.

I want to take this opportunity to thank pub-licly House Transportation Infrastructure Chair-man BUD SHUSTER of Pennsylvania and rank-ing Democrat JIM OBERSTAR of Minnesota fortheir assistance in adding to the managers’amendment language I requested authorizinga badly needed flood control project for TurkeyCreek Basin in Kansas City, MO, and KansasCity, KS.

This language also is included in S. 507, theSenate companion measure to H.R. 1480,which passed the other body by voice vote onApril 19. This project is of significant impor-tance to my congressional district. TurkeyCreek flows from its urbanized drainage basisin Johnson County, KS, and into Kansas City,MO, and the Kansas River. Severe floodinghas occurred along the basin, most recently in1993 and again in 1998. An improvement planhas been prepared in partnership with theU.S. Corps of Engineers. This project will pro-vide vitally needed protection for commercialand industrial areas in both cities. I hope thatCongress also will approve later this year anappropriation I am seeking to complete designwork on this project.

Once again, Madam Chairman, I commendthe bipartisan leadership of the Transportationand Infrastructure Committee for bringing thisimportant legislation to the House floor and myconstituents and I very much appreciate theirtimely responsiveness to this request.

Mr. RILEY. Madam Chairman, I hadplanned to offer an amendment today thatwould have expressed the Sense of Congressthat any water agreement entered into be-tween the States of Alabama, Georgia, andFlorida should comply with existing Federalenvironmental water quality protection laws as

they are presently written. At the Committee’srequest, I have decided not to offer myamendment, with the understanding thatChairman SHUSTER has pledged to work withme to identify an appropriate legislative vehi-cle for my proposal.

I would like to clarify that my amendmentwould not have altered or expanded the CleanWater Act, it simply urged the States to en-sure that water quality should be consideredwithin the scope of all water quantity negotia-tions as consistent with current Federal law.We need to emphasize that the citizens ofthese States deserve to have not only theproper quantity of water they need, but alsothe highest quality of water.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I rise todayin support of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1999.

I represent a district in South Florida withover 90 miles of coastline, and 100 miles ofIntracoastal Waterway, so water projects arevery important to my constituents. I commendChairmen SHUSTER, BOEHLERT, and all of themembers of the Water Resources Sub-committee for their perseverance in gettingthis bill to the floor.

One issue of much concern to my constitu-ents is the continued participation of the fed-eral government to renourish beaches. De-spite the Administration’s decision to abandoncoastal communities across the country, forthree years the Committee has continued toensure adequate funding levels for des-perately needed projects. When the Com-mittee finally decided to adjust the cost shareformula for new construction projects, I amgrateful they provided for a phased-in ap-proach over three years. This will give localsponsors the chance to prepare for a reducedfederal share. I am optimistic that the changewill provide the needed motivation to the Clin-ton Administration to send a realistic budget tothe Congress next year, with sensible fundinglevels for shore protection.

On a related topic, I am most grateful to theCommittee for including a provision in H.R.1480 that will allow Broward County, Florida tobe reimbursed for the federal portion of theirbeach renourishment project in two phases.Although this language was not included in theSenate version, I hope the language will be in-cluded in the final conference report.

Finally, the Committee is also to be com-mended for their willingness to assist the Flor-ida congressional delegation on the Ever-glades restoration effort. Three provisions inthe bill relating to land acquisition and the ex-tension of critical projects authority will ensurethe program moves forward unimpeded.

Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues tovote for this bill.

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, thisMember rises in support of H.R. 1480, theWater Resources Development Act of 1999.

This Member would like to begin by com-mending the distinguished gentleman fromPennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER], the Chairman ofthe Transportation and Infrastructure Com-mittee, the distinguished gentleman from Min-nesota [Mr. OBERSTAR], the ranking member ofthe Transportation Committee, the distin-guished gentleman from New York [Mr. BOEH-LERT], the Chairman of the Water Resourcesand Environment Subcommittee, and the dis-tinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.BORSKI], the ranking member of the Sub-committee, for their extraordinary work in de-

veloping this bill and bringing it to the floor.This Member appreciates their diligence, per-sistence, and hard work.

This important legislation includes numerousprojects designed to improve flood control,navigation, and shore protection. It also pro-motes environmental restoration and protec-tion efforts across the nation.

In particular, this Member is pleased thatthe bill includes a provision he promotedwhich helps to ensure that the Missouri RiverMitigation Project can be implemented as en-visioned. In 1986, Congress authorized over$50 million (more than $79 million in today’sdollars if adjusted for inflation) to fund the Mis-souri River Mitigation Project to restore fishand wildlife habitat that were lost due to theconstruction of structures to implement thePick-Sloan plan. At that time the Corps did notchoose to include funding requests for imple-menting that Act in their budgeting process.That is why this Member, along with otherMembers who represent the four states bor-dering the channelized Missouri River (Ne-braska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri), haveworked to provide funding to implement theMissouri River Mitigation Project which hasjust begun to become a reality during the lastfew years.

This project is specifically needed to restorefish and wildlife habitat lost due to the Feder-ally sponsored channelization and stabilizationprojects of the Pick-Sloan era. The islands,wetlands, and flat floodplains that are neededto support the wildlife and waterfowl that oncelived along the river are dramatically reduced.And estimated 475,000 acres of habitat inIowa, Nebraska, Missouri and Kansas havebeen lost because of Federal action in cre-ating the flood control projects and channeliza-tion of the Missouri River. Today’s fishery re-sources are estimated to be only one-fifth ofthose which existed in pre-development days.

The success of the project has resulted in aconcern related to the original study that out-lined habitat needs. Under this study, acreagegoals for each state were listed and thesegoals are generally considered to be an acre-age limitation for each state. Nebraska andKansas have already reached their acreagelimits and Missouri is fast approaching its ceil-ing. Before long, Iowa will also reach its acre-age limit.

To correct this problem, H.R. 1480 author-izes an increase in mitigation lands authorizedto the four states to 25% of the lands lost, or118,650 acres. In addition, the Corps of Engi-neers—in conjunction with the four states—isdirected to study the amount of funds thatwould need to be authorized to achieve thatacreage goal.

This Member is also pleased that H.R. 1480also includes a provision which provides forthe completion of the Wood River Flood Con-trol Project. When completed, this importantproject in Nebraska’s Third Congressional Dis-trict will provide protection for an estimated1,755 home and business structures in south-ern Grand Island, Nebraska. It is also ex-pected to protect more than 5,000 acres of irri-gated farmland and 7,000 to 8,000 acres ofgrassland.

Madam Chairman, this Member urges hiscolleagues to support H.R. 1480, the WaterResources Development Act of 1999.

Mr. GARY MILLER of California. MadamChairman, I rise today in strong support ofH.S. 1480, the ‘‘Water Resources Develop-ment Act.’’

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2488 April 29, 1999The bill authorizes $4.2 billion for projects

and programs of the Army Corps of Engineerscivil works program.

It responds to pressing water infrastructurepriorities, policy initiatives to update existingwater resources programs,and opportunities torestore, protect, and enhance the aquatic envi-ronment.

Specifically, H.R. 1480 authorizes 95 newwater resources projects, modifies 66 existingauthorized projects, and authorizes the Corps.to conduct 26 studies to address a variety ofwater resources problems and opportunities.

The bill, Madam Chairman, is extremely im-portant to my district, especially to the ChinoDairy Preserve in California.

The bill calls upon the Secretary of theArmy, in coordination with the heads of otherFederal agencies, to provide technical assist-ance to State and local agencies in the study,design, and implementation of measures forflood damage reduction and environmentalrestoration and protection in the Santa AnaRiver Watershed, with particular emphasis onstructural and nonstructural measures in thevicinity of the Chino Dairy Preserve.

H.R. 1480 also calls upon the Secretary toconduct a feasibility study to determine themost cost-effective plan for flood damage re-duction an environmental restoration and pro-tection in the vicinity of the Chino Dairy Pre-serve, Santa Ana River Watershed, OrangeCounty, and San Bernardino County, Cali-fornia.

I wish to extend my deep appreciation forthe leadership shown by Chairman SHUSTER,Ranking Member OBERSTAR, SubcommitteeChairman BOEHLERT and Ranking MemberBORSKI in drafting this important piece of legis-lation.

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 Re-sources Development Act. This important leg-islation includes a provision that will advancea flood control project important to thousandsof my constituents and many residents of Chi-cago’s South Suburbs. H.R. 1480 will advancethe construction of the Thornton Reservoir,which is located in my Congressional District,through an innovative approach allowing theMetropolitan Water Reclamation District ofGreater Chicago to work with the Natural Re-sources Conservation Service to build a transi-tional reservoir for Thorn Creek. Because ofthis project, my constituents in the South Sub-urbs of Chicago will see the much neededbenefits of flood control more than a decadeearlier than previously anticipated by the ArmyCorps of Engineers.

The innovative approach included in H.R.1480 will allow the Metropolitan Water Rec-lamation District of Chicago to secure creditfor the advance work which is critical to thedevelopment of the permanent Thornton Res-ervoir. The approach couples early protectionwith local/federal partnering resulting in signifi-cant benefits to area communities.

Frequent flooding has been a constant prob-lem in the Chicago area. This has consistentlybeen the cause of disruptions in major ex-pressways, as well as rainwater and raw sew-age back up into the basements of over500,000 homes. The solution comes from theTunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP) through anintricate system of underground tunnels,pumping stations and storage reservoirs usedto control this flooding and combined sewage

pollution in the Chicago Metropolitan Area.The Thornton Reservoir is a crucial compo-nent of the TARP project. Once completed,the Thornton Reservoir will provide 5 billiongallons of floodwater storage. The reservoirwill have a service area of 91 square milesand will provide flood relief to 131,000 dwell-ings in 18 communities.

The continuation of the TARP project andthe Thornton Reservoir is important to 500,000families in Chicago’s South Suburbs. I urgemy colleagues to support H.R. 1480.

Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Madam Chair-man, I’m excited to rise in strong support forthe Water Resources Development Act today.Three words can sum up my thoughts—finally,finally, finally!

This Water Resources bill contains a reau-thorization for the Wood River/Warm Sloughflood control project in Grand Island, Ne-braska. The residents of Grand Island and Ihave been working on reauthorization andwaiting for an opportunity to move it since1997. Their patience has been tested, but I’mpleased I’m going to be able to report goodnews today.

Construction of the Wood River project wasoriginally authorized in the 1996 Water Re-sources Development Act. Soon after the ini-tial authorization, the Army Corps of Engineershad to revise its cost estimates for the project.The revision increased the cost by more than20 percent, thus requiring congressional re-view and reauthorization.

The project eventually will provide flood pro-tection for more than 1,700 structures inGrand Island and protect 5,000 acres of irri-gated cropland. The project also will enhancewildlife habitat for many species, including theendangered Whooping Crane, and provide op-portunities for wetlands development.

This is a good project that deserves oursupport. I wish to extend my sincere apprecia-tion to the Transportation Committee for expe-ditiously moving this bill this spring. And thankyou very, very much for your work on behalfof the residents of Grand Island, Nebraska.

Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I rise today asa co-chair of the upper Mississippi River con-gressional task force, in support of the upperMississippi environmental management pro-gram which is part of WRDA 99.

The EMP is designed to evaluate, restoreand enhance river and wetland habitat along a1200 mile stretch of the upper Mississippi andIllinois Rivers. It is a cooperative effort amongthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S.Geological Service, the Army Corps of Engi-neers and the 5 upper Mississippi River basinStates.

The EMP has always had bipartisan supportin Congress and the five midwestern States. I,along with Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. GUTKNECHT andMr. LEACH co-chair the 16 member upper Mis-sissippi River congressional task force, whichstrongly supports expansion of the EMP.

WRDA 99 authorizes funding of $33.17 mil-lion each year for EMP.

EMP was established in 1986 by my prede-cessor Steve Gunderson. At the time EMPwas only authorized for 15 years. This WRDAbill gives EMP a permanent authorization. Inthe past EMP projects faced funding chal-lenges due to the uncertain future of the pro-gram. With adequate funding and permanentauthorization the EMP will be able to continueit’s outstanding work protecting this great nat-ural resource.

The EMP is vital to the environmental andeconomic well being of the Mississippi River,and it enjoys strong bipartisan supportthroughout the upper Mississippi region.

Navigation along the upper Mississippi Riversupports 400,000 full and part-time jobs, whichproduces over $4 billion in individual income.Recreation use totals 12 million visitors eachyear and 1.2 billion in direct and indirect ex-penditures annually. Communities along theriver from St. Paul, Minnesota to St. Louis,Missouri are striving to enhance the river. TheEMP helps to rehabilitate the natural areas upand down the river.

I urge the Members to support WRDA andthe Environmental Management Program, andI thank the chairman for the time.

Mr. HILLEARY. Madam Chairman, I want tothank the distinguished Chairman of theTransportation and Infrastructure Committeefor his cooperation and assistance in address-ing an important concern in my district.

I appreciate that the chairman’s manager’samendment includes language to allow theCorps of Engineers to conduct a feasibilitystudy on improvements to a regional watersupply for Cumberland County, Tennessee.

Water Supply has become a critical concernon the Cumberland Plateau. Recent growthand development throughout this region hasplaced extreme pressure on the six countywater utility districts in Cumberland Countyand the City of Crossville to expand watersupplies.

The Tennessee Department of Environmentand Conservation worked with the water utilitydistricts and local officials within CumberlandCounty to form a regional water planning part-nership to work together to address their mu-tual problem.

By working together in this partnership, theywill be able to resolve water issues, avoid andreduce impacts to natural streams and savetime and taxpayers’ money.

At the request of local and state officials,the Army Corps of Engineers conducted a re-gional water supply study. This PreliminaryEngineering Report was completed earlier thisyear and provides Cumberland County resi-dents with innovative alternatives for a watersupply through the year 2050. This ‘‘state ofthe art’’ model can be used as a process forother local governments to effectively plan theuse of their region’s water resources.

The manager’s amendment will help thisrapidly growing county by allowing them tocontinue into the next phase of the process insolving their long-term water supply needs.

Again, I want to thank Chairman SHUSTERfor his assistance and urge all my colleaguesto support his amendment and the entire bill.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, Iyield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. All time for generaldebate has expired.

Pursuant to the rule, the committeeamendment in the nature of a sub-stitute printed in the bill, modified bythe amendments printed in part 1 ofHouse Report 106–120, is considered asan original bill for the purpose ofamendment under the 5-minute ruleand is considered read.

The text of the committee amend-ment in the nature of a substitute, asmodified, is as follows:

H.R. 1480Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of Americain Congress assembled,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2489April 29, 1999SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited asthe ‘‘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 com-

piling and disseminating informa-tion on floods and flood damages.

Sec. 203. Contributions by States and politicalsubdivisions.

Sec. 204. Sediment decontamination technology.Sec. 205. Control of aquatic plants.Sec. 206. Use of continuing contracts required

for construction of certainprojects.

Sec. 207. Support of Army civil works program.Sec. 208. Water resources development studies

for the Pacific region.Sec. 209. Everglades and south Florida eco-

system 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 restora-

tion pilot program.Sec. 215. Shoreline management program.Sec. 216. Assistance for remediation, restora-

tion, 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 environ-

mental 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 re-

sources.Sec. 226. Sense of Congress; requirement regard-

ing 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, Arkan-

sas.Sec. 305. Loggy Bayou, Red River below

Denison Dam, Arkansas, Lou-isiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Sec. 306. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, Cali-fornia.

Sec. 307. San Lorenzo River, California.Sec. 308. Terminus Dam, Kaweah River, Cali-

fornia.Sec. 309. Delaware River mainstem and channel

deepening, Delaware, New Jersey,and Pennsylvania.

Sec. 310. Potomac River, Washington, Districtof 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, Indi-

ana.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), Lou-isiana.

Sec. 327. Tolchester Channel, Baltimore Harborand 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 Dis-

trict, Missouri.Sec. 332. Meramec River Basin, Valley Park

Levee, Missouri.Sec. 333. Missouri River mitigation project, Mis-

souri, Kansas, Iowa, and Ne-braska.

Sec. 334. Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska.Sec. 335. Absecon Island, New Jersey.Sec. 336. New York Harbor and Adjacent Chan-

nels, Port Jersey, New JerseySec. 337. Passaic River, New Jersey.Sec. 338. Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New

Jersey.Sec. 339. Arthur Kill, New York and New Jer-

sey.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, Pennsyl-

vania.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 Riverslevees and streambanks protec-tion.

Sec. 402. Upper Mississippi River comprehensiveplan.

Sec. 403. El Dorado, Union County, Arkansas.Sec. 404. Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego

County, California.Sec. 405. Whitewater River Basin, California.Sec. 406. Little Econlackhatchee River Basin,

Florida.Sec. 407. Port Everglades Inlet, Florida.

Sec. 408. Upper Des Plaines River and tribu-taries, Illinois and Wisconsin.

Sec. 409. Cameron Parish west of CalcasieuRiver, Louisiana.

Sec. 410. Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana.Sec. 411. Lake Pontchartrain seawall, Lou-

isiana.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, Indi-

ana, and Michigan.Sec. 417. Schuylkill River, Norristown, Pennsyl-

vania.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 Caro-

lina.

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Corps assumption of NRCS projects.Sec. 502. Construction assistance.Sec. 503. Contaminated sediment dredging tech-

nology.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 diver-

sions.Sec. 509. Upper Mississippi River environmental

management program.Sec. 510. Atlantic Coast of New York moni-

toring.Sec. 511. Water control management.Sec. 512. Beneficial use of dredged material.Sec. 513. Design and construction assistance.Sec. 514. Lower Missouri River aquatic restora-

tion 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, Cali-

fornia.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 environ-

mental restoration, LakeAllatoona, Georgia.

Sec. 534. Mayo’s Bar Lock and Dam, CoosaRiver, Rome, Georgia.

Sec. 535. Comprehensive flood impact responsemodeling system, Coralville Res-ervoir and Iowa River Watershed,Iowa.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2490 April 29, 1999Sec. 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, Buz-

zards 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 con-

veyance 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, Penn-

sylvania.Sec. 561. Seven Points’ Harbor, Pennsylvania.Sec. 562. Southeastern Pennsylvania.Sec. 563. Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna wa-

tershed restoration initiative.Sec. 564. Aguadilla Harbor, Puerto Rico.Sec. 565. Oahe Dam to Lake Sharpe, South Da-

kota, study.Sec. 566. Integrated water management plan-

ning, Texas.Sec. 567. Bolivar Peninsula, Jefferson, Cham-

bers, 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 re-

search.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 con-trol 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 develop-ment and conservation and other purposes areauthorized to be carried out by the Secretarysubstantially in accordance with the plans, andsubject to the conditions, described in the re-spective reports designated in this subsection:

(1) SAND POINT HARBOR, ALASKA.—The projectfor navigation, Sand Point Harbor, Alaska: Re-port of the Chief of Engineers dated October 13,1998, at a total cost of $11,760,000, with an esti-mated Federal cost of $6,964,000 and an esti-mated non-Federal cost of $4,796,000.

(2) RIO SALADO, SALT RIVER, PHOENIX ANDTEMPE, ARIZONA.—The project for flood controland environmental restoration, Rio Salado, SaltRiver, Phoenix and Tempe, Arizona: Report ofthe Chief of Engineers dated August 20, 1998, ata total cost of $88,048,000, with an estimatedFederal cost of $56,355,000 and an estimatednon-Federal cost of $31,693,000.

(3) TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, ARIZONA.—Theproject for flood control, Tucson drainage area,Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers, datedMay 20, 1998, at a total cost of $29,900,000, withan estimated Federal cost of $16,768,000 and anestimated non-Federal cost of $13,132,000.

(4) AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CALI-FORNIA.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Folsom Dam Modifica-tion portion of the Folsom Modification Plandescribed in the United States Army Corps ofEngineers Supplemental Information Report forthe American River Watershed Project, Cali-fornia, dated March 1996, as modified by the re-port entitled ‘‘Folsom Dam Modification Report,New Outlets Plan,’’ dated March 1998, preparedby the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency,at an estimated cost of $150,000,000, with an esti-mated Federal cost of $97,500,000 and an esti-mated non-Federal cost of $52,500,000. The Sec-retary shall coordinate with the Secretary of theInterior with respect to the design and construc-tion of modifications at Folsom Dam authorizedby this paragraph.

(B) REOPERATION MEASURES.—Upon comple-tion of the improvements to Folsom Dam author-ized by subparagraph (A), the variable space al-located to flood control within the Reservoirshall be reduced from the current operatingrange of 400,000-670,000 acre-feet to 400,000-600,000 acre-feet.

(C) MAKEUP OF WATER SHORTAGES CAUSED BYFLOOD CONTROL OPERATION.—The Secretary ofthe Interior shall enter into, or modify, suchagreements with the Sacramento Area FloodControl Agency regarding the operation of Fol-som Dam and reservoir as may be necessary inorder that, notwithstanding any prior agree-ment or provision of law, 100 percent of thewater needed to make up for any water shortagecaused by variable flood control operation dur-ing any year at Folsom Dam and resulting in asignificant impact on recreation at Folsom Res-ervoir shall be replaced, to the extent the wateris available for purchase, by the Secretary of theInterior.

(D) SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON RECREATION.—Forthe purposes of this paragraph, a significant im-pact on recreation is defined as any impact thatresults in a lake elevation at Folsom Reservoirbelow 435 feet above sea level starting on May 15and ending on September 15 of any given year.

(5) SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS,CALIFORNIA.—The project for flood control, envi-ronmental restoration and recreation, SouthSacramento County streams, California: Reportof the Chief of Engineers dated October 6, 1998,at a total cost of $65,500,000, with an estimatedFederal cost of $41,200,000 and an estimatednon-Federal cost of $24,300,000.

(6) UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—The project for flood control and recreation,Upper Guadalupe River, California: LocallyPreferred Plan (known as the ‘‘Bypass ChannelPlan’’), Report of the Chief of Engineers datedAugust 19, 1998, at a total cost of $140,285,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $44,000,000and an estimated non-Federal cost of$96,285,000.

(7) YUBA RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA.—Theproject for flood control, Yuba River Basin,California: Report of the Chief of Engineersdated 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 ANDNEW JERSEY-BROADKILL BEACH, DELAWARE.—Theproject for hurricane and storm damage reduc-tion, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and

New Jersey-Broadkill Beach, Delaware: Reportof the Chief of Engineers dated August 17, 1998,at a total cost of $9,049,000, with an estimatedFederal cost of $5,674,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,375,000, and at an estimatedaverage annual cost of $538,200 for periodicnourishment over the 50-year life of the project,with an estimated annual Federal cost of$349,800 and an estimated annual non-Federalcost of $188,400.

(9) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DELAWARE ANDNEW JERSEY-PORT MAHON, DELAWARE.—Theproject for ecosystem restoration, Delaware Baycoastline, Delaware and New Jersey-PortMahon, Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engi-neers 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 annualcost of $234,000 for periodic nourishment overthe 50-year life of the project, with an estimatedannual Federal cost of $152,000 and an esti-mated annual non-Federal cost of $82,000.

(10) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DELAWAREAND NEW JERSEY-ROOSEVELT INLET-LEWES BEACH,DELAWARE.—The project for navigation mitiga-tion and hurricane and storm damage reduc-tion, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware andNew Jersey-Roosevelt Inlet-Lewes Beach, Dela-ware: Report of the Chief of Engineers datedFebruary 3, 1999, at a total cost of $3,393,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $2,620,000 andan estimated non-Federal cost of $773,000, andat an estimated average annual cost of $196,000for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life ofthe project, with an estimated annual Federalcost 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 theChief of Engineers April 21, 1999, at a total costof $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 subpara-graph (A), the Secretary may construct theproject to a depth of 40 feet if the non-Federalinterest agrees to pay any additional costs abovethose for the recommended plan.

(12) TAMPA HARBOR-BIG BEND CHANNEL, FLOR-IDA.—The project for navigation, Tampa Har-bor-Big Bend Channel, Florida: Report of theChief of Engineers dated October 13, 1998, at atotal cost of $9,356,000, with an estimated Fed-eral cost of $6,235,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,121,000.

(13) BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GEORGIA.—Theproject for navigation, Brunswick Harbor, Geor-gia: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated Oc-tober 6, 1998, at a total cost of $50,717,000, withan estimate Federal cost of $32,966,000 and anestimated non-Federal cost of $17,751,000.

(14) BEARGRASS CREEK, KENTUCKY.—Theproject for flood control, Beargrass Creek, Ken-tucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers, datedMay 12, 1998, at a total cost of $11,171,300, withan estimated Federal cost of $7,261,500 and anestimated non-Federal cost of $3,909,800.

(15) AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, LOU-ISIANA.—The project for flood control, AmiteRiver and tributaries, Louisiana: Report of theChief of Engineers dated December 23, 1996, at atotal cost of $112,900,000, with an estimated Fed-eral cost of $84,675,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $28,225,000. Cost sharing for theproject shall be determined in accordance withsection 103(a) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213), as in effect onOctober 11, 1996.

(16) BALTIMORE HARBOR ANCHORAGES ANDCHANNELS, MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA.—Theproject for navigation, Baltimore harbor an-chorages 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 esti-mated Federal cost of $19,000,000 and an esti-mated non-Federal cost of $9,430,000.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2491April 29, 1999(17) RED RIVER LAKE AT CROOKSTON, MIN-

NESOTA.—The project for flood control, RedRiver Lake at Crookston, Minnesota: Report ofthe Chief of Engineers, dated April 20, 1998, ata total cost of $8,950,000, with an estimated Fed-eral cost of $5,720,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,230,000.

(18) LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAYPOINT, NEW JERSEY.—The project for navigationmitigation, ecosystem restoration, and hurricaneand storm damage reduction, Lower Cape MayMeadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey: Reportof the Chief of Engineers dated April 5, 1999, ata total cost of $15,952,000, with an estimatedFederal cost of $12,118,000 and an estimatednon-Federal cost of $3,834,000, and at an esti-mated average annual cost of $1,114,000 for peri-odic nourishment over the 50-year life of theproject, with an estimated annual Federal costof $897,000 and an estimated annual non-Fed-eral cost of $217,000.

(19) NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION: TOWN-SENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NEW JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and storm damage re-duction and ecosystem restoration, New JerseyShore Protection: Townsends Inlet to Cape MayInlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engi-neers 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 annualcost of $2,000,000 for periodic nourishment overthe 50-year life of the project, with an estimatedannual Federal cost of $1,300,000 and an esti-mated annual non-Federal cost of $700,000.

(20) GUANAJIBO RIVER, PUERTO RICO.—Theproject for flood control, Guanajibo River, Puer-to Rico: Report of the Chief of Engineers, datedFebruary 27, 1996, at a total cost of $27,031,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $20,273,250and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,757,750.Cost sharing for the project shall be determinedin accordance with section 103(a) of the WaterResources 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, RioGrande De Manati, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico:Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January22, 1999, at a total cost of $13,491,000, with anestimated Federal cost of $8,785,000 and an esti-mated non-Federal cost of $4,706,000.

(22) RIO NIGUA AT SALINAS, PUERTO RICO.—Theproject 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.—Theproject for flood control, environmental restora-tion and recreation, Salt Creek, Graham, Texas:Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October6, 1998, at a total cost of $10,080,000, with an es-timated Federal cost of $6,560,000 and an esti-mated non-Federal cost of $3,520,000.

(b) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO REPORT.—The fol-lowing projects for water resources developmentand conservation and other purposes are au-thorized to be carried out by the Secretary sub-stantially in accordance with the plans, andsubject to the conditions, recommended in afinal report of the Corps of Engineers, if the re-port is completed not later than September 30,1999.

(1) NOME, ALASKA.—The project for naviga-tion, Nome, Alaska, at a total cost of $24,608,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $19,660,000and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,948,000.

(2) SEWARD HARBOR, ALASKA.—The project fornavigation, Seward Harbor, Alaska, at a totalcost of $12,240,000, with an estimated Federalcost of $4,364,000 and an estimated non-Federalcost of $7,876,000.

(3) HAMILTON AIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA.—Theproject for wetlands restoration, Hamilton Air-field, 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.—Theproject for navigation, Oakland Harbor, Cali-fornia, at a total cost of $256,650,000, with an es-timated Federal cost of $143,450,000 and an esti-mated non-Federal cost of $113,200,000.

(5) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DELAWARE ANDNEW JERSEY: REEDS BEACH AND PIERCES POINT,NEW JERSEY.—The project for shore protectionand ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay Coast-line, Delaware and New Jersey: Reeds Beachand 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 ANDNEW JERSEY: VILLAS AND VICINITY, NEW JERSEY.—The project for shore protection and ecosystemrestoration, Delaware Bay Coastline, Delawareand New Jersey: Villas and Vicinity, New Jer-sey, at a total cost of $7,520,000, with an esti-mated Federal cost of $4,888,000 and an esti-mated non-Federal cost of $2,632,000.

(7) DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HENELOPENTO FENWICK ISLAND, BETHANY BEACH/SOUTHBETHANY BEACH, DELAWARE.—The project forhurricane and storm damage reduction, Dela-ware Coast from Cape Henelopen to Fenwick Is-land, Bethany Beach/South Bethany Beach,Delaware, at a total cost of $22,205,000, with anestimated Federal cost of $14,433,000 and an esti-mated non-Federal cost of $7,772,000, and at anestimated average annual cost of $1,584,000 forperiodic nourishment over the 50-year life of theproject, with an estimated annual Federal costof $1,030,000 and an estimated annual non-Fed-eral cost of $554,000.

(8) LITTLE TALBOT ISLAND, DUVAL COUNTY,FLORIDA.—The project for hurricane and stormdamage prevention, Little Talbot Island, DuvalCounty, Florida, at a total cost of $5,915,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $3,839,000 andan estimated non-Federal cost of $2,076,000.

(9) PONCE DE LEON INLET, FLORIDA.—Theproject for navigation and related purposes,Ponce de Leon Inlet, Volusia County, Florida,at a total cost of $5,454,000, with an estimatedFederal 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 Har-bor expansion, Georgia, including implementa-tion of the mitigation plan, with such modifica-tions as the Secretary deems appropriate, at atotal cost of $230,174,000 (of which amount aportion is authorized for implementation of themitigation plan), with an estimated Federal costof $145,160,000 and an estimated non-Federalcost of $85,014,000.

(B) CONDITIONS.—The project authorized bysubparagraph (A) may be carried out onlyafter—

(i) the Secretary, in consultation with affectedFederal, State of Georgia, State of South Caro-lina, regional, and local entities, has reviewedand approved an environmental impact state-ment for the project that includes—

(I) an analysis of the impacts of project depthalternatives ranging from 42 feet through 48feet; and

(II) a selected plan for navigation and an as-sociated mitigation plan as required by section906(a) of the Water Resources Development Actof 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283); and

(ii) the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretaryof Commerce, the Administrator of the Environ-mental Protection Agency, and the Secretaryhave approved the selected plan and have deter-mined that the mitigation plan adequately ad-dresses the potential environmental impacts ofthe project.

(C) MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.—The mitiga-tion plan shall be implemented in advance of orconcurrently with construction of the project.

(11) DES PLAINES RIVER, ILLINOIS.—The projectfor flood control, Des Plaines River, Illinois, at

a total cost of $44,300,000 with an estimated Fed-eral cost of $28,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,500,000.

(12) NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, BRIGAN-TINE INLET TO GREAT EGG HARBOR, BRIGANTINEISLAND, NEW JERSEY.—The project for hurricaneand storm damage reduction, New Jersey shoreprotection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Har-bor, Brigantine Island, New Jersey, at a totalcost of $4,970,000, with an estimated Federal costof $3,230,000 and an estimated non-Federal costof $1,740,000, and at an estimated average an-nual cost of $465,000 for periodic nourishmentover the 50-year life of the project, with an esti-mated annual Federal cost of $302,000 and anestimated annual non-Federal cost of $163,000.

(13) COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL, OREGON ANDWASHINGTON.—The project for navigation, Co-lumbia River Channel, Oregon and Washington,at a total cost of $183,623,000 with an estimatedFederal cost $106,132,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $77,491,000.

(14) JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.—Thelocally preferred project for flood control, John-son 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.—Theproject for water supply and ecosystem restora-tion, Howard Hanson Dam, Washington, at atotal cost of $75,600,000, with an estimated Fed-eral 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 conducta study for each of the following projects and,after completion of such study, shall carry outthe project under section 205 of the Flood Con-trol Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s):

(1) LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA.—Project for floodcontrol, Lancaster, California, westsidestormwater retention facility.

(2) GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA, FLORIDA.—Project for flood control, Gateway Trianglearea, Collier County, Florida.

(3) PLANT CITY, FLORIDA.—Project for floodcontrol, Plant City, Florida.

(4) STONE ISLAND, LAKE MONROE, FLORIDA.—Project for flood control, Stone Island, LakeMonroe, Florida.

(5) OHIO RIVER, ILLINOIS.—Project for floodcontrol, Ohio River, Illinois.

(6) REPAUPO CREEK, NEW JERSEY.—Project forflood 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 floodcontrol, 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 Wana-maker Roads, Abington Township, Pennsyl-vania.

(11) PORT INDIAN, WEST NORRITON TOWNSHIP,MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Projectfor flood control, Port Indian, West NorritonTownship, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

(12) PORT PROVIDENCE, UPPER PROVIDENCETOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for floodcontrol, Port Providence, Upper ProvidenceTownship, Pennsylvania.

(13) SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP, MONTGOMERYCOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood con-trol, Springfield Township, Montgomery Coun-ty, Pennsylvania.

(14) FIRST CREEK, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE.—Project for flood control, First Creek, Knoxville,Tennessee.

(15) METRO CENTER LEVEE, CUMBERLANDRIVER, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE.—Project for floodcontrol, Metro Center Levee, Cumberland River,Nashville, Tennessee.

(b) FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MISSOURI.—

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2492 April 29, 1999(1) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The

maximum amount of Federal funds that may beexpended for the project for flood control,Festus and Crystal City, Missouri, shall be$10,000,000.

(2) REVISION OF PROJECT COOPERATION AGREE-MENT.—The Secretary shall revise the project co-operation agreement for the project referred toin paragraph (1) to take into account thechange in the Federal participation in suchproject pursuant to paragraph (1).

(3) COST SHARING.—Nothing in this sectionshall be construed to affect any cost-sharing re-quirement applicable to the project referred to inparagraph (1) under the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1986.SEC. 103. SMALL BANK STABILIZATION

PROJECTS.The Secretary shall conduct a study for each

of the following projects and, after completionof such study, shall carry out the project undersection 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33U.S.C. 701r):

(1) SAINT JOSEPH RIVER, INDIANA.—Project forstreambank erosion control, Saint Joseph River,Indiana.

(2) SAGINAW RIVER, BAY CITY, MICHIGAN.—Project for streambank erosion control, SaginawRiver, Bay City, Michigan.

(3) BIG TIMBER CREEK, NEW JERSEY.—Projectfor streambank erosion control, Big TimberCreek, New Jersey.

(4) LAKE SHORE ROAD, ATHOL SPRINGS, NEWYORK.—Project for streambank erosion control,Lake Shore Road, Athol Springs, New York.

(5) MARIST COLLEGE, POUGHKEEPSIE, NEWYORK.—Project for streambank erosion control,Marist College, Poughkeepsie, New York.

(6) MONROE COUNTY, OHIO.—Project forstreambank erosion control, Monroe County,Ohio.

(7) GREEN VALLEY, WEST VIRGINIA.—Project forstreambank erosion control, Green Valley, WestVirginia.SEC. 104. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.

The Secretary shall conduct a study for eachof the following projects and, after completionof such study, shall carry out the project undersection 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960(33 U.S.C. 577):

(1) GRAND MARAIS, ARKANSAS.—Project fornavigation, Grand Marais, Arkansas.

(2) FIELDS LANDING CHANNEL, HUMBOLDT HAR-BOR, CALIFORNIA.—Project for navigation,Fields Landing Channel, Humboldt Harbor,California.

(3) SAN MATEO (PILLAR POINT HARBOR), CALI-FORNIA.—Project for navigation San Mateo (Pil-lar Point Harbor), California.

(4) AGANA MARINA, GUAM.—Project for naviga-tion, Agana Marina, Guam.

(5) AGAT MARINA, GUAM.—Project for naviga-tion, Agat Marina, Guam.

(6) APRA HARBOR FUEL PIERS, GUAM.—Projectfor navigation, Apra Harbor Fuel Piers, Guam.

(7) APRA HARBOR PIER F–6, GUAM.—Project fornavigation, Apra Harbor Pier F–6, Guam.

(8) APRA HARBOR SEAWALL, GUAM.—Project fornavigation including a seawall, Apra Harbor,Guam.

(9) GUAM HARBOR, GUAM.—Project for naviga-tion, Guam Harbor, Guam.

(10) ILLINOIS RIVER NEAR CHAUTAUQUA PARK,ILLINOIS.—Project for navigation, Illinois Rivernear Chautauqua Park, Illinois.

(11) WHITING SHORELINE WATERFRONT, WHIT-ING, INDIANA.—Project for navigation, WhitingShoreline 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, NEWJERSEY.—Project for navigation for FortescueInlet, Delaware Bay, New Jersey.

(16) BUFFALO AND LASALLE PARK, NEW YORK.—Project for navigation, Buffalo and LaSallePark, New York.

(17) STURGEON POINT, NEW YORK.—Project fornavigation, 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 outthe project under section 1135 of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.2309a):

(1) ILLINOIS RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF HAVANA,ILLINOIS.—Project for the improvement of theenvironment, Illinois River in the vicinity of Ha-vana, Illinois.

(2) KNITTING MILL CREEK, VIRGINIA.—Projectfor the improvement of the environment, Knit-ting Mill Creek, Virginia.

(b) PINE FLAT DAM, KINGS RIVER, CALI-FORNIA.—The Secretary shall carry out undersection 1135(a) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)) a project toconstruct a turbine bypass at Pine Flat Dam,Kings River, California, in accordance with theProject Modification Report and EnvironmentalAssessment dated September 1996.SEC. 106. SMALL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORA-

TION PROJECTS.The Secretary shall conduct a study for each

of the following projects and, after completionof such study, shall carry out the project undersection 206 of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):

(1) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, BAY DELTA, CALI-FORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restora-tion, Contra Costa County, Bay Delta, Cali-fornia.

(2) INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA.—Project for aquat-ic ecosystem restoration and lagoon restoration,Indian River, Florida.

(3) LITTLE WEKIVA RIVER, FLORIDA.—Projectfor aquatic ecosystem restoration and erosioncontrol, Little Wekiva River, Florida.

(4) COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—Project foraquatic ecosystem restoration and lagoon res-toration and protection, Cook County, Illinois.

(5) GRAND BATTURE ISLAND, MISSISSIPPI.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, GrandBatture Island, Mississippi.

(6) HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUN-TIES, MISSISSIPPI.—Project for aquatic ecosystemrestoration and reef restoration along the GulfCoast, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Coun-ties, Mississippi.

(7) MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND RIVER DES PERES,ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.—Project for aquatic eco-system restoration and recreation, MississippiRiver and River Des Peres, St. Louis, Missouri.

(8) HUDSON RIVER, NEW YORK.—Project foraquatic ecosystem restoration, Hudson River,New York.

(9) ONEIDA LAKE, NEW YORK.—Project foraquatic ecosystem restoration, Oneida Lake,Oneida County, New York.

(10) OTSEGO LAKE, NEW YORK.—Project foraquatic ecosystem restoration, Otsego Lake, Ot-sego County, New York.

(11) NORTH FORK OF YELLOW CREEK, OHIO.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, NorthFork of Yellow Creek, Ohio.

(12) WHEELING CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,Wheeling Creek watershed, Ohio.

(13) SPRINGFIELD MILLRACE, OREGON.—Projectfor aquatic ecosystem restoration, SpringfieldMillrace, Oregon.

(14) UPPER AMAZON CREEK, OREGON.—Projectfor aquatic ecosystem restoration, Upper Ama-zon Creek, Oregon.

(15) LAKE ONTELAUNEE RESERVOIR, BERKSCOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for aquaticecosystem restoration and distilling pond facili-

ties, Lake Ontelaunee Reservoir, Berks County,Pennsylvania.

(16) BLACKSTONE RIVER BASIN, RHODE ISLANDAND MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for aquatic eco-system restoration and fish passage facilities,Blackstone River Basin, Rhode Island and Mas-sachusetts.

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONSSEC. 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 smallprojects’’ and inserting ‘‘implementation ofsmall structural and nonstructural projects’’;and

(2) by striking ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and inserting‘‘$7,000,000’’.SEC. 202. USE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS FOR COM-

PILING AND DISSEMINATING INFOR-MATION ON FLOODS AND FLOODDAMAGES.

The last sentence of section 206(b) of theFlood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a(b)) isamended by inserting before the period the fol-lowing: ‘‘; except that this limitation on feesshall not apply to funds voluntarily contributedby such entities for the purpose of expandingthe scope of the services requested by such enti-ties’’.SEC. 203. CONTRIBUTIONS BY STATES AND POLIT-

ICAL 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 ‘‘floodcontrol’’.SEC. 204. SEDIMENT DECONTAMINATION TECH-

NOLOGY.Section 405 of the Water Resources Develop-

ment Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2239 note; 106 Stat.4863) is amended—

(1) by adding at the end of subsection (a) thefollowing:

‘‘(4) PRACTICAL END-USE PRODUCTS.—Tech-nologies selected for demonstration at the pilotscale shall be intended to result in practicalend-use products.

‘‘(5) ASSISTANCE BY THE SECRETARY.—The Sec-retary shall assist the project to ensure expedi-tious completion by providing sufficient quan-tities of contaminated dredged material to con-duct the full-scale demonstrations to stated ca-pacity.’’;

(2) in subsection (c) by striking the first sen-tence and inserting the following: ‘‘There is au-thorized to be appropriated to carry out this sec-tion $22,000,000 to complete technology testing,technology commercialization, and the develop-ment of full scale processing facilities within theNew 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 encouragedto utilize contracts, cooperative agreements, andgrants with colleges and universities and othernon-Federal entities.’’.SEC. 205. CONTROL OF AQUATIC PLANTS.

Section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of1958 (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 col-leges and universities and other non-Federal en-tities.’’.SEC. 206. USE OF CONTINUING CONTRACTS RE-

QUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OFCERTAIN PROJECTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any otherprovision of law, the Secretary shall not imple-ment a fully allocated funding policy with re-spect to a water resources project if initiation ofconstruction has occurred but sufficient fundsare not available to complete the project. The

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2493April 29, 1999Secretary shall enter into continuing contractsfor such project.

(b) INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION CLARIFIED.—For the purposes of this section, initiation ofconstruction for a project occurs on the date ofenactment of an Act that appropriates funds forthe project from 1 of the following appropriationaccounts:

(1) Construction, General.(2) Operation and Maintenance, General.(3) Flood Control, Mississippi River and Trib-

utaries.SEC. 207. SUPPORT OF ARMY CIVIL WORKS PRO-

GRAM.The requirements of section 2361 of title 10,

United States Code, shall not apply to any con-tract, cooperative research and developmentagreement, cooperative agreement, or grant en-tered into under section 229 of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3703)between the Secretary and Marshall Universityor entered into under section 350 of this Act be-tween the Secretary and Juniata College.SEC. 208. WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STUDIES FOR THE PACIFIC REGION.Section 444 of the Water Resources Develop-

ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3747) is amended bystriking ‘‘interest of navigation’’ and inserting‘‘interests of water resources development, in-cluding 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 isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(D) CREDIT OF PAST AND FUTURE ACTIVI-TIES.—The Secretary may provide a credit to thenon-Federal interests toward the non-Federalshare of a project implemented under subpara-graph (A). The credit shall be for reasonablecosts of work performed by the non-Federal in-terests if the Secretary determines that the worksubstantially expedited completion of the projectand is compatible with and an integral part ofthe project, and the credit is provided pursuantto a specific project cooperation agreement.’’.

(c) CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER BASIN, FLOR-IDA.—Section 528(e)(4) of such Act is amendedby inserting before the period at the end of thefirst sentence the following: ‘‘if the Secretarydetermines that such land acquisition is compat-ible with and an integral component of the Ev-erglades and South Florida ecosystem restora-tion, including potential land acquisition in theCaloosahatchee River basin or other areas’’.SEC. 210. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATE-

RIAL.Section 204 of the Water Resources Develop-

ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4826–4827) isamended—

(1) in subsection (c) by striking ‘‘cooperativeagreement in accordance with the requirementsof section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970’’and inserting ‘‘binding agreement with the Sec-retary’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(g) NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—Notwith-

standing section 221(b) of the Flood Control Actof 1968 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), the Secretary,after coordination with the appropriate Stateand local government officials having jurisdic-tion over an area in which a project under thissection will be carried out, may allow a non-profit entity to serve as the non-Federal interestfor the project.’’.SEC. 211. HARBOR COST SHARING.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Sections 101 and 214 of theWater Resources Development Act of 1986 (33U.S.C. 2211 and 2241; P.L. 99–662) are amendedby striking ‘‘45 feet’’ each place it appears andinserting ‘‘53 feet’’.

(b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made bysubsection (a) shall only apply to a project, orseparable element thereof, on which a contractfor physical construction has not been awardedbefore the date of enactment of this Act.SEC. 212. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

Section 206 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3679–3680) isamended—

(1) by adding at the end of subsection (b) thefollowing: ‘‘Before October 1, 2003, the Federalshare may be provided in the form of grants orreimbursements of project costs.’’; and

(2) by adding at the end of subsection (c) thefollowing: ‘‘Notwithstanding section 221(b) ofthe Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), the Secretary, after coordination withthe appropriate State and local government offi-cials having jurisdiction over an area in whicha project under this section will be carried out,may allow a nonprofit entity to serve as thenon-Federal interest for the project.’’.SEC. 213. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, RESTORA-

TION, AND DEVELOPMENT.(a) NONPROFIT ENTITY AS NON-FEDERAL IN-

TEREST.—Section 503(a) of the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3756) isamended by adding at the end the following:‘‘Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the FloodControl Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), theSecretary, after coordination with the appro-priate State and local government officials hav-ing jurisdiction over an area in which a projectunder this section will be carried out, may allowa nonprofit entity to serve as the non-Federalinterest for the project.’’.

(b) PROJECT LOCATIONS.—Section 503(d) ofsuch Act is amended—

(1) in paragraph (7) by inserting before the pe-riod 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 Fran-

cisco Bay watershed, California.‘‘(16) Kaweah River watershed, California.‘‘(17) Malibu Creek watershed, California.‘‘(18) Illinois River watershed, Illinois.‘‘(19) Catawba River watershed, North Caro-

lina.‘‘(20) Cabin Creek basin, West Virginia.‘‘(21) Lower St. Johns River basin, Florida.’’.

SEC. 214. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RES-TORATION PILOT PROGRAM.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may under-take a program for the purpose of conductingprojects that reduce flood hazards and restorethe natural functions and values of riversthroughout the United States.

(b) STUDIES AND PROJECTS.—(1) AUTHORITY.—In carrying out the program,

the Secretary may conduct studies to identifyappropriate flood damage reduction, conserva-tion, and restoration measures and may designand implement projects described in subsection(a).

(2) CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.—Thestudies and projects carried out under this sec-tion shall be conducted, to the maximum extentpracticable, in consultation and coordinationwith the Federal Emergency Management Agen-cy and other appropriate Federal agencies, andin consultation and coordination with appro-priate State, tribal, and local agencies.

(3) NONSTRUCTURAL APPROACHES.—The stud-ies and projects shall emphasize, to the max-imum extent practicable and appropriate, non-structural approaches to preventing or reducingflood damages.

(4) USE OF STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL STUDIESAND PROJECTS.—The studies and projects shallinclude consideration of and coordination withany State, tribal, and local flood damage reduc-tion or riverine and wetland restoration studiesand projects that conserve, restore, and managehydrologic and hydraulic regimes and restorethe natural functions and values of floodplains.

(c) COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) STUDIES.—Studies conducted under thissection shall be subject to cost sharing in ac-cordance with section 105 of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.2215).

(2) ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND NON-STRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.—Thenon-Federal interests shall pay 35 percent of thecost of any environmental restoration or non-structural flood control project carried outunder this section. The non-Federal interestsshall provide all land, easements, rights-of-way,dredged material disposal areas, and relocationsnecessary for such projects. The value of suchland, easements, rights-of-way, dredged mate-rial disposal areas, and relocations shall becredited toward the payment required under thisparagraph.

(3) STRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.—Any structural flood control measures carriedout under this section shall be subject to costsharing in accordance with section 103(a) of theWater Resources Development Act of 1986 (33U.S.C. 2213(a)).

(4) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal interests shall be responsible for allcosts associated with operating, maintaining, re-placing, repairing, and rehabilitating allprojects carried out under this section.

(d) PROJECT JUSTIFICATION.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other

provision of law or requirement for economicjustification established pursuant to section 209of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962–2), the Secretary may implement a project underthis section if the Secretary determines that theproject—

(A) will significantly reduce potential flooddamages;

(B) will improve the quality of the environ-ment; and

(C) is justified considering all costs and bene-ficial outputs of the project.

(2) ESTABLISHMENT OF SELECTION AND RATINGCRITERIA AND POLICIES.—Not later than 180 daysafter the date of enactment of this section, theSecretary, in cooperation with State, tribal, andlocal agencies, shall develop, and transmit tothe Committee on Transportation and Infra-structure of the House of Representatives andthe Committee on Environment and PublicWorks of the Senate, criteria for selecting andrating projects to be carried out under this sec-tion and shall establish policies and proceduresfor carrying out the studies and projects under-taken under this section. Such criteria shall in-clude, as a priority, the extent to which the ap-propriate State government supports the project.

(e) PRIORITY AREAS.—In carrying out this sec-tion, the Secretary shall examine the potentialfor flood damage reductions at appropriate loca-tions, 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, Cali-

fornia.(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, SanFrancisquito Creek, and Upper PenitenciaCreek.

(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 inde-pendent review to evaluate the efficacy of theprogram in achieving the dual goals of floodhazard mitigation and riverine restoration.

(2) REPORT.—Not later than April 15, 2003, theSecretary shall transmit to the Committee on

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2494 April 29, 1999Transportation and Infrastructure of the Houseof Representatives and the Committee on Envi-ronment and Public Works of the Senate a re-port on the findings of the review conductedunder this subsection with any recommenda-tions concerning continuation of the program.

(g) COST LIMITATIONS.—(1) MAXIMUM FEDERAL COST PER PROJECT.—No

more than $30,000,000 may be expended by theUnited States on any single project under thissection.

(2) COMMITTEE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE.—(A) LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS.—No ap-

propriation shall be made to construct anyproject under this section the total Federal costof construction of which exceeds $15,000,000 ifthe project has not been approved by resolutionsadopted by the Committee on Transportationand Infrastructure of the House of Representa-tives and the Committee on Environment andPublic Works of the Senate.

(B) REPORT.—For the purpose of securingconsideration of approval under this paragraph,the Secretary shall transmit a report on the pro-posed project, including all relevant data andinformation on all costs.

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout 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 $12,500,000or more is appropriated to carry out subsection(e) for fiscal year 2001; and

(4) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 if $12,500,000or more is appropriated to carry out subsection(e) for fiscal year 2002.SEC. 215. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

(a) REVIEW.—The Secretary shall review theimplementation of the Corps of Engineers’shoreline management program, with particularattention to inconsistencies in implementationamong the divisions and districts of the Corps ofEngineers and complaints by or potential in-equities regarding property owners in the Sa-vannah District including an accounting of thenumber and disposition of complaints over thelast 5 years in the District.

(b) REPORT.—As expeditiously as practicableafter the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec-retary shall transmit to the Committee on Trans-portation and Infrastructure of the House ofRepresentatives and the Committee on Environ-ment and Public Works of the Senate a reportdescribing the results of the review conductedunder subsection (a).SEC. 216. ASSISTANCE FOR REMEDIATION, RES-

TORATION, 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 lo-cated within the boundaries of such State orlocal governments where such remediation, envi-ronmental restoration, or reuse will contributeto the conservation of water and related re-sources of drainage basins and watersheds with-in the United States.

(b) BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL.—In providing assistance under subsection (a),the Secretary shall encourage the beneficial useof dredged material, consistent with the findingsof the Secretary under section 204 of the WaterResources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C.2326).

(c) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federalshare of the cost of assistance provided undersubsection (a) shall be 50 percent.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $3,000,000 for each of fiscalyears 2000 through 2004.SEC. 217. SHORE DAMAGE MITIGATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 111 of the River andHarbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i; 100 Stat.

4199) is amended by inserting after ‘‘navigationworks’’ the following: ‘‘and shore damages at-tributable to the Atlantic Intracoastal Water-way and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway’’.

(b) PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Theproject for navigation, Palm Beach County,Florida, authorized by section 2 of the Riverand Harbor Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 11), ismodified to authorize the Secretary to undertakebeach nourishment as a dredged material dis-posal option under the project.

(c) GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS.—The Sec-retary may place dredged material from the GulfIntracoastal Waterway on the beaches alongRollover Pass, Galveston County, Texas, to sta-bilize beach erosion.SEC. 218. SHORE PROTECTION.

(a) NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF PERIODIC NOUR-ISHMENT.—Section 103(d) of the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4085–5086) isamended—

(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 periodicnourishment measures for shore protection orbeach 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 per-

cent;‘‘(B) BENEFITS TO PRIVATELY OWNED

SHORES.—All costs assigned to benefits of peri-odic nourishment measures to privately ownedshores (where use of such shores is limited toprivate interests) or to prevention of losses ofprivate lands shall be borne by the non-Federalinterest and all costs assigned to the protectionof federally owned shores for such measuresshall be borne by the United States.’’; and

(C) by indenting paragraph (1) (as designatedby subparagraph (A) of this paragraph) andaligning such paragraph with paragraph (2) (asadded by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph).

(b) UTILIZATION OF SAND FROM OUTER CONTI-NENTAL SHELF.—Section 8(k)(2)(B) of the OuterContinental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C.1337(k)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘an agen-cy of the Federal Government’’ and inserting ‘‘aFederal, 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 Secretaryshall report to Congress on the state of the Na-tion’s shorelines.

(2) CONTENTS.—The report shall include—(A) a description of the extent of, and eco-

nomic and environmental effects caused by, ero-sion and accretion along the Nation’s shoresand the causes thereof;

(B) a description of resources committed bylocal, State, and Federal governments to restoreand renourish shorelines;

(C) a description of the systematic movementof sand along the Nation’s shores; and

(D) recommendations regarding (i) appro-priate levels of Federal and non-Federal partici-pation in shoreline protection, and (ii) utiliza-tion of a systems approach to sand management.

(3) UTILIZATION OF SPECIFIC LOCATION DATA.—In developing the report, the Secretary shall uti-lize 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 thisAct, the Secretary shall establish a nationalcoastal data bank containing data on the geo-physical and climatological characteristics ofthe Nation’s shorelines.

(2) CONTENT.—To the extent practical, the na-tional coastal data bank shall include data re-garding current and predicted shoreline posi-tions, information on federally-authorized shore

protection projects, and data on the movementof sand along the Nation’s shores, including im-pediments to such movement caused by naturaland manmade features.

(3) ACCESS.—The national coastal data bankshall 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) assubsections (c) and (d), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol-lowing:

‘‘(b) FLOOD PREVENTION COORDINATION.—TheSecretary shall coordinate with the Director ofthe Federal Emergency Management Agencyand the heads of other Federal agencies to en-sure that flood control projects and plans arecomplementary and integrated to the extentpracticable and appropriate.’’.SEC. 220. ANNUAL PASSES FOR RECREATION.

Section 208(c)(4) of the Water Resources De-velopment Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 460d note; 110Stat. 3680) is amended by striking ‘‘1999, or thedate of transmittal of the report under para-graph (3)’’ and inserting ‘‘2003’’.SEC. 221. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR ENVI-

RONMENTAL AND RECREATIONALMEASURES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorizedto enter into cooperative agreements with non-Federal public bodies and non-profit entities forthe purpose of facilitating collaborative effortsinvolving environmental protection and restora-tion, natural resources conservation, and recre-ation in connection with the development, oper-ation, and management of water resourcesprojects under the jurisdiction of the Depart-ment of the Army.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months afterthe date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall transmit to the Committee on Transpor-tation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep-resentatives and the Committee on Environmentand Public Works of the Senate a report thatincludes—

(1) a listing and general description of the co-operative agreements entered into by the Sec-retary with non-Federal public bodies and enti-ties under subsection (a);

(2) a determination of whether such agree-ments are facilitating collaborative efforts; and

(3) a recommendation on whether such agree-ments should be further encouraged.SEC. 222. NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL

PROJECTS.(a) ANALYSIS OF BENEFITS.—Section 308 of the

Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33U.S.C. 2318; 104 Stat. 4638) is amended—

(1) in the heading to subsection (a) by insert-ing ‘‘ELEMENTS EXCLUDED FROM’’ before ‘‘BEN-EFIT-COST’’;

(2) by redesignating subsections (b) through(e) as subsections (c) through (f), respectively;and

(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol-lowing:

‘‘(b) FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION BENEFITS.—In calculating the benefits of a proposed projectfor nonstructural flood damage reduction, theSecretary shall calculate benefits of non-structural projects using methods similar tostructural projects, including similar treatmentin calculating the benefits from losses avoidedfrom both structural and nonstructural alter-natives. In carrying out this subsection, the Sec-retary should avoid double counting of bene-fits.’’.

(b) REEVALUATION OF FLOOD CONTROLPROJECTS.—At the request of a non-Federal in-terest for a flood control project, the Secretaryshall conduct a reevaluation of a previously au-thorized project to consider nonstructural alter-natives in light of the amendments made by sub-section (a).

(c) COST SHARING.—Section 103(b) of theWater Resources Development Act of 1986 (33

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2495April 29, 1999U.S.C. 2213(b)) is amended by adding at the endthe following: ‘‘At any time during constructionof the project, where the Secretary determinesthat the costs of lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, and relo-cations in combination with other costs contrib-uted by the non-Federal interests will exceed 35percent, any additional costs for the project, butnot to exceed 65 percent of the total costs of theproject, shall be a Federal responsibility andshall be contributed during construction as partof the Federal share.’’.SEC. 223. LAKES PROGRAM.

Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Devel-opment 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 para-graph (16) and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, re-

moval of silt and aquatic growth and measuresto address excessive sedimentation and high nu-trient concentration; and

‘‘(18) Osgood Pond, Milford, HillsboroughCounty, New Hampshire, removal of silt andaquatic growth and measures to address exces-sive sedimentation.

‘‘(19) Flints Pond, Hollis, Hillsborough Coun-ty, New Hampshire, removal of silt and aquaticgrowth and measures to address excessive sedi-mentation.’’.SEC. 224. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL

PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL INTER-ESTS.

(a) CONSTRUCTION BY NON-FEDERAL INTER-ESTS.—Section 211(d)(1) of the Water ResourcesDevelopment 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 insert-

ing the following:‘‘(A) STUDIES AND DESIGN ACTIVITIES UNDER

SUBSECTION (b).—A non-Federal interest mayonly carry out construction for which studiesand design documents are prepared under sub-section (b) if the Secretary approves such con-struction. The Secretary shall approve such con-struction unless the Secretary determines, inwriting, that the design documents do not meetstandard practices for design methodologies orthat the project is not economically justified orenvironmentally acceptable or does not meet therequirements for obtaining the appropriate per-mits required under the Secretary’s authority.The Secretary shall not unreasonably withholdapproval. Nothing in this subparagraph may beconstrued to affect any regulatory authority ofthe Secretary.

‘‘(B) STUDIES AND DESIGN ACTIVITIES UNDERSUBSECTION (c).—Any non-Federal’’; and

(3) by aligning the remainder of subparagraph(B) (as designated by paragraph (2) of this sub-section) with subparagraph (A) (as inserted byparagraph (2) of this subsection).

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section211(d)(2) of such Act is amended by inserting‘‘(other than paragraph (1)(A))’’ after ‘‘thissubsection’’.

(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 thissection’’ the following: ‘‘and provide credit forthe non-Federal share of the project’’;

(B) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara-graph (A);

(C) by striking the period at the end of sub-paragraph (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 onthe request of the non-Federal interest) for thenon-Federal share of such work,’’.

(3) SCHEDULE AND MANNER OF REIMBURSE-MENTS.—Section 211(e) of such Act (33 U.S.C.701b–13(e)) is amended by adding at the end thefollowing:

‘‘(6) SCHEDULE AND MANNER OF REIMBURSE-MENT.—

‘‘(A) BUDGETING.—The Secretary shall budgetand request appropriations for reimbursementsunder this section on a schedule that is con-sistent with a Federal construction schedule.

‘‘(B) COMMENCEMENT OF REIMBURSEMENTS.—Reimbursements under this section may com-mence upon approval of a project by the Sec-retary.

‘‘(C) CREDIT.—At the request of a non-Federalinterest, the Secretary may reimburse the non-Federal interest by providing credit toward fu-ture non-Federal costs of the project.

‘‘(D) SCHEDULING.—Nothing in this paragraphshall affect the President’s discretion to sched-ule new construction starts.’’.SEC. 225. ENHANCEMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

RESOURCES.Section 906(e) of the Water Resources Develop-

ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(e)) is amendedby inserting after the second sentence the fol-lowing: ‘‘Not more than 80 percent of the non-Federal share of such first costs may be satisfiedthrough in-kind contributions, including facili-ties, supplies, and services that are necessary tocarry 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 Congressthat, to the greatest extent practicable, allequipment and products purchased with fundsmade available under this Act should be Amer-ican made.

(b) NOTICE TO RECIPIENTS OF ASSISTANCE.—Inproviding financial assistance under this Act,the Secretary, to the greatest extent practicable,shall provide to each recipient of the assistancea notice describing the statement made in sub-section (a).SEC. 227. PERIODIC BEACH NOURISHMENT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 506(a) of the WaterResources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.3757) is amended by adding at the end the fol-lowing:

‘‘(5) LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Project for shore-line protection, Lee County, Captiva Island seg-ment, Florida.’’.

(b) PROJECTS.—Section 506(b)(3) of such Act(110 Stat. 3758) is amended by striking subpara-graph (A) and redesignating subparagraphs (B)through (D) as subparagraphs (A) through (C),respectively.SEC. 228. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.

Section 312 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4639–4640) isamended—

(1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ‘‘50’’ andinserting ‘‘35’’; and

(2) in subsection (d) by striking ‘‘non-Federalresponsibility’’ and inserting ‘‘shared as a costof construction’’.

TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATEDPROVISIONS

SEC. 301. MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM.The project for flood control, Missouri River

Levee System, authorized by section 10 of theAct entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construc-tion of certain public works on rivers and har-bors for flood control, and other purposes’’, ap-proved December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 897), is modi-fied to provide that project costs totaling$2,616,000 expended on Units L–15, L–246, andL–385 out of the Construction, General accountof the Corps of Engineers before the date of en-

actment of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note) shall not betreated as part of total project costs.SEC. 302. OUZINKIE HARBOR, ALASKA.

(a) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—Themaximum amount of Federal funds that may beexpended for the project for navigation,Ouzinkie Harbor, Alaska, shall be $8,500,000.

(b) REVISION OF PROJECT COOPERATIONAGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall revise theproject cooperation agreement for the project re-ferred to in subsection (a) to take into accountthe change in the Federal participation in suchproject pursuant to subsection (a).

(c) COST SHARING.—Nothing in this sectionshall be construed to affect any cost-sharing re-quirement applicable to the project referred to insubsection (a) under the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1986.SEC. 303. GREERS FERRY LAKE, ARKANSAS.

The project for flood control, Greers FerryLake, Arkansas, authorized by the Act entitled‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certainpublic works on rivers and harbors for floodcontrol, and other purposes’’, approved June 28,1938 (52 Stat. 1218), is modified to authorize theSecretary to construct water intake facilities forthe benefit of Lonoke and White Counties, Ar-kansas.SEC. 304. TEN- AND FIFTEEN-MILE BAYOUS, AR-

KANSAS.The project for flood control, St. Francis River

Basin, Missouri and Arkansas, authorized bysection 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64Stat. 172), is modified to expand the projectboundaries to include Ten- and Fifteen-MileBayous near West Memphis, Arkansas. Notwith-standing section 103(f) of the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4086), theflood control work at Ten- and Fifteen-MileBayous shall not be considered separable ele-ments of the St. Francis Basin project.SEC. 305. LOGGY BAYOU, RED RIVER BELOW

DENISON DAM, ARKANSAS, LOU-ISIANA, OKLAHOMA, AND TEXAS.

The project for flood control on the Red RiverBelow Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana,Oklahoma, and Texas, authorized by section 10of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 647),is modified to direct the Secretary to conduct astudy to determine the feasibility of expandingthe project to include mile 0.0 to mile 7.8 ofLoggy Bayou between the Red River and FlatRiver. If the Secretary determines as a result ofthe study that the project should be expanded,the Secretary may assume responsibility for op-eration and maintenance of the expandedproject.SEC. 306. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA,

CALIFORNIA.(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood con-

trol, Sacramento River, California, authorizedby section 2 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to pro-vide for the control of the floods of the Mis-sissippi River and of the Sacramento River,California, and for other purposes’’, approvedMarch 1, 1917 (39 Stat. 949), and modified bysection 102 of the Energy and Water Develop-ment Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649),section 301(b)(3) of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3110), and title I ofthe Energy and Water Development Appropria-tions Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 1841), is further modi-fied to authorize the Secretary—

(1) to carry out the portion of the project atGlenn-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 thevicinity of the riverbed gradient facility, par-ticularly in the vicinity of River Mile 208.

(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall provide thenon-Federal interests for the project referred toin subsection (a) a credit of up to $4,000,000 to-ward the non-Federal share of the project costsfor the direct and indirect costs incurred by the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2496 April 29, 1999non-Federal sponsor in carrying out activitiesassociated with environmental compliance forthe project. Such credit may be in the form ofreimbursements for costs which were incurred bythe non-Federal interests prior to an agreementwith the Corps of Engineers, to include thevalue of lands, easements, rights-of-way, reloca-tions, or dredged material disposal areas.SEC. 307. SAN LORENZO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

The project for flood control and habitat res-toration, San Lorenzo River, California, author-ized by section 101(a)(5) of the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3663), ismodified to authorize the Secretary to expandthe boundaries of the project to include bankstabilization for a 1,000-foot portion of the SanLorenzo River.SEC. 308. TERMINUS DAM, KAWEAH RIVER, CALI-

FORNIA.(a) TRANSFER OF TITLE TO ADDITIONAL

LAND.—If the non-Federal interests for theproject for flood control and water supply, Ter-minus Dam, Kaweah River, California, author-ized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667), trans-fers to the Secretary without consideration titleto perimeter lands acquired for the project bythe non-Federal interests, the Secretary may ac-cept the transfer of such title.

(b) LANDS, EASEMENT, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—Nothing in this section shall be construed tochange, modify, or otherwise affect the responsi-bility of the non-Federal interests to providelands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations,and dredged material disposal areas necessaryfor the Terminus Dam project and to performoperation and maintenance for the project.

(c) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—Upon re-quest by the non-Federal interests, the Secretaryshall carry out operation, maintenance, repair,replacement, and rehabilitation of the project ifthe non-Federal interests enter into a bindingagreement with the Secretary to reimburse theSecretary for 100 percent of the costs of such op-eration, maintenance, repair, replacement, andrehabilitation.

(d) HOLD HARMLESS.—The non-Federal inter-ests shall hold the United States harmless forownership, operation, and maintenance of landsand facilities of the Terminus Dam project titleto which is transferred to the Secretary underthis section.SEC. 309. DELAWARE RIVER MAINSTEM AND

CHANNEL DEEPENING, DELAWARE,NEW JERSEY, AND PENNSYLVANIA.

The project for navigation, Delaware RiverMainstem and Channel Deepening, Delaware,New Jersey and Pennsylvania, authorized bysection 101(6) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802), is modified asfollows:

(1) The Secretary is authorized to providenon-Federal interests credit toward cash con-tributions required for construction and subse-quent to construction for engineering and de-sign and construction management work that isperformed by non-Federal interests and that theSecretary determines is necessary to implementthe project. Any such credits extended shall re-duce the Philadelphia District’s private sectorperformance goals for engineering work by alike amount.

(2) The Secretary is authorized to provide tonon-Federal interests credit toward cash con-tributions required during construction and sub-sequent to construction for the costs of con-struction carried out by the non-Federal intereston behalf of the Secretary and that the Sec-retary determines is necessary to implement theproject.

(3) The Secretary is authorized to enter intoan agreement with a non-Federal interest forthe payment of disposal or tipping fees fordredged material from a Federal project otherthan for the construction or operation andmaintenance of the new deepening project as de-scribed in the Limited Reevaluation Report of

May 1997, where the non-Federal interest hassupplied the corresponding disposal capacity.

(4) The Secretary is authorized to enter intoan agreement with a non-Federal interest thatwill provide that the non-Federal interest maycarry out or cause to have carried out, on behalfof the Secretary, a disposal area managementprogram for dredged material disposal areasnecessary to construct, operate, and maintainthe project and to authorize the Secretary to re-imburse the non-Federal interest for the costs ofthe disposal area management program activi-ties carried out by the non-Federal interest.SEC. 310. POTOMAC RIVER, WASHINGTON, DIS-

TRICT 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 section301(a)(4) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (110 Stat. 3707), is further modifiedto authorize the Secretary to construct theproject at a Federal cost of $5,965,000.SEC. 311. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

(a) STUDY.—The Secretary, in cooperationwith the non-Federal interest, shall conduct astudy of any damage to the project for shorelineprotection, Brevard County, Florida, authorizedby section 101(b)(7) of the Water Resources De-velopment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667), to deter-mine whether the damage is the result of a Fed-eral navigation project.

(b) CONDITIONS.—In conducting the study, theSecretary shall utilize the services of an inde-pendent coastal expert who shall consider allrelevant studies completed by the Corps of Engi-neers and the project’s local sponsor. The studyshall be completed within 120 days of the date ofenactment of this Act.

(c) MITIGATION OF DAMAGES.—After comple-tion of the study, the Secretary shall mitigateany damage to the shoreline protection projectthat is the result of a Federal navigationproject. The costs of the mitigation shall be allo-cated to the Federal navigation project as oper-ation and maintenance.SEC. 312. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO

INLET, FLORIDA.The project for shoreline protection, Broward

County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida, authorizedby section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of1965 (79 Stat. 1090), is modified to authorize theSecretary to reimburse the non-Federal interestfor the Federal share of the cost ofpreconstruction planning and design for theproject upon execution of a contract to con-struct the project if the Secretary determinessuch work is compatible with and integral to theproject.SEC. 313. FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for shore protec-tion and harbor mitigation, Fort Pierce, Florida,authorized by section 301 of the River and Har-bor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1092) and section506(a)(2) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757), is modified to incor-porate an additional 1 mile into the project inaccordance with a final approved General Re-evaluation Report, at a total cost for initialnourishment for the entire project of $9,128,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $7,073,500 andan estimated non-Federal cost of $2,054,500.

(b) PERIOD NOURISHMENT.—Periodic nourish-ment is authorized for the project in accordancewith section 506(a)(2) of Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757).

(c) REVISION OF THE PROJECT COOPERATIONAGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall revise theproject cooperation agreement for the project re-ferred to in subsection (a) to take into accountthe change in Federal participation in theproject pursuant to subsection (a).SEC. 314. NASSAU COUNTY, FLORIDA.

The project for beach erosion control, NassauCounty (Amelia fIsland), Florida, authorized bysection 3(a)(3) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), is modified toauthorize the Secretary to construct the project

at a total cost of $17,000,000, with an estimatedFederal cost of $13,300,000 and an estimatednon-Federal cost of $3,700,000.SEC. 315. MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FLORIDA.

The project for navigation, Miami HarborChannel, Florida, authorized by section101(a)(9) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606), is modified to in-clude construction of artificial reefs and relatedenvironmental mitigation required by Federal,State, and local environmental permitting agen-cies for the project.SEC. 316. LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS.

The project for storm damage reduction andshoreline erosion protection, Lake Michigan, Il-linois, from Wilmette, Illinois, to the Illinois-In-diana State line, authorized by section101(a)(12) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664), is modified to au-thorize the Secretary to provide a credit againstthe non-Federal share of the cost of the projectfor costs incurred by the non-Federal interest—

(1) in constructing Reach 2D and Segment 8 ofReach 4 of the project; and

(2) in reconstructing Solidarity Drive in Chi-cago, Illinois, prior to entry into a project co-operation agreement with the Secretary.SEC. 317. SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS.

Section 417 of the Water Resources Develop-ment 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 sub-section shall be 50 percent.’’.SEC. 318. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, INDIANA.

The project for flood control, Little CalumetRiver, Indiana, authorized by section 401(a) ofthe Water Resources Development Act of 1986(100 Stat. 4115), is modified to authorize the Sec-retary to construct the project substantially inaccordance with the report of the Corps of Engi-neers, at a total cost of $167,000,000, with an es-timated Federal cost of $122,000,000 and an esti-mated non-Federal cost of $45,000,000.SEC. 319. OGDEN DUNES, INDIANA.

(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct astudy of beach erosion in and around the townof Ogden Dunes, Indiana, to determine whetherthe damage is the result of a Federal navigationproject.

(b) MITIGATION OF DAMAGES.—After comple-tion of the study, the Secretary shall mitigateany damage to the beach and shoreline that isthe result of a Federal navigation project. Thecost of the mitigation shall be allocated to theFederal navigation project as operation andmaintenance.SEC. 320. SAINT JOSEPH RIVER, SOUTH BEND, IN-

DIANA.(a) MAXIMUM TOTAL EXPENDITURE.—The

maximum total expenditure for the project forstreambank erosion, recreation, and pedestrianaccess features, Saint Joseph River, South Bend,Indiana, shall be $7,800,000.

(b) REVISION OF PROJECT COOPERATIONAGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall revise theproject cooperation agreement for the project re-ferred to in subsection (a) to take into accountthe change in the Federal participation in suchproject pursuant to subsection (a).

(c) COST SHARING.—Nothing in this sectionshall be construed to affect any cost-sharing re-quirement applicable to the project referred to insubsection (a) under title I of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211et seq.).SEC. 321. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA.

The project for flood control, Indianapolis onWest Fork of the White River, Indiana, author-ized by section 5 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act au-thorizing the construction of certain publicworks on rivers and harbors for flood control,and other purposes’’, approved June 22, 1936 (49

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2497April 29, 1999Stat. 1586), and modified by section 323 of theWater Resources Development Act of 1996 (110Stat. 3716), is further modified to authorize theSecretary to undertake riverfront alterations asdescribed in the Central Indianapolis Water-front Concept Master Plan, dated February1994, at a total cost of $110,975,000, with an esti-mated Federal cost of $52,475,000 and an esti-mated non-Federal cost of $58,500,000.SEC. 322. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LOUISIANA.

The project for hurricane-flood protection,Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, authorized bysection 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79Stat. 1077), is modified—

(1) to direct the Secretary to conduct a studyto determine the feasibility of constructing apump adjacent to each of the 4 proposed drain-age structures for the Saint Charles Parish fea-ture of the project; and

(2) to authorize the Secretary to constructsuch pumps upon completion of the study.SEC. 323. LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LOU-

ISIANA.The project for hurricane protection Larose to

Golden Meadow, Louisiana, authorized by sec-tion 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79Stat. 1077), is modified to direct the Secretary toconvert the Golden Meadow floodgate into anavigation lock if the Secretary determines thatthe 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 Sec-retary to provide credit to the non-Federal inter-est toward the non-Federal share of the cost ofthe project. The credit shall be for cost of workperformed by the non-Federal interest prior tothe execution of a project cooperation agreementas determined by the Secretary to be compatiblewith and an integral part of the project.SEC. 325. TWELVE-MILE BAYOU, CADDO PARISH,

LOUISIANA.The Secretary shall be responsible for mainte-

nance of the levee along Twelve-Mile Bayoufrom its junction with the existing Red RiverBelow Denison Dam Levee approximately 26miles upstream to its terminus at high ground inthe vicinity of Black Bayou, Caddo Parish,Louisiana, if the Secretary determines that suchmaintenance is economically justified and envi-ronmentally acceptable and that the levee wasconstructed in accordance with appropriate de-sign and engineering standards.SEC. 326. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER

(EAST OF HARVEY CANAL), LOU-ISIANA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood controland storm damage reduction, West Bank of theMississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), Lou-isiana, authorized by section 401(b) of the WaterResources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.4128) and section 101(a)(17) of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665),is modified—

(1) to provide that any liability under theComprehensive Environmental Response, Com-pensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.9601 et seq.) from the construction of the projectis a Federal responsibility; and

(2) to authorize the Secretary to carry out op-eration and maintenance of that portion of theproject included in the report of the Chief of En-gineers, dated May 1, 1995, referred to as ‘‘Al-giers Channel’’, if the non-Federal sponsor re-imburses the Secretary for the amount of suchoperation and maintenance included in the re-port of the Chief of Engineers.

(b) COMBINATION OF PROJECTS.—The Sec-retary shall carry out work authorized as partof the Westwego to Harvey Canal project, theEast of Harvey cannal project, and the LakeCataouatche modifications as a single project, tobe known as the West Bank and vicinity, NewOrleans, Louisiana, hurricane protection

project, with a combined total cost of$280,300,000.SEC. 327. TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, BALTIMORE

HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CHESA-PEAKE BAY, KENT COUNTY, MARY-LAND.

The project for navigation, Tolchester Chan-nel, Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Chesa-peake Bay, Kent County, Maryland, authorizedby section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of1958 (72 Stat. 297), is modified to authorize theSecretary to straighten the navigation channelin accordance with the District Engineer’s Navi-gation Assessment Report and EnvironmentalAssessment, dated April 30, 1997. This modifica-tion shall be carried out in order to improvenavigation safety.SEC. 328. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, CHIPPEWA COUN-

TY, MICHIGAN.The project for navigation Sault Sainte Marie,

Chippewa County, Michigan, authorized by sec-tion 1149 of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254–4255) and modified bysection 330 of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (110 Stat. 3717–3718), is further modi-fied to provide that the amount to be paid bynon-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 suchsection 330 shall not include any interest pay-ments.SEC. 329. JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.

The project for environmental infrastructure,Jackson County, Mississippi, authorized by sec-tion 219(c)(5) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) and modified bysection 504 of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757), is further modifiedto direct the Secretary to provide a credit, not toexceed $5,000,000, against the non-Federal shareof the cost of the project for the costs incurredby the Jackson County Board of Supervisorssince February 8, 1994, in constructing theproject if the Secretary determines that suchcosts are for work that the Secretary determinesis compatible with and integral to the project.SEC. 330. TUNICA LAKE, MISSISSIPPI.

The project for flood control, Mississippi RiverChannel Improvement Project, Tunica Lake,Mississippi, authorized by the Act entitled: ‘‘AnAct for the control of floods on the MississippiRiver and its tributaries, and for other pur-poses’’, approved May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534–538),is modified to include construction of a weir atthe Tunica Cutoff, Mississippi.SEC. 331. BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DIS-

TRICT, MISSOURI.(a) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The

maximum amount of Federal funds that may beallocated for the project for flood control, BoisBrule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri,authorized pursuant to section 205 of the FloodControl Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), shall be$15,000,000.

(b) REVISION OF THE PROJECT COOPERATIONAGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall revise theproject cooperation agreement for the project re-ferred to in subsection (a) to take into accountthe change in Federal participation in theproject pursuant to subsection (a).

(c) COST SHARING.—Nothing in this sectionshall be construed to affect any cost-sharing re-quirement applicable to the project referred to insubsection (a) under title I of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211et seq.).SEC. 332. MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK

LEVEE, MISSOURI.The project for flood control, Meramec River

Basin, Valley Park Levee, Missouri, authorizedby section 2(h) of an Act entitled ‘‘An Act to de-authorize several projects within the jurisdictionof the Army Corps of Engineers’’ (95 Stat. 1682–1683) and modified by section 1128 of the WaterResources Development Act of 1986, (100 Stat.4246), is further modified to authorize the Sec-retary to construct the project at a maximumFederal expenditure of $35,000,000.

SEC. 333. MISSOURI RIVER MITIGATION PROJECT,MISSOURI, KANSAS, IOWA, AND NE-BRASKA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for mitigation offish and wildlife losses, Missouri River BankStabilization and Navigation Project, Missouri,Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska, authorized by sec-tion 601 of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143), is modified to in-crease by 118,650 acres the lands and interests inlands to be acquired for the project.

(b) STUDY.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in conjunc-

tion with the States of Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas,and Missouri, shall conduct a study to deter-mine the cost of restoring, under the authorityof the Missouri River fish and wildlife mitiga-tion project, a total of 118,650 acres of lost Mis-souri River habitat.

(2) REPORT.—The Secretary shall report toCongress on the results of the study not laterthan 6 months after the date of enactment ofthis Act.SEC. 334. WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NE-

BRASKA.The project for flood control, Wood River,

Grand Island, Nebraska, authorized by section101(a)(19) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modified to au-thorize the Secretary to construct the projectsubstantially in accordance with the report ofthe Corps of Engineers dated June 29, 1998, at atotal cost of $17,039,000, with an estimated Fed-eral 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 andshoreline protection, Brigantine Inlet to GreatEgg Harbor Inlet, Absecon Island, New Jersey,authorized by section 101(b)(13) of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3668),is modified to provide that, if, after October 12,1996, the non-Federal interests carry out anywork associated with the project that is laterrecommended by the Chief of Engineers and ap-proved by the Secretary, the Secretary maycredit the non-Federal interests toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project anamount equal to the Federal share of the cost ofsuch work, without interest.SEC. 336. NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT

CHANNELS, PORT JERSEY, NEW JER-SEY

The project for navigation, New York Harborand Adjacent Channels, New York and New Jer-sey, authorized by section 202(b) of the WaterResources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.4098), is modified to authorize the Secretary toconstruct that portion of the project that is lo-cated between Military Ocean Terminal Ba-yonne and Global Terminal in Bayonne, NewJersey, substantially in accordance with the re-port 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 ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4608–4609) isamended by inserting ‘‘, including an esplanadefor safe pedestrian access with an overall widthof 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, authorizedby section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of1958 (72 Stat. 299), is modified—

(1) to include the demolition of Long Branchpier and extension of Ocean Grove pier; and

(2) to authorize the Secretary to reimburse thenon-Federal sponsor for the Federal share ofcosts associated with the demolition of LongBranch pier and the construction of the OceanGrove pier.SEC. 339. ARTHUR KILL, NEW YORK AND NEW JER-

SEY.The project for navigation, Arthur Kill, New

York and New Jersey, authorized by section

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2498 April 29, 1999202(b) of the Water Resources Development Actof 1986 (100 Stat. 4098) and modified by section301(b)(11) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711), is further modifiedto authorize the Secretary to construct the por-tion of the project at Howland Hook MarineTerminal substantially in accordance with thereport of the Corps of Engineers, dated Sep-tember 30, 1998, at a total cost of $315,700,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $183,200,000and an estimated non-Federal cost of$132,500,000.SEC. 340. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED.

Section 552(i) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781) is amended bystriking ‘‘$22,500,000’’ and inserting‘‘$42,500,000’’.SEC. 341. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM.

Section 553(e) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781) is amended bystriking ‘‘$8,000,000’’ and inserting‘‘$18,000,000’’.SEC. 342. FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK

POINT, NEW YORK.The project for combined beach erosion con-

trol and hurricane protection, Fire Island Inletto Montauk Point, Long Island, New York, au-thorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74Stat. 483) and modified by the River and HarborAct of 1962, the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1974, and the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1986, is further modified to directthe Secretary, in coordination with the heads ofother Federal departments and agencies, to com-plete all procedures and reviews expeditiouslyand to adopt and transmit to Congress not laterthan June 30, 1999, a mutually acceptable shoreerosion plan for the Fire Island Inlet toMoriches Inlet reach of the project.SEC. 343. BROKEN BOW LAKE, RED RIVER BASIN,

OKLAHOMA.The project for flood control and water sup-

ply, Broken Bow Lake, Red River Basin, Okla-homa, authorized by section 203 of the FloodControl Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 309) and modifiedby section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962(76 Stat. 1187), section 102(v) of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4808),and section 338 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3720), is further modi-fied to require the Secretary to make seasonaladjustments to the top of the conservation poolat the project as follows (if the Secretary deter-mines that the adjustments will be undertakenat no cost to the United States and will ade-quately protect impacted water and related re-sources):

(1) Maintain an elevation of 599.5 from No-vember 1 through March 31.

(2) Increase elevation gradually from 599.5 to602.5 during April and May.

(3) Maintain an elevation of 602.5 from June 1to September 30.

(4) Decrease elevation gradually from 602.5 to599.5 during October.SEC. 344. WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE

CONTROL, MCKENZIE SUBBASIN, OR-EGON.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for environ-mental restoration, Willamette River Tempera-ture Control, McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon, au-thorized by section 101(a)(25) of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665),is modified to authorize the Secretary to con-struct the project substantially in accordancewith the Feature Memorandum dated July 31,1998, at a total cost of $64,741,000.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after thedate of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall report to Congress on the reasons for thecost growth of the Willamette River project andoutline the steps the Corps of Engineers is tak-ing to control project costs, including the appli-cation of value engineering and other appro-priate measures. In the report, the Secretaryshall also include a cost estimate for, and rec-ommendations on the advisability of, addingfish screens to the project.

SEC. 345. AYLESWORTH CREEK RESERVOIR,PENNSYLVANIA.

The project for flood control, AylesworthCreek Reservoir, Pennsylvania, authorized bysection 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76Stat. 1182), is modified to authorize the Sec-retary to transfer, in each of fiscal years 1999and 2000, $50,000 to the Aylesworth Creek Res-ervoir Park Authority for recreational facilities.SEC. 346. CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.

Section 562 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3784) is amended byadding at the end the following: ‘‘The Secretaryshall provide design and construction assistancefor recreational facilities at Curwensville Lakeand, when appropriate, may require the non-Federal interest to provide not more than 25 per-cent of the cost of designing and constructingsuch facilities. The Secretary may transfer, ineach of fiscal years 1999 through 2003, $100,000to the Clearfield County Municipal Services andRecreation Authority for recreational facili-ties.’’.SEC. 347. DELAWARE RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND

DELAWARE.The project for navigation, Delaware River,

Philadelphia to Wilmington, Pennsylvania andDelaware, authorized by section 3(a)(12) of theWater Resources Development Act of 1988 (102Stat. 4014), is modified to authorize the Sec-retary to extend the channel of the DelawareRiver at Camden, New Jersey, to within 150 feetof the existing bulkhead and to relocate the 40-foot deep Federal navigation channel, eastwardwithin Philadelphia Harbor, from the BenFranklin Bridge to the Walt Whitman Bridge,into deep water.SEC. 348. MUSSERS DAM, PENNSYLVANIA.

Section 209 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4830) is amended bystriking subsection (e) and redesignating sub-section (f) as subsection (e).SEC. 349. NINE-MILE RUN, ALLEGHENY COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA.The Nine-Mile Run project, Allegheny Coun-

ty, Pennsylvania, carried out pursuant to sec-tion 206 of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330; 110 Stat. 3679–3680),is modified to authorize the Secretary to providea credit toward the non-Federal share of theproject for costs incurred by the non-Federal in-terest in preparing environmental and feasibilitydocumentation for the project before enteringinto an agreement with the Corps of Engineerswith respect to the project if the Secretary deter-mines such costs are for work that is compatiblewith and integral to the project.SEC. 350. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.

(a) RECREATION PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE.—Section 519(b) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3765) is amended—

(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para-graph (4); and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol-lowing:

‘‘(3) ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES.—TheSecretary may perform, at full Federal expense,engineering and design services for project in-frastructure expected to be associated with thedevelopment 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 Re-sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4848),the Secretary may provide a grant to JuniataCollege for the construction of facilities andstructures at Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, tointerpret and understand environmental condi-tions and trends. As a condition of the receipt ofsuch financial assistance, officials at JuniataCollege shall coordinate with the Baltimore Dis-trict of the Army Corps of Engineers.

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000for 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 De-

velopment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4846) is amendedby 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, authorizedby section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of1968 (82 Stat. 731) and modified by title I of theEnergy and Water Development AppropriationsAct, 1992 (105 Stat. 516), is further modified toauthorize the Secretary to pay to the State ofSouth Carolina not more than $3,750,000 if theSecretary and the State enter into a bindingagreement for the State to perform all future op-eration of, including associated studies to assessthe efficacy of, the St. Stephen, South Carolina,fish lift. The agreement must specify the termsand conditions under which payment will bemade and the rights of, and remedies availableto, the Federal Government to recover all or aportion of such payment in the event the Statesuspends or terminates operation of the fish liftor fails to operate the fish lift in a manner satis-factory to the Secretary. Maintenance of thefish lift shall remain a Federal responsibility.SEC. 353. BOWIE COUNTY LEVEE, TEXAS.

The project for flood control, Red River BelowDenison Dam, Texas and Oklahoma, authorizedby section 10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60Stat. 647), is modified to direct the Secretary toimplement the Bowie County Levee feature ofthe project in accordance with the plan definedas Alternative B in the draft document entitled‘‘Bowie County Local Flood Protection, RedRiver, Texas Project Design Memorandum No. 1,Bowie County Levee’’, dated April 1997. In eval-uating and implementing this modification, theSecretary shall allow the non-Federal interest toparticipate in the financing of the project in ac-cordance with section 903(c) of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184)to the extent that the Secretary’s evaluation in-dicates that applying such section is necessaryto implement the project.SEC. 354. CLEAR CREEK, TEXAS.

Section 575 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3789) is amended byadding at the end the following:

‘‘(c) CLEAR CREEK, TEXAS.—In any evaluationof economic benefits and costs for the project forflood control, Clear Creek, Texas, authorized bysection 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82Stat. 742) that occurs after the date of enact-ment of this subsection, the Secretary shall in-clude the costs and benefits of nonstructuralmeasures undertaken, including any buyout orrelocation actions, of non-Federal interestswithin the drainage area of such project beforethe date of the evaluation in the determinationof conditions existing before the construction ofthe project.’’.SEC. 355. CYPRESS CREEK, TEXAS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood con-trol, Cypress Creek, Texas, authorized by sec-tion 3(a)(13) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014), is modified toauthorize the Secretary to carry out a non-structural flood control project at a total cost of$5,000,000.

(b) REIMBURSEMENT FOR WORK.—The Sec-retary may reimburse the non-Federal interestfor the Cypress Creek project for work done bythe non-Federal interest on the nonstructuralflood control project in an amount equal to theestimate of the Federal share, without interest,of the cost of such work—

(1) if, after authorization and before initiationof construction of such nonstructural project,the Secretary approves the plans for construc-tion of such nonstructural project by the non-Federal interest; and

(2) if the Secretary finds, after a review ofstudies and design documents prepared to carry

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2499April 29, 1999out such nonstructural project, that construc-tion of such nonstructural project is economi-cally justified and environmentally acceptable.SEC. 356. DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, DAL-

LAS, TEXAS.The project for flood control, Dallas Floodway

Extension, Dallas, Texas, authorized by section301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat.1091) and modified by section 351 of the WaterResources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.3724), is further modified—

(1) to add environmental restoration andrecreation as project purposes; and

(2) to authorize the Secretary to construct theproject substantially in accordance with theChain of Wetlands Plan in the report of theCorps 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 JordanRiver, Utah, authorized by section 101(a)(23) ofthe Water Resources Development Act of 1990(104 Stat. 4610) and modified by section301(a)(14) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (110 Stat. 3709), is further modifiedto direct the Secretary to carry out the locallypreferred project, entitled ‘‘Upper Jordan RiverFlood Control Project, Salt Lake County,Utah—Supplemental Information’’ and identi-fied 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 andan estimated non-Federal cost of $4,290,000.SEC. 358. ELIZABETH RIVER, CHESAPEAKE, VIR-

GINIA.Notwithstanding any other provision of law,

after September 30, 1999, the city of Chesapeake,Virginia, shall not be obligated to make the an-nual cash contribution required under para-graph 1(9) of the Local Cooperation Agreementdated December 12, 1978, between the Govern-ment and the city for the project for navigation,southern branch of Elizabeth River, Chesa-peake, Virginia.SEC. 359. BLUESTONE LAKE, OHIO RIVER BASIN,

WEST VIRGINIA.Section 102(ff) of the Water Resources Devel-

opment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4810) is amendedby striking ‘‘take such measures as are techno-logically feasible’’ and inserting ‘‘implementPlan C/G, as defined in the Evaluation Reportof the District Engineer, dated December 1996,’’.SEC. 360. GREENBRIER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.

Section 579(c) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790) is amended bystriking ‘‘$12,000,000’’ and inserting‘‘$73,000,000.’’SEC. 361. MOOREFIELD, WEST VIRGINIA.

Effective October 1, 1999, the project for floodcontrol, Moorefield, West Virginia, authorizedby section 101(a)(25) of the Water Resources De-velopment Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610-4611), ismodified to provide that the non-Federal inter-est shall not be required to pay the unpaid bal-ance, including interest, of the non-Federalshare of the cost of the project.SEC. 362. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA

FLOOD CONTROL.Section 581(a) of the Water Resources Devel-

opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790) is amended toread as follows:

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may designand construct—

‘‘(1) flood control measures in the Cheat andTygart River basins, West Virginia, at a level ofprotection that is sufficient to prevent any fu-ture losses to these communities from floodingsuch as occurred in January 1996 but no lessthan a 100-year level of protection; and

‘‘(2) structural and nonstructural flood con-trol, streambank protection, stormwater man-agement, and channel clearing and modificationmeasures in the Lower Allegheny, LowerMonongahela, West Branch Susquehanna, and

Juniata River basins, Pennsylvania, at a levelof protection that is sufficient to prevent anyfuture losses to communities in these basins fromflooding such as occurred in January 1996, butno less than a 100-year level of flood protectionwith respect to those measures that incorporatelevees 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 section204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat.1078) and deauthorized pursuant to section1001(b)(1) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(1)), is authorizedto be carried out by the Secretary.

(b) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Theproject for shore protection, Indian River Coun-ty, Florida, authorized by section 501 of theWater Resources and Development Act of 1986(100 Stat. 4134) and deauthorized pursuant tosection 1001(b)(1) of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(1)), is au-thorized to be carried out by the Secretary.

(c) LIDO KEY, FLORIDA.—The project for shoreprotection, Lido Key, Florida, authorized bysection 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970(84 Stat. 1819) and deauthorized pursuant tosection 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C 579a(b)(2)), is au-thorized to be carried out by the Secretary.

(d) ST. AUGUSTINE, ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLOR-IDA.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The project for shore protec-tion and storm damage reduction, St. Augustine,St. Johns County, Florida, authorized by section501 of the Water Resources Development Act of1986 and deauthorized pursuant to section1001(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)), is au-thorized to include navigation mitigation as aproject purpose and to be carried out by the Sec-retary substantially in accordance with theGeneral Reevaluation Report dated November18, 1998, at a total cost of $16,086,000, with anestimated Federal cost of $12,949,000 and an esti-mated non-Federal cost of $3,137,000.

(2) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT.—The Secretary isauthorized to carry out periodic nourishment forthe project for a 50-year period at an estimatedaverage annual cost of $1,251,000, with an esti-mated annual Federal cost of $1,007,000 and anestimated annual non-Federal cost of $244,000.

(e) CASS RIVER, MICHIGAN (VASSAR).—Theproject for flood protection, Cass River, Michi-gan (Vassar), authorized by section 203 of theFlood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 311) and de-authorized pursuant to section 1001(b)(2) of theWater Resources Development Act of 1986 (33U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), is authorized to be carriedout by the Secretary.

(f) SAGINAW RIVER, MICHIGAN (SHIAWASSEEFLATS).—The project for flood control, SaginawRiver, Michigan (Shiawassee Flats), authorizedby section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958(72 Stat. 311) and deauthorized pursuant to sec-tion 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), is au-thorized to be carried out by the Secretary.

(g) PARK RIVER, GRAFTON, NORTH DAKOTA.—The project for flood control, Park River, Graf-ton, North Dakota, authorized by section 401(a)of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986(100 Stat. 4121) and deauthorized pursuant tosection 1001(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)),is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.

(h) MEMPHIS HARBOR, MEMPHIS, TEN-NESSEE.—The project for navigation, MemphisHarbor, Memphis, Tennessee, authorized by sec-tion 601(a) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (100 Stat. 4145) and deauthorizedpursuant to 1001(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C579a(a)), is authorized to be carried out by theSecretary.SEC. 364. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The following projects orportions of projects are not authorized after thedate of enactment of this Act:

(1) BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—Thatportion of the project for navigation, BridgeportHarbor, Connecticut, authorized by section 101of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat.297), consisting of a 2.4-acre anchorage area, 9feet deep, and an adjacent 0.6-acre anchorage, 6feet deep, located on the west side of JohnsonsRiver.

(2) CLINTON HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—Thatportion of the project for navigation, ClintonHarbor, Connecticut, authorized by the Riversand Harbors Act of 1945, House Document 240,76th Congress, 1st Session, lying upstream of aline designated by the 2 points N158,592.12,E660,193.92 and N158,444.58, E660,220.95.

(3) BASS HARBOR, MAINE.—The following por-tions of the project for navigation, Bass Harbor,Maine, authorized on May 7, 1962, under section107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33U.S.C. 577):

(A) Beginning at a bend in the project,N149040.00, E538505.00, thence running easterlyabout 50.00 feet along the northern limit of theproject to a point N149061.55, E538550.11, thencerunning southerly about 642.08 feet to a point,N14877.64, E538817.18, thence running south-westerly about 156.27 feet to a point on the west-erly limit of the project, N148348.50, E538737.02,thence running northerly about 149.00 feetalong the westerly limit of the project to a bendin the project, N148489.22, E538768.09, thencerunning northwesterly about 610.39 feet alongthe westerly limit of the project to the point oforigin.

(B) Beginning at a point on the westerly limitof the project, N148118.55, E538689.05, thencerunning southeasterly about 91.92 feet to apoint, N148041.43, E538739.07, thence runningsoutherly about 65.00 feet to a point, N147977.86,E538725.51, thence running southwesterly about91.92 feet to a point on the westerly limit of theproject, N147927.84, E538648.39, thence runningnortherly about 195.00 feet along the westerlylimit of the project to the point of origin.

(4) BOOTHBAY HARBOR, MAINE.—The projectfor navigation, Boothbay Harbor, Maine, au-thorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1912 (37Stat. 201).

(5) BUCKSPORT HARBOR, MAINE.—That portionof the project for navigation, Bucksport Harbor,Maine, authorized by the River and Harbor Actof 1902, consisting of a 16-foot deep channel be-ginning at a point N268.748.16, E423.390.76,thence running north 47 degrees 02 minutes 23seconds east 51.76 feet to a point N268.783.44,E423.428.64, thence running north 67 degrees 54minutes 32 seconds west 1513.94 feet to a pointN269.352.81, E422.025.84, thence running south47 degrees 02 minutes 23 seconds west 126.15 feetto a point N269.266.84, E421.933.52, thence run-ning south 70 degrees 24 minutes 28 seconds east1546.79 feet to the point of origin.

(6) EAST BOOTHBAY HARBOR, MAINE.—Theproject for navigation, East Boothbay Harbor,Maine, authorized by the first section of the Actentitled, ‘‘An Act making appropriations for theconstruction, repair, and preservation of certainpublic works on rivers and harbors, and forother purposes’’, approved June 25, 1910 (36Stat. 631).

(7) WELLS HARBOR, MAINE.—The followingportions of the project for navigation, WellsHarbor, Maine, authorized by section 101 of theRiver and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 480):

(A) The portion of the 6-foot channel theboundaries of which begin at a point with co-ordinates N177,992.00, E394,831.00, thence run-ning south 83 degrees 58 minutes 14.8 secondswest 10.38 feet to a point N177,990.91,E394,820.68, thence running south 11 degrees 46minutes 47.7 seconds west 991.76 feet to a pointN177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence running south78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 10.00 feetto a point N177,018.00, E394,628.00, thence run-ning north 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.8 secondseast 994.93 feet to the point of origin.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2500 April 29, 1999(B) The portion of the 6-foot anchorage the

boundaries of which begin at a point with co-ordinates N177,778.07, E394,336.96, thence run-ning south 51 degrees 58 minutes 32.7 secondswest 15.49 feet to a point N177,768.53,E394,324.76, thence running south 11 degrees 46minutes 26.5 seconds west 672.87 feet to a pointN177,109.82, E394,187.46, thence running south78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 10.00 feetto a point N177,107.78, E394,197.25, thence run-ning north 11 degrees 46 minutes 25.4 secondseast 684.70 feet to the point of origin.

(C) The portion of the 10-foot settling basinthe boundaries of which begin at a point withcoordinates N177,107.78, E394,197.25, thence run-ning north 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 secondswest 10.00 feet to a point N177,109.82,E394,187.46, thence running south 11 degrees 46minutes 15.7 seconds west 300.00 feet to a pointN176,816.13, E394,126.26, thence running south78 degrees 12 minutes 21.4 seconds east 9.98 feetto a point N176,814.09, E394,136.03, thence run-ning north 11 degrees 46 minutes 29.1 secondseast 300.00 feet to the point of origin.

(D) The portion of the 10-foot settling basinthe boundaries of which begin at a point withcoordinates N177,018.00, E394,628.00, thence run-ning north 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 secondswest 10.00 feet to a point N177,020.04,E394,618.21, thence running south 11 degrees 46minutes 44.0 seconds west 300.00 feet to a pointN176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running south78 degrees 12 minutes 30.3 seconds east 10.03 feetto a point N176,724.31, E394,566.79, thence run-ning north 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.4 secondseast 300.00 feet to the point of origin.

(8) FALMOUTH HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS.—That portion of the project for navigation, Fal-mouth Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized bysection 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1948lying southeasterly of a line commencing at apoint N199,286.41, E844,394.91, thence runningnorth 66 degrees 52 minutes 3.31 seconds east472.95 feet to a point N199,472.21, E844,829.83,thence running north 43 degrees 9 minutes 28.3seconds east 262.64 feet to a point N199,633.80,E845,009.48, thence running north 21 degrees 40minutes 11.26 seconds east 808.38 feet to a pointN200,415.05, E845,307.98, thence running north32 degrees 25 minutes 29.01 seconds east 160.76feet to a point N200,550.75, E845,394.18, thencerunning north 24 degrees 56 minutes 42.29 sec-onds east 1,410.29 feet to a point N201,829.48,E845,988.97.

(9) GREEN HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS.—Thatportion of the project for navigation, Green Har-bor, Massachusetts, undertaken pursuant tosection 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960(33 U.S.C. 577), consisting of the 6-foot deepchannel beginning at a point along the westlimit of the existing project, North 395990.43,East 831079.16, thence running northwesterlyabout 752.85 feet to a point, North 396722.80,East 830904.76, thence running northwesterlyabout 222.79 feet to a point along the west limitof the existing project, North 396844.34, East830718.04, thence running southwesterly about33.72 feet along the west limit of the existingproject to a point, North 396810.80, East830714.57, thence running southeasterly about195.42 feet along the west limit of the existingproject to a point, North 396704.19, East830878.35, thence running about 544.66 feetalong the west limit of the existing project to apoint, North 396174.35, East 831004.52, thencerunning southeasterly about 198.49 feet alongthe west limit of the existing project to the pointof beginning.

(10) NEW BEDFORD AND FAIRHAVEN HARBOR,MASSACHUSETTS.—The following portions of theproject for navigation, New Bedford andFairhaven Harbor, Massachusetts:

(A) A portion of the 25-foot spur channel lead-ing to the west of Fish Island, authorized by theRiver and Harbor Act of 3 March 1909, begin-ning at a point with coordinates N232,173.77,E758,791.32, thence running south 27 degrees 36minutes 52.8 seconds west 38.2 feet to a point

N232,139.91, E758,773.61, thence running south87 degrees 35 minutes 31.6 seconds west 196.84feet to a point N232,131.64, E758,576.94, thencerunning north 47 degrees 47 minutes 48.4 sec-onds west 502.72 feet to a point N232,469.35,E758,204.54, thence running north 10 degrees 10minutes 20.3 seconds west 438.88 feet to a pointN232,901.33, E758,127.03, thence running north79 degrees 49 minutes 43.1 seconds east 121.69feet to a point N232,922.82, E758,246.81, thencerunning south 04 degrees 29 minutes 17.6 sec-onds east 52.52 feet to a point N232,870.46,E758,250.92, thence running south 23 degrees 56minutes 11.2 seconds east 49.15 feet to a pointN323,825.54, E758,270.86, thence running south79 degrees 49 minutes 27.0 seconds west 88.19 feetto a point N232,809.96, E758,184.06, thence run-ning south 10 degrees 10 minutes 25.7 secondseast 314.83 feet to a point N232,500.08,E758,239.67, thence running south 56 degrees 33minutes 56.1 seconds east 583.07 feet to a pointN232,178.82, E758,726.25, thence running south85 degrees 33 minutes 16.0 seconds east to thepoint of origin.

(B) A portion of the 30-foot west maneuveringbasin, authorized by the River and Harbor Actof 3 July 1930, beginning at a point with coordi-nates N232,139.91, E758,773.61, thence runningnorth 81 degrees 49 minutes 30.1 seconds east160.76 feet to a point N232,162.77, E758.932.74,thence running north 85 degrees 33 minutes 16.0seconds west 141.85 feet to a point N232,173.77,E758,791.32, thence running south 27 degrees 36minutes 52.8 seconds west to the point of origin.

(b) ANCHORAGE AREA, CLINTON HARBOR, CON-NECTICUT.—That portion of the Clinton Harbor,Connecticut, navigation project referred to insubsection (a)(2) beginning at a point beginning:N158,444.58, E660,220.95, thence running north79 degrees 37 minutes 14 seconds east 833.31 feetto a point N158,594.72, E661,040.67, thence run-ning south 80 degrees 51 minutes 53 seconds east181.21 feet to a point N158,565.95, E661,219.58,thence running north 57 degrees 38 minutes 04seconds west 126.02 feet to a point N158,633.41,E660,113.14, thence running south 79 degrees 37minutes 14 seconds west 911.61 feet to a pointN158,469.17, E660,216.44, thence running south10 degrees 22 minutes 46 seconds east 25 feet re-turning to a point N158,444.58, E660,220.95 is re-designated as an anchorage area.

(c) WELLS HARBOR, MAINE.—(1) PROJECT MODIFICATION.—The project for

navigation, Wells Harbor, Maine, navigationproject referred to in subsection (a)(7) is modi-fied to authorize the Secretary to realign thechannel and anchorage areas based on a harbordesign capacity of 150 craft.

(2) REDESIGNATIONS.—(A) 6-FOOT ANCHORAGE.—The following por-

tions of the project for navigation, Wells Har-bor, Maine, navigation project referred to insubsection (a)(7) shall be redesignated as part ofthe 6-foot anchorage:

(i) The portion of the 6-foot channel theboundaries of which begin at a point with co-ordinates N177,990.91, E394,820.68, thence run-ning south 83 degrees 58 minutes 40.8 secondswest 94.65 feet to a point N177,980.98,E394,726.55, thence running south 11 degrees 46minutes 22.4 seconds west 962.83 feet to a pointN177,038.40, E394,530.10, thence running south78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 90.00 feetto a point N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence run-ning north 11 degrees 46 minutes 47.7 secondseast 991.76 feet to the point of origin.

(ii) The portion of the 10-foot inner harborsettling basin the boundaries of which begin ata point with coordinates N177,020.04,E394,618.21, thence running north 78 degrees 13minutes 30.5 seconds west 160.00 feet to a pointN177,052.69, E394,461.58, thence running south11 degrees 46 minutes 45.4 seconds west 299.99feet to a point N176,759.02, E394,400.34, thencerunning south 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 sec-onds east 160 feet to a point N176,726.36,E394,556.97, thence running north 11 degrees 46minutes 44.0 seconds east 300.00 feet to the pointof origin.

(B) 6-FOOT CHANNEL.—The following portionof the project for navigation, Wells Harbor,Maine, navigation project referred to in sub-section (a)(7) shall be redesignated as part ofthe 6-foot channel: the portion of the 6-foot an-chorage the boundaries of which begin at apoint with coordinates N178,102.26, E394,751.83,thence running south 51 degrees 59 minutes 42.1seconds west 526.51 feet to a point N177,778.07,E394,336.96, thence running south 11 degrees 46minutes 26.6 seconds west 511.83 feet to a pointN177,277.01, E394,232.52, thence running south78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds east 80.00 feetto a point N177,260.68, E394,310.84, thence run-ning north 11 degrees 46 minutes 24.8 secondseast 482.54 feet to a point N177,733.07,E394,409.30, thence running north 51 degrees 59minutes 41.0 seconds east 402.63 feet to a pointN177,980.98, E394,726.55, thence running north11 degrees 46 minutes 27.6 seconds east 123.89feet to the point of origin.

(3) REALIGNMENT.—The 6-foot anchorage areadescribed in paragraph (2)(B) shall be realignedto include the area located south of the innerharbor settling basin in existence on the date ofenactment of this Act beginning at a point withcoordinates N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence run-ning north 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 secondswest 160.00 feet to a point N176,759.02,E394,400.34, thence running south 11 degrees 47minutes 03.8 seconds west 45 feet to a pointN176,714.97, E394,391.15, thence running south78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds 160.00 feet toa point N176,682.31, E394,547.78, thence runningnorth 11 degrees 47 minutes 03.8 seconds east 45feet to the point of origin.

(4) RELOCATION.—The Secretary may relocatethe settling basin feature of the project for navi-gation, Wells Harbor, Maine, navigation projectreferred to in subsection (a)(7) to the outer har-bor between the jetties.

(d) ANCHORAGE AREA, GREEN HARBOR, MASSA-CHUSETTS.—The portion of the Green Harbor,Massachusetts, navigation project referred to insubsection (a)(9) consisting of a 6-foot deepchannel that lies northerly of a line whose co-ordinates are North 394825.00, East 831660.00and North 394779.28, East 831570.64 is redesig-nated as an anchorage area.SEC. 365. AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS,

CALIFORNIA.(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood dam-

age reduction, American and Sacramento Riv-ers, California, authorized by section 101(a)(1)of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996(110 Stat. 3662–3663), is modified to direct theSecretary to include the following improvementsas part of the overall project:

(1) Raising the left bank of the non-Federallevee upstream of the Mayhew Drain for a dis-tance of 4,500 feet by an average of 2.5 feet.

(2) Raising the right bank of the AmericanRiver levee from 1,500 feet upstream to 4,000 feetdownstream of the Howe Avenue bridge by anaverage of 1 feet.

(3) Modifying the south levee of the NatomasCross Canal for a distance of 5 miles to ensurethat the south levee is consistent with the levelof protection provided by the authorized leveealong the east bank of the Sacramento River.

(4) Modifying the north levee of the NatomasCross Canal for a distance of 5 miles to ensurethat the height of the levee is equivalent to theheight of the south levee as authorized by para-graph (3).

(5) Installing gates to the existing MayhewDrain culvert and pumps to prevent backup offloodwater on the Folsom Boulevard side of thegates.

(6) Installation of a slurry wall in the northlevee of the American River from the east leveeof the Natomas east Main Drain upstream for adistance of approximately 1.2 miles.

(7) Installation of a slurry wall in the northlevee of the American River from 300 feet west ofJacob Lane north for a distance of approxi-mately 1 mile to the end of the existing levee.

(b) COST LIMITATIONS.—Section 101(a)(1)(A) ofthe Water Resources Development Act of 1996

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2501April 29, 1999(110 Stat. 3662) is amended by striking ‘‘at atotal cost of’’ and all that follows through‘‘$14,225,000,’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘at atotal cost of $91,900,000, with an estimated Fed-eral cost of $68,925,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $22,975,000,’’.

(c) COST SHARING.—For purposes of section103 of the Water Resources Development Act of1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213), the modifications author-ized by this section shall be subject to the samecost sharing in effect for the project for flooddamage reduction, American and SacramentoRivers, California, authorized by section101(a)(1) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662).SEC. 366. MARTIN, KENTUCKY.

The project for flood control, Martin, Ken-tucky, authorized by section 202(a) of the En-ergy and Water Development AppropriationsAct, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339) is modified to authorizethe Secretary to take all necessary measures toprevent future losses that would occur from aflood equal in magnitude to a 100-year fre-quency event.

TITLE IV—STUDIESSEC. 401. UPPER MISSISSIPPI AND ILLINOIS RIV-

ERS LEVEES AND STREAMBANKSPROTECTION.

The Secretary shall conduct a study of erosiondamage to levees and infrastructure on theupper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers and the im-pact of increased barge and pleasure craft traf-fic on deterioration of levees and other floodcontrol structures on such rivers.SEC. 402. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COM-

PREHENSIVE PLAN.(a) DEVELOPMENT.—The Secretary shall de-

velop a plan to address water and related landresources problems and opportunities in theUpper Mississippi and Illinois River Basins, ex-tending from Cairo, Illinois, to the headwatersof the Mississippi River, in the interest of sys-temic flood damage reduction by means of amixture of structural and nonstructural floodcontrol and floodplain management strategies,continued maintenance of the navigationproject, management of bank caving and ero-sion, watershed nutrient and sediment manage-ment, habitat management, recreation needs,and other related purposes.

(b) CONTENTS.—The plan shall contain rec-ommendations on future management plans andactions to be carried out by the responsible Fed-eral and non-Federal entities and shall specifi-cally address recommendations to authorize con-struction of a systemic flood control project inaccordance with a plan for the Upper Mis-sissippi River. The plan shall include rec-ommendations for Federal action where appro-priate and recommendations for follow-on stud-ies for problem areas for which data or currenttechnology does not allow immediate solutions.

(c) CONSULTATION AND USE OF EXISTINGDATA.—The Secretary shall consult with appro-priate State and Federal agencies and shallmake maximum use of existing data and ongoingprograms and efforts of States and Federalagencies in developing the plan.

(d) COST SHARING.—Development of the planunder this section shall be at Federal expense.Feasibility studies resulting from development ofsuch plan shall be subject to cost sharing undersection 105 of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215).

(e) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit a re-port that includes the comprehensive plan to theCommittee on Transportation and Infrastruc-ture of the House of Representatives and theCommittee on Environment and Public Works ofthe Senate not later than 3 years after the dateof enactment of this Act.SEC. 403. EL DORADO, UNION COUNTY, ARKAN-

SAS.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of improvements to regionalwater supplies for El Dorado, Union County,Arkansas.

SEC. 404. SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, SAN DIEGOCOUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the po-tential water quality problems and pollutionabatement measures in the watershed in andaround Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego Coun-ty, California.SEC. 405. WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CALI-

FORNIA.The Secretary shall undertake and complete a

feasibility study for flood damage reduction inthe Whitewater River basin, California, and,based upon the results of such study, give pri-ority consideration to including the rec-ommended project, including the Salton Seawetlands restoration project, in the flood mitiga-tion and riverine restoration pilot program au-thorized in section 214 of this Act.SEC. 406. LITTLE ECONLACKHATCHEE RIVER

BASIN, FLORIDA.The Secretary shall conduct a study of pollu-

tion abatement measures in the LittleEconlackhatchee River basin, Florida.SEC. 407. PORT EVERGLADES INLET, FLORIDA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine the feasibility of carrying out a sand by-pass project at Port Everglades Inlet, Florida.SEC. 408. UPPER DES PLAINES RIVER AND TRIBU-

TARIES, ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is directed to

conduct a study of the upper Des Plaines Riverand tributaries, Illinois and Wisconsin, up-stream of the confluence with Salt Creek at Riv-erside, Illinois, to determine the feasibility of im-provements in the interests of flood damage re-duction, environmental restoration and protec-tion, water quality, recreation, and related pur-poses.

(b) SPECIAL RULE.—In conducting the study,the Secretary may not exclude from consider-ation and evaluation flood damage reductionmeasures based on restrictive policies regardingthe frequency of flooding, drainage area, andamount of runoff.SEC. 409. CAMERON PARISH WEST OF CALCASIEU

RIVER, LOUISIANA.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of carrying out a project forstorm damage reduction and environmental res-toration, Cameron Parish west of CalcasieuRiver, Louisiana.SEC. 410. GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LOUISIANA.

In carrying out a study of the storm damagereduction benefits to Grand Isle and vicinity,Louisiana, the Secretary shall include benefitsthat a storm damage reduction project for GrandIsle and vicinity, Louisiana, may have on themainland coast of Louisiana as project benefitsattributable to the Grand Isle project.SEC. 411. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN SEAWALL, LOU-

ISIANA.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall com-

plete a post-authorization change report on theproject for hurricane-flood protection, LakePontchartrain, Louisiana, and vicinity, author-ized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of1965 (79 Stat. 1077), to incorporate and accom-plish structural modifications to the seawallfronting protection along the south shore ofLake Pontchartrain from the New Basin Canalon the west to the Inner harbor NavigationCanal on the east.

(b) REPORT.—The Secretary shall ensure expe-ditious completion of the post-authorizationchange report required by subsection (a) notlater than 180 days after the date of enactmentof this section.SEC. 412. WESTPORT, MASSACHUSETTS.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine the feasibility of carrying out a navigationproject for the town of Westport, Massachusetts,and the possible beneficial uses of dredged mate-rial for shoreline protection and storm damagereduction in the area. In determining the bene-fits of the project, the Secretary shall includethe benefits derived from using dredged material

for shoreline protection and storm damage re-duction.SEC. 413. SOUTHWEST VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE,

NEW MEXICO.The Secretary shall undertake and complete a

feasibility study for flood damage reduction inthe Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mex-ico, and, based upon the results of such study,give priority consideration to including the rec-ommended project in the flood mitigation andriverine restoration pilot program authorized insection 214 of this Act.SEC. 414. CAYUGA CREEK, NEW YORK.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine the feasibility of carrying out a project forflood control for Cayuga Creek, New York.SEC. 415. ARCOLA CREEK WATERSHED, MADISON,

OHIO.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of a project to provide envi-ronmental restoration and protection for theArcola Creek watershed, Madison, Ohio.SEC. 416. WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OHIO, INDI-

ANA, AND MICHIGAN.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct

a study to develop measures to improve floodcontrol, navigation, water quality, recreation,and fish and wildlife habitat in a comprehensivemanner in the western Lake Erie basin, Ohio,Indiana, and Michigan, including watersheds ofthe Maumee, Ottawa, and Portage Rivers.

(b) COOPERATION.—In carrying out the study,the Secretary shall cooperate with interestedFederal, State, and local agencies and non-governmental organizations and consider all rel-evant programs of such agencies.

(c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after thedate of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall submit to Congress a report on the resultsof the study, including findings and rec-ommendations.SEC. 417. SCHUYLKILL RIVER, NORRISTOWN,

PENNSYLVANIA.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of carrying out a project forflood control for Schuylkill River, Norristown,Pennsylvania, including improvement to exist-ing stormwater drainage systems.SEC. 418. LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH

CAROLINA.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of carrying out a project forLakes Marion and Moultrie to provide watersupply, 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 investigationof flooding and other water resources problemsbetween the James River and Big Sioux water-sheds in South Dakota and an assessment offlood damage reduction needs of the area.SEC. 420. CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.

The Secretary shall include, as part of thestudy authorized in a resolution of the Com-mittee on Public Works and Transportation ofthe House of Representatives, dated August 1,1990, a review of two 175-foot-wide barge shelveson either side of the navigation channel at thePort of Corpus Christi, Texas.SEC. 421. MITCHELL’S CUT CHANNEL (CANEY

FORK CUT), TEXAS.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of carrying out a project fornavigation, Mitchell’s Cut Channel (Caney ForkCut), Texas.SEC. 422. MOUTH OF COLORADO RIVER, TEXAS.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine the feasibility of carrying out a project fornavigation at the mouth of the Colorado River,Texas, to provide a minimum draft navigationchannel extending from the Colorado Riverthrough Parkers Cut (also known as ‘‘Tiger Is-land Cut’’), or an acceptable alternative, toMatagorda Bay.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2502 April 29, 1999SEC. 423. KANAWHA RIVER, FAYETTE COUNTY,

WEST VIRGINIA.The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of developing a public portalong 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 deter-mine the feasibility of expanding public port de-velopment in West Virginia along the OhioRiver and navigable portion of the KanawhaRiver from its mouth to river mile 91.0SEC. 425. GREAT LAKES REGION COMPREHENSIVE

STUDY.(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a

comprehensive study of the Great Lakes regionto ensure the future use, management, and pro-tection of water and related resources of theGreat Lakes basin. Such study shall include acomprehensive management plan specifically forSt. Clair River and Lake St. Clair.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 4 years after thedate of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall submit to the Committee on Transportationand Infrastructure of the House of Representa-tives and the Committee on Environment andPublic Works of the Senate a report that in-cludes the strategic plan for Corps of Engineersprograms in the Great Lakes basin and detailsof proposed Corps of Engineers environmental,navigation, and flood damage reduction projectsin the region.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $1,400,000 for fiscal years 2000through 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 resultof discharges of dredged material into open-water sites in the Chesapeake Bay.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months afterthe date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall transmit to Congress a report on the re-sults 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 de-termine the feasibility of carrying out a projectfor enhancing wetlands values and public rec-reational opportunities in the area.

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONSSEC. 501. CORPS ASSUMPTION OF NRCS

PROJECTS.(a) LLAGAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—The Sec-

retary is authorized to complete the remainingreaches of the Natural Resources ConservationService’s flood control project at Llagas Creek,California, undertaken pursuant to section 5 ofthe Watershed Protection and Flood PreventionAct (16 U.S.C. 1005), substantially in accordancewith the Natural Resources Conservation Serv-ice watershed plan for Llagas Creek, Depart-ment of Agriculture, and in accordance with therequirements of local cooperation as specified insection 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, IL-LINOIS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Thornton Reservoirproject, an element of the project for flood con-trol, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, Illinois, au-thorized by section 3(a)(5) of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013),is modified to authorize the Secretary to includeadditional permanent flood control storage at-tributable to the Natural Resources Conserva-tion Service Thornton Reservoir (Structure 84),Little Calumet River Watershed, Illinois, ap-proved under the Watershed Protection andFlood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).

(2) COST SHARING.—Costs for the ThorntonReservoir project shall be shared in accordance

with section 103 of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).

(3) TRANSITIONAL STORAGE.—The Secretary ofAgriculture may cooperate with non-Federal in-terests to provide, on a transitional basis, floodcontrol storage for the Natural Resources Con-servation Service Thornton Reservoir (Structure84) in the west lobe of the Thornton quarry inadvance of Corps’ construction.

(4) CREDITING.—The Secretary may creditagainst the non-Federal share of the ThorntonReservoir project all design, lands, easements,rights-of-way (as of the date of authorization),and construction costs incurred by the non-Fed-eral interests before the signing of the projectcooperation agreement.

(5) REEVALUATION REPORT.—The Secretaryshall determine the credits authorized by para-graph (4) that are integral to the Thornton Res-ervoir project and the current total project costsbased on a limited reevaluation report.SEC. 502. CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.

Section 219(e) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4836–4837) is amendedby striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and insertingthe following:

‘‘(5) $25,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(2);

‘‘(6) $20,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(9);

‘‘(7) $30,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(16); and

‘‘(8) $30,000,000 for the project described insubsection (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 de-signed to minimize or eliminate contaminationof a water column upon removal of contami-nated sediments. The Secretary shall completesuch review by June 1, 2001.

(2) TESTING.—After completion of the reviewunder paragraph (1), the Secretary shall selectthe technology of those reviewed that the Sec-retary determines will increase the effectivenessof removing contaminated sediments and signifi-cantly reduce contamination of the water col-umn. Not later than December 31, 2001, the Sec-retary shall enter into an agreement with a pub-lic or private entity to test such technology inthe vicinity of Peoria Lakes, Illinois.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $2,000,000.SEC. 504. DAM SAFETY.

(a) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary is authorizedto provide assistance to enhance dam safety atthe following locations:

(1) Healdsburg Veteran’s Memorial Dam, Cali-fornia

(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 $6,000,000to carry out this section.SEC. 505. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION

PLANS.Section 401(a)(2) of the Water Resources De-

velopment Act of 1990 (110 Stat. 3763) is amendedby adding at the end the following: ‘‘Nonprofitpublic or private entities may contribute all or aportion 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 Secretaryis authorized to undertake a program for thecontrol of sea lampreys in and around waters ofthe Great Lakes. The program undertaken pur-suant to this section may include projects whichconsist of either structural or nonstructuralmeasures or a combination thereof.

(b) COST SHARING.—Projects carried out underthis section on lands owned by the UnitedStates shall be carried out at full Federal ex-pense. The non-Federal share of the cost of anysuch project undertaken on lands not in Federalownership shall be 35 percent.

(c) NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—Notwith-standing section 221(b) of the Flood Control Actof 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), the Secretary,after coordination with the appropriate Stateand local government officials having jurisdic-tion over an area in which a project under thissection will be carried out, may allow a non-profit entity to serve as the non-Federal interestfor the project.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $2,000,000 for each of fiscalyears 2000 through 2005.SEC. 507. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHAN-

NELS.Section 509(a) of the Water Resources Devel-

opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759) is amendedby adding at the end the following:

‘‘(12) Acadiana Navigation Channel, Lou-isiana.

‘‘(13) Contraband Bayou, Louisiana, as partof the Calcasieu River and Pass Ship Channel.

‘‘(14) Lake Wallula Navigation Channel,Washington.

‘‘(15) Wadley Pass (also known as McGriffPass), Suwanee River, Florida.’’.SEC. 508. MEASUREMENT OF LAKE MICHIGAN DI-

VERSIONS.Section 1142(b) of the Water Resources Devel-

opment Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–20 note; 100Stat. 4253) is amended by striking ‘‘$250,000’’and inserting ‘‘$1,250,000’’.SEC. 509. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRON-

MENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.(a) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—Section

1103(e)(1) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(1)) is amended—

(1) by inserting ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara-graph (A);

(2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘long-term resource monitoring program; and’’ and in-serting ‘‘long-term resource monitoring, comput-erized data inventory and analysis, and appliedresearch program.’’; and

(3) by striking subparagraph (C) and insertingthe following:‘‘In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Sec-retary shall establish an independent technicaladvisory committee to review projects, moni-toring plans, and habitat and natural resourceneeds assessments.’’.

(b) REPORTS.—Section 1103(e)(2) of such Act(33 U.S.C. 652(e)(2)) is amended to read as fol-lows:

‘‘(2) REPORTS.—Not later than December 31,2004, and not later than December 31st of everysixth year thereafter, the Secretary, in consulta-tion with the Secretary of the Interior and theStates of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri,and Wisconsin, shall transmit to Congress a re-port that—

‘‘(A) contains an evaluation of the programsdescribed in paragraph (1);

‘‘(B) describes the accomplishments of each ofsuch programs;

‘‘(C) provides updates of a systemic habitatneeds assessment; and

‘‘(D) identifies any needed adjustments in theauthorization.’’.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Sec-tion 1103(e) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 652(e)) isamended—

(1) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘not to ex-ceed’’ and all that follows before the period atthe end and inserting ‘‘$22,750,000 for fiscal year1999 and each fiscal year thereafter’’;

(2) in paragraph (4) by striking ‘‘not to ex-ceed’’ and all that follows before the period atthe end and inserting ‘‘$10,420,000 for fiscal year1999 and each fiscal year thereafter’’; and

(3) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting thefollowing:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2503April 29, 1999‘‘(5) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout paragraph (1)(A) $350,000 for each of fiscalyears 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 year1999, and each fiscal year thereafter, the Sec-retary, in consultation with the Secretary of theInterior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Min-nesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, may transfernot to exceed 20 percent of the amounts appro-priated to carry out subparagraph (A) or (B) ofparagraph (1) to the amounts appropriated tocarry out the other of such subparagraphs.’’.

(e) HABITAT NEEDS ASSESSMENT.—Section1103(h)(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 652(h)(2)) isamended by adding at the end the following:‘‘The Secretary shall complete the on-goinghabitat needs assessment conducted under thisparagraph not later than September 30, 2000,and shall include in each report required bysubsection (e)(2) the most recent habitat needsassessment conducted under this paragraph.’’.

(f) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 1103of such Act (33 U.S.C. 652) is amended—

(1) in subsection (e)(7) by striking ‘‘para-graphs (1)(B) and (1)(C)’’ and inserting ‘‘para-graph (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 MONI-TORING.

Section 404(c) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended bystriking ‘‘1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997’’ andinserting ‘‘1993 through 2003’’.SEC. 511. WATER CONTROL MANAGEMENT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—In evaluating potential im-provements for water control management ac-tivities and consolidation of water control man-agement centers, the Secretary may consider aregionalized water control management plan butmay not implement such a plan until the dateon which a report is transmitted under sub-section (b).

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after thedate of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall transmit to the Committee on Transpor-tation and Infrastructure and the Committee onAppropriations of the House of Representativesand the Committee on Environment and PublicWorks and the Committee on Appropriations ofthe Senate a report containing the following:

(1) A description of the primary objectives ofstreamlining water control management activi-ties.

(2) A description of the benefits provided bystreamlining water control management activi-ties through consolidation of centers for suchactivities.

(3) A determination of whether or not benefitsto users of regional water control managementcenters will be retained in each district office ofthe Corps of Engineers that does not have a re-gional center.

(4) A determination of whether or not users ofsuch regional centers will receive a higher levelof benefits from streamlining water managementcontrol management activities.

(5) A list of the Members of Congress who rep-resent a district that currently includes a watercontrol management center that is to be elimi-nated under a proposed regionalized plan.SEC. 512. BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATE-

RIAL.The Secretary is authorized to carry out the

following projects under section 204 of the WaterResources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C.2326):

(1) BODEGA BAY, CALIFORNIA.—A project tomake beneficial use of dredged materials from aFederal navigation project in Bodega Bay, Cali-fornia.

(2) SABINE REFUGE, LOUISIANA.—A project tomake beneficial use of dredged materials from

Federal navigation projects in the vicinity ofSabine Refuge, Louisiana.

(3) HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUN-TIES, MISSISSIPPI.—A project to make beneficialuse of dredged material from a Federal naviga-tion project in Hancock, Harrison, and JacksonCounties, Mississippi.

(4) ROSE CITY MARSH, ORANGE COUNTY,TEXAS.—A project to make beneficial use ofdredged material from a Federal navigationproject in Rose City Marsh, Orange County,Texas.

(5) BESSIE HEIGHTS MARSH, ORANGE COUNTY,TEXAS.—A project to make beneficial use ofdredged material from a Federal navigationproject in Bessie Heights Marsh, Orange Coun-ty, Texas.SEC. 513. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASSIST-

ANCE.Section 507(2) of the Water Resources Develop-

ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3758) is amended toread as follows:

‘‘(2) Expansion and improvement of Long PineRun Dam and associated water infrastructurein accordance with the requirements of sub-sections (b) through (e) of section 313 of theWater Resources Development Act of 1992 (106Stat. 4845) at a total cost of $20,000,000.’’.SEC. 514. LOWER MISSOURI RIVER AQUATIC RES-

TORATION PROJECTS.(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after

funds are made available for such purposes, theSecretary shall complete a comprehensivereport—

(1) identifying a general implementation strat-egy and overall plan for environmental restora-tion and protection along the Lower MissouriRiver between Gavins Point Dam and the con-fluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers;and

(2) recommending individual environmentalrestoration projects that can be considered bythe Secretary for implementation under section206 of the Water Resources Development Act of1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330; 110 Stat. 3679–3680).

(b) SCOPE OF PROJECTS.—Any environmentalrestoration projects recommended under sub-section (a) shall provide for such activities andmeasures as the Secretary determines to be nec-essary to protect and restore fish and wildlifehabitat without adversely affecting privateproperty rights or water related needs of the re-gion surrounding the Missouri River, includingflood control, navigation, and enhancement ofwater supply, and shall include some or all ofthe following components:

(1) Modification and improvement of naviga-tion training structures to protect and restorefish and wildlife habitat.

(2) Modification and creation of side channelsto protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat.

(3) Restoration and creation of fish and wild-life habitat.

(4) Physical and biological monitoring forevaluating the success of the projects.

(c) COORDINATION.—To the maximum extentpracticable, the Secretary shall integrateprojects carried out in accordance with this sec-tion with other Federal, tribal, and State res-toration activities.

(d) COST SHARING.—The report under sub-section (a) shall be undertaken at full Federalexpense.SEC. 515. AQUATIC RESOURCES RESTORATION IN

THE NORTHWEST.(a) IN GENERAL.—In cooperation with other

Federal agencies, the Secretary is authorized todevelop and implement projects for fish screens,fish passage devices, and other similar measuresagreed to by non-Federal interests and relevantFederal agencies to mitigate adverse impacts as-sociated with irrigation system water diversionsby local governmental entities in the States ofOregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho.

(b) PROCEDURE AND PARTICIPATION.—(1) CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT; USE OF EX-

ISTING DATA.—In providing assistance under

subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult withother Federal, State, and local agencies andmake maximum use of data and studies in exist-ence on the date of enactment of this Act.

(2) PARTICIPATION BY NON-FEDERAL INTER-ESTS.—Participation by non-Federal interests inprojects under this section shall be voluntary.The Secretary shall not take any action underthis section that will result in a non-Federal in-terest being held financially responsible for anaction under a project unless the non-Federalinterest has voluntarily agreed to participate inthe project.

(c) COST SHARING.—Projects carried out underthis section on lands owned by the UnitedStates shall be carried out at full Federal ex-pense. The non-Federal share of the cost of anysuch project undertaken on lands not in Federalownership shall be 35 percent.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $10,000,000 for fiscal years be-ginning after September 30, 1999.SEC. 516. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR WA-

TERSHED RESTORATION.The Secretary shall use, and encourage the

use of, innovative treatment technologies, in-cluding membrane technologies, for watershedand environmental restoration and protectionprojects involving water quality.SEC. 517. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION.

(a) ATLANTA, GEORGIA.—Section 219(c)(2) ofthe Water Resources Development Act of 1992(106 Stat. 4835) is amended by inserting beforethe period ‘‘and watershed restoration and de-velopment in the regional Atlanta watershed,including Big Creek and Rock Creek’’.

(b) PATERSON AND PASSAIC VALLEY, NEW JER-SEY.—Section 219(c)(9) of such Act (106 Stat.4836) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(9) PATERSON, PASSAIC COUNTY, AND PASSAICVALLEY, NEW JERSEY.—Drainage facilities to al-leviate flooding problems on Getty Avenue inthe vicinity of St. Joseph’s Hospital for the Cityof Paterson, New Jersey, and Passaic County,New Jersey, and innovative facilities to manageand treat additional flows in the Passaic Valley,Passaic River basin, New Jersey.’’.SEC. 518. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CER-

TAIN PROJECTS.The Secretary shall expedite completion of the

reports for the following projects and proceeddirectly to project planning, engineering, anddesign:

(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 authorizedto establish, in cooperation with non-Federal in-terests, a pilot project to restore natural waterdepths in the Dog River, Alabama, between itsmouth and the Interstate Route 10 crossing, andin the downstream portion of its principal tribu-taries.

(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance pro-vided under subsection (a) shall be in the formof design and construction of water-related re-source protection and development projects af-fecting the Dog River, including environmentalrestoration and recreational navigation.

(c) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federalshare of the cost of the project carried out withassistance under this section shall be 90 percent.

(d) LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—The non-Federal sponsor provide alllands, easements, rights of way, relocations,and dredged material disposal areas includingretaining dikes required for the project.

(e) OPERATION MAINTENANCE.—The non-Fed-eral share of the cost of operation, maintenance,repair, replacement, or rehabilitation of theproject carried out with assistance under thissection shall be 100 percent.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2504 April 29, 1999(f) CREDIT TOWARD NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—

The value of the lands, easements, rights ofway, relocations, and dredged material disposalareas, including retaining dikes, provided by thenon-Federal sponsor shall be credited towardthe non-Federal share.SEC. 520. ELBA, ALABAMA.

The Secretary is authorized to repair and re-habilitate a levee in the city of Elba, Alabamaat a total cost of $12,900,000.SEC. 521. GENEVA, ALABAMA.

The Secretary is authorized to repair and re-habilitate a levee in the city of Geneva, Ala-bama 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 Sec-retary shall undertake a survey of, and providetechnical, planning, and design assistance for,watershed management, restoration, and devel-opment on the Navajo Indian Reservation, Ari-zona, New Mexico, and Utah.

(b) COST SHARING.—The Federal share of thecost of activities carried out under this sectionshall be 75 percent. Funds made available underthe Indian Self-Determination and EducationAssistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) may beused by the Navajo Nation in meeting the non-Federal share of the cost of such activities.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $12,000,000 for fiscal years be-ginning after September 30, 1999.SEC. 523. AUGUSTA AND DEVALLS BLUFF, ARKAN-

SAS.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized

to perform operations, maintenance, and reha-bilitation on 37 miles of levees in and aroundAugusta and Devalls Bluff, Arkansas.

(b) REIMBURSEMENT.—After performing theoperations, maintenance, and rehabilitationunder subsection (a), the Secretary shall seekreimbursement from the Secretary of the Interiorof an amount equal to the costs allocated tobenefits to a Federal wildlife refuge of such op-erations, maintenance, and rehabilitation.SEC. 524. BEAVER LAKE, ARKANSAS.

(a) WATER SUPPLY STORAGE REALLOCATION.—The Secretary shall reallocate approximately31,000 additional acre-feet at Beaver Lake, Ar-kansas, to water supply storage at no additionalcost to the Beaver Water District or the Carroll-Boone Water District above the amount that hasalready been contracted for. At no time may thebottom of the conservation pool be at an ele-vation that is less than 1,076 feet NGVD.

(b) CONTRACT PRICING.—The contract pricefor additional storage for the Carroll-BooneWater District beyond that which is provided forin subsection (a) shall be based on the originalconstruction cost of Beaver Lake and adjustedto the 1998 price level net of inflation betweenthe date of initiation of construction and thedate of enactment of this Act.SEC. 525. BEAVER LAKE TROUT PRODUCTION FA-

CILITY, ARKANSAS.(a) EXPEDITED CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary

shall construct, under the authority of section105 of the Water Resources Development Act of1976 (90 Stat. 2921) and section 1135 of the WaterResources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.4251–4252), the Beaver Lake trout hatchery asexpeditiously as possible, but in no event laterthan September 30, 2002.

(b) MITIGATION PLAN.—Not later than 2 yearsafter the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec-retary, in conjunction with the State of Arkan-sas, shall prepare a plan for the mitigation ofeffects of the Beaver Dam project on BeaverLake. Such plan shall provide for constructionof the Beaver Lake trout production facility andrelated facilities.SEC. 526. CHINO DAIRY PRESERVE, CALIFORNIA.

(a) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary, incoordination with the heads of other Federal

agencies, shall provide technical assistance toState and local agencies in the study, design,and implementation of measures for flood dam-age reduction and environmental restorationand protection in the Santa Ana River water-shed, California, with particular emphasis onstructural and nonstructural measures in the vi-cinity of the Chino Dairy Preserve.

(b) COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.—The Secretaryshall conduct a feasibility study to determinethe most cost-effective plan for flood damage re-duction and environmental restoration and pro-tection in the vicinity of the Chino Dairy Pre-serve, Santa Ana River watershed, OrangeCounty and San Bernardino County, Cali-fornia.SEC. 527. NOVATO, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary shall carry out a project forflood control under section 205 of the FloodControl Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) at RushCreek, Novato, California.SEC. 528. ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES,

CALIFORNIA.The Secretary, in cooperation with local gov-

ernments, may prepare special area managementplans in Orange and San Diego Counties, Cali-fornia, to demonstrate the effectiveness of usingsuch plans to provide information regardingaquatic resources. The Secretary may use suchplans in making regulatory decisions and issuepermits consistent with such plans.SEC. 529. SALTON SEA, CALIFORNIA.

(a) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary, incoordination with other Federal agencies, shallprovide technical assistance to Federal, State,and local agencies in the study, design, and im-plementation of measures for the environmentalrestoration and protection of the Salton Sea,California.

(b) STUDY.—The Secretary, in coordinationwith other Federal, State, and local agencies,shall conduct a study to determine the most ef-fective plan for the Corps of Engineers to assistin the environmental restoration and protectionof the Salton Sea, California.SEC. 530. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary is authorized to modify the co-operative agreement with the Santa Cruz PortDistrict, California, to reflect unanticipated ad-ditional dredging effort and to extend suchagreement for 10 years.SEC. 531. POINT BEACH, MILFORD, CONNECTICUT.

(a) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—Themaximum amount of Federal funds that may beexpended for the project for hurricane andstorm damage reduction, Point Beach, Milford,Connecticut, shall be $3,000,000.

(b) REVISION OF PROJECT COOPERATIONAGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall revise theproject cooperation agreement for the project re-ferred to in subsection (a) to take into accountthe change in the Federal participation in suchproject.

(c) COST SHARING.—Nothing in this sectionshall be construed to affect any cost-sharing re-quirement applicable to the project referred to insubsection (a) under section 101 of the WaterResources Development Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C.2211).SEC. 532. LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN, FLOR-

IDA.(a) COMPUTER MODEL.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may apply the

computer model developed under the St. JohnsRiver basin feasibility study to assist non-Fed-eral interests in developing strategies for im-proving water quality in the Lower St. JohnsRiver basin, Florida.

(2) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share ofthe cost of assistance provided under this sub-section shall be 50 percent.

(b) TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.—The Secretary isauthorized to provide 1-foot contour topo-graphic survey maps of the Lower St. JohnsRiver basin, Florida, to non-Federal interestsfor analyzing environmental data and estab-lishing benchmarks for subbasins.

SEC. 533. SHORELINE PROTECTION AND ENVI-RONMENTAL RESTORATION, LAKEALLATOONA, GEORGIA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coopera-tion with the Administrator of the Environ-mental Protection Agency, is authorized tocarry out the following water-related environ-mental restoration and resource protection ac-tivities to restore Lake Allatoona and theEtowah River in Georgia:

(1) LAKE ALLATOONA/ETOWAH RIVER SHORELINERESTORATION DESIGN.—Develop pre-constructiondesign measures to alleviate shoreline erosionand sedimentation problems.

(2) LITTLE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORA-TION.—Conduct a feasibility study to evaluateenvironmental problems and recommend envi-ronmental infrastructure restoration measuresfor the Little River within Lake Allatoona,Georgia.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscalyears 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, COOSARIVER, ROME, GEORGIA.

The Secretary is authorized to provide tech-nical assistance, including planning, engineer-ing, and design assistance, for the reconstruc-tion of the Mayo’s Bar Lock and Dam, CoosaRiver, Rome, Georgia. The non-Federal share ofassistance under this section shall be 50 percent.SEC. 535. COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD IMPACT RE-

SPONSE MODELING SYSTEM,CORALVILLE RESERVOIR AND IOWARIVER WATERSHED, IOWA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coopera-tion with the University of Iowa, shall conducta study and develop a Comprehensive Flood Im-pact Response Modeling System for CoralvilleReservoir and the Iowa River watershed, Iowa.

(b) CONTENTS OF STUDY.—The study shallinclude—

(1) an evaluation of the combined hydrologic,geomorphic, environmental, economic, social,and recreational impacts of operating strategieswithin the Iowa River watershed;

(2) development of an integrated, dynamicflood impact model; and

(3) development of a rapid response system tobe used during flood and other emergency situa-tions.

(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 5years after the date of enactment of this Act,the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a reportcontaining the results of the study and modelingsystem together with such recommendations asthe Secretary determines to be appropriate.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $900,000 for each of fiscal years2000 through 2004.SEC. 536. ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION ASSIST-

ANCE IN ILLINOIS.The Secretary may carry out the project for

Georgetown, Illinois, and the project for Olney,Illinois, referred to in House Report Number104–741, accompanying Public Law 104–182.SEC. 537. KANOPOLIS LAKE, KANSAS.

(a) WATER STORAGE.—The Secretary shalloffer to the State of Kansas the right to pur-chase water storage in Kanopolis Lake, Kansas,at a price calculated in accordance with and ina manner consistent with the terms of the memo-randum of understanding entitled ‘‘Memo-randum of Understanding Between the State ofKansas and the U.S. Department of the ArmyConcerning the Purchase of Municipal and In-dustrial Water Supply Storage’’, dated Decem-ber 11, 1985.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—For the purposes of thissection, the effective date of that memorandumof understanding shall be deemed to be the dateof enactment of this Act.SEC. 538. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.

Section 531(h) of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3774) is amended

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2505April 29, 1999by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting‘‘$25,000,000’’.SEC. 539. SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA.

Section 533(c) of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3775) is amended bystriking ‘‘$100,000,000’’ and inserting‘‘$200,000,000’’.SEC. 540. SNUG HARBOR, MARYLAND.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coordina-tion with the Director of the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, is authorized—

(1) to provide technical assistance to the resi-dents of Snug Harbor, in the vicinity of Berlin,Maryland, for purposes of flood damage reduc-tion;

(2) to conduct a study of a project for non-structural measures for flood damage reductionin the vicinity of Snug Harbor, Maryland, tak-ing into account the relationship of both theOcean City Inlet and Assateague Island to theflooding; and

(3) after completion of the study, to carry outthe project under the authority of section 205 ofthe Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

(b) FEMA ASSISTANCE.—The Director, in co-ordination with the Secretary and under the au-thorities of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Re-lief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.5121 note), may provide technical assistance andnonstructural measures for flood damage mitiga-tion in the vicinity of Snug Harbor, Maryland.

(c) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of thecost of assistance under this section shall notexceed $3,000,000. The non-Federal share of suchcost shall be determined in accordance with theWater Resources Development Act of 1986 or theRobert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emer-gency Assistance Act, as appropriate.SEC. 541. WELCH POINT, ELK RIVER, CECIL COUN-

TY, AND CHESAPEAKE CITY, MARY-LAND.

(a) SPILLAGE OF DREDGED MATERIALS.—TheSecretary shall carry out a study to determine ifthe spillage of dredged materials that were re-moved as part of the project for navigation, In-land Waterway from Delaware River to Chesa-peake Bay, Delaware and Maryland, authorizedby the first section of the Act of August 30, 1935(49 Stat. 1030), is a significant impediment tovessels transiting the Elk River near WelchPoint, Maryland. If the Secretary determinesthat the spillage is an impediment to navigation,the Secretary may conduct such dredging asmay be required to permit navigation on theriver.

(b) DAMAGE TO WATER SUPPLY.—The Sec-retary shall carry out a study to determine ifadditional compensation is required to fullycompensate the city of Chesapeake, Maryland,for damage to the city’s water supply resultingfrom dredging of the Chesapeake and DelawareCanal project. If the Secretary determines thatsuch additional compensation is required, theSecretary may provide the compensation to thecity of Chesapeake.SEC. 542. WEST VIEW SHORES, CECIL COUNTY,

MARYLAND.Not later than 1 year after the date of enact-

ment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry outan investigation of the contamination of thewell system in West View Shores, Cecil County,Maryland. If the Secretary determines that thedisposal site from any Federal navigationproject has contributed to the contamination ofthe wells, the Secretary may provide alternativewater supplies, including replacement of wells,at full Federal expense.SEC. 543. RESTORATION PROJECTS FOR MARY-

LAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WESTVIRGINIA.

Section 539 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3776–3777) isamended—

(1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ‘‘tech-nical’’;

(2) in subsection (a)(1) by inserting ‘‘(or in thecase of projects located on lands owned by the

United States, to Federal interests)’’ after ‘‘in-terests’’;

(3) in subsection (a)(3) by inserting ‘‘or inconjunction’’ after ‘‘consultation’’; and

(4) by inserting at the end of subsection (d)the following: ‘‘Funds authorized to be appro-priated to carry out section 340 of the Water Re-sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856)are authorized for projects undertaken undersubsection (a)(1)(B).’’.SEC. 544. CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE,

BUZZARDS BAY, MASSACHUSETTS.(a) ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION.—The Sec-

retary is authorized to provide up to $300,000 foralternative transportation that may arise as aresult of the operation, maintenance, repair,and rehabilitation of the Cape Cod Canal Rail-road Bridge.

(b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CONTRACTRENEGOTIATION.—Not later than 60 days afterthe date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall enter into negotiation with the owner ofthe railroad right-of-way for the Cape CodCanal Railroad Bridge for the purpose of estab-lishing the rights and responsibities for the op-eration and maintenance of the Bridge. The Sec-retary is authorized to include in any new con-tract the termination of the prior contract num-bered ER–W175–ENG–1.SEC. 545. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.

(a) DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.—The Secretary,in consultation with local officials, shall con-duct a demonstration project to improve waterquality in the vicinity of St. Louis, Missouri.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated $1,700,000to 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 maycompile and disseminate information on floodsand flood damages, including identification ofareas subject to inundation by floods, and pro-vide technical assistance regarding floodplainmanagement for Beaver Branch of Big TimberCreek, 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 JointCommission and the St. Lawrence River Boardof Control in undertaking studies on the effectsof fluctuating water levels on the natural envi-ronment, recreational boating, property flood-ing, and erosion along the shorelines of LakeOntario and the St. Lawrence River in NewYork. The Commission and Board are encour-aged to conduct such studies in a comprehensiveand thorough manner before implementing anychange 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 inves-tigate, develop, and support measures for sedi-ment management and reduction of contami-nant sources which affect navigation in thePort of New York-New Jersey and the environ-mental conditions of the New York-New JerseyHarbor estuary. Such investigation shall includean analysis of the economic and environmentalbenefits and costs of potential sediment manage-ment 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 abeachfill with revetment and T-groin for the SeaGate Reach on Coney Island, New York, asidentified in the March 1998 report prepared forthe Corps of Engineers, New York District, enti-tled ‘‘Field Data Gathering, Project Perform-ance Analysis and Design Alternative Solutionsto Improve Sandfill Retention’’, at a total costof $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 assistanceto non-Federal interests for identifying andmitigating sources of contamination atWoodlawn Beach in Woodlawn, New York.

(b) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share ofthe cost of assistance provided under this sec-tion shall be 50 percent.SEC. 551. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, NEW YORK.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provideassistance for a project to develop maps identi-fying 100- and 500-year flood inundation areasin the State of New York.

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—Maps developed underthe project shall include hydrologic and hy-draulic information and shall accurately showthe flood inundation of each property by floodrisk in the floodplain. The maps shall be pro-duced in a high resolution format and shall bemade available to all flood prone areas in theState of New York in an electronic format.

(c) PARTICIPATION OF FEMA.—The Secretaryand the non-Federal sponsor of the project shallwork with the Director of the Federal Emer-gency Management Agency to ensure the valid-ity of the maps developed under the project forflood insurance purposes.

(d) FORMS OF ASSISTANCE.—In carrying outthe project, the Secretary may enter into con-tracts or cooperative agreements with the non-Federal sponsor or provide reimbursements ofproject costs.

(e) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of thecost of the project shall be 75 percent.

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $12,000,000 for fiscal years be-ginning after September 30, 1998.SEC. 552. WHITE OAK RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine if water quality deterioration and sedi-mentation of the White Oak River, North Caro-lina, are the result of the Atlantic IntracoastalWaterway navigation project. If the Secretarydetermines that the water quality deteriorationand sedimentation are the result of the project,the Secretary shall take appropriate measures tomitigate the deterioration and sedimentation.SEC. 553. TOUSSAINT RIVER, CARROLL TOWN-

SHIP, OTTAWA COUNTY, OHIO.The Secretary is authorized to provide tech-

nical assistance for the removal of military ord-nance from the Toussaint River, Carroll Town-ship, Ottawa County, Ohio.SEC. 554. SARDIS RESERVOIR, OKLAHOMA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall acceptfrom the State of Oklahoma or an agent of theState an amount, as determined under sub-section (b), as prepayment of 100 percent of thewater supply cost obligation of the State underContract No. DACW56–74–JC–0314 for watersupply storage at Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.

(b) DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT.—The amountto be paid by the State of Oklahoma under sub-section (a) shall be subject to adjustment in ac-cordance with accepted discount purchase meth-ods for Federal Government properties as deter-mined by an independent accounting firm des-ignated by the Director of the Office of Manage-ment and Budget. The cost of such determina-tion shall be paid for by the State of Oklahomaor an agent of the State.

(c) EFFECT.—Nothing in this section affectsany of the rights or obligations of the parties tothe 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 ofPublic Law 88–253 (77 Stat. 841), the requirementfor the Waurika Project Master ConservancyDistrict to repay the $2,900,000 in costs (includ-ing interest) resulting from the October 1991 set-tlement of the claim before the United StatesClaims Court, and the payment of $1,190,451 ofthe final cost representing the difference be-tween the 1978 estimate of cost and the actual

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2506 April 29, 1999cost determined after completion of such projectin 1991, are waived.SEC. 556. SKINNER BUTTE PARK, EUGENE, OR-

EGON.(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a

study of the south bank of the Willamette River,in the area of Skinner Butte Park from FerryStreet Bridge to the Valley River footbridge, todetermine the feasibility of carrying out aproject to stabilize the river bank, and to restoreand enhance riverine habitat, using a combina-tion of structural and bioengineering tech-niques.

(b) CONSTRUCTION.—If, upon completion ofthe study, the Secretary determines that theproject is feasible, the Secretary shall partici-pate with non-Federal interests in the construc-tion of the project.

(c) COST SHARE.—The non-Federal share ofthe cost of the project shall be 35 percent.

(d) LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—The non-Federal interest shall providelands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations,and dredged material disposal areas necessaryfor construction of the project. The value ofsuch 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 carryout this section $1,000,000 for fiscal years begin-ning after September 30, 1999.SEC. 557. WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN, OREGON.

The Secretary, Director of the Federal Emer-gency Management Agency, Administrator ofthe Environmental Protection Agency, andheads of other appropriate Federal agenciesshall, using existing authorities, assist the Stateof Oregon in developing and implementing acomprehensive basin-wide strategy in the Wil-lamette River basin of Oregon for coordinatedand integrated management of land and waterresources to improve water quality, reduce floodhazards, ensure sustainable economic activity,and restore habitat for native fish and wildlife.The heads of such Federal agencies may providetechnical assistance, staff and financial supportfor development of the basin-wide managementstrategy. The heads of Federal agencies shallseek to exercise flexibility in administrative ac-tions and allocation of funding to reduce bar-riers to efficient and effective implementing ofthe strategy.SEC. 558. BRADFORD AND SULLIVAN COUNTIES,

PENNSYLVANIA.The Secretary is authorized to provide assist-

ance for water-related environmental infrastruc-ture and resource protection and developmentprojects in Bradford and Sullivan Counties,Pennsylvania, using the funds and authoritiesprovided in title I of the Energy and Water De-velopment Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law105–245) under the heading ‘‘CONSTRUCTION,GENERAL’’ (112 Stat. 1840) for similar projects inLackawanna, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyo-ming, Pike, and Monroe Counties, Pennsyl-vania.SEC. 559. ERIE HARBOR, PENNSYLVANIA.

The Secretary may reimburse the appropriatenon-Federal interest not more than $78,366 forarchitect and engineering costs incurred in con-nection with the Erie Harbor basin navigationproject, Pennsylvania.SEC. 560. POINT MARION LOCK AND DAM, PENN-

SYLVANIA.The project for navigation, Point Marion Lock

and Dam, Borough of Point Marion, Pennsyl-vania, as authorized by section 301(a) of theWater Resources Development Act of 1986 (100Stat. 4110), is modified to direct the Secretary, inthe operation and maintenance of the project, tomitigate damages to the shoreline, at a total costof $2,000,000. The cost of the mitigation shall beallocated as an operation and maintenance costof a Federal navigation project.SEC. 561. SEVEN POINTS’ HARBOR, PENNSYL-

VANIA.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized,

at full Federal expense, to construct a break-

water-dock combination at the entrance toSeven Points’ Harbor, Pennsylvania.

(b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS.—Alloperation and maintenance costs associatedwith the facility constructed under this sectionshall be the responsibility of the lessee of themarina complex at Seven Points’ Harbor.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated $850,000to carry out this section.SEC. 562. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA.

Section 566(b) of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3786) is amendedby inserting ‘‘environmental restoration,’’ after‘‘water supply and related facilities,’’.SEC. 563. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA-LACKAWANNA

WATERSHED RESTORATION INITIA-TIVE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coopera-tion with appropriate Federal, State, and localagencies and nongovernmental institutions, isauthorized to prepare a watershed plan for theUpper Susquehanna-Lackawanna Watershed(USGS Cataloguing Unit 02050107). The planshall utilize geographic information system andshall include a comprehensive environmental as-sessment of the watershed’s ecosystem, a com-prehensive flood plain management plan, aflood plain protection plan, water resource andenvironmental restoration projects, water qual-ity improvement, and other appropriate infra-structure and measures.

(b) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federalshare of the cost of preparation of the planunder this section shall be 50 percent. Servicesand materials instead of cash may be creditedtoward the non-Federal share of the cost of theplan.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $5,000,000 for fiscal years begin-ning after September 30, 1999.SEC. 564. AGUADILLA HARBOR, PUERTO RICO.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter-mine if erosion and additional storm damagerisks that exist in the vicinity of Aguadilla Har-bor, Puerto Rico, are the result of a Federalnavigation project. If the Secretary determinesthat such erosion and additional storm damagerisks are the result of the project, the Secretaryshall take appropriate measures to mitigate theerosion and storm damage.SEC. 565. OAHE DAM TO LAKE SHARPE, SOUTH

DAKOTA, STUDY.Section 441 of the Water Resources Develop-

ment 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 areport on the results of the investigation underthis section. The report shall include the exam-ination of financing options for regular mainte-nance and preservation of the lake. The reportshall be prepared in coordination and coopera-tion with the Natural Resources ConservationService, other Federal agencies, and State andlocal officials.’’.SEC. 566. INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT

PLANNING, TEXAS.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coopera-

tion with other Federal agencies and the Stateof Texas, shall provide technical, planning, anddesign assistance to non-Federal interests in de-veloping integrated water management plansand projects that will serve the cities, counties,water agencies, and participating planning re-gions under the jurisdiction of the State ofTexas.

(b) PURPOSES OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance pro-vided under subsection (a) shall be in support ofnon-Federal planning and projects for the fol-lowing purposes:

(1) Plan and develop integrated, near- andlong-term water management plans that addressthe planning region’s water supply, water con-servation, and water quality needs.

(2) Study and develop strategies and plansthat restore, preserve, and protect the State’sand planning region’s natural ecosystems.

(3) Facilitate public communication and par-ticipation.

(4) Integrate such activities with other ongo-ing Federal and State projects and activities as-sociated with the State of Texas water plan andthe State of Texas legislation.

(c) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share ofthe cost of assistance provided under subsection(a) shall be 50 percent, of which up to 1⁄2 of thenon-Federal share may be provided as in kindservices.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section, $10,000,000 for the fiscal yearsbeginning after September 30, 1999.SEC. 567. BOLIVAR PENINSULA, JEFFERSON,

CHAMBERS, AND GALVESTON COUN-TIES, TEXAS.

(a) SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT.—The Sec-retary is authorized to design and construct ashore protection project between the south jettyof the Sabine Pass Channel and the north jettyof the Galveston Harbor Entrance Channel inJefferson, Chambers, and Galveston Counties,Texas, including beneficial use of dredged mate-rial from Federal navigation projects.

(b) APPLICABILITY OF BENEFIT-COST RATIOWAIVER AUTHORITY.—In evaluating and imple-menting the project, the Secretary shall allowthe non-Federal interest to participate in the fi-nancing of the project in accordance with sec-tion 903(c) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184), notwithstanding anylimitation on the purpose of projects to whichsuch section applies, to the extent that the Sec-retary’s evaluation indicates that applying suchsection is necessary to implement the project.SEC. 568. GALVESTON BEACH, GALVESTON COUN-

TY, TEXAS.The Secretary is authorized to design and

construct a shore protection project between theGalveston South Jetty and San Luis Pass, Gal-veston County, Texas, using innovative nourish-ment techniques, including beneficial use ofdredged material from Federal navigationprojects.SEC. 569. PACKERY CHANNEL, CORPUS CHRISTI,

TEXAS.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall con-

struct a navigation and storm protection projectat Packery Channel, Mustang Island, Texas,consisting of construction of a channel and achannel jetty and placement of sand along thelength of the seawall.

(b) ECOLOGICAL AND RECREATIONAL BENE-FITS.—In evaluating the project, the Secretaryshall include the ecological and recreationalbenefits of reopening the Packery Channel.

(c) APPLICABILITY OF BENEFIT-COST RATIOWAIVER AUTHORITY.—In evaluating and imple-menting the project, the Secretary shall allowthe non-Federal interest to participate in the fi-nancing of the project in accordance with sec-tion 903(c) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184), notwithstanding anylimitation on the purpose of projects to whichsuch section applies, to the extent that the Sec-retary’s evaluation indicates that applying suchsection is necessary to implement the project.SEC. 570. NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

The projects described in the following reportsare authorized to be carried out by the Secretarysubstantially in accordance with the plans, andsubject to the conditions, recommended in suchreports:

(1) PARKERSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA.—Report ofthe 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, andan estimated non-Federal cost of $4,200,000.

(2) WEIRTON, WEST VIRGINIA.—Report of theCorps of Engineers entitled ‘‘Feasibility MasterPlan for Weirton Port and Industrial Center,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2507April 29, 1999West Virginia Public Port Authority’’, dated De-cember 1997, at a total cost of $18,000,000, withan estimated Federal cost of $9,000,000, and anestimated non-Federal cost of $9,000,000.

(3) ERICKSON/WOOD COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.—Report of the Corps of Engineers entitled ‘‘Fea-sibility Master Plan for Erickson/Wood CountyPort District, West Virginia Public Port Author-ity’’, 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 costof $14,000,000.

(4) MONONGAHELA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA.—Monongahela River, West Virginia, Comprehen-sive Study Reconnaissance Report, dated Sep-tember 1995, consisting of the following ele-ments:

(A) Morgantown Riverfront Park, Morgan-town, West Virginia, at a total cost of $1,600,000,with an estimated Federal cost of $800,000 andan estimated non-Federal cost of $800,000.

(B) Caperton Rail to Trail, MonongahelaCounty, 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 estimatedFederal 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 evaluateopportunities to manage peak flood flows in ur-banized watersheds located in the State of NewJersey.

(b) SCOPE OF RESEARCH.—The research pro-gram authorized by subsection (a) shall be ac-complished through the New York District. Theresearch shall specifically include the following:

(1) Identification of key factors in urbanizedwatersheds that are under development and im-pact peak flows in the watersheds anddownsteam of the watersheds.

(2) Development of peak flow managementmodels for 4 to 6 watersheds in urbanized areaslocated with widely differing geology, areas,shapes, and soil types that can be used to deter-mine optimal flow reduction factors for indi-vidual watersheds.

(3) Utilization of such management models todetermine relationships between flow and reduc-tion factors and change in imperviousness, soiltypes, shape of the drainage basin, and otherpertinent parameters from existing to ultimateconditions in watersheds under considerationfor development.

(4) Development and validation of an inexpen-sive accurate model to establish flood reductionfactors based on runoff curve numbers, changein imperviousness, the shape of the basin, andother pertinent factors.

(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Secretaryshall evaluate policy changes in the planningprocess for flood control projects based on theresults of the research authorized by this sectionand transmit to Congress a report not later than3 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry-out this section $3,000,000 for fiscal years begin-ning after September 30, 1999.

(e) FLOW REDUCTION FACTORS DEFINED.—Inthis section, the term ‘‘flow reduction factors’’means the ratio of estimated allowable peakflows of stormwater after projected developmentwhen 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 amend-ed by striking ‘‘$7,500’’ and inserting ‘‘$21,500.’’SEC. 573. COASTAL AQUATIC HABITAT MANAGE-

MENT.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may cooper-

ate with the Secretaries of Agriculture and theInterior, the Administrators of the Environ-

mental Protection Agency and the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration, otherappropriate Federal, State, and local agencies,and affected private entities, in the developmentof a management strategy to address problemsassociated with toxic microorganisms and the re-sulting degradation of ecosystems in the tidaland nontidal wetlands and waters of the UnitedStates for the States along the Atlantic Ocean.As part of such management strategy, the Sec-retary may provide planning, design, and othertechnical assistance to each participating Statein the development and implementation of non-regulatory measures to mitigate environmentalproblems and restore aquatic resources.

(b) COST SHARING.—The Federal share of thecost of measures undertaken under this sectionshall not exceed 65 percent.

(c) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of operation and maintenancecosts for projects constructed with assistanceprovided under this section shall be 100 percent.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $7,000,000 for fiscal years begin-ning 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 as-sistance to Federal and non-Federal interestsfor carrying out projects to address water qual-ity problems caused by drainage and related ac-tivities from abandoned and inactive noncoalmines.

(b) SPECIFIC MEASURES.—Assistance providedunder subsection (a) may be in support ofprojects for the following purposes:

(1) Management of drainage from abandonedand inactive noncoal mines.

(2) Restoration and protection of streams, riv-ers, wetlands, other waterbodies, and riparianareas degraded by drainage from abandonedand inactive noncoal mines.

(3) Demonstration of management practicesand innovative and alternative treatment tech-nologies to minimize or eliminate adverse envi-ronmental effects associated with drainage fromabandoned and inactive noncoal mines.

(c) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federalshare of the cost of assistance under subsection(a) shall be 50 percent; except that the Federalshare with respect to projects located on landsowned by the United States shall be 100 percent.

(d) EFFECT ON AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARYOF THE INTERIOR.—Nothing in this section shallbe construed as affecting the authority of theSecretary of the Interior under title IV of theSurface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of1977 (30 U.S.C. 1231 et seq.).

(e) TECHNOLOGY DATABASE FOR RECLAMATIONOF ABANDONED MINES.—The Secretary is au-thorized to provide assistance to non-Federaland non-profit entities to develop, manage, andmaintain a database of conventional and inno-vative, cost-effective technologies for reclama-tion of abandoned and inactive noncoal minesites. Such assistance shall be provided throughthe rehabilitation of abandoned mine sites pro-gram, managed by the Sacramento District Of-fice of the Corps of Engineers.

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $5,000,000.SEC. 575. BENEFICIAL USE OF WASTE TIRE RUB-

BER.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized

to conduct pilot projects to encourage the bene-ficial use of waste tire rubber, including crumbrubber, recycled from tires. Such beneficial usemay include marine pilings, underwater fram-ing, floating docks with built-in flotation, util-ity poles, and other uses associated with trans-portation and infrastructure projects receivingFederal funds. The Secretary shall, when ap-propriate, encourage the use of waste tire rub-ber, including crumb rubber, in such federallyfunded projects.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $5,000,000 for fiscal years begin-ning after September 30, 1998.SEC. 576. SITE DESIGNATION.

Section 102(c)(4) of the Marine Protection, Re-search, 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, MIS-SOURI.—

(1) EXCHANGE OF LAND.—Subject to para-graphs (3) and (4), at such time as Holnam Inc.conveys all right, title, and interest in and tothe land described in paragraph (2)(A) to theUnited States, the Secretary shall convey allright, title, and interest in the land described inparagraph (2)(B) to Holnam Inc.

(2) DESCRIPTION OF LANDS.—The lands re-ferred to in paragraph (1) are the following:

(A) NON-FEDERAL LAND.—152.45 acres with ex-isting flowage easements situated in Pike Coun-ty, Missouri, described a portion of GovernmentTract Number FM–9 and all of GovernmentTract Numbers FM–11, FM–10, FM–12, FM–13,and FM–16, owned and administered by theHolnam Inc.

(B) FEDERAL LAND.—152.61 acres situated inPike County, Missouri, known as GovernmentTract Numbers FM–17 and a portion of FM–18,administered by the Corps of Engineers.

(3) CONDITIONS OF EXCHANGE.—The exchangeof land authorized by paragraph (1) shall besubject to the following conditions:

(A) DEEDS.—(i) FEDERAL LAND.—The instrument of convey-

ance used to convey the land described in para-graph (2)(B) to Holnam Inc. shall contain suchreservations, terms, and conditions as the Sec-retary considers necessary to allow the UnitedStates to operate and maintain the MississippiRiver 9-Foot Navigation Project.

(ii) NON-FEDERAL LAND.—The conveyance ofthe land described in paragraph (2)(A) to theSecretary shall be by a warranty deed accept-able to the Secretary.

(B) REMOVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS.—HolnamInc. may remove any improvements on the landdescribed in paragraph (2)(A). The Secretarymay require Holnam Inc. to remove any im-provements on the land described in paragraph(2)(A). In either case, Holnam Inc. shall holdthe United States harmless from liability, andthe United States shall not incur cost associatedwith the removal or relocation of any such im-provements.

(C) TIME LIMIT FOR EXCHANGE.—The land ex-change authorized by paragraph (1) shall becompleted not later than 2 years after the dateof enactment of this Act.

(D) LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—The Secretary shallprovide the legal description of the land de-scribed in paragraph (2). The legal descriptionshall be used in the instruments of conveyanceof the land.

(E) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—The Secretaryshall require Holnam Inc. to pay reasonable ad-ministrative costs associated with the exchange.

(4) VALUE OF PROPERTIES.—If the appraisedfair market value, as determined by the Sec-retary, of the land conveyed to Holnam Inc. bythe Secretary under paragraph (1) exceeds theappraised fair market value, as determined bythe Secretary, of the land conveyed to theUnited States by Holnam Inc. under paragraph(1), Holnam Inc. shall make a payment equal tothe excess in cash or a cash equivalent to theUnited States.

(b) CANDY LAKE PROJECT, OSAGE COUNTY,OKLAHOMA.—

(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection, the fol-lowing definitions apply:

(A) FAIR MARKET VALUE.—The term ‘‘fair mar-ket value’’ means the amount for which a will-ing buyer would purchase and a willing sellerwould sell a parcel of land, as determined by aqualified, independent land appraiser.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2508 April 29, 1999(B) PREVIOUS OWNER OF LAND.—The term

‘‘previous owner of land’’ means a person (in-cluding a corporation) that conveyed, or a de-scendant of a deceased individual who con-veyed, land to the Corps of Engineers for use inthe Candy Lake project in Osage County, Okla-homa.

(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 tothe land acquired by the United States for theCandy Lake project in Osage County, Okla-homa.

(B) PREVIOUS OWNERS OF LAND.—(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall give a

previous owner of land the first option to pur-chase the land described in subparagraph (A).

(ii) APPLICATION.—(I) IN GENERAL.—A previous owner of land

that desires to purchase the land described insubparagraph (A) that was owned by the pre-vious owner of land, or by the individual fromwhom the previous owner of land is descended,shall file an application to purchase the landwith the Secretary not later than 180 days afterthe official date of notice to the previous ownerof land under paragraph (3).

(II) FIRST TO FILE HAS FIRST OPTION.—If morethan 1 application is filed to purchase a parcelof land described in subparagraph (A), the firstoption to purchase the parcel of land shall bedetermined in the order in which applicationsfor the parcel of land were filed.

(iii) IDENTIFICATION OF PREVIOUS OWNERS OFLAND.—As soon as practicable after the date ofenactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, to theextent practicable, identify each previous ownerof land.

(iv) CONSIDERATION.—Consideration for landconveyed under this paragraph shall be the fairmarket value of the land.

(C) DISPOSAL.—Any land described in sub-paragraph (A) for which an application to pur-chase the land has not been filed under sub-paragraph (B)(ii) within the applicable time pe-riod shall be disposed of in accordance with law.

(D) EXTINGUISHMENT OF EASEMENTS.—Allflowage easements acquired by the United Statesfor use in the Candy Lake project in OsageCounty, 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 laterthan 90 days after identification, by UnitedStates mail; and

(ii) the general public, not later than 90 daysafter the date of enactment of this Act, by publi-cation in the Federal Register.

(B) CONTENTS OF NOTICE.—Notice under thisparagraph shall include—

(i) a copy of this subsection;(ii) information sufficient to separately iden-

tify each parcel of land subject to this sub-section; and

(iii) specification of the fair market value ofeach parcel of land subject to this subsection.

(C) OFFICIAL DATE OF NOTICE.—The officialdate of notice under this paragraph shall be thelater of—

(i) the date on which actual notice is mailed;or

(ii) the date of publication of the notice in theFederal Register.

(c) LAKE HUGO, OKLAHOMA, AREA LAND CON-VEYANCE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable afterthe date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall convey at fair market value to ChoctawCounty Industrial Authority, Oklahoma, theproperty described in paragraph (2).

(2) DESCRIPTION.—The property to be con-veyed under paragraph (1) is—

(A) that portion of land at Lake Hugo, Okla-homa, above elevation 445.2 located in the N1⁄2of the NW1⁄4 of Section 24, R 18 E, T 6 S, and theS1⁄2 of the SW1⁄4 of Section 13, R 18 E, T 6 S

bounded to the south by a line 50 north on thecenterline of Road B of Sawyer Bluff Public UseArea and to the north by the 1⁄2 quarter sectionline forming the south boundary of Wilson PointPublic Use Area; and

(B) a parcel of property at Lake Hugo, Okla-homa, commencing at the NE corner of the SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 of Section 13, R 18 E, T 6 S, 100 feet north,then east approximately 1⁄2 mile to the countyline road between Section 13, R 18 E, T 6 S, andSection 18, R 19 E, T 6 S.

(3) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The conveyancesunder this subsection shall be subject to suchterms and conditions, including payment of rea-sonable administrative costs and compliancewith applicable Federal floodplain managementand flood insurance programs, as the Secretaryconsiders necessary and appropriate to protectthe interests of the United States.

(d) CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY IN MARSHALLCOUNTY, OKLAHOMA.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conveyto the State of Oklahoma all right, title, and in-terest of the United States to real property lo-cated in Marshall County, Oklahoma, and in-cluded in the Lake Texoma (Denison Dam),Oklahoma and Texas, project consisting of ap-proximately 1,580 acres and leased to the Stateof Oklahoma for public park and recreationpurposes.

(2) CONSIDERATION.—Consideration for theconveyance under paragraph (1) shall be thefair market value of the real property, as deter-mined by the Secretary. All costs associatedwith the conveyance under paragraph (1) shallbe paid by the State of Oklahoma.

(3) DESCRIPTION.—The exact acreage and legaldescription of the real property to be conveyedunder paragraph (1) shall be determined by asurvey satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost ofthe survey shall be paid by the State of Okla-homa.

(4) ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE.—Beforemaking the conveyance under paragraph (1),the Secretary shall—

(A) conduct an environmental baseline surveyto determine if there are levels of contaminationfor which the United States would be respon-sible under the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.); and

(B) ensure that the conveyance complies withthe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

(5) OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The con-veyance under paragraph (1) shall be subject tosuch other terms and conditions as the Sec-retary considers necessary and appropriate toprotect the interests of the United States, in-cluding reservation by the United States of aflowage easement over all portions of the realproperty to be conveyed that are at or below ele-vation 645.0 NGVD.

(e) SUMMERFIELD CEMETERY ASSOCIATION,OKLAHOMA, LAND CONVEYANCE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable afterthe date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaryshall transfer to the Summerfield Cemetery As-sociation, Oklahoma, all right, title, and inter-est of the United State in and to the land de-scribed in paragraph (3) for use as a cemetery.

(2) REVERSION.—If the land to be transferredunder this subsection ever cease to be used as anot-for-profit cemetery or for other public pur-poses the land shall revert to the United States.

(3) DESCRIPTION.—The land to be conveyedunder this subsection is the approximately 10acres of land located in Leflore County, Okla-homa, and described as follows:

INDIAN BASIN MERIDIAN

Section 23, Township 5 North, Range 23 East

SW SE SW NWNW NE NW SWN1⁄2 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 Associa-tion, Oklahoma.

(5) OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The con-veyance under this subsection shall be subject tosuch other terms and conditions as the Sec-retary considers necessary and appropriate toprotect 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 aparcel of land consisting of approximately 5acres located at Dexter Lake, Oregon, underlease to the Dexter Sanitary District.

(2) CONSIDERATION.—Land to be conveyedunder this section shall be conveyed withoutconsideration. If the land is no longer held inpublic ownership or no longer used for waste-water treatment purposes, title to the land shallrevert to the Secretary.

(3) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The conveyanceby the United States shall be subject to suchterms and conditions as the Secretary considersappropriate to protect the interests of the UnitedStates.

(4) DESCRIPTION.—The exact acreage and de-scription of the land to be conveyed under para-graph (1) shall be determined by such surveys asthe Secretary considers necessary. The cost ofthe surveys shall be borne by the Dexter Sani-tary District.

(g) RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE,SOUTH CAROLINA.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Upon execution of an agree-ment under paragraph (4) and subject to the re-quirements of this subsection, the Secretaryshall convey, without consideration, to the Stateof South Carolina all right, title, and interest ofthe United States to the lands described in para-graph (2) that are managed, as of the date ofenactment of this Act, by the South CarolinaDepartment of Natural Resources for fish andwildlife mitigation purposes in connection withthe Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, SouthCarolina, 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 ofArmy Lease Number DACW21–1–93–0910 and as-sociated Supplemental Agreements or are des-ignated in red in Exhibit A of Army LicenseNumber DACW21–3–85–1904; except that all des-ignated lands in the license that are below ele-vation 346 feet mean sea level or that are lessthan 300 feet measured horizontally from the topof the power pool are excluded from the convey-ance. Management of the excluded lands shallcontinue in accordance with the terms of ArmyLicense Number DACW21–3–85–1904 until theSecretary and the State enter into an agreementunder paragraph (4).

(B) SURVEY.—The exact acreage and legal de-scription of the lands to be conveyed underparagraph (1) shall be determined by a surveysatisfactory to the Secretary, with the cost ofthe survey to be paid by the State. The Stateshall be responsible for all other costs, includingreal estate transaction and environmental com-pliance costs, associated with the conveyance.

(3) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—(A) MANAGEMENT OF LANDS.—All lands that

are conveyed under paragraph (1) shall be re-tained in public ownership and shall be man-aged in perpetuity for fish and wildlife mitiga-tion purposes in accordance with a plan ap-proved by the Secretary. If the lands are notmanaged for such purposes in accordance withthe plan, title to the lands shall revert to theUnited States. If the lands revert to the UnitedStates under this subparagraph, the Secretaryshall manage the lands for such purposes.

(B) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretarymay require such additional terms and condi-tions in connection with the conveyance as theSecretary considers appropriate to protect theinterests of the United States.

(4) PAYMENTS.—

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2509April 29, 1999(A) AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary is author-

ized to pay to the State of South Carolina notmore than $4,850,000 if the Secretary and theState enter into a binding agreement for theState to manage for fish and wildlife mitigationpurposes, in perpetuity, the lands conveyedunder this subsection and the lands not coveredby the conveyance that are designated in red inExhibit A of Army License Number DACW21–3–85–1904.

(B) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The agreementshall specify the terms and conditions underwhich the payment will be made and the rightsof, and remedies available to, the Federal Gov-ernment to recover all or a portion of the pay-ment in the event the State fails to manage thelands in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary.

(h) CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.—The Sec-retary is authorized to convey the property ofthe Corps of Engineers known as the ‘‘Equip-ment and Storage Yard’’, located on MeetingStreet in Charleston, South Carolina, in as-iscondition for fair-market value with all proceedsfrom the conveyance to be applied by the Corpsof Engineers, Charleston District, to offset aportion of the costs of moving or leasing (orboth) 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 toa portion of the land described in Army LeaseNumber DACW68–1–97–22, consisting of approxi-mately 31 acres, the exact boundaries of whichshall be determined by the Secretary and thePort of Clarkston.

(2) ADDITIONAL LAND.—The Secretary mayconvey to the Port of Clarkston, Washington, atfair market value as determined by the Sec-retary, such additional land located in the vi-cinity of Clarkston, Washington, as the Sec-retary determines to be excess to the needs of theColumbia River Project and appropriate for con-veyance.

(3) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The conveyancesmade under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be sub-ject to such terms and conditions as the Sec-retary determines to be necessary to protect theinterests of the United States, including a re-quirement that the Port of Clarkston pay all ad-ministrative costs associated with the convey-ances (including the cost of land surveys andappraisals and costs associated with compliancewith applicable environmental laws, includingregulations).

(4) USE OF LAND.—The Port of Clarkston shallbe required to pay the fair market value, as de-termined by the Secretary, of any land conveyedpursuant to paragraph (1) that is not retainedin public ownership or is used for other thanpublic park or recreation purposes, except thatthe Secretary shall have a right of reverter to re-claim possession and title to any such land.

(j) LAND CONVEYANCE TO MATEWAN, WESTVIRGINIA.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The United States shall con-vey by quit claim deed to the Town of Matewan,West Virginia, all right, title, and interest of theUnited States in and to four parcels of landdeemed excess by the Secretary of the Army, act-ing through the Chief of the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, to the structural project for floodcontrol constructed by the Corps of Engineersalong the Tug Fork River pursuant to section202 of Public Law 96–367.

(2) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION.—The parcels ofland referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows:

(A) A certain parcel of land in the State ofWest Virginia, Mingo County, Town ofMatewan, and being more particularly boundedand 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 approxi-mate coordinate value of N228,695, E1,662,397, inthe line common to the land designated asU.S.A. Tract No. 834, and the land designatedas U.S.A. Tract No. 837, said point being South

51°52′ East 81.8 feet from an iron pin and capmarked M–12 on the boundary of the MatewanArea Structural Project, on the north right-of-way line of said street, at a corner common todesignated 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 TractNo. 834, and the land of said Tract No. 837.

South 14°37′ West 46 feet to the corner commonto the land of said Tract No. 834, and the landof said Tract No. 837; thence, leaving the landof said Tract No. 837, severing the lands of saidProject.

South 14°37′ West 46 feet.South 68°07′ East 239 feet.North 26°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, con-tinuing to sever the lands of said Project.

South 63°55′ East 206 feet; thence, leaving theright-of-way of said street, continuing to severthe lands of said Project.

South 26°16′ West 63 feet; thence, with a curveto the left having a radius of 70 feet, a delta of33°58′, an arc length of 41 feet, the chord bear-ing.

South 09°17′ West 41 feet; thence, leaving saidcurve, continuing to sever the lands of saidProject.

South 07°42′ East 31 feet to a point on theright-of-way line of the floodwall; thence, withthe right-of-way of said floodwall, continuing tosever the lands of said Project.

South 77°04′ West 71 feet.North 77°10′ West 46 feet.North 67°07′ West 254 feet.North 67°54′ West 507 feet.North 57°49′ West 66 feet to the intersection of

the right-of-way line of said floodwall with thesoutherly right-of-way line of said street;thence, leaving the right-of-way of saidfloodwall and with the southerly right-of-wayof said street, continuing to sever the lands ofsaid Project.

North 83°01′ East 171 feet.North 89°42′ East 74 feet.South 83°39′ East 168 feet.South 83°38′ East 41 feet.South 77°26′ East 28 feet to the point of begin-

ning, containing 2.59 acres, more or less. Thebearings and coordinate used herein are ref-erenced to the West Virginia State Plane Coordi-nate System, South Zone.

(B) A certain parcel of land in the State ofWest Virginia, Mingo County, Town ofMatewan, and being more particularly boundedand described as follows:

Beginning at an iron pin and cap designatedCorner No. M2–2 on the southerly right-of-wayline of the Norfolk and Western Railroad, hav-ing an approximate coordinate value of N228,755E1,661,242, and being at the intersection of theright-of-way line of the floodwall with theboundary of the Matewan Area StructuralProject; thence, leaving the right-of-way of saidfloodwall and with said Project boundary, andthe southerly right-of-way of said Railroad.

North 59°45′ East 34 feet.North 69°50′ East 44 feet.North 58°11′ East 79 feet.North 66°13′ East 102 feet.North 69°43′ East 98 feet.North 77°39′ East 18 feet.North 72°39′ East 13 feet to a point at the

intersection of said Project boundary, and thesoutherly right-of-way of said Railroad, withthe westerly right-of-way line of State Route 49/10; thence, leaving said Project boundary, andthe southerly right-of-way of said Railroad, andwith the westerly right-of-way of said road.

South 03°21′ East 100 feet to a point at theintersection of the westerly right-of-way of saidroad 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°30′ West 69 feet.South 78°28′ West 222 feet.South 80°11′ West 65 feet.

North 38°40′ West 14 feet to the point of begin-ning, containing 0.53 acre, more or less. Thebearings and coordinate used herein are ref-erenced to the West Virginia State Plane Coordi-nate System, South Zone.

(C) A certain parcel of land in the State ofWest Virginia, Mingo County, Town ofMatewan, and being more particularly boundedand described as follows:

Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of the Norfolk and Western Rail-road, having an approximate coordinate valueof N228,936 E1,661,672, and being at the intersec-tion of the easterly right-of-way line of StateRoute 49/10 with the boundary of the MatewanArea Structural Project; thence, leaving theright-of-way of said road, and with said Projectboundary, and the southerly right-of-way ofsaid Railroad.

North 77°49′ East 89 feet to an iron pin andcap designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M–4.

North 79°30′ East 74 feet to an iron pin andcap designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M–5–1;thence, leaving the southerly right-of-way ofsaid Railroad, and continuing with the bound-ary of said Project.

South 06°33′ East 102 to an iron pipe and capdesignated U.S.A. Corner No. M–6–1 on thenortherly 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, severingthe lands of said Project.

North 80°59′ West 171 feet to a point at theintersection of the Northerly right-of-way line ofsaid State Route 49/28 with the easterly right-of-way line of said State Route 49/10; thence, leav-ing the right-of-way of said State Route 49/28and with the right-of-way of said State Route49/10.

North 03°21′ West 42 feet to the point of begin-ning, containing 0.27 acre, more or less. Thebearings and coordinate used herein are ref-erenced to the West Virginia State Plane Coordi-nate System, South Zone.

(D) A certain parcel of land in the State ofWest Virginia, Mingo County, Town ofMatewan, and being more particularly boundedand described as follows:

Beginning at a point at the intersection of theeasterly right-of-way line of State Route 49/10with the right-of-way line of the floodwall, hav-ing an approximate coordinate value of N228,826E1,661,679; thence, leaving the right-of-way ofsaid floodwall, and with the right-of-way ofsaid State Route 49/10.

North 03°21′ West 23 feet to a point at theintersection of the easterly right-of-way line ofsaid State Route 49/10 with the southerly right-of-way line of State Route 49/28; thence, leavingthe right-of-way of said State Route 49/10 andwith the right-of-way of said State Route 49/28.

South 80°59′ East 168 feet.North 82°28′ East 45 feet to an iron pin and

cap designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M–8–1 onthe boundary of the Western Area StructuralProject; thence, leaving the right-of-way of saidState Route 49/28, and with said Project bound-ary.

South 08°28′ East 88 feet to an iron pin andcap designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M–9–1point on the northerly right-of-way line of astreet (known as McCoy Alley); thence, leavingsaid Project boundary and with the northerlyright-of-way of said street.

South 83°01′ West 38 feet to a point on theright-of-way line of said floodwall; thence, leav-ing the right-of-way of said street, and with theright-of-way of said floodwall.

North 57°49′ West 180 feet.South 79°30′ West 34 feet to a point of begin-

ning, containing 0.24 acre, more or less. Thebearings and coordinate used herein are ref-erenced to the West Virginia State Plane Coordi-nate System, South Zone.SEC. 578. NAMINGS.

(a) FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH, ARKAN-SAS.—

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2510 April 29, 1999(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 alaw, map, regulation, document, paper, or otherrecord of the United States to the creek referredto in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be a ref-erence to the ‘‘Francis Bland Floodway Ditch’’.

(b) LAWRENCE BLACKWELL MEMORIAL BRIDGE,ARKANSAS.—

(1) DESIGNATION.—The bridge over lock anddam numbered 4 on the Arkansas River, Arkan-sas, constructed as part of the project for navi-gation on the Arkansas River and tributaries,shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Law-rence Blackwell Memorial Bridge’’.

(2) LEGAL REFERENCE.—Any reference in alaw, map, regulation, document, paper, or otherrecord of the United States to the bridge referredto in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be a ref-erence to the ‘‘Lawrence Blackwell MemorialBridge’’.SEC. 579. FOLSOM DAM AND RESERVOIR ADDI-

TIONAL STORAGE AND ADDITIONALFLOOD CONTROL STUDIES.

(a) FOLSOM FLOOD CONTROL STUDIES.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consulta-

tion with the State of California and local waterresources agencies, shall undertake a study ofincreasing surcharge flood control storage at theFolsom Dam and Reservoir.

(2) LIMITATIONS.—The study of the FolsomDam and Reservoir undertaken under para-graph (1) shall assume that there is to be no in-crease in conservation storage at the FolsomReservoir.

(3) REPORT.—Not later than March 1, 2000,the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a reporton the results of the study under this sub-section.

(b) AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERSFLOOD CONTROL STUDY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall under-take a study of all levees on the American Riverand on the Sacramento River downstream andimmediately upstream of the confluence of suchRivers to access opportunities to increase poten-tial flood protection through levee modifica-tions.

(2) DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION.—Not laterthan March 1, 2000, the Secretary shall transmitto Congress a report on the results of the studyundertaken under this subsection.SEC. 580. WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA.

(a) EMERGENCY ACTION.—The Secretary shalltake emergency action to protect Wallops Is-land, Virginia, from damaging coastal storms,by improving and extending the existing sea-wall, replenishing and renourishing the beach,and constructing protective dunes.

(b) REIMBURSEMENT.—The Secretary shallseek reimbursement from other Federal agencieswhose resources are protected by the emergencyaction taken under subsection (a).

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carryout this section $8,000,000.SEC. 581. DETROIT RIVER, DETROIT, MICHIGAN.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorizedto repair and rehabilitate the seawalls on theDetroit River in Detroit, Michigan.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscalyears beginning after September 30, 1999,$1,000,000 to carry out this section.

The CHAIRMAN. No amendmentshall be in order except those printedin part 2 of that report. Each amend-ment may be offered only in the orderspecified, may be offered only by aMember designated in the report, shallbe considered read, debatable for thetime specified in the report, equally di-vided and controlled by the proponentand an opponent, shall not be subjectto amendment, and shall not be subject

to a demand for division of the ques-tion.

The Chairman of the Committee ofthe Whole may postpone a request for arecorded vote on any amendment andmay reduce to a minimum of 5 minutesthe time for voting on any postponedquestion that immediately follows an-other vote, provided that the time forvoting on the first question shall be aminimum of 15 minutes.

It is now in order to consider amend-ment No. 1 printed in part 2 of HouseReport 106–120.

AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, Ioffer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des-ignate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as fol-lows:

Amendment No. 1 printed in part 2 ofHouse Report 106–120 offered by Mr. SHUSTER:

In section 101(a)(6) of the bill, strike ‘‘at atotal cost of’’ and all that follows and insertthe following:

at a total cost of $140,328,000, with an esti-mated Federal cost of $70,164,000 and an esti-mated non-Federal cost of $70,164,000.

In section 101(a)(8) of the bill, strike allafter ‘‘$3,375,000’’ and insert a period.

In section 101(a)(9) of the bill, strike allafter ‘‘$2,675,000’’ and insert a period.

In section 101(a)(10) of the bill, strike allafter ‘‘$773,000’’ and insert a period.

In section 101(a)(18) of the bill, strike allafter ‘‘$3,834,000’’ and insert a period.

In section 101(a)(19) of the bill, strike allafter ‘‘$19,776,000’’ and insert a period.

In section 101(a) of the bill, after paragraph(4) insert the following:

(5) OAKLAND HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.—Theproject for navigation, Oakland Harbor, Cali-fornia: Report of the Chief of Engineersdated April 21, 1999, at a total cost of$252,290,000, with an estimated Federal costof $128,081,000 and an estimated non-Federalcost of $124,209,000.

In section 101(a) of the bill, after paragraph(10) insert the following:

(11) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DELAWAREAND NEW JERSEY-VILLAS AND VICINITY, NEWJERSEY.—The project for shore protectionand ecosystem restoration, Delaware Baycoastline, Delaware and New Jersey-Villasand vicinity, New Jersey: Report of the Chiefof Engineers dated April 21, 1999, at a totalcost of $7,520,000, with an estimated Federalcost of $4,888,000 and an estimated non-Fed-eral cost of $2,632,000.

(12) DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HENELOPENTO FENWICK ISLAND, BETHANY BEACH/SOUTHBETHANY BEACH, DELAWARE.—The project forhurricane and storm damage reduction,Delaware Coast from Cape Henelopen toFenwick Island, Bethany Beach/South Beth-any Beach, Delaware: Report of the Chief ofEngineers dated April 21, 1999, at a total costof $22,205,000, with an estimated Federal costof $14,433,000 and an estimated non-Federalcost of $7,772,000.

In section 101(a) of the bill, insert afterparagraph (17) the following (and redesignateparagraphs accordingly):

(18) TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MIS-SOURI, AND KANSAS CITY, KANSAS.—Theproject for flood damage reduction, TurkeyCreek Basin, Kansas City, Missouri, andKansas City, Kansas: Report of the Chief ofEngineers dated April 21, 1999, at a total costof $42,875,000, with an estimated Federal costof $25,596,000 and an estimated non-Federalcost of $17,279,000.

In section 101(b)(7) of the bill, strike allafter ‘‘$7,772,000’’ and insert a period.

In section 101(b)(12) of the bill, strike allafter ‘‘$1,740,000’’ and insert a period.

In section 101(b) of the bill, strike para-graph (4) and insert the following:

(4) DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DELAWAREAND NEW JERSEY: OAKWOOD BEACH, NEW JER-SEY.—The project for shore protection, Dela-ware Bay Coastline, Delaware and New Jer-sey: Oakwood Beach, New Jersey, at a totalcost of $3,360,000, with an estimated Federalcost of $2,184,000 and an estimated non-Fed-eral cost of $1,176,000.

In section 101(b) of the bill, strike para-graphs (6) and (7) and redesignate accord-ingly.

At the end of section 104 of the bill, insertthe following:

(18) FAIRPORT HARBOR, OHIO.—Project fornavigation, Fairport Harbor, Ohio, includinga recreation channel.

At the end of title II of the bill, insert thefollowing:SEC. 229. WETLANDS MITIGATION.

In carrying out a water resources projectthat involves wetlands mitigation and thathas an impact that occurs within the servicearea of a mitigation bank, the Secretary, tothe maximum extent practicable and whereappropriate, shall give preference to the useof the mitigation bank if the bank containssufficient available credits to offset the im-pact and the bank is approved in accordancewith the Federal Guidance for the Establish-ment, Use and Operation of MitigationBanks (60 Fed. Reg. 58605 (November 28, 1995))or other applicable Federal law (includingregulations).

Conform the table of contents of the billaccordingly.

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 con-trol’’;

(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 APPRO-

PRIATIONS.—’’ before ‘‘Section’’; and(2) add at the end the following:(b) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Sec-

tion 313(g) of such Act (106 Stat. 4846) isamended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(4) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—10 per-cent of the amounts appropriated to carryout this section for each of fiscal years 2000through 2002 may be used by the Corps of En-gineers district offices to administer and im-plement projects under this section at 100percent Federal expense.’’.

Strike section 354 of the bill and insert thefollowing:SEC. 354. CLEAR CREEK, TEXAS.

Section 575 of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3789) isamended—

(1) in subsection (a)—(A) by inserting ‘‘or nonstructural

(buyout) actions’’ after ‘‘flood control worksconstructed’’; 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 para-

graph (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 ofthe Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742).’’.

In section 356 of the bill, strike ‘‘modi-fied—’’ and all that follows and insert thefollowing:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2511April 29, 1999modified to add environmental restorationand recreation as project purposes.

In section 363(d) of the bill, strike ‘‘(1) INGENERAL.—’’.

In section 363(d) of the bill, strike para-graph (2).

In section 364(a) of the bill, after paragraph(5) insert the following (and redesignateparagraph (6) as paragraph (7)):

(6) CARVERS HARBOR, VINALHAVEN, MAINE.—That portion of the project for navigation,Carvers Harbor, Vinalhaven, Maine, author-ized by the Act of June 3, 1896 (commonlyknown as the ‘‘River and Harbor Appropria-tions Act of 1896’’) (29 Stat. 202, chapter 314),consisting of the 16-foot anchorage beginningat a point with coordinates N137,502.04,E895,156.83, thence running south 6 degrees 34minutes 57.6 seconds west 277.660 feet to apoint N137,226.21, E895,125.00, thence runningnorth 53 degrees, 5 minutes 42.4 seconds west127.746 feet to a point N137,302.92, E895022.85,thence running north 33 degrees 56 minutes9.8 seconds east 239.999 feet to the point of or-igin.

In section 364(a) of the bill, after paragraph(7), (as so redesignated) insert the following(redesignate subsequent paragraphs accord-ingly):

(8) SEARSPORT HARBOR, SEARSPORT,MAINE.—That portion of the project for navi-gation, Searsport Harbor, Searsport, Maine,authorized by section 101 of the River andHarbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173), consistingof the 35-foot turning basin beginning at apoint with coordinates N225,008.38,E395,464.26, thence running north 43 degrees49 minutes 53.4 seconds east 362.001 feet to apoint N225,269.52, E395,714.96, thence runningsouth 71 degrees 27 minutes 33.0 seconds east1,309.201 feet to a point N224,853.22,E396,956.21, thence running north 84 degrees 3minutes 45.7 seconds west 1,499.997 feet to thepoint 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 theWells Harbor, Maine, navigation project re-ferred to in subsection (a)(9), the Secretaryshall undertake each of the actions of theCorps of Engineers specified in section IV(B)of the memorandum of agreement relating tothe project dated January 20, 1998, includingthose actions specified in such section IV(B)that the parties agreed to ask the Corps ofEngineers 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 thefollowing (and conform the table of contentsof the bill accordingly):SEC. 367. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA PILOT PRO-

GRAM.Section 340(g) of the Water Resources De-

velopment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) isamended to read as follows:

‘‘(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated tocarry out the pilot program under this sec-tion $40,000,000 for fiscal years beginningafter September 30, 1992. Such sums shall re-main available until expended.’’.SEC. 368. BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIV-

ERS, JACKSON, ALABAMA.The project for navigation, Black Warrior

and Tombigbee Rivers, vicinity of Jackson,Alabama, as authorized by section 106 of theEnergy and Water Development Appropria-tions Act, 1987 (100 Stat. 3341–199), is modi-fied to authorize the Secretary to acquirelands for mitigation of the habitat losses at-tributable to the project, including the navi-

gation channel, dredged material disposalareas, and other areas directly impacted byconstruction of the project. Notwithstandingsection 906 of the Water Resources Develop-ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283), the Sec-retary may construct the project prior to ac-quisition of the mitigation lands if the Sec-retary takes such actions as may be nec-essary to ensure that any required mitiga-tion lands will be acquired not later than 2years after initiation of construction of thenew channel and such acquisition will fullymitigate any adverse environmental impactsresulting 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 WaterResources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.4803), incurred by the non-Federal interest toaccelerate or modify construction of theproject, in cooperation with the Corps of En-gineers, shall be considered to be eligible forreimbursement by the Secretary.SEC. 370. COMITE RIVER, LOUISIANA.

The Comite River Diversion Project forflood control, authorized as part of theproject for flood control, Amite River andTributaries, Louisiana, by section 101(11) ofthe Water Resources Development Act of1992 (106 Stat. 4802–4803) and modified by sec-tion 301(b)(5) of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3709–3710), isfurther modified to authorize the Secretaryto include the costs of highway relocationsto be cost shared as a project constructionfeature if the Secretary determines thatsuch treatment of costs is necessary to fa-cilitate construction of the project.SEC. 371. ST. MARY’S RIVER, MICHIGAN.

The project for navigation, St. Mary’sRiver, Michigan, is modified to direct theSecretary to provide an additional foot ofoverdraft between Point Louise Turn and theLocks and Sault Saint Marie, Michigan, con-sistent with the channels upstream of PointLouise Turn. The modification shall be car-ried out as operation and maintenance to im-prove navigation safety.

At the end of section 408 of the bill, add thefollowing:

(c) CONSULTATION AND USE OF EXISTINGDATA.—The Secretary shall consult with ap-propriate State and Federal agencies andshall make maximum use of existing dataand ongoing programs and efforts of Statesand Federal agencies in conducting thestudy.

In section 425(a) of the bill, strike ‘‘Suchstudy’’ 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 thefollowing (and conform the table of contentsof the bill accordingly):SEC. 428. DEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary shall undertake and com-plete a feasibility study for designating apermanent disposal site for dredged mate-rials from Federal navigation projects in DelNorte County, California.SEC. 429. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR,

MICHIGAN.(a) PLAN.—The Secretary, in coordination

with State and local governments and appro-priate Federal and provincial authorities ofCanada, shall develop a comprehensive man-agement plan for St. Clair River and LakeSt. Clair. Such plan shall include the fol-lowing elements:

(1) The causes and sources of environ-mental degradation.

(2) Continuous monitoring of organic, bio-logical, metallic, and chemical contamina-tion levels.

(3) Timely dissemination of information ofsuch contamination levels to public authori-ties, other interested parties, and the public.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year afterthe date of enactment of this Act, the Sec-retary shall transmit to Congress a reportthat includes the plan developed under sub-section (a), together with recommendationsof potential restoration measures.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated tocarry out this section $400,000.

SEC. 430. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, TENNESSEE.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to de-termine the feasibility of improvements toregional water supplies for CumberlandCounty, Tennessee.

In the matter proposed to be inserted insection 219(e) of the Water Resources Devel-opment Act of 1992 by section 502 of the bill,strike ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (7) andall that follows through paragraph (8) and in-sert the following:

‘‘(8) $30,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(17);

‘‘(9) $20,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(19);

‘‘(10) $15,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(20);

‘‘(11) $11,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(21);

‘‘(12) $2,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(22);

‘‘(13) $3,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(23);

‘‘(14) $1,500,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(24);

‘‘(15) $2,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(25);

‘‘(16) $8,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(26);

‘‘(17) $8,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(27), of which $3,000,000 shall beavailable only for providing assistance forthe Montoursville Regional Sewer Author-ity, Lycoming County;

‘‘(18) $10,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(28); and

‘‘(19) $1,000,000 for the project described insubsection (c)(29).’’.

At the end of section 517 of the bill, insertthe following:

(c) NASHUA, NEW HAMPSHIRE.—Section219(c) of such Act is amended by adding atthe end the following:

‘‘(19) NASHUA, NEW HAMPSHIRE.—A sewerand drainage system separation andrehabiliation program for Nashua, NewHampshire.’’.

(d) FALL RIVER AND NEW BEDFORD, MASSA-CHUSETTS.—Section 219(c) of such Act is fur-ther amended by adding at the end the fol-lowing:

‘‘(20) FALL RIVER AND NEW BEDFORD, MASSA-CHUSETTS.—Elimination or control of com-bined sewer overflows in the cities of FallRiver and New Bedford, Massachusetts.’’.

(e) ADDITIONAL PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS.—Section 219(c) of such Act is further amendedby adding at the end the following:

‘‘(21) FINDLAY TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—Water and sewer lines in Findlay Township,Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

‘‘(22) DILLSBURG BOROUGH AUTHORITY, PENN-SYLVANIA.—Water and sewer systems inFranklin Township, York County, Pennsyl-vania.

‘‘(23) HAMPTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—Water, sewer, and stormsewer improvementsin Hampton Township, Cumberland County,Pennsylvania.

‘‘(24) TOWAMENCIN TOWNSHIP, PENNSYL-VANIA.—Sanitary sewer and water lines inTowamencin Township, Montgomery Coun-ty, Pennsylvania.

‘‘(25) DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Combined sewer and water system rehabili-tation for the City of Harrisburg, DauphinCounty, Pennsylvania.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2512 April 29, 1999‘‘(26) LEE, NORTON, WISE, AND SCOTT COUN-

TIES, VIRGINIA.—Water supply and waste-water treatment in Lee, Norton, Wise, andScott Counties, Virginia.

‘‘(27) NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA.—Water-re-lated infrastructure in Lackawanna,Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike,and Monroe Counties, Pennsylvania, includ-ing assistance for the Montoursville Re-gional Sewer Authority, Lycoming County.

‘‘(28) CALUMET REGION, INDIANA.—Water-re-lated infrastructure in Lake and PorterCounties, Indiana.

‘‘(29) CLINTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Water-related infrastructure in ClintonCounty, Pennsylvania.’’.

At the end of section 518 of the bill, insertthe following:

(4) Columbia Slough, Portland, Oregon,project for ecosystem restoration.

(5) Ohio River Greenway, Indiana, projectfor environmental restoration and recre-ation.

In section 523(b) of the bill, strike ‘‘theSecretary shall’’ and insert ‘‘the Secretarymay’’.

After section 573 of the bill, insert the fol-lowing:SEC. 574. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOU-

ISIANA.The Secretary shall expedite completion of

the report for the West Baton Rouge Parish,Louisiana, project for waterfront andriverine preservation, restoration, and en-hancement modifications along the Mis-sissippi River.

Conform the table of contents of the billaccordingly.

At the end of section 578 of the bill, add thefollowing:

(k) MERRISACH LAKE, ARKANSAS COUNTY,ARKANSAS.—

(1) LAND CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstandingany other provision of law, the Secretaryshall convey to eligible private propertyowners at fair market value, as determinedby the Secretary, all right, title, and inter-est of the United States in and to certainlands acquired for Navigation Pool No. 2,McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River NavigationSystem, Merrisach Lake Project, ArkansasCounty, Arkansas.

(2) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION.—The lands tobe conveyed under paragraph (1) includethose lands lying between elevation 163, Na-tional Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, andthe Federal Government boundary line forTract 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, andthe SE1⁄4 of Section 36, Township 7 South,Range 3 West, Fifth Principal Meridian, withthe exception of any land designated for pub-lic park purposes.

(3) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Any lands con-veyed under paragraph (1) shall be subjectto—

(A) a perpetual flowage easement prohib-iting human habitation and restricting con-struction activities;

(B) the reservation of timber rights by theUnited States; and

(C) such additional terms and conditions asthe Secretary considers appropriate to pro-tect the interests of the United States.

(4) ELIGIBLE PROPERTY OWNER DEFINED.—Inthis subsection, the term ‘‘eligible privateproperty owner’’ means the owner of recordof land contiguous to lands owned by theUnited States in connection with the projectreferred to in paragraph (1).

In section 583(b) of the bill, strike ‘‘TheSecretary shall’’ and insert ‘‘The Secretarymay’’.

At the end of title V of the bill, add the fol-lowing (and conform the table of contents ofthe bill accordingly):

SEC. 585. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA.(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Sec-

retary may establish a pilot program for pro-viding environmental assistance to non-Fed-eral interests in northeastern Minnesota.

(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance underthis section may be in the form of design andconstruction assistance for water-related en-vironmental infrastructure and resource pro-tection and development projects in north-eastern Minnesota, including projects forwastewater treatment and related facilities,water supply and related facilities, environ-mental restoration, and surface water re-source protection and development.

(c) PUBLIC OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—TheSecretary may provide assistance for aproject under this section only if the projectis publicly owned.

(d) LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assist-

ance under this section, the Secretary shallenter into a local cooperation agreementwith a non-Federal interest to provide for de-sign and construction of the project to becarried out with the assistance.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each local cooperationagreement entered into under this sub-section shall provide for the following:

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary,in consultation with appropriate Federal andState officials, of a facilities or resource pro-tection and development plan, including ap-propriate engineering plans and specifica-tions.

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUC-TURES.—Establishment of such legal and in-stitutional structures as are necessary to en-sure the effective long-term operation of theproject by the non-Federal interest.

(3) COST SHARING.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of

project costs under each local cooperationagreement entered into under this sub-section shall be 75 percent. The Federalshare may be in the form of grants or reim-bursements of project costs.

(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for thereasonable costs of design work completedby the non-Federal interest prior to enteringinto a local cooperation agreement with theSecretary for a project. The credit for the de-sign work shall not exceed 6 percent of thetotal construction costs of the project.

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In the event of adelay in the funding of the non-Federal shareof a project that is the subject of an agree-ment under this section, the non-Federal in-terest shall receive credit for reasonable in-terest incurred in providing the non-Federalshare of a project’s cost.

(D) LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAYCREDIT.—The non-Federal interest shall re-ceive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward its share ofproject costs (including all reasonable costsassociated with obtaining permits necessaryfor the construction, operation, and mainte-nance of the project on publicly owned orcontrolled land), but not to exceed 25 percentof total project costs.

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—Thenon-Federal share of operation and mainte-nance costs for projects constructed with as-sistance provided under this section shall be100 percent.

(e) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL ANDSTATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section shallbe construed as waiving, limiting, or other-wise affecting the applicability of any provi-sion of Federal or State law that would oth-erwise apply to a project to be carried outwith assistance provided under this section.

(f) REPORT.—Not later than December 31,2001, the Secretary shall transmit to Con-gress a report on the results of the pilot pro-gram carried out under this section, together

with recommendations concerning whetheror not such program should be implementedon a national basis.

(g) NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA DEFINED.—Inthis section, the term ‘‘northeastern Min-nesota’’ means the counties of Cook, Lake,St. Louis, Koochiching, Itasca, Cass, CrowWing, Aitkin, Carlton, Pine, Kanabec, MilleLacs, Morrison, Benton, Sherburne, Isanti,and Chisago, Minnesota.

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated tocarry out this section $40,000,000 for fiscalyears beginning after September 30, 1999.Such sums shall remain available until ex-pended.SEC. 586. ALASKA.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Sec-retary may establish a pilot program for pro-viding environmental assistance to non-Fed-eral interests in Alaska.

(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance underthis section may be in the form of design andconstruction assistance for water-related en-vironmental infrastructure and resource pro-tection and development projects in Alaska,including projects for wastewater treatmentand related facilities, water supply and re-lated facilities, and surface water resourceprotection and development.

(c) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENTS.—The Sec-retary may provide assistance for a projectunder this section only if the project is pub-licly owned or is owned by a native corpora-tion as defined by section 1602 of title 43,United States Code.

(d) LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assist-

ance under this section, the Secretary shallenter into a local cooperation agreementwith a non-Federal interest to provide for de-sign and construction of the project to becarried out with the assistance.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each local cooperationagreement entered into under this sub-section shall provide for the following:

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary,in consultation with appropriate Federal andState officials, of a facilities or resource pro-tection and development plan, including ap-propriate engineering plans and specifica-tions.

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUC-TURES.—Establishment of such legal and in-stitutional structures as are necessary to en-sure the effective long-term operation of theproject by the non-Federal interest.

(3) COST SHARING.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the

project costs under each local cooperationagreement entered into under this sub-section shall be 75 percent. The Federalshare may be in the form of grants or reim-bursements of project costs.

(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for thereasonable costs of design work completedby the non-Federal interest prior to enteringinto a local cooperation agreement with theSecretary for a project. The credit for the de-sign work shall not exceed 6 percent of thetotal construction costs of the project.

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In the event of adelay in the funding of the non-Federal shareof a project that is the subject of an agree-ment under this section, the non-Federal in-terest shall receive credit for reasonable in-terest incurred in providing the non-Federalshare of a project’s cost.

(D) LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAYCREDIT.—The non-Federal interest shall re-ceive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward its share ofproject costs (including all reasonable costsassociated with obtaining permits necessaryfor the construction, operation, and mainte-nance of the project on publicly owned or

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2513April 29, 1999controlled land), but not to exceed 25 percentof total project costs.

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—Thenon-Federal share of operation and mainte-nance costs for projects constructed with as-sistance provided under this section shall be100 percent.

(e) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL ANDSTATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section shallbe construed as waiving, limiting, or other-wise affecting the applicability of any provi-sion of Federal or State law that would oth-erwise apply to a project to be carried outwith assistance provided under this section.

(f) REPORT.—Not later than December 31,2001, the Secretary shall transmit to Con-gress a report on the results of the pilot pro-gram carried out under this section, togetherwith recommendations concerning whetheror not such program should be implementedon a national basis.

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated tocarry out this section $25,000,000 for fiscalyears beginning after September 30, 1999.Such sums shall remain available until ex-pended.SEC. 587. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Sec-retary may establish a pilot program for pro-viding environmental assistance to non-Fed-eral interests in central West Virginia.

(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance underthis section may be in the form of design andconstruction assistance for water-related en-vironmental infrastructure and resource pro-tection and development projects in centralWest Virginia, including projects for waste-water treatment and related facilities, watersupply and related facilities, and surfacewater resource protection and development.

(c) PUBLIC OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—TheSecretary may provide assistance for aproject under this section only if the projectis publicly owned.

(d) LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assist-

ance under this section, the Secretary shallenter into a local cooperation agreementwith a non-Federal interest to provide for de-sign and construction of the project to becarried out with the assistance.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each local cooperationagreement entered into under this sub-section shall provide for the following:

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary,in consultation with appropriate Federal andState officials, of a facilities or resource pro-tection and development plan, including ap-propriate engineering plans and specifica-tions.

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUC-TURES.—Establishment of such legal and in-stitutional structures as are necessary to en-sure the effective long-term operation of theproject by the non-Federal interest.

(3) COST SHARING.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the

project costs under each local cooperationagreement entered into under this sub-section shall be 75 percent. The Federalshare may be in the form of grants or reim-bursements of project costs.

(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for thereasonable costs of design work completedby the non-Federal interest prior to enteringinto a local cooperation agreement with theSecretary for a project. The credit for the de-sign work shall not exceed 6 percent of thetotal construction costs of the project.

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In the event of adelay in the funding of the non-Federal shareof a project that is the subject of an agree-ment under this section, the non-Federal in-terest shall receive credit for reasonable in-terest incurred in providing the non-Federalshare of a project’s cost.

(D) LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAYCREDIT.—The non-Federal interest shall re-ceive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward its share ofproject costs (including all reasonable costsassociated with obtaining permits necessaryfor the construction, operation, and mainte-nance of the project on publicly owned orcontrolled land), but not to exceed 25 percentof total project costs.

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—Thenon-Federal share of operation and mainte-nance costs for projects constructed with as-sistance provided under this section shall be100 percent.

(e) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL ANDSTATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section shallbe construed as waiving, limiting, or other-wise affecting the applicability of any provi-sion of Federal or State law that would oth-erwise apply to a project to be carried outwith assistance provided under this section.

(f) REPORT.—Not later than December 31,2001, the Secretary shall transmit to Con-gress a report on the results of the pilot pro-gram carried out under this section, togetherwith recommendations concerning whetheror not such program should be implementedon a national basis.

(g) CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA DEFINED.—Inthis section, the term ‘‘central West Vir-ginia’’ means the counties of Mason, Jack-son, Putnam, Kanawha, Roane, Wirt, Cal-houn, 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 tocarry out this section $10,000,000 for fiscalyears beginning after September 30, 1999.Such sums shall remain available until ex-pended.SEC. 588. SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AREA

WATERSHED RESTORATION, CALI-FORNIA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is author-ized to undertake environmental restorationactivities included in the Sacramento Metro-politan Water Authority’s ‘‘Watershed Man-agement Plan’’. These activities shall belimited to cleanup of contaminated ground-water resulting directly from the acts of anyFederal agency or Department of the Federalgovernment at or in the vicinity of McClel-lan Air Force Base, California; Mather AirForce Base, California; Sacramento ArmyDepot, California; or any location within thewatershed where the Federal governmentwould be a responsible party under any Fed-eral environmental law.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated tocarry out this section $5,000,000 for fiscalyears beginning after September 30, 1999.SEC. 589. ONONDAGA LAKE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is author-ized to plan, design, and construct projectsfor the environmental restoration, conserva-tion, and management of Onondaga Lake,New York, and to provide, in coordinationwith the Administrator of the Environ-mental Protection Agency, financial assist-ance to the State of New York and politicalsubdivisions thereof for the development andimplementation of projects to restore, con-serve, and manage Onondaga Lake.

(b) PARTNERSHIP.—In carrying out this sec-tion, the Secretary shall establish a partner-ship with appropriate Federal agencies (in-cluding the Environmental Protection Agen-cy) and the State of New York and politicalsubdivisions thereof for the purpose ofproject development and implementation.Such partnership shall be dissolved not laterthan 15 years after the date of enactment ofthis Act.

(c) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal shareof the cost of a project constructed undersubsection (a) shall be not less than 30 per-cent of the total cost of the project and maybe provided through in-kind services.

(d) EFFECT ON LIABILITY.—Financial assist-ance provided under this section shall not re-lieve from liability any person who wouldotherwise be liable under Federal or Statelaw for damages, response costs, natural re-source damages, restitution, equitable relief,or any other relief.

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated$10,000,000 to carry out the purposes of thissection.SEC. 590. EAST LYNN LAKE, WEST VIRGINIA.

The Secretary shall defer any decision re-lating to the leasing of mineral resources un-derlying East Lynn Lake, West Virginia,project lands to the Federal entity vestedwith such leasing authority.SEC. 591. EEL RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to de-termine if flooding in the city of Ferndale,California, is the result of a Federal floodcontrol project on the Eel River. If the Sec-retary determines that the flooding is the re-sult of the project, the Secretary shall takeappropriate measures (including dredging ofthe Salt River and construction of sedimentponds at the confluence of Francis, Reas, andWilliams Creeks) to mitigate the flooding.SEC. 592. NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall re-view a report prepared by the non-Federalinterest concerning flood protection for theDark Hollow area of North Little Rock, Ar-kansas. If the Secretary determines that thereport meets the evaluation and designstandards of the Corps of Engineers and thatthe project is economically justified, tech-nically sound, and environmentally accept-able, the Secretary shall carry out theproject.

(b) TREATMENT OF DESIGN AND PLAN PREPA-RATION COSTS.—The costs of design and prep-aration of plans and specifications shall beincluded as project costs and paid duringconstruction.SEC. 593. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSISSIPPI

PLACE, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA.(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may enter

into a cooperative agreement to participatein a project for the planning, design, andconstruction of infrastructure and other im-provements 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. TheFederal share may be provided in the form ofgrants or reimbursements of project costs.

(2) CREDIT FOR NON-FEDERAL WORK.—Thenon-Federal interest shall receive credit to-ward the non-Federal share of the cost of theproject for reasonable costs incurred by thenon-Federal interests as a result of partici-pation in the planning, design, and construc-tion of the project.

(3) LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAYCREDIT.—The non-Federal interest shall re-ceive credit toward the non-Federal share ofthe cost of the project for land, easements,rights-of-way, and relocations provided bythe non-Federal interest with respect to theproject.

(4) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of operation and maintenancecosts 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 OFFEREDBY MR. SHUSTER

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, Iask unanimous consent that the man-ager’s amendment be modified with the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2514 April 29, 1999modification I have placed at the desk.My modification would correct a tech-nical mistake in the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-port the modification.

The Clerk read as follows:Modification of amendment No. 1 printed

in part 2 of House Report 106–120 offered byMr. SHUSTER:

On page 1, after line 3, strike the next fivesentences.

On page 2, line 22, strike the period and addat the end ‘‘, and at an estimated average an-nual cost of $1,584,000 for periodic nourish-ment over the 50-year life of the project,with an estimated annual Federal cost of$1,030,000 and an estimated annual non-Fed-eral cost of $554,000.’’

On page 3, after line 8, strike the next twosentences.

On page 5, after ‘‘$6,129,000’’.’’ and beforethe next sentence, insert the following:

‘‘In section 314 of the bill, strike ‘‘(AmeliafIsland)’’ and insert ‘‘(Amelia Island)’’.

On page 7, strike the first two sentences.On page 32, after line 14, insert the fol-

lowing:(f) REPEAL.—Section 401 of the Great Lakes

Critical Programs Act of 1990 (104 Stat 3010)and section 411 of the Water Resources De-velopment Act of 1990 (104 Stat 4648) are re-pealed as of the date of the enactment of thisAct.

At the end of title III of the bill, add thefollowing new section:SEC. 367. CITY OF CHARLEVOIX REIMBURSE-

MENT, MICHIGAN.The Secretary shall review and, if con-

sistent with authorized project purposes, re-imburse the city of Charlevoix, Michigan, forthe Federal share of costs associated withconstruction of the new revetment connec-tion to the Federal navigation project atCharlevoix Harbor, Michigan.

Conform the table of contents of the billaccordingly.

Mr. SHUSTER (during the reading).Madam Chairman, I ask unanimousconsent that the modification be con-sidered as read and printed in theRECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromPennsylvania?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman,reserving the right to object, I do so forthe purpose of yielding to the gen-tleman for an explanation.

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gen-tleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, this amendmentcorrects provisions in the manager’samendment that were found to haveunintended effects. And it adds twoother noncontroversial items. Themodification has been worked out withthe minority.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, Iwithdraw my reservation of objection.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromPennsylvania?

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 fromPennsylvania (Mr. SHUSTER) and thegentleman from Minnesota (Mr. OBER-STAR) each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania (Mr. SHUSTER).

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume. This is a bipartisan, non-controversial package. It makes tech-nical and conforming changes. Itmakes modifications to severalprojects in the reported bill. It includesenvironmental restoration and infra-structure projects. It includes floodcontrol and navigation projects. It in-cludes studies. It includes provisionsbased on discussions with other com-mittees.

I urge my colleagues to support thisamendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the bal-ance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, Iyield myself such time as I may con-sume. The amendment continues thetradition of addressing the urgent con-cerns of Members by including severalhigh priority, time-sensitive projectsand provisions that could not be con-sidered in their ordinary and cus-tomary time.

I do want to thank the chairman ofthe committee for being so fully coop-erative and responsive and partici-pating in the time-honored tradition ofour committee in a bipartisan manner.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute tothe gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. KAP-TUR).

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for yielding timeto me. I wanted to especially on thisbill come down here to the floor andcompliment the chairman of the fullcommittee, the gentleman from Penn-sylvania (Mr. SHUSTER) and the rank-ing member, the gentleman from Min-nesota (Mr. OBERSTAR), for includinglanguage in this bill relative to a studyby the Corps of Engineers on the West-ern Lake Erie Basin Watershed at thecrossroads of the Great Lakes.

I want to just put on the record,without the help of these two gentle-men, our part of America could notsolve the significant water problemthat we have crossing several jurisdic-tions. This bill is so important. I hopeevery Member understands how hardthese men have worked to really helpevery single corner of America. Wehave waited for years for this bill asour cities flood and our rural areas getdevastated by extra water because ofall of the development that has oc-curred in our region.

We cannot solve this problem with-out them and without the help of theCorps being the umbrella entity thatbrings all these multiple jurisdictionstogether across Indiana, Ohio andMichigan. I just want to thank themfor being men of the future and payingattention to places like Toledo, Ohioand the crossroads of the Great Lakes.Our hats are off to them.

Madam Chairman, I include the fol-lowing memorandum for the RECORD:

MEMORANDUM

To: Marcy.From: George.Subject: Western Lake Erie Basin Watershed

Study Talking Points.Date: April 29, 1999.

The 1999 Water Resources DevelopmentAct, H.R. 1480, includes a provision author-izing the Western Lake Erie Watershedstudy.

The Western Lake Erie Basin is the cross-roads of the Great Lakes.

The Maumee River, which empties intoLake Erie at Toledo is the largest tributaryto the Great Lakes. My District and the Cityof Toledo sit at the mouth of the Maumee.

The Corps of Engineers and other govern-ment agencies have conducted numerousstudies in the Western Lake Erie basin, butno one has ever looked at the watershed as awhole.

We understand now the indispensableinterrelationship between the various ele-ments of the watershed’s ecosystem, thewater, the farmland, the cities, the suburbs.

If we are going to sustain the productiveresources of the Western Lake Erie Basin, wemust understand how all these elementswork together.

I hope and expect that this study will leadto an understanding of our region on whichwe can plan a sustainable future.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, Iwant to say to the gentlewoman fromOhio, I have not heard such kind wordsin 6 months. It is good to have thosecomments.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutesto the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.MENENDEZ).

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Chairman, Ithank the distinguished ranking mem-ber for yielding me this time.

Let me try to continue the kindwords as we go along here. To the gen-tleman from Minnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR)and to the chairman of the full com-mittee and to the chairman of the Sub-committee on Water Resources and En-vironment on which I serve as well asto our ranking member, let me thankthem for finally getting this bill to thefloor. This is unfinished business fromthe 105th Congress. It is certainly onethat is important to the people I rep-resent and the region in which I comefrom. I want to thank particularly myside of the aisle for working with me aswell as with the majority to make cer-tain that East Coast residents will con-tinue to have access to the goods thatships carry and the jobs our portsproduce.

When we talk about internationaltrade, 95 percent of all of the Nation’scommerce moves through ports likethat of the Port of New York and NewJersey. If we are to take advantage ofthat trade, then we have to have ocean-going ports that can take care of thenext generation of ocean-going ships.This project and the bill that encom-passes the project that I am talkingabout will help my region fight off eco-nomic trouble and ensure healthygrowth by making the port receptivefor more and larger ships for years tocome. It will widen, deepen and alignthe harbor’s channels to improve navi-gational safety to make way for thenew generation of ocean-going ships.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2515April 29, 1999The bill also contains important en-

vironmental considerations insofar asit contains provisions on sediment de-contamination and sediment manage-ment which are enormous issues in thePort of New York and New Jersey andfor that fact in other parts of the coun-try. And it demonstrates the Federalcommitment to deepening our harborsand channels which is unfortunately indirect contrast to some of the signalswe have been getting within the regionfrom the Governor of New York whohas been holding us hostage on issuesnot related to the port’s mission andthe Port Authority.

We believe that it is important forthe 20 million consumers in the regionto get products that will be cheaper.We believe for the 180,000 jobs and $20billion of economic activity that thePort of New York and New Jersey pres-ently enjoys and which all the projec-tions are that will grow dramatically,we believe that in essence for all of theeconomic opportunity yet to come as aresult of international trade that thisbill, the Water Resources DevelopmentAct, is an appropriate Federal responsethat will inure to the benefit of the re-gion and to our country as this port isone of the vital natural resources thatwe have in this country in the pro-motion of international trade.

I want to thank again the chairmanof both the full committee and the sub-committee and the ranking member ofthe full committee and subcommitteefor making this a reality.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, Ihave no further requests for time, andI yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SHU-STER), as modified.

The amendment, as modified, wasagreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is ad-vised that amendment No. 2 will not beoffered.

It is now in order to consider amend-ment No. 3 printed in part 2 of HouseReport 106–120.

Does any Member rise to offer thatamendment?

If not, it is now in order to consideramendment No. 4 printed in part 2 ofHouse Report 106–120.

Does any Member rise to offer thatamendment?

Mr. PICKETT. Madam Chairman, Iask unanimous consent to strike thelast word.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromVirginia?

There was no objection.Mr. PICKETT. Madam Chairman, I

rise to engage the chairman of theCommittee on Transportation and In-frastructure in a colloquy.

I had intended to offer an amendmenttoday concerning a project atSandbridge Beach in the City of Vir-ginia Beach, Virginia. I have decidednot to offer the amendment if thechairman can assure me that this im-

portant project will receive attentionby the committee in the future.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman,will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PICKETT. I yield to the gen-tleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, Ithank the gentleman for withholdinghis amendment. I will state that it ismy intention to consider his proposalon the Sandbridge Beach project as wemove forward with water resources leg-islation including our WRDA 2000 billwhich we anticipate moving quickly inthe next session.

Mr. PICKETT. I thank the gen-tleman.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlemanfrom Virginia offering amendment No.5?

Mr. PICKETT. No, Madam Chairman,I am not.

The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order toconsider amendment No. 6 printed inpart 2 of House Report 106–120.

Does any Member rise to offer thatamendment?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, Iask unanimous consent to strike thelast word.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromMinnesota?

There was no objection.Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I

take this time to express my apprecia-tion to the gentleman from Pennsyl-vania for the splendid cooperation thatwe have always enjoyed on this com-mittee in working out matters. But fora little half billion dollar bump in theroad over this California project, thisbill would have been disposed of 2 yearsago.

I appreciate the continuing good willon the part of the gentleman fromPennsylvania and understanding ofthese problems as well as the chairmanof the subcommittee. I also want to ex-press my great appreciation for his pa-tience to the gentleman from Pennsyl-vania (Mr. BORSKI).

I do want to cite for extraordinarycommendable service Ken Kopocis, ourchief staff member on the Sub-committee on Waters Resources andEnvironment who has done yeoman’sservice. The chairman was kind enoughto mention him, but I want to reinforcemy appreciation for Ken’s devoted en-deavors, and that of Ward McCarragherand Dave Heymsfeld and Art Chan onour committee who all have given suchenormous time and effort to the un-folding of this legislation and bringingus to this point today. We can pass thisbill relatively uncontroversial.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe committee amendment in the na-ture of a substitute, as modified, asamended.

The committee amendment in thenature of a substitute, as modified, asamended, was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, theCommittee rises.

Accordingly, the Committee rose;and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.

HERGER) having assumed the chair,Mrs. EMERSON, Chairman of the Com-mittee of the Whole House on the Stateof the Union, reported that that Com-mittee, having had under considerationthe bill (H.R. 1480) to provide for theconservation and development of waterand related resources, to authorize theUnited States Army Corps of Engineersto construct various projects for im-provements to rivers and harbors of theUnited States, and for other purposes,pursuant to House Resolution 154, hereported the bill back to the Housewith an amendment adopted by theCommittee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Underthe rule, the previous question is or-dered.

Is a separate vote demanded on theamendment to the committee amend-ment in the nature of a substituteadopted by the Committee of theWhole? If not, the question is on thecommittee amendment in the nature ofa substitute.

The committee amendment in thenature of a substitute was agreed to.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Thequestion is on the engrossment andthird reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossedand read a third time, and was read thethird time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Thequestion is on the passage of the bill.

The question was taken; and theSpeaker pro tempore announced thatthe ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, on thatI demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were—yeas 418, nays 5,not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 104]

YEAS—418

AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsArcherArmeyBachusBairdBakerBaldacciBaldwinBallengerBarciaBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBecerraBentsenBereuterBerkleyBermanBerryBiggertBilbrayBilirakisBishopBlileyBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBono

BorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brady (TX)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonCappsCapuanoCardinCarsonCastleChabotChamblissChenowethClayClaytonClementClyburnCobleCoburnCollinsCombestConditConyersCookCostello

CoxCoyneCramerCraneCrowleyCubinCummingsCunninghamDannerDavis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis (VA)DealDeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeLayDeMintDeutschDiaz-BalartDickeyDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoolittleDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEshoo

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH2516 April 29, 1999EtheridgeEvansEverettEwingFarrFattahFilnerFletcherFoleyForbesFordFossellaFowlerFrank (MA)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrostGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGekasGephardtGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGonzalezGoodeGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGrangerGreen (TX)Green (WI)GreenwoodGutierrezGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HansenHastertHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayesHayworthHergerHill (IN)Hill (MT)HillearyHilliardHincheyHinojosaHobsonHoeffelHoekstraHoldenHoltHooleyHornHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInsleeIsaksonIstookJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee

(TX)JeffersonJenkinsJohnJohnson (CT)Johnson, E.B.Johnson, SamJones (NC)Jones (OH)KanjorskiKapturKasichKellyKennedyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)King (NY)KingstonKleczkaKlinkKnollenbergKolbeKucinichKuykendallLaFalce

LaHoodLampsonLantosLargentLarsonLathamLaTouretteLazioLeachLeeLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)ManzulloMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcCreryMcDermottMcGovernMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMetcalfMicaMillender-

McDonaldMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMiller, GeorgeMingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMooreMoran (KS)Moran (VA)MorellaMurthaMyrickNadlerNapolitanoNealNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOseOwensOxleyPackardPallonePascrellPastorPaynePeasePelosiPeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)PetriPhelpsPickeringPickettPittsPomboPomeroyPorterPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)Quinn

RadanovichRahallRamstadRangelRegulaReyesReynoldsRileyRiversRodriguezRoemerRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SaboSalmonSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchafferSchakowskyScottSerranoSessionsShadeggShawShaysShermanSherwoodShimkusShowsShusterSimpsonSisiskySkeenSkeltonSmith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SnyderSouderSpenceSprattStabenowStarkStearnsStenholmStumpStupakSweeneyTalentTancredoTannerTauscherTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TerryThomasThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTierneyToomeyTownsTraficantTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)UptonVelazquezVentoViscloskyWaldenWalshWampWatersWatkinsWatt (NC)Watts (OK)WaxmanWeinerWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWexler

WeygandWhitfieldWicker

WilsonWiseWolf

WoolseyWuYoung (AK)

NAYS—5

HefleyPaul

SanfordSensenbrenner

Sununu

NOT VOTING—11

AderholtBlagojevichBrown (CA)Cooksey

EngelSlaughterSmith (MI)Strickland

TauzinWynnYoung (FL)

b 1219

Mr. SENSENBRENNER changed hisvote 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 Re-sources Development Act because I was de-tained away from the Capitol and the voteclosed as I returned. Had I been present, Iwould have voted ‘‘yes.’’f

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was un-able to be present for rollcall votes 103 and104.

Had I been present, I would have voted‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘aye’’ on rollcall votes 103 and 104.

f

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, Iask unanimous consent that all Mem-bers may have 5 legislative days withinwhich to revise and extend their re-marks and include extraneous materialon H.R. 1480.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs.EMERSON). Is there objection to the re-quest of the gentleman from Pennsyl-vania?

There was no objection.

f

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Speaker, Itake this time to inquire about nextweek’s schedule from the distinguishedmajority leader.

Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, willthe gentleman yield?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Speaker, Iyield to the distinguished majorityleader for purposes of discussing nextweek’s schedule.

Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, Ithank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to an-nounce that we have concluded our leg-islative business for the week. On Mon-day, May 3, the House will meet at 2o’clock p.m. for a pro forma session.There will be no legislative businessand no votes on that day.

On Tuesday, May 4, the House willmeet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hourand 2 p.m. for legislative business. The

House will consider a number of billsunder suspension of the rules, a list ofwhich will be distributed to Members’offices. Members should note that weanticipate votes after 2 p.m. on Tues-day.

On Wednesday, May 5, and Thursday,May 6, the House will take up the fol-lowing measures, both of which will besubject to rules: The emergencyKosovo supplemental bill for fiscalyear 1999 and H.R. 833, the BankruptcyReform Act of 1999. It is our hope thatthe conference report on H.R. 4, theNational Missile Defense bill, will alsobe available next week.

Madam Speaker, we should finishlegislative business and have Memberson their way home to their families onThursday, May 6.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Speaker, ifthe majority leader would allow a ques-tion, could the majority leader tell uson which day next week the Kosovosupplemental will be on the floor andfor what amount it will be?

Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, Ithank the gentleman for his inquiry.Let me say I can say with a high de-gree of certainty that the legislationwill be on the floor on Thursday ofnext week, and, of course, it will be upto the Committee on Appropriations toreport it. I cannot give the figure interms of its amount until after thecommittee has its markup, I thinklater today.

Mr. MENENDEZ. If the majorityleader would answer one other ques-tion: Is it the majority leader’s inten-tion, or does he know if that supple-mental will include a supplemental forCentral America and for the farmingcommunity in the country?

Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentlemanfor his inquiry. As the gentlemanknows, we had that legislation passthrough the House. We have gone toconference with the Senate. We waitupon the Senate with respect to thatearlier supplemental report that hasthe inclusions that the gentlemanspeaks of. It is our anticipation thatthe week following next we would havethat back in conference, as well as theKosovo work, and we should be able tocomplete all supplemental work onboth bills by the end of the week fol-lowing next.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the major-ity leader. For many of us it is a realconcern, the Central American farmingpackage. While we face one emergency,we have another emergency with 1 mil-lion people to the south of our borderwho we are concerned about in the con-text of immigration and in the contextof disease and the context of helping torebuild their countries. We would cer-tainly hope that we could in a bipar-tisan way work expeditiously to makesure that that emergency is equally asresolved.

Mr. ARMEY. Madam Speaker, I ap-preciate the gentleman’s remarks.