Sec. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS

3,650 words·~17 min read·/statute-compilations/comps-9003/sec-1001

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

## SEC. 1001 PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following projects for water resources development and conservation and other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the respective reports designated in this section: ####

(1)Haines, alaska The project for navigation, Haines, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total cost of $14,040,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,232,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,808,000. ####

(2)Port lions, alaska The project for navigation, Port Lions, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 14, 2006, at a total cost of $9,530,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,624,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,906,000. ####

(3)Santa cruz river, paseo de las iglesias, arizona The project for environmental restoration, Santa Cruz River, Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 28, 2006, at a total cost of $97,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $63,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $34,400,000. ####

(4)Tanque verde creek, pima county, arizona The project for environmental restoration, Tanque Verde Creek, Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $5,906,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,836,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,070,000. ####

(5)Salt river (rio salado oeste), maricopa county, arizona The project for environmental restoration, Salt River (Rio Salado Oeste), Maricopa County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $166,650,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $106,629,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $60,021,000. ####

(6)Salt river (va shly'ay akimel), maricopa county, arizona #####

(A)In general The project for environmental restoration, Salt River (Va Shly'ay Akimel), Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $162,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $105,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $56,900,000. #####

(B)Coordination with federal reclamation projects The Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, shall coordinate the design and construction of the project described in subparagraph

(A)with the Bureau of Reclamation and any operating agent for any Federal reclamation project in the Salt River Basin to avoid impacts to existing Federal reclamation facilities and operations in the Salt River Basin. ####

(7)May branch, fort smith, arkansas The project for flood damage reduction, May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $30,850,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,010,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,840,000. ####

(8)Hamilton city, glenn county, california The project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Hamilton City, Glenn County, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $52,400,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $34,100,000 and estimated non-Federal cost of $18,300,000. ####

(9)Silver strand shoreline, imperial beach, california The project for storm damage reduction, Silver Strand Shoreline, Imperial Beach, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $13,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,521,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,179,000, and at an estimated total cost of $42,500,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $21,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $21,250,000. ####

(10)Matilija dam, ventura county, california The project for environmental restoration, Matilija Dam, Ventura County, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total cost of $144,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $89,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $54,800,000. ####

(11)Middle creek, lake county, california The project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Middle Creek, Lake County, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of $45,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $29,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,700,000. ####

(12)Napa river salt marsh restoration, california #####

(A)In general The project for environmental restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $134,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $87,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $47,000,000. #####

(B)Administration In carrying out the project authorized by this paragraph, the Secretary shall— ######

(i)construct a recycled water pipeline extending from the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Waste Water Treatment Plant and the Napa Sanitation District Waste Water Treatment Plant to the project; and ######

(ii)restore or enhance Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 3. ####

(13)Denver county reach, south platte river, denver, colorado The project for environmental restoration, Denver County Reach, South Platte River, Denver, Colorado: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost of $20,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,065,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,035,000. ####

(14)Central and southern florida, indian river lagoon, florida #####

(A)In general The Secretary may carry out the project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood control, and protection of water quality, Central and Southern Florida, Indian River Lagoon, Florida, at a total cost of $1,365,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $682,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $682,500,000, in accordance with section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680) and the recommendations of the report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 6, 2004. #####

(B)Deauthorizations The following projects are not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act: ######

(i)The uncompleted portions of the project for the C–44 Basin Storage Reservoir of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, authorized by section 601(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2682), at a total cost of $147,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $73,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $73,900,000. ######

(ii)The uncompleted portions of the Martin County, Florida, modifications to the project for Central and Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a total cost of $15,471,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,073,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,398,000. ######

(iii)The uncompleted portions of the East Coast Backpumping, St. Lucie–Martin County, Spillway Structure S–311 modifications to the project for Central and Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a total cost of $77,118,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $55,124,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $21,994,000. ####

(15)Comprehensive everglades restoration plan, central and southern florida, picayune strand restoration project, collier county, florida The project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, Picayune Strand Restoration Project, Collier County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 15, 2005, at a total cost of $375,330,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $187,665,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $187,665,000. ####

(16)Comprehensive everglades restoration plan, central and southern florida, site 1 impoundment project, palm beach county, florida The project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, Site 1 Impoundment Project, Palm Beach County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $80,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $40,420,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $40,420,000. ####

(17)Miami harbor, miami-dade county, florida #####

(A)In general The project for navigation, Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 25, 2005, at a total cost of $152,510,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $92,007,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $60,503,000. #####

(B)General reevaluation report The non-Federal share of the cost of the general reevaluation report that resulted in the report of the Chief of Engineers referred to in subparagraph

(A)shall be the same percentage as the non-Federal share of cost of construction of the project. #####

(C)Agreement The Secretary shall enter into a new partnership with the non-Federal interest to reflect the cost sharing required by subparagraph (B). ####

(18)East st. louis and vicinity, illinois The project for environmental restoration and recreation, East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $208,260,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $134,910,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $73,350,000. ####

(19)Peoria riverfront development, illinois The project for environmental restoration, Peoria Riverfront Development, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 28, 2003, at a total cost of $18,220,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,380,000. ####

(20)Wood river levee system reconstruction, madison county, illinois The project for flood damage reduction, Wood River Levee System Reconstruction, Madison County, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 18, 2006, at a total cost of $17,220,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,193,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,027,000. ####

(21)Des moines and raccoon rivers, des moines, iowa The project for flood damage reduction, Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 28, 2006, at a total cost of $10,780,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $6,967,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,813,000. ####

(22)Licking river basin, cynthiana, kentucky The project for flood damage reduction, Licking River Basin, Cynthiana, Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $18,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,830,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,370,000. ####

(23)Bayou sorrel lock, louisiana The project for navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $9,600,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be paid ½ from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and ½ from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. ####

(24)Morganza to the gulf of mexico, louisiana #####

(A)In general The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Reports of the Chief of Engineers dated August 23, 2002, and July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $886,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $576,355,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $310,345,000. #####

(B)Operation and maintenance The operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the Houma Navigation Canal lock complex and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway floodgate features of the project described in subparagraph

(A)that provide for inland waterway transportation shall be a Federal responsibility in accordance with section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212). #####

(C)Credit The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project described in subparagraph

(A)the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for interim flood protection after March 31, 1989, if the Secretary determines that the work— ######

(i)is integral to the project; ######

(ii)complies with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies that were in place at the time the work was completed; and ######

(iii)notwithstanding the date described in this subparagraph, is otherwise in compliance with the requirements of section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b). ####

(25)Port of iberia, louisiana The project for navigation, Port of Iberia, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of $131,250,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $105,315,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,935,000. ####

(26)Smith island, somerset county, maryland The project for environmental restoration, Smith Island, Somerset County, Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 29, 2001, at a total cost of $15,580,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,127,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,453,000. ####

(27)Roseau river, roseau, minnesota The project for flood damage reduction, Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $25,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,820,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,280,000. ####

(28)Argentine, east bottoms, fairfax-jersey creek, and north kansas levees units, missouri river and tributaries at kansas cities, missouri and kansas The project for flood damage reduction, Argentine, East Bottoms, Fairfax-Jersey Creek, and North Kansas Levees units, Missouri River and tributaries at Kansas Cities, Missouri and Kansas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $65,430,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $42,530,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $22,900,000. ####

(29)Swope park industrial area, blue river, kansas city, missouri The project for flood damage reduction, Swope Park Industrial Area, Blue River, Kansas City, Missouri: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $16,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,037,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,943,000. ####

(30)Great egg harbor inlet to townsends inlet, new jersey The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $54,360,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $35,069,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $19,291,000, and at an estimated total cost of $202,500,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $101,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $101,250,000. ####

(31)Hudson raritan estuary, liberty state park, new jersey #####

(A)In general The project for environmental restoration, Hudson Raritan Estuary, Liberty State Park, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 25, 2006, at a total cost of $34,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $22,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,900,000. #####

(B)Restoration teams In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall establish and utilize watershed restoration teams composed of estuary restoration experts from the Corps of Engineers, the New Jersey department of environmental protection, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and other experts designated by the Secretary for the purpose of developing habitat restoration and water quality enhancement. ####

(32)New jersey shore protection study, manasquan inlet to barnegat inlet, new jersey The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, New Jersey Shore Protection Study, Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $71,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $46,735,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,165,000, and at an estimated total cost of $119,680,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $59,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $59,840,000. ####

(33)Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, union beach, new jersey The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 4, 2006, at a total cost of $115,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $74,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $40,200,000, and at an estimated total cost of $6,500,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,250,000. ####

(34)South river, raritan river basin, new jersey The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and environmental restoration, South River, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $122,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $79,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $42,800,000. ####

(35)Southwest valley, bernalillo county, new mexico The project for flood damage reduction, Southwest Valley, Bernalillo County, New Mexico: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of $24,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,150,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,690,000. ####

(36)Montauk point, new york The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Montauk Point, New York: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at a total cost of $14,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,300,000. ####

(37)Hocking river basin, monday creek, ohio #####

(A)In general The project for ecosystem restoration, Hocking River Basin, Monday Creek, Ohio: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 24, 2006, at a total cost of $20,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,440,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,540,000. #####

(B)Wayne national forest ######

(i)In general The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, may construct other project features on property that is located in the Wayne National Forest, Ohio, owned by the United States and managed by the Forest Service as described in the report of the Corps of Engineers entitled “Hocking River Basin, Ohio, Monday Creek Sub-Basin Ecosystem Restoration Project Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment”. ######

(ii)Cost Each project feature carried out on Federal land shall be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained at Federal expense. ######

(iii)Authorization of appropriations There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out this subparagraph $1,270,000. ####

(38)Town of bloomsburg, columbia county, pennsylvania The project for flood damage reduction, town of Bloomsburg, Columbia County, Pennsylvania: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 25, 2006, at a total cost of $44,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $28,925,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,575,000. ####

(39)Pawleys island, south carolina The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Pawleys Island, South Carolina: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $8,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,140,000, and at an estimated total cost of $21,200,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,600,000. ####

(40)Corpus christi ship channel, corpus christi, texas #####

(A)In general The project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 2, 2003, at a total cost of $188,110,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $87,810,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $100,300,000. #####

(B)Navigational servitude In carrying out the project under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall enforce the navigational servitude in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel (including the removal or relocation of any facility obstructing the project) consistent with the cost sharing requirements of section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211). ####

(41)Gulf intracoastal waterway, brazos river to port o'connor, matagorda bay re-route, texas The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port O'Connor, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 24, 2002, at a total cost of $17,280,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be paid ½ from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and ½ from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. ####

(42)Gulf intracoastal waterway, high island to brazos river, texas The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, High Island to Brazos River, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 16, 2004, at a total cost of $14,450,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be paid ½ from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and ½ from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. ####

(43)Lower colorado river basin phase i, texas The project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Lower Colorado River Basin Phase I, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of $110,730,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $69,640,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $41,090,000. ####

(44)Atlantic intracoastal waterway bridge replacement, deep creek, chesapeake, virginia The project for Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 3, 2003, at a total cost of $37,200,000. ####

(45)Craney island eastward expansion, norfolk harbor and channels, hampton roads, virginia #####

(A)In general The project for navigation, Craney Island Eastward Expansion, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Hampton Roads, Virginia: Report of Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $712,103,000. #####

(B)Non-federal share Notwithstanding sections 101 and 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 and 2213), the Federal share of the cost of the project shall be 50 percent. ####

(46)Centralia, chehalis river, lewis county, washington #####

(A)In general The project for flood damage reduction, Centralia, Chehalis River, Lewis County, Washington: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 27, 2004, at a total cost of $123,770,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $74,740,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $49,030,000. #####

(B)Credit The Secretary shall— ######

(i)credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project up to $6,500,000 for the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest in accordance with the project study plan dated November 28, 1999; and ######

(ii)credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

Connectionstraces to 3

Traces to 3 documents

U.S. Code

4 references not yet in our index