Home > 106th Congressional Bills > H.R. 1480 (eh) To provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the United States Army Corps of Engineers to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other...H.R. 1480 (eh) To provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the United States Army Corps of Engineers to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other...
In the Senate of the United States,
July 22, 1999.
Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R.
1480) entitled ``An Act to provide for the conservation and development
of water and related resources, to authorize the United States Army
Corps of Engineers to construct various projects for improvements to
rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.'', do
pass with the following
AMENDMENT:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water Resources
Development Act of 1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is as
follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Project modifications.
Sec. 103. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 104. Studies.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Flood hazard mitigation and riverine ecosystem restoration
program.
Sec. 202. Shore protection.
Sec. 203. Small flood control authority.
Sec. 204. Use of non-Federal funds for compiling and disseminating
information on floods and flood damages.
Sec. 205. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 206. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 207. Voluntary contributions by States and political subdivisions.
Sec. 208. Recreation user fees.
Sec. 209. Water resources development studies for the Pacific region.
Sec. 210. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.
Sec. 211. Outer Continental Shelf.
Sec. 212. Environmental dredging.
Sec. 213. Benefit of primary flood damages avoided included in benefit-
cost analysis.
Sec. 214. Control of aquatic plant growth.
Sec. 215. Environmental infrastructure.
Sec. 216. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 217. Lakes program.
Sec. 218. Sediments decontamination policy.
Sec. 219. Disposal of dredged material on beaches.
Sec. 220. Fish and wildlife mitigation.
Sec. 221. Reimbursement of non-Federal interest.
Sec. 222. National Contaminated Sediment Task Force.
Sec. 223. John Glenn Great Lakes Basin program.
Sec. 224. Projects for improvement of the environment.
Sec. 225. Water quality, environmental quality, recreation, fish and
wildlife, flood control, and navigation.
Sec. 226. Irrigation diversion protection and fisheries enhancement
assistance.
Sec. 227. Small storm damage reduction projects.
Sec. 228. Shore damage prevention or mitigation.
Sec. 229. Atlantic coast of New York.
Sec. 230. Accelerated adoption of innovative technologies for
contaminated sediments.
Sec. 231. Mississippi River Commission.
Sec. 232. Use of private enterprises.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Dredging of salt ponds in the State of Rhode Island.
Sec. 302. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 303. Small flood control projects.
Sec. 304. Small navigation projects.
Sec. 305. Streambank protection projects.
Sec. 306. Aquatic ecosystem restoration, Springfield, Oregon.
Sec. 307. Guilford and New Haven, Connecticut.
Sec. 308. Francis Bland Floodway Ditch.
Sec. 309. Caloosahatchee River basin, Florida.
Sec. 310. Cumberland, Maryland, flood project mitigation.
Sec. 311. City of Miami Beach, Florida.
Sec. 312. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.
Sec. 313. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois waterway system
navigation modernization.
Sec. 314. Upper Mississippi River management.
Sec. 315. Research and development program for Columbia and Snake
Rivers salmon survival.
Sec. 316. Nine Mile Run habitat restoration, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 317. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California.
Sec. 318. Comprehensive Flood Impact-Response Modeling System.
Sec. 319. Study regarding innovative financing for small and medium-
sized ports.
Sec. 320. Candy Lake project, Osage County, Oklahoma.
Sec. 321. Salcha River and Piledriver Slough, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Sec. 322. Eyak River, Cordova, Alaska.
Sec. 323. North Padre Island storm damage reduction and environmental
restoration project.
Sec. 324. Kanopolis Lake, Kansas.
Sec. 325. New York City watershed.
Sec. 326. City of Charlevoix reimbursement, Michigan.
Sec. 327. Hamilton Dam flood control project, Michigan.
Sec. 328. Holes Creek flood control project, Ohio.
Sec. 329. Overflow management facility, Rhode Island.
Sec. 330. Anacostia River aquatic ecosystem restoration, District of
Columbia and Maryland.
Sec. 331. Everglades and south Florida ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 332. Pine Flat Dam, Kings River, California.
Sec. 333. Levees in Elba and Geneva, Alabama.
Sec. 334. Toronto Lake and El Dorado Lake, Kansas.
Sec. 335. San Jacinto disposal area, Galveston, Texas.
Sec. 336. Environmental infrastructure.
Sec. 337. Water monitoring station.
Sec. 338. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan.
Sec. 339. McNary Lock and Dam, Washington.
Sec. 340. McNary National Wildlife Refuge.
TITLE IV--CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE, AND
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION
Sec. 401. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and
State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Army.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--The following projects for
water resources development and conservation and other purposes are
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in
accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in
the respective reports designated in this section:
(1) Sand point harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
Sand Point Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated October 13, 1998, at a total cost of $11,760,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $6,964,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $4,796,000.
(2) Rio salado (salt river), arizona.--The project for
environmental restoration, Rio Salado (Salt River), Arizona:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 20, 1998, at a
total cost of $88,048,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$56,355,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $31,693,000.
(3) Tucson drainage area, arizona.--The project for flood
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and recreation,
Tucson drainage area, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated May 20, 1998, at a total cost of $29,900,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $16,768,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $13,132,000.
(4) American river watershed, california.--
(A) In general.--The project for flood damage
reduction described as the Folsom Stepped Release Plan
in the Corps of Engineers Supplemental Information
Report for the American River Watershed Project,
California, dated March 1996, at a total cost of
$505,400,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$329,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$176,100,000.
(B) Implementation.--
(i) In general.--Implementation of the
measures by the Secretary pursuant to
subparagraph (A) shall be undertaken after
completion of the levee stabilization and
strengthening and flood warning features
authorized by section 101(a)(1) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3662).
(ii) Folsom dam and reservoir.--The
Secretary may undertake measures at the Folsom
Dam and Reservoir authorized under subparagraph
(A) only after reviewing the design of such
measures to determine if modifications are
necessary to account for changed hydrologic
conditions and any other changed conditions in
the project area, including operational and
construction impacts that have occurred since
completion of the report referred to in
subparagraph (A). The Secretary shall conduct
the review and develop the modifications to the
Folsom Dam and Reservoir with the full
participation of the Secretary of the Interior.
(iii) Remaining downstream elements.--
(I) In general.--Implementation of
the remaining downstream elements
authorized pursuant to subparagraph (A)
may be undertaken only after the
Secretary, in consultation with
affected Federal, State, regional, and
local entities, has reviewed the
elements to determine if modifications
are necessary to address changes in the
hydrologic conditions, any other
changed conditions in the project area
that have occurred since completion of
the report referred to in subparagraph
(A) and any design modifications for
the Folsom Dam and Reservoir made by
the Secretary in implementing the
measures referred to in clause (ii),
and has issued a report on the review.
(II) Principles and guidelines.--
The review shall be prepared in
accordance with the economic and
environmental principles and guidelines
for water and related land resources
implementation studies, and no
construction may be initiated unless
the Secretary determines that the
remaining downstream elements are
technically sound, environmentally
acceptable, and economically justified.
(5) Llagas creek, california.--The project for completion
of the remaining reaches of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service flood control project at Llagas Creek, California,
undertaken pursuant to section 5 of the Watershed Protection
and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1005), substantially in
accordance with the requirements of local cooperation as
specified in section 4 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 1004) 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.
(6) South sacramento county streams, california.--The
project for flood control, environmental restoration, and
recreation, South Sacramento County streams, California: Report
of the Chief of Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a total
cost of $65,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$41,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $24,300,000.
(7) Upper guadalupe river, california.--Construction of the
locally preferred plan for flood damage reduction and
recreation, Upper Guadalupe River, California, described as the
Bypass Channel Plan of the Chief of Engineers dated August 19,
1998, at a total cost of $137,600,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $44,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $93,600,000.
(8) Yuba river basin, california.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Yuba River Basin, California: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated November 25, 1998, at a total cost of
$26,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $17,350,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,250,000.
(9) Delaware bay coastline: delaware and new jersey-
broadkill beach, delaware.--
(A) In general.--The project for hurricane and
storm damage reduction and shore protection, Delaware
Bay coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Broadkill Beach,
Delaware, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August
17, 1998, at a total cost of $9,049,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $5,674,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $3,375,000.
(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is
authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $538,200, with an estimated annual
Federal cost of $349,800 and an estimated annual non-
Federal cost of $188,400.
(10) Delaware bay coastline: delaware and new jersey-port
mahon, delaware.--
(A) In general.--The project for ecosystem
restoration and shore protection, Delaware Bay
coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Port Mahon,
Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
September 28, 1998, at a total cost of $7,644,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $4,969,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $2,675,000.
(B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is
authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $234,000, with an estimated annual
Federal cost of $152,000 and an estimated annual non-
Federal cost of $82,000.
(11) Hillsboro and okeechobee aquifer storage and recovery
project, florida.--The project for aquifer storage and recovery
described in the Corps of Engineers Central and Southern
Florida Water Supply Study, Florida, dated April 1989, and in
House Document 369, dated July 30, 1968, at a total cost of
$27,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,500,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,500,000.
(12) Indian river county, florida.--Notwithstanding section
1001(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 579a(a)), the project for shoreline protection, Indian
River County, Florida, authorized by section 501(a) of that Act
(100 Stat. 4134), shall remain authorized for construction
through December 31, 2002.
(13) Lido key beach, sarasota, florida.--
Other Popular 106th Congressional Bills Documents:
|
| GovRecords.org presents information on various agencies of the United States Government. Even though all information is believed to be credible and accurate, no guarantees are made on the complete accuracy of our government records archive. Care should be taken to verify the information presented by responsible parties. Please see our reference page for congressional, presidential, and judicial branch contact information. GovRecords.org values visitor privacy. Please see the privacy page for more information. |
 |