Sec. 3. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS

1,074 words·~5 min read·/statute-compilations/comps-2980/sec-3

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

## SEC. 3 PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS ###

(a)Authorization of Construction Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the following projects for water resources development and conservation and other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans and subject to the conditions recommended in the respective reports designated in this subsection: ####

(1)Lower mission creek, santa barbara, california The project for flood control, Lower Mission Creek, Santa Barbara, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated March 25, 1988, at a total cost of $10,420,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $5,909,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $4,511,000. ####

(2)Ft. pierce harbor, florida The project for navigation, Ft. Pierce Harbor, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 14, 1987, at a total cost of $6,742,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $4,319,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $2,423,000. ####

(3)Nassau county, florida The project for beach erosion control, Nassau County (Amelia Island), Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 19, 1986, at a total cost of $5,753,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $4,619,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $1,134,000. ####

(4)Port sutton channel, florida The project for navigation, Port Sutton Channel, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated March 28, 1988, at a total cost of $2,670,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $1,155,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $1,515,000; except that construction of such project may not be initiated until the Secretary determines that such project serves more than one beneficiary. ####

(5)Chicagoland underflow plan, illinois The project for flood control, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated March 25, 1988, at a total cost of $419,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $314,250,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $104,750,000. ####

(6)Lower ohio river, illinois and kentucky The project for navigation, Lower Ohio River, Locks and Dams 52 and 53, Illinois and Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 20, 1986, at a total cost of $2,918,000,000, with a first Federal cost of $2,918,000,000, and with the costs of construction of the project to be paid one-half from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and one-half from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. ####

(7)Hazard, kentucky The project for flood control, Hazard, Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated October 30, 1986, at a total cost of $7,450,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $5,590,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $1,860,000. ####

(8)Mississippi and louisiana estuarine areas, mississippi and louisiana .—The project for environmental enhancement, Mississippi and Louisiana Estuarine Areas, Mississippi and Louisiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 19, 1986, at a total cost of $59,300,000. ####

(9)Wolf and jordan rivers, mississippi The project for navigation, Wolf and Jordan Rivers and Bayou Portage, Mississippi: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 10, 1987, at a total cost of $2,290,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $1,620,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $670,000. ####

(10)Truckee meadows, nevada The project for flood control, Truckee Meadows, Nevada: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 25, 1986, at a total cost of $78,400,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $39,200,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $39,200,000; except that the Secretary is authorized to carry out fish and wildlife enhancement as a purpose of such project, including fish and wildlife enhancement measures described in the District Engineer's Report, dated July 1985, at an additional total cost of $4,140,000. ####

(11)West columbus, ohio .—The project for flood control, Scioto River, West Columbus, Ohio: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated February 9, 1988, at a total cost of $31,562,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $23,671,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $7,891,000. ####

(12)Delaware river, pennsylvania and delaware The project for navigation, Delaware River, Philadelphia to Wilmington, Pennsylvania and Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 15, 1986, at a total cost of $17,200,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $9,100,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $8,100,000. ####

(13)Cypress creek, texas The project for flood control, Cypress Creek, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated October 12, 1987, at a total project cost of $114,200,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $84,900,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $29,300,000. ####

(14)Falfurrias, texas The project for flood control, Falfurrias, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated March 15, 1988, at a total cost of $31,800,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $15,900,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $15,900,000. ####

(15)Guadalupe river, texas The project for navigation, Guadalupe River to Victoria, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated September 1, 1987, at a total cost of $23,900,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $15,100,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $8,800,000. ####

(16)McGrath creek, wichita falls, texas .—The project for flood control, McGrath Creek, Wichita Falls, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated March 25, 1988, at a total cost of $9,100,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $6,800,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $2,300,000. ###

(b)Maximum Cost of Projects Section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4183) is amended— ####

(1)by striking out “in this Act, or an amendment made by this Act, for a project” and inserting in lieu thereof “with respect to a project for water resources development and conservation and related purposes authorized to be carried out by the Secretary in this Act or in a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act, including the Water Resources Development Act of 1988, or in an amendment made by this Act or any later law with respect to such a project”; ####

(2)in paragraph

(1)by inserting “, in any later law,” after “in this Act” and by inserting “or any later law” after “by this Act”; ####

(3)in paragraph (2)(A) by inserting “or any later law” after “of this Act”; and ####

(4)in paragraph (2)(B) by inserting “or any later law” after “by this Act”. * * * * * * *

Connections1 off-index

1 reference not yet in our index

100 Stat. 4183

Citation graph

cites case law

Sec. 3

PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS

Stat.100 Stat. 4183

Cites 1Cited by 0 across 0 sources