[Senate Report 110-127]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 263
110th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 110-127
======================================================================
ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2008
_______
July 9, 2007.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Dorgan, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 1751]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1751)
making appropriations for energy and water development for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes,
favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2008
Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $32,791,321,000 Amount of 2007 appropriations..........................\1\32,562,190,000
Amount of 2008 budget estimate.......................... 30,887,838,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2007 appropriations................................. +229,131,000
2008 budget estimate................................ +1,903,483,000
\1\Includes Emergency Appropriations of $1,761,665,000.
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Purpose.......................................................... 4
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations......................... 4
Transparency in Congressional Directives......................... 4
Title I:
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army:
Corps of Engineers--Civil:
General Investigations............................... 21
Construction, General................................ 38
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries..... 63
Operation and Maintenance, General................... 68
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies................ 100
Regulatory Program................................... 101
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program...... 102
General Expenses..................................... 102
General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil........ 106
Title II:
Department of the Interior:
Central Utah Project Completion Account.................. 109
Bureau of Reclamation:
Water and Related Resources.......................... 109
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.............. 121
California Bay-Delta Restoration..................... 122
Policy and Administration............................ 122
General Provisions--Department of the Interior........... 122
Title III:
Department of Energy:
Energy Supply and Conservation........................... 125
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.......... 132
Nuclear Energy....................................... 134
Fossil Energy Research and Development............... 137
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves............... 140
Elk Hills School Lands Fund.......................... 140
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.......................... 140
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve................... 141
Energy Information Administration.................... 141
Non-defense Environmental Cleanup........................ 141
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund................................................... 143
Science.................................................. 143
High Energy Physics.................................. 144
Nuclear Physics...................................... 144
Biological and Environmental Research................ 145
Basic Energy Sciences................................ 146
Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund.............................. 148
Departmental Administration.............................. 149
Office of Inspector General.............................. 149
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons Activities............................... 150
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................. 160
Naval Reactors................................... 163
Office of the Administrator...................... 164
Environmental and Other Defense Activities:
Defense Environmental Cleanup........................ 164
Other Defense Activities............................. 168
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal....................... 169
Power Marketing Administrations:
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power
Administration................................. 170
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power
Administration................................. 170
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and
Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration. 170
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and
Expenses........................................... 171
General Provisions--Department of Energy................. 194
Title IV:
Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.......................... 196
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.................. 196
Delta Regional Authority................................. 197
Denali Commission........................................ 197
Nuclear Regulatory Commission............................ 197
Office of Inspector General.......................... 198
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board..................... 198
Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the Inspector
General................................................ 199
Title V: General Provisions...................................... 200
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 201
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the
Senate......................................................... 201
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 202
Budgetary Impact Statement....................................... 214
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for
the fiscal year 2008 beginning October 1, 2007, and ending
September 30, 2008, for energy and water development, and for
other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources
development programs and related activities of the Department
of the Army, Civil Functions--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Civil Works Program in title I; for the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation in title II; for the
Department of Energy's energy research activities, including
environmental restoration and waste management, and atomic
energy defense activities of the National Nuclear Security
Administration in title III; and for related independent
agencies and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional
Commission, Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, and
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in title IV.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The fiscal year 2008 budget estimates for the bill total
$30,887,838,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The
recommendation of the Committee totals $32,791,321,000. This is
$1,903,483,000 above the budget estimates and $229,131,000
above the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.
Subcommittee Hearings
The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held
five sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2008
appropriation bill. Witnesses included officials and
representatives of the Federal agencies under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
The subcommittee received numerous statements and letters
from Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives,
Governors, State and local officials and representatives, and
hundreds of private citizens throughout the United States.
Information, both for and against many items, was presented to
the subcommittee. The recommendations for fiscal year 2008
therefore, have been developed after careful consideration of
available data.
Votes in the Committee
By a vote of 28 to 1 the Committee on June 28, 2007,
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the
Senate.
TRANSPARENCY IN CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTIVES
On January 18, 2007, the Senate passed S. 1, The
Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, by a
vote of 96-2. While the Committee awaits final action on this
legislation, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee
issued interim requirements to ensure that the goals of S. 1
are in place for the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008.
The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the
purse. The Committee believes strongly that Congress should
make the decisions on how to allocate the people's money. In
order to improve transparency and accountability in the process
of approving earmarks (as defined in S. 1) in appropriations
measures, each Committee report includes, for each earmark:
--(1) the name of the Member(s) making the request, and where
appropriate, the President;
--(2) the name and location of the intended recipient or, if
there is no specifically intended recipient, the
intended location of the activity; and
--(3) the purpose of such earmark.
The term ``congressional earmark'' means a provision or
report language included primarily at the request of a Senator,
providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of
discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other
spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant,
loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or
targeted to a specific state, locality or congressional
district, other than through a statutory or administrative,
formula-driven, or competitive award process.
For each earmark, a Member is required to provide a
certification that neither the Member (nor his or her spouse)
has a pecuniary interest in such earmark, consistent with
Senate Rule XXXVII(4). Such certifications are available to the
public at http://appropriations.senate.gov/senators.cfm or go
to appropriations.senate.gov and click on ``Members''.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
INTRODUCTION
The Corps of Engineers is made up of approximately 35,000
civilian and 650 military members that perform both military
and civil works functions. The military and civilian engineers,
scientists and other specialists work hand in hand as leaders
in engineering and environmental matters. The diverse workforce
of biologists, engineers, geologists, hydrologists, natural
resource managers and other professionals meets the demands of
changing times and requirements as a vital part of America's
Army.
The Corps' mission is to provide quality, responsive
engineering services to the Nation including:
--Planning, designing, building and operating water resources
and other civil works projects, (Navigation, Flood
Control, Environmental Protection, Disaster Response,
etc.)
--Designing and managing the construction of military
facilities for the Army and Air Force. (Military
Construction)
--Providing design and construction management support for
other Defense and Federal agencies. (Interagency and
International Services)
The Energy and Water bill only funds the Civil Works
missions of the Corps of Engineers. Approximately 23,000
civilians and about 190 military officers are responsible for
this nationwide mission.
From our hundreds of rivers, lakes and wetlands to our
thousands of miles of coastal shoreline, we are fortunate in
America to enjoy an abundance of water resources. As a Nation,
we value these resources for their natural beauty; for the many
ways they help meet human needs; and for the fact that they
provide habitat for thousands of species of plants, fish and
wildlife.
The Congress has given the Corps of Engineers the
responsibility of helping to care for these important aquatic
resources.
Through its Civil Works program the Corps carries out a
wide array of projects that provide:
--Coastal storm damage reduction
--Disaster preparedness and response
--Environmental protection and restoration
--Flood damage reduction
--Hydropower
--Navigable waters
--Recreational opportunities
--Regulatory oversight
--Water supply
One of the biggest challenges the Corps and other
Government agencies face is finding the right balance among the
often conflicting concerns our society has related to our water
resources. Society wants these resources to help fuel economic
growth (navigation, hydropower). Society wants them to provide
social benefits (recreation). And finally society wants to be
sure that they are available for future generations
(environmental protection and restoration).
The Corps is charged with seeking to achieve the best
possible balance among these competing demands through an
integrated approach to water resources management that focuses
on regional solutions, involving an array of stakeholders (i.e.
other Government agencies, environmental groups, businesses and
private organizations). In recent years, the Corps has
implemented this approach largely by concentrating on
watersheds.
OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Corps of
Engineers is composed of $4,871,000,000 in new budget
authority. This is the largest budget that the administration
has ever recommended for the Corps. However it is more than
$460,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 enacted budget for
the Corps. This budget request continues this administration's
policy of drastic underfunding of domestic infrastructure. At a
time when this existing infrastructure, the foundation of our
economic security and quality of life, is depreciating much
faster than it is being recapitalized, when our increasing
population is placing much greater stress on the Nation's vital
water resources, when shifts in population centers mean new and
different problems and when a growing environmental awareness
requires new solutions to persistent problems, this
underfunding is unacceptable and threatens our continued well-
being.
In a particularly egregious example of this inattention,
the administration budget continues the trend of ever lower
General Investigations [GI] funding thereby depriving us of the
Nation's primary tool to identify future challenges and develop
innovative solutions to water resources challenges and needs.
The fiscal year 2002 GI request was $130,000,000. This has
declined to $90,000,000 in fiscal year 2008. This decline is
not due to a reduction in water resources needs, rather, it
appears to be a deliberate attempt to choke off the Corps
planning program. Of the $90,000,000 recommended in the budget
request only about one-third of it is for actual studies that
might eventually become projects. This is unconscionable given
the enormous water resource needs facing our Nation. Worse
still, it eviscerates the Corps ability to do proper planning.
It is clear that in assembling this budget, no thought was
given to how these recommendations would impact the workload
and workforce in the various district offices of the Corps.
Planning in the Corps is a specialized skillset and once
that ability is lost, it is difficult to reestablish. Most of
the criticisms of the Corps project development process in
recent years have centered on the planning process. The
administration is providing funding for some improvements to
the Planning program such as funding the Planning Associates
Program and Planning Centers of Expertise. However, if there
are no planning studies to be undertaken this funding is
wasted. The Committee believes that the Corps should have a
robust planning program to not only address new water resource
needs but to evaluate changes throughout the project
development process. Continued budgets like this will lead to a
complete loss of this vital Corps of Engineers' competency. The
administration should seriously revise their priorities for
this account in the fiscal year 2009 budget.
The Construction, General [CG] and Operation and
Maintenance [O&M] accounts have to be discussed jointly due to
the way the budget request blurs the line between the
traditional project split between the two accounts.
Priorities for the CG account are based on six criteria for
fiscal year 2008. The primary criteria is the project's benefit
to cost ratio [BCR]. This is a welcome change from previous
budgets that judged a program on its remaining cost to
remaining benefits, which put rural projects a significant
disadvantage. Projects with on going contracts and a BCR
greater than 1.5 or are significant or cost effective aquatic
ecosystem restoration projects are given funding for current
contract needs. Projects that address significant risks to
human health and safety are given sufficient funding to support
an uninterrupted level of funding in fiscal year 2008. Projects
with a BCR less than 1.5 are considered for deferral. No new
construction starts met the administration's new start criteria
for fiscal year 2008. Projects complying with treaties and
biological opinions and/or meeting mitigation requirements as
well as dam safety, seepage control and static instability
correction were given the maximum funding for efficient and
effective execution.
The O&M account appears to have been increased by nearly
$500,000,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted amount. However
this is very misleading. The administration has again proposed
shifting major project rehabilitations and environmental
compliance activities associated with completed projects from
CG to O&M. Also shifted to O&M are dredged material disposal
projects, beach erosion restoration due to completed navigation
projects and initial nourishment of beach projects. This
shifting of projects was allegedly done in the name of budget
transparency--trying to show the true costs of project
operations. This seems to be a very weak justification in that
the Bureau of Reclamation which has similar projects in their
construction accounts did not get similar guidance in their
budget preparation. By shifting some of these projects such as
major rehabs and beach nourishments to O&M it appears that the
administration was able to circumvent their own new start
criteria. Further, by funding environmental compliance
activities in the individual O&M projects seems to make the
budget process less transparent by hiding how much these
activities are costing the Nation by distributing these costs
across multiple projects as opposed to a single line item in
previous budgets. Finally, the administration's budget proposal
limits coastal storm damage reduction projects that require
periodic sand renourishments to those where the erosion is due
to navigation projects. It also proposes to limit Federal
participation to initial beach nourishment.
Shifting of projects from the two accounts totals almost
$300,000,000 of the $500,000,000 increase to O&M. This also
corresponds to a similar decrease in CG funding for fiscal year
2008. That still leaves an increase of $200,000,000 for
traditional O&M projects. The Committee is pleased that the
administration has provided this increase to O&M for fiscal
year 2008. This is the first real increase in many years.
Unfortunately, the Committee notes that the Corps maintenance
backlog is more than $1,000,000,000 and increases by about
$100,000,000 annually as the inventory of projects ages.
O&M is again presented as 21 separate regions based on
watersheds as opposed to discrete projects. The Committee has
indicated in the past that this so called ``regional budget''
is no more than an aggregation of the projects within a
specific watershed. It does not appear that this budget is any
different. The budget for these projects appears to be
developed in the same way that it has always been and then
aggregated with the other discrete projects in the watershed.
The regional budgeting proposed in the last 2 years appears to
serve no real budgetary purpose other than to circumvent the
reprogramming guidance provided by the Committee.
The regulatory budget gets a substantial increase to
$180,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. This is more than
$20,000,000 over the amount provided in fiscal year 2007.
However, the Committee recognizes the substantial increased
burden to establishing new regulatory guidance in the wake of
the Rapanos Supreme Court decision.
The Committee is disappointed that funding for the Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] was cut by
nearly $10,000,000 from the fiscal year 2007 amount of
$138,672,000. This program was transferred to the Corps from
the Department of Energy, because the Committee was concerned
with management and cost issues of the program within the
Energy Department. This is a program that is being well managed
by the Corps and should have stable, adequate budget resources
to continue these radiological clean-up activities.
The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account is funded
at $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. The Committee supports
this funding for disaster readiness and preparedness activities
of the Corps of Engineers.
The budget request again combines the budget request for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
with the General Expenses [GE] account. The Committee continues
to believe that the Assistant Secretary's office should be
funded in the Defense Appropriations bill. However, until such
time as that can be reintegrated into that bill, the Committee
believes that it should be funded as a separate account. The
Assistant Secretary's duties encompass much more than the civil
works functions of the Corps of Engineers and the budget needs
of the office should be addressed separately.
The Committee is pleased to see an increase in the GE
budget for fiscal year 2008. With the increases in
responsibilities for the headquarters of the Corps in
overseeing larger budgets as well as the massive rebuilding of
the flood and storm damage reduction measures in the New
Orleans area, it is appropriate that this account should be
increased. The Committee notes that the Corps operates one of
the most efficient headquarters staffs in the National Capital
region. Only about 3.5 percent of their staffing is at their
headquarters level as opposed to 10 percent or more for
comparable agencies in the National Capital region.
PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING
The Committee has watched with interest over the last 4
years as the Corps has moved to a ``performance based budget''
model. Unfortunately, the Committee does not see improvement in
the budgeting of the Nation's Civil Works infrastructure
program. In fact, the Committee believes quite the opposite is
true. Rather than an integrated program, the budget for the
Civil Works program seems to be degenerating toward a yearly
collection of interchangeable projects dependent only on the
budgetary whims and criteria in use in that particular year.
The current method of performance based budgeting utilized in
this budget preparation turns the Nation away from
infrastructure investments that return two and even three times
their cost.
In fiscal year 2005, more than 130 projects were budgeted
by the administration for construction; this year there are
only about 66. However, Congress funded more than 300 projects
in fiscal year 2006 and has averaged about 315 annually since
fiscal year 2000. Due to the joint funding resolution for
fiscal year 2007, Congress did not propose any projects for
construction within the $2,336,368,000 in Construction, General
funding provided to the executive branch but left that task to
the administration. The administration funded 244 construction
projects in their fiscal year 2007 work plan. They could have
chosen to only fund the 85 proposed in the fiscal year 2007
budget request, but they didn't. This demonstrates a
recognition by the administration that their budget proposal
only partially addressed the Nation's needs. The work plan also
demonstrated that the administration finds value in many of the
projects that Congress annually funds. Unfortunately, the
budget request pretends that these on going projects which have
been funded annually for many years in enacted legislation do
not exist. Further the budget assumes it costs nothing to
ignore these projects. If Congress funded only the budget
request for Construction, General, the administration would
quickly discover that termination costs for unfunded on going
projects could easily exceed the request. This is irresponsible
budgeting on the part of the administration.
From the Committee's perspective, the Corps' budget seems
to be developed exactly in the opposite manner that it should
be. It appears that overall spending targets are set by the
administration and then their priority projects are inserted
within these targets. Criteria are then established to justify
funding the lower priority projects within the remaining
funding targets. The problem with budgeting in this manner is
evident in the construction account for fiscal year 2008. Six
priority projects consume nearly 30 percent of the requested
dollars in this account. Another nine projects related to dam
safety consume another 20 percent. That means that some 51
projects have to split the remaining construction dollars.
The logic behind this budgeting rational appears to be that
concentrating scarce resources on finishing a few higher
performing projects will allow the Nation to reap the benefits
of these projects sooner. The trouble with this is that these
are long-term projects that take many years to complete. At the
rate the budget is headed, we will only be funding the
administration's six priority projects and the dam safety
repairs in another couple of years with little else in the
pipeline. The Committee questions this rationale when compared
to the value of the benefits that are deferred by suspending or
terminating these other projects in order to concentrate
resources on such a few projects. In some cases these deferred
benefits may never be realized due to these terminations.
Local sponsors who share in these projects' cost may lose
their ability to share these costs or may lose public support
for finishing these projects. Once these priority projects are
completed, one has to wonder whether there will be any projects
or sponsors interested in resuming construction in an
infrastructure program that suspends projects based on
changeable annual criteria.
In the past, Corps budgets were developed from the bottom
up, District to Division to Headquarters to ASA to OMB.
District commanders were responsible for developing and
managing a program within their geographic area. Division
Commanders were responsible for integrating the District office
programs into a single Division-wide program. The Headquarters
office integrated the Division Programs into a single national
program. The OASA assured that the program complied with
administration policy and budgetary guidance and OMB developed
the budgetary guidance and provided funding levels. Decisions
for budgeting were made within the framework of administration
policy by those who knew the projects and programs best, not
Washington level bureaucrats.
Another benefit of budgeting in this manner is that it
allows the Corps to undertake workforce planning to distribute
their work across the Nation. When one chooses to put 40-50
percent of the budget in a handful of projects, there is no way
the workload can be balanced across the remainder of the Nation
with what is left. Unlike other Federal agencies that have a
salaries and expense component to their budget, the Corps does
not, at least not at the District office level. Virtually all
costs at District offices (rent, utilities, labor, materials,
etc.) are charged to projects and studies as directed by
Congress. This enables the public to be informed of the true
cost of all projects. Accordingly, it is necessary that the
budget process be consistent with the accounting practice. When
dealing with such large differences in workload from fiscal
year to fiscal year it is clear that the administration gave no
thought to how this budget would impact the Corps'
organizational structure or ability to maintain a technically
competent workforce. Congress has repeatedly demonstrated that
it desires to keep the structure of the Corps of Engineers as
it is currently configured. Yet, if the budget were enacted,
there would be no way to maintain this workforce, due to how
budgetary criteria skewed the projects to certain areas of the
country. Neither a pure ``bottom up'' budget process, nor a
performance-based budget process is perfect. Experienced
decision makers are expected to exercise informed judgment to
achieve a balanced program considering all factors. Once more,
the administration appears to have submitted a very unbalanced
program using oversimplified decision metrics to consider only
a few objectives (e.g. BCR and efficient completion of a few
projects) that do not take into account the long- term needs of
the Nation or the organization expected to manage the program.
The Congress will likely consider the passage of a water
resources development bill this year. In this bill the BCR
necessary for a project to be authorized for construction is
1.0 to 1. The criteria mentioned above requires a BCR to be 3.0
to 1 for budgeting. This performance based budgeting criteria
furthers the divide between what is required for authorization
and what is required to be budgeted. These criteria use to be
one and the same. Most of the projects in the water resources
development bill will likely not meet this criteria, increasing
the backlog of authorized but unconstructed projects. These new
projects, along with the deferrals in the budget and the major
rehabilitations needed for aging infrastructure, are affecting
and will continue to affect the national economy. Existing
water resources infrastructure is wearing out. The Nation needs
to recapitalize if we are to remain competitive in a global
marketplace.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET INITIATIVES
The administration has proposed several changes to how the
civil works program is appropriated for fiscal year 2007. These
include the regionalization of operations and maintenance
funding and migrating four categories of projects from the
Construction, General account to the Operations and Maintenance
account. The Committee has rejected all of these initiatives.
Regionalized operations and maintenance funding segregates
funding for projects into 21 watershed regions around the
country as opposed to displaying operations and maintenance
costs by project as has been the tradition. As projects, not
regions, are authorized and funded by Congress, the Committee
must reject this proposal. Operation and Maintenance budgets
are developed on a project by project basis. For large river
basins such as the Ohio or the Missouri, budgeting for the
individual projects, as authorized, involve multiple Districts
and Divisions. As the proposals in the budget are not developed
as a systemized budget, aggregating them in the fashion
proposed does not lead to the ``true costs'' of operating the
system, it just adds up the various parts. The Committee does
not believe that this proposal advances the budgeting for
operations and maintenance.
The Committee is not opposed to a systemized budget for
projects. However, the Corps must demonstrate the value of this
approach to the Committee. The Corps is directed to prepare
four systemized, integrated budgets for four different areas of
the Nation, the Ohio River, the Great Lakes, the Texas Coast
and the California coast, to demonstrate the value of system or
watershed based planning and budgeting. Should the Corps want
to select different areas they must coordinate their
recommendations with the Committees prior to implementation.
This process should start at the initial development phases of
the budget so that goals can be developed and carried through
the entire budget development process.
The Committee rejects the initiative to move Endangered
Species Act [ESA] compliance activities from Construction,
General to Operations and Maintenance. The stated reason was
budget transparency, or to more appropriately show the true
costs of operating these projects. The Committee has two issues
with this logic. Budget transparency fades when the costs are
rolled into the regionalized budgets. However, even if they
were budgeted on a project by project basis, the casual
observer would have no notion of how much of the operational
costs of these projects is related to ESA compliance. Second,
these are only being considered as operational costs because
mitigation for these projects was not undertaken when the
projects were constructed as is now required by subsequent
laws. Were these projects constructed today, formulation of the
projects would have required avoidance and minimization
measures for the endangered species.
If one wanted to take this argument to the extreme, all of
the Everglades Restoration should be budgeted under the Central
and South Florida O&M project since construction of this
project resulted in the environmental restorations that are now
being implemented. However, the costs for this work would not
be transparent in the budget. By retaining the ESA compliance
measures as separate line items in the CG account, it is much
more transparent as to how much is being funded for these
activities.
The budget has proposed moving major rehabilitation for
locks and dams from the Construction, General account to the
Operations and Maintenance account. Corresponding to this is a
legislative proposal to allow the proceeds from the Inland
Waterway Trust Fund to be utilized in the Operations and
Maintenance account. Current law only allows these funds to be
utilized in the Construction, General account. The Congress
moved major rehabilitation from the Construction, General
account to the Operation and Maintenance account in fiscal year
1985. Subsequently as the backlog increased, it was returned to
the Construction, General account in the fiscal year 1993
budget. The stipulations involved in moving it back to the
Construction account included that these major rehabilitations
would involve more than a simple restoration of project
function. Operational improvements were considered as a part of
the rehab. As such, the rehabilitated, or recapitalized,
projects were considered new investment opportunities for the
country, the same as other new projects, and had to compete as
new starts in the Construction, General program. This is
entirely appropriate as these recapitalized projects provide
increased levels of service and performance not envisioned in
their original construction. If they didn't, under existing
adminstration policy, the repairs would be considered major
maintenance and would be funded under the Operation and
Maintenance Account. To help fund these major rehabs,
legislation allowed half the costs of the major rehab to be
borne by the Inland Waterway Trust Fund with the other half to
come from the General Treasury. The Committee does not believe
moving these projects back to the Operations and Maintenance
account will solve the backlog of major rehabs and rejects this
proposal. The Committee believes that the real intent of this
proposal is to skirt the new start issue in the CG account.
The Committee is disappointed that the administration has
recycled their beach policy from the fiscal year 2007 budget.
This was only a slight tweak to the fiscal year 2006 proposal
that was rejected by the Congress. The Committee rejects the
new policy as well. The Committee notes that beaches are the
leading tourist destination in the United States. Typically
beach projects are justified on storm damages prevented alone,
and the recreation benefits only enhance the benefit to cost
ratio. The maximum Federal Government contribution to Federal
shore protection projects is 65 percent of the total project
cost but the Government receives all the benefits in reducing
Federal disaster assistance payments. By paying for Federal
shore protection projects now, we can avoid many of the
catastrophic losses and disaster assistance payments associated
with hurricanes and coastal storms. Simply stated, the Nation
can pay now to avoid losses or pay more later to recover from
severe impacts. It truly makes sense to be proactive and not
reactive in this environment.
It is instructive to compare the Federal investment in
beach infrastructure (beach nourishment) versus Federal tax
revenues from tourists. The annual Federal investment in beach
nourishment is approximately $100,000,000 a year. Travel and
tourism in the United States produce $223,900,000,000 in tax
revenues and growth in this sector exceeds 5 percent annually.
About 53 percent or $119,000,000,000 of these tax revenues go
to the Federal Government. Assuming that half of these tourists
are beach tourists (beaches are the leading U.S. tourist
destination by more than a 2 to 1 margin), beach tourists
produce Federal taxes of about $60,000,000,000 a year.
Therefore, for every dollar in annual Federal expenditures for
beach nourishment, the Federal Government is receiving tax
revenues of approximately $600 from beach tourists.
Interestingly, the administration has been pursuing
authorization for coastal wetland restoration projects to
protect coastal areas from hurricane storm surge. Yet the
placement of sand in coastal areas for the exact same reason is
given no priority by the administration in the budget process.
While the Committee supports restoration of the coastal
wetlands, it is difficult to imagine that wetlands will provide
a greater national economic impact than placing sand on public
beaches to mitigate storm surges on our densely populated
coastal areas.
The Committee believes that this budget proposal is no way
to run a robust national infrastructure program. The Committee
recommended that the Corps include additional criteria into the
project prioritization process and commends the administration
for having done so for the fiscal year 2008 budget request. The
Committee also commends the administration for changing from
the Remaining Benefits/Remaining Costs Ratio to the projects
actual Benefit to Cost Ratio. However, the net result is that
the mix of projects is substantially unchanged and fewer
projects are proposed for funding in fiscal year 2008. The
Committee does not believe that this prioritization method can
be salvaged into a useable system. Further, the Committee has
seen no evidence that it has improved the budget process.
Rather than trying new budget models and new prioritization
criteria, the country needs to invest more heavily in its water
resources. Water resource projects are some of the only Federal
expenditures that go through a rigorous benefit to cost process
to determine benefits to the national economy. The standard of
living that we currently enjoy is due to the excess capacity
that was built into our water resources infrastructure by
previous generations. By failing to make new investments and
recapitalizing aging infrastructure, the Nation is not only
falling behind our competition around the world, but is
jeopardizing our future economic growth.
BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS
The Committee continues to be concerned about the manner
that budget justifications were prepared for the fiscal year
2008 budget. In the past, the Corps provided justification
sheets for each project and presented them in budget order by
Division across the country. Again for fiscal year 2008, a
single book of justification sheets was provided by business
lines. The Committee finds this manner of displaying the budget
not very helpful in being able to find meaningful information
on individual projects and studies. While the Committee
believes that budget justifications could be improved by
providing more relevant budget information, particularly for
operations and maintenance projects, the method used for
display in fiscal year 2008 provides less useful information,
not more. For fiscal year 2009, the Committee instructs that
the budget justifications should be prepared in the format used
for fiscal year 2004, that is, prior to the business line
budget model. This should include information on fund items in
preceding acts that will have out year funding requirements as
well as budgeted items. If the administration chooses to
continue to provide the business line information, it may be
provided as a separate appendix to the justifications.
CONTINUING CONTRACTS AND REPROGRAMMING
Traditionally, the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
Program has been a truly integrated nationwide water
infrastructure program. As such, flexibility was required to
manage the program. Congress has given the Chief of Engineers
great latitude in management of this program in order to expend
annual appropriations as efficiently and effectively as
possible. Water resources projects, because of the nature of
the work involved, are funded on an incremental annual basis.
While aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and even spacecraft
have been constructed without the use of continuing contracts
Congress recognized that those amounts of budget resources
would never be available to the Corps, so they provided
continuing contract authority to allow them to construct large
scale projects without the Congress having to provide all of
the budget authority up front. Additionally, this method of
funding the Corps allowed the Congress to have more projects
underway at the same time with the same budget authority.
Congress recognized that by providing this flexibility it was
relinquishing some measure of control over future
appropriations; however, Congress believed that this was an
acceptable trade off for the efficient use of limited funds.
This system worked well from the 1920s until 2005. For the
few years prior to fiscal year 2006, the Corps had gotten
somewhat sloppy in their management of continuing contracts as
well as reprogramming of project funds. This sloppiness gave
the appearance that construction contractors were dictating
program execution. As the Committee has discussed in prior
years, this perception was due to a number of factors some of
them initiated by the Congress and other by the Corps'
interpretation of congressional directives. Unfortunately
restrictions placed on the Corps in the fiscal year 2006
budget, that are still in effect, have severely limited, if not
prohibited the Corps from entering into new continuing
contracts as well as virtually prohibited reprogramming of
project funds.
These factors have led to a dramatic increase in carryover
of project funds which can only mean that projects are still
being delayed even with the new guidance from fiscal year 2006.
Carryover from fiscal year 2005 into fiscal year 2006 was about
$300,000,000. With the new guidance from the fiscal year 2006
act, carryover ballooned to $1,400,000,000 from fiscal year
2006 into fiscal year 2007. Preliminary indications are that
carryover from fiscal year 2007 into fiscal year 2008 will
exceed $1,000,000,000 and may be as high as $1,200,000,000.
While the Committee accepts that some level of carryover is
unavoidable and desirable, carrying over nearly 20 percent of
the Corps' annual appropriations is unacceptable. Changes must
be made by Congress and the Corps to efficiently and
effectively utilize annual appropriations and reduce carryover
balances to more reasonable levels. Noting these exceptionally
large carryover balances, the Committee has continued to
include small percentages of savings and slippage on all
accounts to maximize resources. The fiscal year 2006 guidance
has also had a significant impact on continuing contracts in
effect prior to the guidance being implemented as contracts
cannot be unilaterally modified by the Corps to adopt these
changes to the law.
The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to execute the
Civil Works program generally in accordance with congressional
direction. This includes moving individual projects forward in
accordance with the funds annually appropriated. However, the
Committee realizes that many factors outside the Corps' control
may dictate the progress of any given project or study.
Therefore, the Committee believes that it is imperative to give
the Chief of Engineers ample flexibility to manage the program
and to utilize excess funds as they become available on a
particular project in order to move the entire program forward,
effectively advancing projects to completion and accruing the
benefits and services for which they were authorized, as soon
as practicable. However, the Committee notes that granting this
flexibility also requires responsibility to insure that
appropriated funds are available for projects for which they
were appropriated, when needed.
The Committee believes that properly utilized continuing
contracts serve a vital purpose in executing civil works
projects. The Committee also believes that judicious use of
reprogramming authority also contributes to an efficient and
effectively run program. Therefore the Committee is repealing
section 108 of Public Law 109-103 pertaining to limitation on
funding to continuing contracts. The Committee is leaving in
place the provisions of section 106 as they restore the
traditional uses of continuing contracts. The Committee directs
that in utilizing continuing contracts that they should be for
long term, large scale projects. The Committee's expectation is
that for a continuing contract to be utilized, the contract
value should exceed $5,000,000 and have a minimum contract
duration of 24 months. Anything less than these amounts should
be considered for full funding. However, this should not be
considered an endorsement by the Committee that only continuing
contracts should be awarded above these thresholds. The
Committee expects the Corps to use the proper contracting
vehicle for each situation. For continuing contracts this
should include the reasonable expectation of future funding.
Authority for awarding continuing contracts should be at the
lowest practical level. Exceptions to these limits should be
forwarded to the Chief of Engineers for review and approval.
The Committee further notes that current reprogramming
recommendations have come to be elevated to the highest levels
of the Corps, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
and OMB. The Committee believes that reprogrammings are
operational decisions which should be delegated. The Committee
believes that the Chief should delegate recommendation of
reprogramming decisions to as low of a level as possible in
order to expedite reprogramming actions in order to efficiently
and effectively utilize scarce funds.
The Committee is also revamping reprogramming guidance for
the Corps. The Committee believes that the reprogramming
guidance that is currently being utilized is too restrictive
and does not address the inherent differences in the various
accounts of the Corps of Engineers. For fiscal year 2008,
reprogramming limitations will be tied to the base funding
amounts available for the project, study, or activity for which
funding is available. In other words, the base for each
project, study or activity amounts to the new budget authority
made available, excluding supplemental funds, coupled with
previously provided unexpended funding for the project, study
or activity. For reprogramming actions that must come to the
Committee for approval, the Committee expects the Corps to
fully coordinate the actions with the affected Members of
Congress before the action is formally submitted to the
Committees. In no case should a reprogramming action for less
than $50,000 be submitted to the Committees for approval. The
authority for each account is as follows:
General Investigations.--For a base funding level less than
$100,000, the reprogramming limit is $25,000. For a base level
over $100,000, 25 percent up to a limit of $150,000 per study
or activity. Amounts over this limit will require approval of
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, except that the
Committee does not object to reprogramming up to $25,000 to any
continuing study or activity that did not receive an
appropriation in the current year.
Construction, General.--For a base less than $2,000,000,
the reprogramming limit is $300,000. For a base level over
$2,000,000, 15 percent up to a limit of $3,000,000 per project
or activity. The Committee will allow reprogramming up to
$3,000,000 for settled contractor claims, accelerated earnings
or real estate deficiency judgments. Amounts over this limit
require approval of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees. Reprogramming within each section of the Continuing
Authorities is unlimited however, the percentages between
studies and implementation must be maintained as directed in
this report. Further, no reprogramming is allowed between
sections nor into or out of the overall CG account. The
Committee does not object to reprogramming of up to $300,000 to
any continuing project or program that did not receive an
appropriation in the current year.
Operations and Maintenance.--Unlimited reprogramming
authority is granted in order for the Corps to be able to
respond to emergency situations. The Chief of Engineers must
notify the House and Senate Appropriations Committees of these
emergency actions as soon thereafter as practicable. For all
other situations, for a base less than $1,000,000, the
reprogramming limit is $150,000. For a base over $1,000,000, 15
percent up to a limit of $5,000,000 per project or activity.
Amounts over this limit require approval of the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees. The Committee does not object
reprogramming up to $150,000 to any continuing project or
program that did not receive an appropriation in the current
year.
Mississippi River and Tributaries.--The Corps should follow
the same reprogramming guidelines for the General
Investigations, Construction, General and Operation and
Maintenance portions of the Mississippi River and Tributaries
account as listed above.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.--The Corps
may reprogram up to 15 percent of the base of the receiving
project.
This revised continuing contract and reprogramming guidance
should help the Corps effectively manage their program while
honoring the intent of Congress. These items reinvigorate the
idea that once the Congress funds a study, that it intends for
the study phase to be completed to determine if Federal
investment is warranted. By the same token, once the Congress
commits to initiation of construction of a project that it
intends for the project to be completed and the national
economy to accrue the project benefits.
Five Year Comprehensive Budget Planning
While the Committee appreciates the Corps' attempts to
provide a meaningful 5-year budget plan, it recognizes the
inherent difficulties between the legislative and executive
branches in preparing a useful plan. The executive branch is
unwilling to project a 5-year horizon for projects for which
they do not budget leaving a sizeable percentage of the Corps
annual appropriations with a year to year event horizon for
planning purposes. The fact that a sizeable portion of the
annual appropriations are dedicated to congressional priorities
is not a new phenomenon. Many major public works projects over
the last two centuries have been funded on an annual basis
without a clear budget strategy. The Committee would welcome
the ideas and the opportunity to work with the executive branch
to determine a mutually agreeable way to develop an integrated
5-year comprehensive budget that displays true funding needs
for congressional as well as administration priorities.
Anything less will only give a partial view of the investments
needed in water resources infrastructure.
Study and Project Reviews
The Committee notes that review times have markedly
improved for Corps of Engineers documents at the Headquarters,
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and
the Office of Management and Budget since statutory timeframes
and notifications were imposed on these reviews. This is shown
in the table below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Date to OMB Date review completed Date to Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith Island, MD.................... 22 Oct 02............... 18 Apr 05\1\........... 02 Aug 06
Hamilton Airfield, CA............... 24 Jan 05............... 20 Apr 05.............. 03 May 05
Silver Strand/Imperial Beach, CA.... 03 Jan 05............... 22 Apr 05.............. 06 May 05
Western Sarpy, NE................... 25 Feb 04............... 22 Apr 05.............. 15 Jul 05
J.T. Myers/Greenup L&Ds KY, OH, IN.. 23 Aug 03............... 03 May 05.............. 04 Jan 06
Southwest Valley, NM................ 06 Apr 05............... 14 Jun 05.............. 29 Jun 05
Centralia, WA....................... 25 Apr 05............... 15 Jun 05.............. 01 Jul 05
Jacksonville Harbor, FL............. 18 May 05............... 25 Jul 05.............. 03 Aug 05
Denver County Streams, CO........... 21 Jun 05............... 02 Sep 05.............. 13 Oct 05
Indian River Lagoon, FL............. 22 Jun 05............... 17 Oct 05.............. 01 Feb 06
Louisiana Coastal Area, LA.......... 26 Aug 05............... 01 Nov 05.............. 21 Nov 05
Napa River Salt Marsh, CA........... 17 Aug 05............... 01 Nov 05.............. 21 Nov 05
Duwamish-Green Rivers, WA........... 09 May 02............... 28 Nov 05.............. 21 Dec 05
Stillaguamish River, WA............. 18 Apr 02............... 28 Nov 05.............. 21 Dec 05
Dare County Beaches, NC............. 01 Nov 05............... 06 Jan 06.............. 27 Jan 06
Chickamauga L&D, TN................. 16 Jun 04............... 11 Jan 06.............. 25 Jan 06
Miami Harbor, FL.................... 17 Feb 06............... 24 Apr 06.............. 25 May 06
Rilito River, Pima County, AZ....... 17 Feb 06............... 01 May 06.............. 19 May 06
Great Lakes Fish & Ecosystem Rest... 07 Apr 06............... 15 Jun 06.............. Complete\2\
Missouri & Middle Mississippi River. 30 Aug 05............... 15 Jun 06.............. Complete\2\
Ohio River Restoration, OH.......... 04 Mar 02............... 15 Jun 06.............. Complete\2\
Puget Sound, WA..................... 02 May 05............... 15 Jun 06.............. Complete\2\
Bayou Sorrel, LA.................... 10 Jul 06............... 15 Sep 06.............. 04 Oct 06
Poplar Island, MD................... 03 Aug 06............... 03 Oct 06.............. 11 Oct 06
Matilija Dam, CA.................... 25 Sep 06............... 27 Nov 06.............. 09 Apr 07
Hamilton City, CA................... 25 Sep 06............... 22 Nov 06.............. 21 Dec 06
Bloomsburg, PA...................... 11 Oct 06............... 20 Dec 06.............. 11 Jan 07
Matagorda Bay Re-Route, TX.......... 08 Sep 03............... 06 Feb 07.............. 05 Mar 07
GIWW, High Island to Brazos, TX..... 08 Oct 04............... 06 Feb 07.............. 09 Mar 07
Deep Creek Bridge, VA............... 27 Aug 03............... 23 Feb 07.............. 23 Mar 07
Jackson Hole, Snake River, WY....... 04 Mar 02............... 08 Mar 07............. 12 Mar 07
Picayune Strand, FL................. 17 Jan 07............... 19 Mar 07.............. 19 Apr 07
Montauk Point, NY................... 05 Feb 07............... 19 Apr 07.............. 03 May 07
MS Coastal Improvements Program..... 20 Feb 07............... 23 Apr 07.............. 04 May 07
Breckinridge, MN.................... 15 Jul 04............... 20 Mar 07.............. 07 May 07
Chesterfield, MO.................... 13 Jun 06............... 01 May 07.............. 30 May 07
Lido Key, Lee County Shore, FL...... 04 Aug 06............... 25 May 07.............. .......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Received June 27, 2006.
\2\Returned to DCW as complete by letter dated 17 Jul 06. Programmatic documents not to be reviewed by OMB.
However, the Committee is not pleased that this improved
review time only applies to new documents that have been
forwarded for review. Many documents have been languishing for
3 to 4 years. This is unacceptable to the Committee and should
be to OMB as well. The following table shows the name of the
document, when it was forwarded to OMB and the current status.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Date to OMB Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware Coastline, Port Mahon, DE...... 07 Jun 99 & 08 Jan 02............. Pending
Whitewater River Basin, CA.............. 09 May 02......................... Pending
Port Monmouth, NJ....................... 19 May 03......................... Pending
Rio de Flag, AZ......................... 18 Sep 03......................... Pending
Port Sutton, FL......................... 01 Oct 03......................... Pending
Peoria Riverfront Development, IL....... 28 Feb 04......................... Pending\1\
Park River at Grafton, ND............... 28 May 04......................... Pending
Tanque Verde, AZ........................ 02 Jun 04......................... Pending
Dallas Floodway Extension, TX........... 23 Aug 04......................... Pending
Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX......... 16 Sep 04......................... Active Review
Swope Park Industrial Area, MO.......... 28 Oct 04......................... Pending
South River, Raritan River Basin, NJ.... 05 Nov 04......................... Pending
St. Clair River/Lake St. Clair, MI...... 22 Mar 06......................... Pending
Manasquan to Barnegat Inlet, NJ......... 25 Sep 06......................... On Hold\2\
CERP--Site 1 Impoundment................ 25 Apr 07......................... Pending
Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, IA....... 25 Apr 07......................... Pending
Craney Island Expansion, VA............. 07 Jun 07......................... Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Project Scope reduced by partial implementation authorized by section 519 of WRDA 2000.
\2\District answering questions on cumulative effects and air quality.
The Committee directs the Chief of Engineers to work with
the ASA[CW] and OMB to develop a plan to complete these policy
compliance reviews as expeditiously as possible and forward the
recommendations of these reports to Congress. This plan should
be presented to the appropriate House and Senate authorizing
and Appropriations Committees no later than September 30, 2007.
The Committee directs that reviews of all of these documents
should be completed no later than December 31, 2008.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation includes a total of
$5,448,092,000. This is $577,092,000 over the administration's
budget request and $109,722,000 over the fiscal year 2007
enacted amount. Funding is displayed in the following tables in
the accounts where projects have been traditionally located and
comparisons to the budget request are made as if the request
was presented in the traditional manner. Funding by account is
as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2007 Committee Request vs.
request recommedation recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Investigations.................................... 90,000 172,147 +82,147
Construction, General..................................... 1,818,811 2,059,474 +240,663
Mississippi River and Tributaries......................... 260,000 375,000 +115,000
Operation and Maintenance................................. 2,175,189 2,291,971 +116,782
Regulatory................................................ 180,000 180,000 ................
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies..................... 40,000 50,000 +10,000
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program........... 130,000 140,000 +10,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 6,000 4,500 -1,500
Works)...................................................
General Expenses.......................................... 171,000 175,000 +4,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 4,871,000 5,448,092 +577,092
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS
The Committee received more than 2,500 requests for
projects, programs, studies or activities for the Corps of
Engineers for fiscal year 2008. These were items that were in
addition to the budget request as well as those included in the
budget request. The Committee obviously was unable to
accommodate all of these requests.
In the interest of providing full disclosure of funding
provided in the Energy and Water bill, all disclosures are made
in this report accompanying the Bill.
All of the projects funded in this report have gone through
the same rigorous public review and approval process as those
proposed for funding by the President. The difference in these
projects, of course, is that the congressionally directed
projects are not subject to the artificial budgetary
prioritization criteria that the administration utilizes to
decide what not to fund.
A new column has been added to the tables to show the
requestors of the various projects. For those programs,
projects, or studies that were included in the budgetary
documents provided in the budget request, the word President
has been added to denote this administration request. The level
of funding provided for each of these programs projects or
studies should not be construed as what was requested. Rather,
the only intent is to disclose the requestor.
It should be noted that many line items only have President
listed as the requestor. It should not be inferred that the
affected Members are not interested in these projects studies
or activities. Rather this is due to Committee direction that
the President's budget requests are assumed to be requested by
the affected Members unless they notify the Committee to the
contrary.
The purposes for the funding provided in the various
accounts is described in the paragraphs associated with each
account. The location of the programs, projects or studies are
denoted in the account tables.
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $162,916,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 90,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 172,147,000
\1\Excludes emergency appropriations of $8,165,000.
This appropriation funds studies to determine the need,
engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the
environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and
related land resource problems; and for preconstruction
engineering and design work, data collection, and interagency
coordination and research activities.
The planning program is the entry point for Federal
involvement in solutions to the Nation's water resource
problems and needs. Unfortunately, the General Investigations
[GI] account is eviscerated in the budget request. Nationwide
studies and programs consume nearly two-thirds of the
administration's GI request. This budget is saying that the
Nation should concentrate scarce resources on completing
studies but not carrying forward ongoing studies or allowing
new starts. The Committee believes this argument is remarkably
shortsighted. It assumes that the country will stop growing and
that new investment opportunities will not be present.
In truth, as the country grows, new investment
opportunities will be presented and some previously authorized
projects may no longer make sense or may be less competitive.
The Corps should keep presenting the administration and
Congress with new investment opportunities in order for the
Nation to remain competitive in a global economy. The only
conclusion one can draw from the administration's GI proposal
is that they are determined to redirect the Corps towards
construction, operation and maintenance by strangling their
ability to evaluate water resource problems and needs.
The Committee has provided for a robust and balanced
planning program for fiscal year 2008. The Committee has used
the traditional view within the Corps planning program that
only considers new starts as those that have never received GI
funds before. The Committee believes that to maintain a robust
planning program, a mix of new reconnaissance studies must be
included with the existing feasibility and PED studies. As such
the Committee has included several new reconnaissance studies
in this account. To provide additional transparency in the
budget process, the Committee has segregated the budget into
three columns in the following table.
The first column represents the reconnaissance phase of the
planning process. These studies determine if there is a Federal
interest in a water resource problem or need and if there is a
cost sharing sponsor willing to move forward with the study.
The next column represents the feasibility phase of the study.
These detailed cost shared studies determine the selected
alternative to be recommended to the Congress for construction.
The third column represents the Preconstruction engineering and
design phase. These detailed cost shared designs are prepared
while the project recommended to Congress is awaiting
authorization for construction.
The Committee believes that by segregating the table in
this manner that more attention will be focused on the various
study phases, and a more balanced planning program will be
developed by the administration. As the last two columns are
generally cost shared, they demonstrate the commitment by cost
sharing sponsors to be a part of the Federal planning process.
By the same token, it also shows the level of commitment of the
Federal Government to these cost sharing sponsors. The
Committee directs that the fiscal year 2009 planning budget be
presented to the Committee in this fashion.
The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance
are shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Committee recommendation
Project title ---------------------------------------------------------------- Requested by
Investigations Planning RECON FEAS PED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKA
ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK......... .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... STEVENS
ATKA BOAT HARBOR, AK................... .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... STEVENS
BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, .............. .......... .......... 400 .......... STEVENS
AK.
DELONG MOUNTAIN DOCK, AK............... .............. .......... .......... 100 400 STEVENS
HAINES HARBOR, AK...................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 350 STEVENS
HOMER HARBOR MODIFICATION, AK.......... .............. .......... .......... 400 .......... STEVENS
KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION, AK.......... .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... STEVENS
LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK.............. .............. .......... .......... 600 .......... STEVENS
MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK.......... .............. .......... 300 .......... .......... STEVENS
MCGRATH, AK............................ .............. .......... 600 .......... .......... STEVENS
WHITTIER BREAKWATER, AK................ .............. .......... .......... 400 .......... STEVENS
YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK..................... 300 .......... .......... 600 .......... PRESIDENT, STEVENS
ARIZONA
RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ......... .............. 300 .......... .......... 300 PRESIDENT
VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER .............. 658 .......... .......... 658 PRESIDENT
RESTORATION, AZ.
ARKANSAS
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESOURCE STUDY. .............. .......... 250 .......... .......... COCHRAN, LINCOLN, PRYOR
MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR............. .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 LINCOLN, PRYOR
PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR................. .............. .......... .......... .......... 500 LINCOLN, PRYOR
RED RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, SOUTHWEST .............. .......... .......... 200 200 LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR, INHOFE
ARKANSAS, AR.
WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR & .............. .......... .......... 325 .......... BOND, LINCOLN, PRYOR
MO.
WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOWS, AR.......... .............. .......... .......... .......... 475 LINCOLN, PRYOR
WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO NEWPORT, AR.. .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 LINCOLN, PRYOR
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER 300 .......... .......... 450 .......... PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
PLAN, CA.
CARPINTERIA SHORELINE STUDY............ .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... FEINSTEIN
COYOTE & BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA.......... 700 250 .......... 700 250 PRESIDENT
COYOTE DAM, CA......................... .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... FEINSTEIN
ESTUDILLO CANAL, CA.................... 425 .......... .......... 425 .......... PRESIDENT
HAMILTON CITY, CA...................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 800 FEINSTEIN
HEACOCK AND CACTUS CHANNELS, CA........ .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... FEINSTEIN
HUMBOLT BAY LONG TERM SEDIMENT .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... FEINSTEIN
MANAGEMENT, CA.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, .............. .......... .......... 750 .......... FEINSTEIN
CORNFIELDS, CA.
LOS ANGELES RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... BOXER
LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERCOURSE .............. .......... .......... 300 .......... FEINSTEIN
IMPROVEMENT--HEADWORKS).
LOWER CACHE CREEK, YOLO COUNTY, .............. .......... .......... 40 .......... FEINSTEIN
WOODLAND AND VICINITY.
LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA................ .............. .......... .......... .......... 500 FEINSTEIN
MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA............. .............. .......... .......... .......... 158 FEINSTEIN
MATILIJA DAM, CA....................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 1,000 FEINSTEIN, BOXER
MIDDLE CREEK, CA....................... .............. .......... .......... 30 500 FEINSTEIN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAMP, CA.............. .............. .......... .......... 227 .......... FEINSTEIN
ROCK CREEK, KEEFER SLOUGH, CA.......... .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... FEINSTEIN
SAC-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ISLANDS AND .............. .......... .......... 2,000 .......... FEINSTEIN
LEVEES, CA.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SAMP, CA.............. .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... FEINSTEIN
SAN JOAQUIN RB, WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, .............. .......... .......... 300 .......... FEINSTEIN
ORESTIMBA CREE.
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), FRAZIER .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... FEINSTEIN
CREEK/STRATHMO.
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), LOWER .............. .......... .......... 300 .......... FEINSTEIN
SAN JOAQUIN RIVE.
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), WHITE .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... FEINSTEIN
RIVER/DRY CREEK.
SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE, CA......... .............. .......... .......... 171 50 FEINSTEIN
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHORELINE, CA...... .............. .......... .......... 1,250 .......... FEINSTEIN
SUTTER COUNTY, CA...................... 339 .......... .......... 339 .......... PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
TAHOE BASIN, CA & NV................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 300 REID
TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING, CA AND NV (SEC .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... REID, ENSIGN
503).
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA............. 191 .......... .......... 191 .......... PRESIDENT
COLORADO
CACHE LA POUDRE, CO.................... 340 .......... .......... 340 .......... PRESIDENT
CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK .............. .......... .......... 273 .......... ALLARD, SALAZAR
RESERVOIRS, CO.
FOUNTAIN CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CO..... .............. .......... .......... 149 .......... ALLARD, SALAZAR
SOUTH BOULDER CREEK, CO................ .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... SALAZAR
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN WATERSHED .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... GREGG, DODD, LIEBERMAN
STUDY, CT, MA, NH AN.
DELAWARE
DELAWARE RVR COMP, NY, NJ, PA & DE .............. .......... .......... 300 .......... LAUTENBERG, SPECTER, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER
(WATERSHED FLD MGT.
RED CLAY CREEK, CHRISTINA RIVER .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... BIDEN, CARPER
WATERSHED, DE.
FLORIDA
INDIAN RIVER LAGOON NORTH, FL.......... .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... MARTINEZ
FLAGLER BEACH, FL...................... .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
LAKE WORTH INLET, FL................... .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... BILL NELSON
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL............. .............. .......... .......... 300 .......... BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
WALTON COUNTY FL....................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 375 BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
GEORGIA
AUGUSTA, GA............................ .............. 750 .......... .......... 750 PRESIDENT
LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA 531 .......... .......... 531 .......... PRESIDENT
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA.......... .............. 700 .......... .......... 700 PRESIDENT
GUAM
HAGATNA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL,........... 100 .......... .......... 100 .......... PRESIDENT
HAWAII
ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI................ 300 .......... .......... 700 .......... PRESIDENT, INOUYE
BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, 50 .......... .......... 141 .......... PRESIDENT, INOUYE
OAHU, HI.
KAHUKU, HI............................. 60 .......... .......... .......... 260 PRESIDENT, INOUYE
MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI............... .............. 150 .......... .......... 150 PRESIDENT
NAWILIWILI HARBOR MODIFICATION, KAUAI, .............. .......... .......... 450 .......... INOUYE, AKAKA
HI.
WAILUPE STREAM, OAHU, HI............... .............. .......... .......... .......... 350 INOUYE, AKAKA
WEST MAUI WATERSHED , HI............... .............. .......... 300 .......... .......... INOUYE, AKAKA
KAHULUI HARBOR MODIFICATION STUDY, HI.. .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... INOUYE, AKAKA
IDAHO
BOISE RIVER, ID........................ .............. .......... .......... 400 .......... CRAIG
ILLINOIS
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II)....... .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... DURBIN
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL... 400 .......... .......... 1,000 .......... PRESIDENT, DURBIN
PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL...... .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 DURBIN
SOUTH FORK OF SOUTH BRANCH OF CHICAGO .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... DURBIN
RIVER (BUBBLY CR.
UPPER MISS RIVER--ILLINOIS WW SYSTEM, .............. .......... .......... .......... 12,000 DURBIN, BOND, OBAMA, GRASSLEY, KLOBUCHAR
IL, IA, MN, MO.
UPPER MISS RVR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IL, .............. .......... 386 .......... .......... DURBIN, BOND, GRASSLEY
IA, MO, MN & WI.
INDIANA
INDIANA HARBOR, IN..................... 300 .......... .......... 300 .......... PRESIDENT
IOWA
CEDAR RIVER (TIME CHECK AREA), CEDAR .............. .......... .......... 150 .......... HARKIN, GRASSLEY
RAPIDS, IA.
DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA...... .............. .......... .......... .......... 440 HARKIN, GRASSLEY
KANSAS
MANHATTAN, KS.......................... .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... BROWNBACK
MISSOURRI RIVER DEGRADATION STUDY, KS.. .............. .......... 300 .......... .......... BOND, ROBERTS
TOPEKA, KS............................. .............. 100 .......... .......... 100 PRESIDENT
UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS................. .............. .......... .......... 231 .......... BROWNBACK
LOUISIANA
BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA.................. .............. 1,371 .......... .......... 1,371 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
BOSSIER PARISH, LA..................... .............. .......... .......... 300 .......... LANDRIEU, VITTER
CALCASIEU RIVER AND SHIP CHANNEL .............. .......... .......... 361 .......... LANDRIEU, VITTER
ENLARGEMENT, LA.
CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA.............. 395 .......... .......... 395 .......... PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
CROSS LAKE, LA WATER SUPPLY .............. .......... .......... 384 .......... LANDRIEU, VITTER
IMPROVEMENTS.
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM REST, 5,000 .......... .......... .......... .......... PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
LA (SCIENCE PRO.
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM 8,000 .......... .......... 12,000 .......... PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
RESTORATION, LA.
LOUISIANA COASTAL PROTECTION AND .............. .......... .......... 2,000 .......... LANDRIEU
RESTORATION, LA (LACP.
PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LA (FC)............ .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... LANDRIEU
PORT OF IBERIA, LA..................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 1,000 LANDRIEU
SOUTHWEST COASTAL HURRICANE PROTECTION, .............. .......... .......... 400 .......... LANDRIEU, VITTER
LA.
ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... LANDRIEU
LA.
WEST BATON ROUGE (RIVERFRONT .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... LANDRIEU
DEVELOPMENT), LA.
WEST PEARL RIVER NAVIGATION, LA AND MS. .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... COCHRAN
WEST SHORE, LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA..... .............. .......... .......... 498 280 LANDRIEU, VITTER
MAINE
PENOBSCOT RIVER RESTORATION, ME........ .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... SNOWE, COLLINS
SEARSPORT HARBOR, ME................... .............. .......... .......... 125 .......... SNOWE, COLLINS
MARYLAND
ANACOSTIA RIVER & TRIBUTARIES .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... MIKULSKI, CARDIN
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD.
BALTIMORE METRO WTR RES.--PATAPSCO AND .............. .......... .......... .......... 600 MIKULSKI, CARDIN
BACK RIVERS.
CHESAPEAKE BAY MARSHLANDS, MD.......... .............. .......... 200 .......... .......... MIKULSKI, CARDIN
CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, MARYLAND .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... MIKULSKI, CARDIN
COASTAL MANAGEMENT,.
EASTERN SHORE, MID CHESAPEAKE BAY .............. .......... .......... .......... 600 MIKULSKI, CARDIN
ISLAND, MD.
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE REALLOCATION, MD .............. .......... 80 60 .......... MIKULSKI, CARDIN
AND WV.
LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, ST .............. .......... .......... 50 125 MIKULSKI, CARDIN
MARY'S WATERSHED,.
MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER--GREATER SENECA/ .............. .......... .......... 300 .......... MIKULSKI, CARDIN
MUDDY BRANCH, MD.
MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, MD, VA, .............. .......... .......... 50 150 MIKULSKI, CARDIN
PA, WV, AMD DC.
MASSACHUSETTS
BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... REED
MA & RI.
BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA.... 377 .......... .......... 377 .......... PRESIDENT
COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS ECOSYSTEM 100 .......... .......... 100 .......... PRESIDENT
RESTORATION, MA.
MICHIGAN
GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN, 800 .......... 800 .......... .......... PRESIDENT, CLINTON, VOINOVICH
MN, NY, OH, PA.
GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS, MI.. .............. .......... .......... 1,000 .......... OBAMA, LUGAR, LEVIN, STABENOW, COLEMAN,
SCHUMER, CLINTON, VOINOVICH, BROWN, KOHL
MINNESOTA
BLUE EARTH RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR
MN (MN RIVER A.
FARGO,ND-MOORHEAD,MN & UPSTREAM SUB- .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... DORGAN, COLEMAN
BASIN (RRN BASIN A.
MARSH LAKE, MN (MN RIVER AUTHORITY).... .............. .......... .......... 150 .......... COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED, UMR LAKE .............. .......... .......... 125 .......... COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR
ITASCA TO L&D 2, M.
MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN, MN & SD......... .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... COLEMAN
WILD RICE RIVER, RED RIVER OF THE NORTH 270 .......... .......... 135 .......... PRESIDENT, COLEMAN
BASIN, MN.
MISSISSIPPI
MISSISSIPPI COASTAL HURRICANE STUDY, MS .............. .......... .......... 1,153 .......... COCHRAN
MISSOURI
BRUSH CREEK BASIN, KS & MO............. .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... BOND, BROWNBACK,
KANSAS CITYS, MO & KS.................. 589 100 .......... 589 100 PRESIDENT, ROBERTS, BOND
SPRINGFIELD, MO........................ 354 .......... .......... 354 .......... PRESIDENT
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 .............. .......... .......... .......... 350 BOND
& R460-471, MO.
RIVER DES PERES, MO.................... .............. .......... .......... 180 .......... BOND
ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO.......... .............. 281 .......... .......... 281 PRESIDENT
ST LOUIS MISSISSIPPI RIVERFRONT, MO & .............. .......... .......... 148 .......... BOND
IL.
SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS .............. .......... .......... .......... 150 BOND
CITY, MO.
MONTANA
YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT......... 200 .......... .......... 500 .......... PRESIDENT, BAUCUS, TESTER
NEBRASKA
LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE. 130 .......... .......... 130 .......... PRESIDENT, HAGEL
NEVADA
TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV.................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 5,000 REID, ENSIGN
NEW HAMPSHIRE
MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH & 200 .......... .......... 200 .......... PRESIDENT, KENNEDY, KERRY
MA.
NEW JERSEY
DELAWARE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, NJ....... .............. .......... .......... 175 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK 200 .......... .......... 350 .......... PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
MEADOWLANDS, NJ.
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC 200 .......... .......... 500 .......... PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
RIVER, NJ.
LOWER SADDLE RIVER, BERGEN COUNTY, NJ.. .............. .......... .......... .......... 125 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, ENV .............. .......... .......... .......... 125 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
RESTORATION, NJ.
NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, HEREFORD 256 .......... .......... 256 .......... PRESIDENT
TO CAPE MAY INLE.
NEW JERSEY SHORELINE ALTERNATIVE LONG- .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
TERM NOURISHMENT.
PASSAIC RIVER MAIN STEM, NJ............ .............. .......... .......... 125 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ............ .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 LAUTENBERG
PECKMAN RIVER BASIN, NJ................ .............. .......... .......... 375 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ................. .............. .......... .......... 175 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
HIGHLANDS, NJ.
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
KEYPORT, NJ.
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, .............. .......... .......... 125 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
LEONARDO, NJ.
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
BEACH, NJ.
SHREWSBURY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ... .............. .......... .......... 125 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ... .............. .......... .......... .......... 375 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ. .............. .......... .......... 150 .......... LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
NEW MEXICO
BERNALILLO, NM......................... .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
EAST MESA LAS CRUCES,NM................ .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
ESPANOLA VALLEY RIO GRANDE AND TRIBS, .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
NM.
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE BOSQUE, NM........... 311 .......... .......... 311 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO & TX.......... .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
SANTA FE, NM........................... .............. .......... .......... 175 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
SOCORRO COUNTY, NM..................... .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
SW VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 DOMENICI
ALBUQUERQUE, NM.
NEW YORK
BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY.................. .............. .......... .......... 375 .......... SCHUMER, CLINTON
BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, 100 .......... .......... 100 .......... PRESIDENT
NY.
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY............. .............. .......... .......... .......... 100 SCHUMER, CLINTON
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS CANAL, .............. .......... .......... 375 .......... SCHUMER, CLINTON
NY.
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY & NJ....... 200 .......... .......... 500 .......... PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ,
SCHUMER, CLINTON
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY................ .............. .......... .......... 175 .......... SCHUMER, CLINTON
MONTAUK POINT, NY...................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 SCHUMER, CLINTON
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN, .............. .......... .......... .......... 125 SCHUMER, CLINTON
NY.
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... SCHUMER, CLINTON
NY.
SAW MILL RIVER AT ELSFORD/GREENBURGH, .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 SCHUMER, CLINTON
NY.
SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY....... .............. .......... .......... 150 .......... SCHUMER, CLINTON
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... SCHUMER, CLINTON
RESTORATION AND LOW FL.
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN ENVIRON .............. 102 .......... .......... 102 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
REST, COOPERSTOW.
NORTH CAROLINA
BOGUE BANKS, NC........................ .............. .......... .......... 125 .......... DOLE, BURR
CURRITUCK SOUND, NC.................... 150 .......... .......... 150 .......... PRESIDENT
NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC.................. 554 .......... .......... 554 .......... PRESIDENT
NORTH CAROLINA INTERNATIONAL PORT, NC.. .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... DOLE, BURR
SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC.. .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... DOLE, BURR
NORTH DAKOTA
RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN, ND, .............. .......... .......... 3,550 .......... DORGAN
SD & MANITOBA, C.
OHIO
BELPRE, OH............................. .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 VOINOVICH
CUYAHOGA RIVER BULKHEAD STUDY, OH...... .............. .......... .......... 150 .......... VOINOVICH
HOCKING RIVER BASIN, MONDAY CREEK, OH.. .............. .......... .......... .......... 200 VOINOVICH
MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, .............. .......... .......... .......... 250 VOINOVICH
OH.
OHIO RIVERFRONT STUDY, CINCINNATI, OH.. .............. .......... .......... .......... 500 VOINOVICH
WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH, IN, & MI.. .............. .......... .......... 492 .......... VOINOVICH
OKLAHOMA
GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER BASIN WATERSHED, .............. .......... .......... 225 .......... ROBERTS
OK, KS, MO & AR.
SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCE .............. .......... .......... 150 .......... INHOFE
STUDY, OK.
WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK................ .............. .......... .......... 268 .......... INHOFE
OREGON
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM 100 .......... .......... 100 .......... PRESIDENT
RESTORATION, OR & WA.
WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR & WA... .............. .......... .......... .......... 100 MURRAY, WYDEN, SMITH, CANTWELL
WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL .............. .......... .......... 375 .......... WYDEN, SMITH
DREDGING, OR.
WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN .............. .......... .......... 84 .......... WYDEN, SMITH
RESTORATION, OR.
PENNSYLVANIA
BLOOMSBURG, PA......................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 400 SPECTER, CASEY
UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA........ .............. .......... .......... 3,000 .......... SPECTER, CASEY
SOUTH CAROLINA
EDISTO ISLAND, SC...................... 218 .......... .......... 218 .......... PRESIDENT
SOUTH DAKOTA
CANYON LAKE DAM, RAPID CITY, SD........ .............. .......... 100 .......... .......... JOHNSON
JAMES RIVER, SD & ND................... .............. .......... .......... 500 .......... JOHNSON, THUNE
WATERTOWN, SD.......................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 450 JOHNSON, THUNE
TENNESSEE
MILL CREEK WATERSHED, DAVIDSON COUNTY, 257 .......... .......... 257 .......... PRESIDENT
TN.
TEXAS
ABILENE, TX (BRAZOS RIVER BASIN-ELM .............. .......... .......... 150 .......... CORNYN
CREEK).
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE 400 .......... .......... 400 .......... PRESIDENT, CORNYN
CHANNEL, TX.
DALLAS FLOODWAY, UPPER TRINITY RIVER .............. 100 .......... .......... 100 PRESIDENT
BASIN, TX.
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX.................... 721 .......... .......... 721 .......... PRESIDENT
GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX.............. .............. 488 .......... .......... 488 PRESIDENT
GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, 300 .......... .......... 300 .......... PRESIDENT
TX.
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX......... 300 .......... .......... 450 .......... PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON, CORNYN
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, WHARTON/ .............. .......... .......... .......... 600 CORNYN
ONION, TX.
NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX....... 250 .......... .......... 500 .......... PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON
RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX................. .............. .......... .......... .......... 750 HUTCHISON, CORNYN
RIO GRANDE BASIN, TX................... 223 .......... .......... 223 .......... PRESIDENT
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX............. .............. .......... .......... .......... 625 HUTCHISON
SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX....... .............. .......... .......... 175 .......... CORNYN
SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY, .............. .......... .......... 125 .......... HUTCHISON, CORNYN
TX.
TEXAS CITY CHANNEL (50-FOOT PROJECT), .............. 300 .......... .......... 300 PRESIDENT, CORNYN
TX.
UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX.......... .............. .......... .......... 1,500 .......... HUTCHISON
UTAH
PARK CITY REGIONAL WATER TRANSPORT .............. .......... .......... 250 .......... BENNETT, HATCH
PROJECT, UT.
VIRGINIA
AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA........ .............. .......... .......... .......... 46 WARNER, WEBB
DISMAL SWAMP AND DISMAL SWAMP CANAL, VA 62 .......... .......... 62 .......... PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB
EASTWARD EXPANSION CRANEY ISLAND, VA... .............. 3,000 .......... .......... 3,000 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB
ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENV RESTORATION, .............. .......... .......... 90 .......... WARNER, WEBB
VA (PHASE II).
ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA..... .............. 97 .......... .......... 97 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB
FOURMILE RUN, VA....................... .............. .......... .......... 350 .......... WARNER, WEBB
JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & NC 300 .......... .......... 300 .......... PRESIDENT
(SECTION 216).
LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA.............. 300 .......... .......... 300 .......... PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB
NEW RIVER, CLAYTOR LAKE, VA............ .............. .......... .......... 49 51 WARNER, WEBB
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... WARNER, WEBB
ISLAND, VA.
UPPER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, VA (PHASE II) .............. .......... .......... 200 .......... WARNER, WEBB
VICINITY AND WILOUGHBY SPIT, VA........ .............. .......... .......... .......... 150 WARNER, WEBB
WASHINGTON
CENTRALIA, WA.......................... .............. .......... .......... .......... 150 MURRAY
ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL.................... .............. .......... .......... 750 .......... MURRAY, CANTWELL
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA......... .............. .......... .......... 400 .......... MURRAY, CANTWELL
LOWER PUYALLUP RIVER ALTERNATIVES .............. .......... .......... 100 .......... CANTWELL
STUDY, WA.
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT 400 .......... .......... 1,500 .......... PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL
RESTORATION, WA.
SKAGIT RIVER, WA....................... .............. .......... .......... 700 .......... MURRAY, CANTWELL
SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA.............. .............. .......... .......... 375 .......... CANTWELL
WEST VIRGINIA
CHERRY RIVER BASIN, WV................. .............. .......... 50 .......... .......... BYRD
LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV............... .............. .......... .......... 88 .......... BYRD
OHIO RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, .............. .......... 400 .......... .......... BYRD
WV, KY, OH, PA,.
UPPER GUYANDOTTE RIVER BASIN, WV....... .............. .......... 150 .......... .......... BYRD
WYOMING
BEAR RIVER STUDY, WY................... 26,553 8,747 100 .......... .......... THOMAS, ENZI
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL FOR PROJECTS............ .............. .......... 5,116 73,450 42,582
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT 350 .......... .......... 350 .......... PRESIDENT
TRI-CADD.
CHIEF'S 12 ACTIONS..................... 3,100 .......... .......... .......... .......... PRESIDENT
COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION.......... 1,400 .......... .......... 4,900 .......... PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, INOUYE, CANTWELL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES............. 75 .......... .......... 75 .......... PRESIDENT
FEME/MAP MOD COORDINATION.............. 1,500 .......... .......... 1,500 .......... PRESIDENT
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA PROGRAM.............. 220 .......... .......... 220 .......... PRESIDENT
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES........ 5,625 .......... .......... 10,196 .......... PRESIDENT, INOUYE, LANDRIEU, BEN NELSON, REED,
BIDEN, CARPER, CHAMBLISS, GRASSLEY, VITTER,
HAGEL, WYDEN, SMITH, WHITEHOUSE
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT STUDY........... 1,000 .......... .......... 1,000 .......... PRESIDENT
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES..................... 250 .......... .......... 250 .......... PRESIDENT
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES............ 200 .......... .......... 200 .......... PRESIDENT
NATIONAL FLOOD INVENTORY............... 10,000 .......... .......... .......... .......... PRESIDENT
NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY............... 375 .......... .......... 875 .......... PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS............ 3,880 .......... .......... 5,130 .......... PRESIDENT, REID, DOMENICI
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES.......... 4,550 .......... .......... 5,742 .......... PRESIDENT, INOUYE, BROWNBACK, MIKULSKI,
LAUTENBERG, SPECTER, LIEBERMAN, BIDEN, CARPER,
CARDIN, LUGAR, BAYH, GRASSLEY, MENENDEZ,
CLINTON, DOLE, INHOFE
PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM............... 2,500 .......... .......... 2,500 .......... PRESIDENT
PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER 225 .......... .......... 225 .......... PRESIDENT
SERVICE).
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 150 .......... .......... 150 .......... PRESIDENT
SYSTEM SUPPORT.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............... 17,300 .......... .......... 31,050 .......... PRESIDENT, REID, COCHRAN, DOMENICI, MIKULSKI,
CARDIN, CASEY, WARNER, WEBB
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION 50 .......... .......... 50 .......... PRESIDENT
CENTERS.
STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY). 600 .......... .......... 600 .......... PRESIDENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.................. 350 .......... .......... 350 .......... PRESIDENT
TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM............. 1,000 .......... .......... 1,000 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE................... .............. .......... .......... -15,364 ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................ 81,253 8,747 5,116 124,449 42,582
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL...................... 190,000 .......... .......... 172,147 ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atka Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee recommended $200,000 to
initiate this reconnaissance study.
DeLong Mountain Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee provided
$100,000 to complete feasibility studies and $400,000 to
initiate preconstruction engineering and design.
Kenai River Bluff Erosion, Alaska.--The Committee
recommended $500,000 to continue technical studies of the
erosion problems.
Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment, Arkansas,
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and
Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $250,000 to initiate an
expanded reconnaissance study. The study will include three
assessments: (1) a list which identifies data gaps in
information needed for river-related management; (2) an
assessment of natural resource habitat needs; and (3) a needs
assessment for river-related recreation access.
May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas.--$250,000 is provided to
execute a design agreement and initiate preconstruction
engineering and design.
Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, Arkansas and
Louisiana.--The Committee recommends $200,000 to complete
feasibility studies and $200,000 to initiate preconstruction
engineering and design.
Heacock and Cactus Channels, California.--The Committee
includes $100,000 to continue feasibility studies. Feasibility
studies were initiated under the Continuing Authorities
Program.
Los Angeles River Watercourse Improvement, Headworks,
California.--$300,000 is provided to continue the feasibility
studies.
Malibu Creek Watershed, California.--The Committee
recommendation includes $158,000 to complete the feasibility
study.
Rock Creek and Keefer Slough, California.--$250,000 is
provided to execute the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement and
initiate the feasibility phase of the study. The study was
initiated under the Continuing Authorities Program.
Sacramento, San Joaquin Delta Islands and Levees,
California.--The Committee included $2,000,000 to complete the
feasibility study.
Chatfield, Cheery Creek and Bear Creek, Reservoirs.--The
recommendation includes $273,000 to complete feasibility
studies.
Fountain Creek and Tributaries, Colorado.--The Committee
provides $149,000 to complete the feasibility study.
Boulder Creek, Colorado.--The Committee included $100,000
to initiate this reconnaissance study. The Committee notes that
studies were initiated under the Continuing Authorities
Program.
Flagler County, Florida.--$250,000 is provided to continue
feasibility studies for shore damage reduction. The Committee
notes that recent storms have begun to threaten the county's
major evacuation route to State Road A1A.
Walton County, Florida.--$375,000 is provided to continue
the preconstruction, engineering and design phase. This study
is a test bed for the Institute of Water Resources Hurricane
and Storm Damage Reduction model.
West Maui Watershed, Hawaii.--The Committee provided
$300,000 to initiate the reconnaissance study to investigate
the comprehensive scope and extensive water resource problems
in the watershed.
Boise River, Idaho.--The Committee provided $400,000 to
continue the feasibility study.
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation
System, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.--
The Committee recommendation includes $12,000,000 for
continuation of preconstruction engineering and design studies.
The Committee recognizes the need to modernize this more than
60-year-old navigation system and has provided continued
funding for both structural design and environmental
restoration work.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa.--The Committee provided $150,000 to
initiate a cost-shared feasibility study. Reconnaissance level
studies were completed under the Continuing Authorities
Program, however, the scope of the proposed project exceeds the
limits of the Continuing Authorities Program.
Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana.--
The Committee provides $12,000,000 for these important studies.
The Committee has elected not to fund a separate Science and
Technology line item under this study and directs the Corps not
to include this line item in the fiscal year 2009 budget. This
line item appears to be an attempt to fund other Federal
agencies to undertake science activities that are not being
funded within those agencies. If the administration believes
this is worthwhile science, then they should budget for this
work under the appropriate agency. Any funds from the fiscal
year 2007 allocation that remain unexpended in the Science and
Technology line should be utilized on advancing the study not
science activities.
West Pearl Navigation, Louisiana and Mississippi.--$100,000
is provided to initiate reconnaissance studies to deauthorize
this antiquated navigation project. The project has been in
caretaker status for more than 10 years.
Eastern Shore-Chesapeake Bay Marshlands, Maryland
(Blackwater Wildlife Refuge).--The Committee recommendation
includes $200,000 for this study that was initiated under the
Continuing Authorities Program in fiscal year 2006.
Great Lakes Navigational System, Michigan, Illinois,
Indiana, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin.--The funds provided are to be used to complete the
supplement to the reconnaissance report of Great Lakes St.
Lawrence Seaway Navigation Study, which, based on previous
agreement between the secretary, the ministry of transportation
Canada, and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Transportation, is to be limited in scope to evaluating the
economic, engineering and environmental impacts of maintaining
the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway at current size draft and
length of locks. The Secretary is directed to complete the
supplemental report by September 2008, after which Congress,
interested State and Federal agencies, and the public shall
review the report for 1 year to determine whether additional
study is warranted.
Kansas Citys, Missouri and Kansas.--The Committee
recommendation includes $689,000 for this effort. $589,000 is
included for completion of the feasibility phase and $100,000
is for initiation of preconstruction engineering and design.
Missouri River Degradation, Mile 340 to 400, Missouri and
Kansas.--The Committee included $300,000 to initiate an
expanded Reconnaissance Study. The Missouri River in this reach
has experienced significant degradation or downcutting of the
river bed. There is a strong indication that this degradation
could impact navigation, flood control and other infrastructure
in the area.
Yellowstone River Corridor, Montana.--The Committee
recommendation includes $500,000 to continue feasibility
studies.
Delaware Basin Comprehensive, New Jersey.--The Committee
included $175,000 to continue evaluation of alternative
solutions to the region's problems regarding flooding and
environmental restoration along the New Jersey portion of the
Delaware River and tributaries.
Western Lake Erie Basin Study, Ohio, Indiana and
Michigan.--$492,000 is included to complete feasibility
studies.
Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon and Washington.--$100,000
is provided to execute a design agreement and initiate
preconstruction, engineering and design studies.
Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas.--$625,000 is provided to
negotiate and execute a design agreement and initiate
preconstruction engineering and design.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement at Deep
Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia.--The Committee recommendation
includes $46,000 to complete the preconstruction engineering
and design phase.
Eastward Expansion--Craney Island, Virginia.--$3,000,000 is
provided to continue the preconstruction engineering and design
phase.
Vicinity of Willoughby Spit, Norfolk, Virginia.--The
Committee recommendation includes $150,000 to continue the
general reevaluation study.
Bear River, Wyoming.--$100,000 is provided for
reconnaissance studies for flood control and environmental
restoration in the Bear River Basin above Bear Lake.
Chief's 12 Actions.--The Committee did not include funding
for this item. The Committee believes that the activities
proposed in the budget request for this line item should be
incorporated into the various funded planning activities that
the Corps has underway.
National Inventory of Flood/Storm Damage Reduction
Projects.--No funds have been provided for this effort under
this account. The Committee has chosen to fund this item under
the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account where all
previous funds have been provided.
National Shoreline Study.--Additional funds have been
provided above the budget request for the National Planning
Center of Expertise for Coastal Storm Damage Reduction to
develop a process for managing shore protection projects as
part of a systems approach to coastal protection for the
purpose of achieving improved project performance, increased
cost effectiveness, and enhanced benefits.
Other Coordination Programs.--An additional $250,000 is
provided along with budgeted funds for Lake Tahoe coordination
activities. Also additional funds are provided above the budget
request for the Center for Computer Assisted Dispute Resolution
[CADRE] within the Institute for Water Resources to undertake
research, development, training and application activities
consistent with the mission stated by the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Subcommittee on Water Availability and
Quality for collaborative tools and processes for U.S. water
solutions in partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy and
its research laboratories, and other Federal and non-Federal
parties to develop solutions to water availability and quality
problems through public participation and collaboration
processes, decision-support computer technologies, and
techniques for integrating these within various water contexts
using tools that include portable, physical and social
simulation modules, software to link existing water management
software, as well as interfaces for both collaborative model
development and displaying modeling results and tradeoffs.
Planning Assistance to States.--The Committee
recommendation includes $5,742,000 for this nationwide cost-
shared program, $1,192,000 over the budget request. The
Committee recognizes that there are hundreds of these studies
on-going at any given time. Within the funds provided the
following studies are to be given priority if cost sharing
funds are available from the local sponsors: Southington Water
Supply Project, Connecticut; Honolulu, Hawaii; Wabash River
Enhancement Project, Indiana; Sac and Fox Tribe, Iowa; Kansas
River Basin Technical Assistance, Kansas; Delaware Estuary
Salinity Monitoring Study; Port of Rochester Environmental
Remediation Planning, New York; Bartlesville Water Supply,
Bartlesville, Oklahoma; Lehigh Releases at FE Walter Dam,
Pennsylvania; Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan, Oklahoma.
Coastal Field Data Collection.--The Committee has provided
$4,900,000 for this nationwide program. An additional
$3,500,000 has been provided to continue the Coastal Data
Information Program; the Southern California Beach Processes
Study; Surge and Wave Island Modeling Studies, Hawaii; and the
Pacific Island Land Ocean Typhoon Experiment Program. These are
all studies that have been underway for a number of years and
the Committee supports their continuation.
Flood Plain Management Services Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $10,196,000. This is $4,571,000 above
the budget request. Within this amount the Corps attention is
directed to the following studies: White Clay Creek, New
Castle, Delaware; Albany, Georgia [GIS]; Hurricane Evacuation
Studies, Hawaii; Wapello, Iowa; Iowa Levee Certification;
Maquoketa River Flood Warning, Iowa; Iowa Multi-site dam safety
analyses; City of Gretna, Louisiana GIS; East Baton Rouge
Parish Metropolitan GIS, Livingston Parish, Louisiana;
Livingston Parish, Louisiana GIS; Papillion Creek Watershed,
Flood Plain Mapping, Nebraska; Halfway Sediment Transport
Assessment, Oregon; Rhode Island Ecosystem Restoration Study,
Rhode Island.
Research and Development.--The Committee has included
$31,050,000 for the Corps nationwide research and development
programs. The Committee believes that this is an important area
of the Corps' program that should be supported and has provided
$15,050,000 above the budget request. Within the funds
provided, the Corps should continue submerged aquatic
vegetation research in the Chesapeake Bay; the Southwest Flood
Damage Development and Demonstration program to be conducted in
close coordination and cooperation with the New Mexico District
Office, the University of New Mexico and Sandia National
Laboratories; innovative technology demonstrations for urban
flooding and channel restoration in Nevada to be conducted in
close coordination and cooperation with the Urban Water
Research Program of the Desert Research Institute and the
University of New Mexico.
CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $2,336,368,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 1,523,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,059,474,000
\1\Excludes emergency appropriations of $36,500.
This appropriation includes funds for construction, major
rehabilitation and related activities for water resources
development projects having navigation, flood and storm damage
reduction, water supply, hydroelectric, environmental
restoration, and other attendant benefits to the Nation. The
construction and major rehabilitation projects for inland and
costal waterways will derive one-half of the funding from the
Inland Waterway Trust Fund. Funds to be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund will be applied to cover the Federal
share of the Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program.
The Committee has previously stated its rejection of the
administration's proposal to move projects from this account to
the Operations and Maintenance account.
Consequently, the Committee has elected to display the
President's budget request as if these projects had been
requested in the CG account rather than the O&M account. This
makes the actual budget request for CG, $1,818,811,000 rather
than $1,523,000,000 as requested in the budget. The projects
moved from the O&M request include:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caragory Project Name Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA............................ Columbia River Basin 92,560
Restoration OR & WA.
ESA............................ Missouri R Fish and 85,000
Wildlife Recovery, IA,
KS, MO, MT, NE, ND, SD.
ESA............................ Chief Joseph Dam Gas 3,000
Abatment.
ESA............................ Howard Hanson Dam 16,000
Ecosystem Restoration,
WA.
ESA............................ Williamette River 7,632
Temperature Control,
OR.
ESA............................ Lower Snake River...... 400
Nav. Mitigation................ Assategue, MD.......... 1,900
Nav. Mitigation................ Lower Cape May Meadows, 5,111
Cape May Point, NJ.
Nav. Mitigation................ Folly Beach, SC........ 35
Nav. Mitigation................ Broward County, FL 250
(Canaveral Hbr).
Nav. Mitigation................ Cape May Inlet to Lower 270
Township, NJ.
Nav. Mitigation................ Delaware Bay Coastline, 105
Roosevelt Inlet to
Lewes Beach, DE.
Nav. Mitigation................ Nassau County, FL...... 6,000
Nav. Mitigation................ Surfside-Sunset-Newport 9,000
Beach, C A.
Nav. Mitigation................ Lake Worth Sand 2,000
Transfer Plant, FL.
Nav. Mitigation................ St. John's County, FL.. 200
Nav. Mitigation................ Section 111 Program.... 4,874
O&M Material................... Poplar Island, MD...... 9,825
O&M Material................... Dredged Material 8,241
Disposal Facilities.
O&M Material................... Indiana Harbor 18,065
(Confined Disposal
Facility), IN.
O&M Material................... Section 204/145........ 2,663
Rehab.......................... Lock and Dam 19, 698
Mississippi River, IA.
Rehab.......................... Lock and Dam 24, IL &MO 340
Rehab.......................... Markland Locks & Dam, 7,800
KY & IL.
Rehab.......................... Locks No. 27, 7,542
Mississippi River, IL.
Rehab.......................... Lock and Dam 11, 6,300
Mississippi River, IA.
---------------
TOTAL.................... Projects Migrating from 295,811
Construction to O&M.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The projects that included in the line item above for
Dredged Material Disposal Facilities are:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCASIEU RIVER & PASS.................................. 2,000
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC................................... 1,200
DILLINGHAM HARBOR (O&M)................................. 300
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC................................... 1,100
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI.................................. 125
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI.................................... 125
HOMER HARBOR............................................ 550
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA..................................... 2,716
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI...................................... 125
---------------
TOTAL, DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES 8,241
PROGRAM [DMDF]...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to constrained funding, the Committee reduced the
requested amounts for some administration projects. This should
not be perceived as a lack of support for any of these
projects, rather it is an attempt by the Committee to balance
out the program across the Nation and fund most of the projects
or studies that were funded in the work plan produced by the
administration for the fiscal year 2007 joint funding
resolution but were not addressed by the administration
proposal.
Even with a $577,000,000 increase to the Corps' accounts,
the Committee is unable to address all of the needs. By the
Committee's estimate, only about 60 percent of the needed
funding is available for this account. Construction schedules
will slip due to this constrained funding. This will result in
deferred benefits to the national economy. The Committee does
not believe that there is any way to prioritize our way out of
this problem without serious unintended consequences. Adequate
resources have been denied for too long. Only providing
adequate resources for these national investments will resolve
this situation.
The Committee has included a limited number of new
construction starts as well as provided completion funding for
a number of projects. As in the General Investigations account,
the Committee has embraced the traditional view of new starts.
New starts are generally defined as those projects that have
not received Construction, General funding in the past. The
Committee has included all of the administration's proposed new
construction starts, including the major rehabilitation
projects that were proposed for funding in the Operations and
Maintenance account.
The appropriation provides funds for the Continuing
Authorities Program (projects which do not require specific
authorizing legislation), which includes projects for flood
control (section 205), emergency streambank and shoreline
protection (section 14), beach erosion control (section 103),
mitigation of shore damages (section 111), navigation projects
(section 107), snagging and clearing (section 208), aquatic
ecosystem restoration (section 206), beneficial uses of dredged
material (section 204), and project modifications for
improvement of the environment (section 1135).
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
Project title estimate recommendation Requested by
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
TUSCALOOSA, AL..................... .............. 5,000 SHELBY
MOBILE HARBOR TURNING BASIN, AL.... .............. 2,000 SHELBY, SESSIONS
ALASKA
ALASKA COASTAL EROSION, AK......... .............. 5,000 STEVENS, MURKOWSKI
CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK................. .............. 1,000 STEVENS
NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK....... .............. 1,500 STEVENS
ST PAUL HARBOR, AK................. .............. 3,000 STEVENS
SITKA HARBOR BREAKWATER UPGRADE, AK .............. 800 STEVENS
AKUTAN HARBOR, AK.................. .............. 2,500 STEVENS
UNALASKA, AK....................... .............. 7,000 STEVENS
ARIZONA
NOGALES WASH, AZ................... .............. 4,461 KYL
RIO DE FLAG FLAGSTAFF, AZ.......... .............. 3,000 KYL
TUSCON DRAINAGE AREA............... .............. 3,000 KYL
ARKANSAS
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR POWERHOUSE, AR 17,300 17,300 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
(MAJOR REHAB).
RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, LA, AR .............. 2,500 LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR
& TX.
RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK .............. 4,000 LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR
PROTECTION, AR & LA.
CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON 12,000 12,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
FEATURES), CA.
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM 6,000 6,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
DAM MODIFICATIONS), C.
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM 18,500 18,500 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
DAM RAISE), CA.
CALFED LEVEE STABILITY PROGRAM..... .............. 5,000 FEINSTEIN
CORONADO TRANSBAY WASTEWATER .............. 500 FEINSTEIN
PIPELINE REIMBURSEMENT.
GUADALUPE RIVER, CA................ .............. 3,000 FEINSTEIN
HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS 4,900 4,900 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
RESTORATION, CA.
HARBOR/SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING .............. 3,000 FEINSTEIN
STUDY, LOS ANGELES, C.
LOS ANGELES HARBOR MAIN CHANNEL .............. 1,000 FEINSTEIN, BOXER
DEEPENING, CA.
MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE .............. 500 FEINSTEIN
RECONSTRUCTION.
MURRIETA CREEK, CA................. .............. 2,000 FEINSTEIN
NAPA RIVER, CA..................... 7,500 11,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), 42,000 40,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
CA.
PORT OF LONG BEACH (DEEPENING), CA. .............. 2,000 FEINSTEIN
SACRAMENTO DEEPWATER SHIP CHANNEL, 900 900 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
CA.
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION 21,528 21,528 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
PROJECT, CA.
SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA 500 500 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA.
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA.. .............. 600 FEINSTEIN
SAN LUIS REY RIVER, CA............. .............. 1,000 FEINSTEIN
SAN RAMON VALLEY RECYCLED WATER, CA .............. 3,000 FEINSTEIN
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA....... 17,000 17,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
SANTA MARIA RIVER, CA.............. .............. 300 FEINSTEIN (BOXER)
SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA 8,000 8,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM 18,000 18,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
SAFETY).
SURFSIDE-SUNSET-NEWPORT BEACH, CA.. 9,000 8,000 PRESIDENT
TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION 108........ .............. 4,500 REID, ENSIGN
UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CA.......... .............. 1,000 FEINSTEIN
UPPER NEWPORT BAY, CA.............. .............. 4,000 FEINSTEIN
WEST SACRAMENTO, CA................ .............. 900 FEINSTEIN, BOXER
YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA............... .............. 1,100 FEINSTEIN
CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT ENVIRONMENTAL .............. 200 LIEBERMAN
INFRASTRUCTURE, CT.
DELAWARE
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, BROADKILL .............. 250 BIDEN, CARPER
BEACH, DE.
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT 105 105 PRESIDENT, BIDEN, CARPER
INLET TO LEWES BEACH.
DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HELOPEN TO .............. 105 BIDEN, CARPER
FENWICK ISLAND, Fenwick Island, DE.
DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HELOPEN TO .............. 2,700 PRESIDENT, BIDEN, CARPER
FENWICK ISLAND, Rehobeth Beach to
Dewey Beach, DE.
DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE...... .............. 390 BIDEN, CARPER
FLORIDA
BREVARD COUNTY, FL (MID REACH)..... .............. 200 BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
BROWARD COUNTY, FL (SEGMENT III .............. 1,000 BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
REIMBURSEMENT).
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL............... 250 250 PRESIDENT
CEDAR HAMMOCK, WARES CREEK, FL..... 5,000 5,000 PRESIDENT, MARTINEZ
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL... 90,588 80,588 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
ESTERO AND GASPARILLA SEGMENTS, FL .............. 1,000 BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
(LEE COUNTY).
EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA 4,310 4,310 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON
COSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL.
FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY .............. 3,000 MARTINEZ
IMPROVEMENTS, FL.
HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE 55,776 55,776 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
CONTROL).
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL............ .............. 3,000 BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL................ 32,502 32,502 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
LAKE WORTH SAND TRANSFER PLANT, FL. 2,000 2,000 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON
MODIFIED WATER DELIVERIES TO ENP... 35,000 .............. PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
NASSAU COUNTY, FL.................. 6,000 6,000 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL............ .............. 1,500 MARTINEZ
ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL............... 200 200 PRESIDENT
TAMPA HARBOR, FL................... .............. 304 MARTINEZ
GEORGIA
ATLANTA, GA EI..................... .............. 2,000 CHAMBLISS, ISAKSON
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA............... 6,400 6,400 PRESIDENT
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA 6,900 6,900 PRESIDENT
& SC.
TYBEE ISLAND, GA................... .............. 2,000 CHAMBLISS, ISAKSON
HAWAII
IAO STREAMS, HI.................... .............. 500 INOUYE, AKAKA
HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT, HI........ .............. 2,000 INOUYE
IDAHO
RURAL IDAHO, ID.................... .............. 5,000 CRAIG, CRAPO
ILLINOIS
CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI 4,500 4,500 PRESIDENT
RIVER, IL (DEF CORR).
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL, 750 3,250 PRESIDENT, DURBIN, OBAMA, LUGAR, LEVIN,
SECOND BARRIER, IL. STABENOW, COLEMAN, SCHUMER, CLINTON,
VOINOVICH, BROWN, KOHL
CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL.............. 9,000 9,000 PRESIDENT, DURBIN
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL.............. 6,620 6,620 PRESIDENT, DURBIN
EAST ST LOUIS, IL.................. 2,500 2,500 PRESIDENT
ILLINOIS WATERWAY, LOCKPORT LOCK 20,445 20,445 PRESIDENT
AND DAM, IL (REPLACEM.
LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, 340 340 PRESIDENT, BOND
IL & MO (MAJOR REH.
LOCK & DAM 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, 7,542 7,542 PRESIDENT, DURBIN, BOND
IL (REHABILITATION).
MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL. 33,500 31,500 PRESIDENT, DURBIN
NUTWOOD DRAINAGE AND LEVEE .............. 300 DURBIN
DISTRICT, IL.
OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, 104,000 94,000 PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL
IL & KY.
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER 23,464 18,000 PRESIDENT, DURBIN, GRASSLEY, COLEMAN,
RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO &. FEINGOLD
INDIANA
INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL 18,065 18,065 PRESIDENT
FACILITY), IN.
LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN........... 13,000 13,000 PRESIDENT
IOWA
DAVENPORT, IA...................... .............. 1,000 HARKIN, GRASSLEY
DES MOINES RECREATION RIVER AND .............. 3,000 HARKIN, GRASSLEY
GREENBELT, IA.
LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, 6,300 5,000 PRESIDENT, HARKIN, BOND, GRASSLEY
IA (MAJOR REHAB).
LOCK AND DAM 19, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, 698 698 PRESIDENT, HARKIN, BOND, GRASSLEY
IA (MAJOR REHAB).
MISSOURI R FISH AND WILDLIFE 85,000 50,000 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY
RECOVERY, IA,KS,MO,MT,NE,.
KANSAS
TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS & MO........ 9,000 9,000 PRESIDENT, BOND, BROWNBACK, ROBERTS
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS (DAM SAFETY). 28,500 28,500 PRESIDENT, BROWNBACK, ROBERTS
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE 52,000 47,000 PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL, SHELBY
RIVER, KY.
MARKLAND LOCKS & DAM, KY & IL...... 7,800 7,000 PRESIDENT
MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, 45,000 41,000 PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL
KY & IN.
WOLF CREEK, KY (SEEPAGE CONTROL)... 54,100 54,100 PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL, ALEXANDER, CORKER
LOUISIANA
COMITE RIVER, LA................... .............. 7,000 LANDRIEU, VITTER
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA........ .............. 1,000 LANDRIEU
INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, .............. 2,000 LANDRIEU, VITTER
LA.
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA.... 1,500 7,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA........ .............. 2,200 LANDRIEU
OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, LA.......... .............. 1,400 LANDRIEU, VITTER
SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA............ .............. 18,500 LANDRIEU, VITTER
MARYLAND
ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD .............. 308 CARDIN
AND DC, PHASE I.
ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD.............. 1,900 1,900 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN
ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD..... .............. 200 MIKULSKI, CARDIN
BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN WATER .............. 1,000 MIKULSKI, CARDIN
RESOURCES, GWYNNS FALLS,.
CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL .............. 2,031 MIKULSKI, CARDIN, CASEY, WARNER, WEBB
RESTORATION AND PROTECTIO.
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD .............. 2,000 MIKULSKI, CARDIN, CASEY, WARNER, WEBB
& VA.
CUMBERLAND, MD..................... .............. 700 MIKULSKI, CARDIN
POPLAR ISLAND, MD.................. 9,825 10,374 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN
MASSACHUSETTS
MUDDY RIVER, MA.................... 10,000 10,000 PRESIDENT, KENNEDY, KERRY
MICHIGAN
GENESEE COUNTY, MI................. .............. 600 LEVIN, STABENOW
NEGAUNEE, MI....................... .............. 385 LEVIN, STABENOW
MINNESOTA
BRECKENRIDGE, MN................... .............. 4,000 COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR
LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, .............. 2,250 COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR
MN (MAJOR REHAB).
MARSHALL, MN....................... .............. 80 COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR
MISSISSIPPI
MISSISSIPPI ENVIRONMENTAL .............. 19,000 COCHRAN, LOTT
INFRASTRUCTURE, MS.
DESOTO COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER .............. 10,000 COCHRAN, LOTT
SYSTEM, MS.
JACKSON COUNTY WATER SUPPLY .............. 5,519 COCHRAN, LOTT
PROJECT, MS.
MISSOURI
BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO.. .............. 4,117 BOND
BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO 3,500 3,500 PRESIDENT, BOND
BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE .............. 5,000 BOND
DISTRICT, MISSOURI.
CAPE GIRARDEAU (FLOODWALL), MO..... .............. 2,000 BOND
CHESTERFIELD, MO................... .............. 2,500 BOND
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO (SEEPAGE 25,000 25,000 PRESIDENT
CONTROL).
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO 2,100 3,000 PRESIDENT, BOND
RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO.
MISSOURI & MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI .............. 500 BOND,GRASSLEY
RIVERS ENHANCEMENT, MO.
MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, .............. 100 BOND
NE, KS & MO.
ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO...... .............. 2,000 BOND
STE GENEVIEVE, MO.................. .............. 438 BOND
MONTANA
RURAL MONTANA, MT.................. .............. 5,000 BAUCUS, TESTER
FT. PECK CABIN CONVEYANCE, MT...... .............. 500 TESTER
NEBRASKA
ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE........ 9,000 9,000 PRESIDENT, BEN NELSON, HAGEL
MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL .............. 1,000 HAGEL
RIVER, NE & SD.
SAND CREEK WATERSHED, SAUNDERS .............. 1,000 BEN NELSON, HAGEL
COUNTY, NEBRASKA.
WESTERN SARPY COUNTY AND CLEAR .............. 3,000 BEN NELSON, HAGEL
CREEK.
NEVADA
RURAL NEVADA....................... .............. 19,000 REID, ENSIGN
TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV.. .............. 13,000 REID, ENSIGN
NEW JERSEY
BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG .............. 5,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
HARBOR, NJ (NJ SHORE PROT.
CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, 270 270 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
NJ.
DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL .............. 2,500 SPECTOR, CASEY
DEEPENING, NJ, PA & DE.
HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ......... .............. 397 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
JOSEPH G MINISH HISTORIC WATERFRONT .............. 3,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
PARK, NJ.
LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY 5,111 5,111 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
POINT, NJ.
PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF .............. 2,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, N.
RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, MAHWAH, .............. 250 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER, CLINTON
NJ AND SUFFERN, NY.
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ. .............. 250 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK 10,000 10,000 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
SUB-BASIN, NJ.
SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ... .............. 3,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, .............. 3,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
NJ.
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET TO PECK .............. 3,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
BEACH (OCEAN CITY), NJ.
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, .............. 2,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
PORT MONMOUTH, NJ.
BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG .............. 2,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
HARBOR INLET (ABSECON),.
BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG .............. 80 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
HARBOR INLET, BRIGANTINE.
NEW MEXICO
ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM..... .............. 2,400 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
ALAMOGORDO, NM..................... 4,200 4,200 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM............. .............. 7,500 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
COCHITI LAKE (DAM SAFETY), NM...... .............. 200 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
JEMEZ CANYON (DAM SAFETY), NM...... .............. 150 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, .............. 300 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
BERNALILLO TO BELE.
NEW MEXICO, EI, NM................. .............. 10,000 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO 800 800 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
BOSQUE DEL APACHE,.
NEW YORK
ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY 8,500 8,500 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
INLET TO NORTON POINT,.
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, 4,150 4,400 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
NY.
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY 91,000 85,000 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER,
& NJ. CLINTON
NORTH CAROLINA
BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC....... .............. 400 DOLE, BURR
DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NC............ .............. 2,000 DOLE, BURR
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC.............. .............. 3,000 DOLE, BURR
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC............. .............. 300 BURR
NORTH DAKOTA
GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND 6,200 6,200 PRESIDENT
(REPLACEMENT).
HOMME DAM, ND (DAM SAFETY)......... .............. 235 DORGAN
LAKE SAKAKAWEA PROJECT, ND......... .............. 3,000 DORGAN
MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, ND..... .............. 300 DORGAN
NORTH DAKOTA ENVIRONMENTAL .............. 6,000 DORGAN
INFRASTRUCTURE, ND.
OHIO
METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, 11,847 11,847 PRESIDENT
DUCK CREEK, OH.
OKLAHOMA
CANTON LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY)....... 17,300 17,300 PRESIDENT
TAR CREEK CLEANUP, OK.............. .............. 3,500 INHOFE
OREGON
COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL 15,000 15,000 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CRAPO, BAUCUS, TESTER,
IMPROVEMENTS, OR & WA. WYDEN, SMITH, CANTWELL
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING .............. 3,800 WYDEN, SMITH, CANTWELL
ACCESS SITES, OR & WA.
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR................. 11,030 11,030 PRESIDENT
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM 1,000 1,500 PRESIDENT, MURRAY
RESTORATION, OR & WA.
WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE 7,632 7,632 PRESIDENT
CONTROL, OR.
PENNSYLVANIA
EMSWORTH L&D, OHIO RIVER, PA 43,000 43,000 PRESIDENT, SPECTER, CASEY
(STATIC INSTABILITY CORRE.
LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, 70,300 65,300 PRESIDENT, SPECTER, CASEY
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA.
PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA .............. 1,000 SPECTER, CASEY
(PERMANENT).
WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING). .............. 2,500 SPECTER, CASEY
LACKAWANNA RIVER, SCRANTON, PA..... .............. 2,000 SPECTER, CASEY
PUERTO RICO
PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR.... 35,000 35,000 PRESIDENT
RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR............... 11,500 11,500 PRESIDENT
SOUTH CAROLINA
FOLLY BEACH, SC.................... 35 35 PRESIDENT
SOUTH DAKOTA
BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD... .............. 3,000 JOHNSON, THUNE
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER .............. 4,000 JOHNSON, THUNE
BRULE SIOUX, SD.
MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SD..... .............. 100 JOHNSON
TENNESSEE
CENTER HILL DAM, TN (SEEPAGE 25,000 25,000 PRESIDENT, ALEXANDER, CORKER
CONTROL).
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, 35,200 35,200 PRESIDENT, SHELBY, ALEXANDER, CORKER
TN.
TEXAS
BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX........... 14,841 14,841 PRESIDENT, CORNYN
CENTRAL CITY, FORT WORTH, UPPER .............. 500 HUTCHISON, CORNYN
TRINITY RIVER BASIN, T.
CLEAR CREEK, TX.................... .............. 1,000 CORNYN
DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY .............. 13,000 HUTCHISON, CORNYN
RIVER PROJECT, TX.
HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION 16,320 16,320 PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON
CHANNELS, TX.
JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, .............. 1,000 HUTCHISON
ARLINGTON, TX.
RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, .............. 1,000 INHOFE
TX & OK.
SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX .............. 10,000 HUTCHISON, CORNYN
SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX............ 24,154 20,000 PRESIDENT, CORNYN
TEXAS CITY CHANNEL, TX............. .............. 2,500 HUTCHISON
UTAH
RURAL UTAH, UT (EI)................ .............. 10,000 BENNETT, HATCH
VERMONT
BURLINGTON HARBOR, VT.............. .............. 500 LEAHY
LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED INITIATE, .............. 2,500 LEAHY
VT.
VIRGINIA
JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & 13,000 13,000 PRESIDENT
NC (REPLACEMENT).
LYNCHBURG CSO, VA.................. .............. 300 WARNER, WEBB
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VA .............. 1,700 WARNER, WEBB
(DEEPENING).
RICHMOND CSO, VA................... .............. 300 WARNER, WEBB
ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, 10,150 10,150 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB
HEADWATERS AREA, VA.
SANDBRIDGE BEACH, VA............... .............. 2,000 WARNER, WEBB
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE .............. 3,000 WARNER, WEBB
PROTECTION).
WASHINGTON
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM GAS ABATEMENT, WA. 3,000 6,000 PRESIDENT, MURRAY
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, 92,560 83,500 PRESIDENT, MURRAY
OR & ID.
DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA. .............. 2,000 MURRAY, CANTWELL
HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM 16,000 16,000 PRESIDENT
RESTORATION, WA.
LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH & WILDLIFE 400 400 PRESIDENT
COMPENSATION, WA, OR.
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA.. 10,200 10,200 PRESIDENT, MURRAY
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (FISH PASSAGE) 11,500 11,500 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL
PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS .............. 3,000 MURRAY, CANTWELL
RESTORATION, WA.
SHOALWATER BAY, WA (SEC 545 OF WRDA .............. 1,500 MURRAY
2000).
WEST VIRGINIA
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY 12,000 12,000 PRESIDENT, BYRD
ASSURANCE).
GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV......... .............. 1,500 BYRD
ISLAND CREEK BASIN IN AND AROUND .............. 200 BYRD
LOGAN, WEST VIRGINIA.
LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER .............. 26,500 BYRD, WARNER, WEBB
CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V.
LOWER MUD RIVER, MILTON, WV........ .............. 1,050 BYRD
MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV..... 25,000 30,000 PRESIDENT, BYRD
ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO 1,000 1,000 PRESIDENT
RIVER, WV & OH.
WYOMING
JACKSON HOLE ENVIRONMENTAL .............. 475 THOMAS
RESTORATION, JACKSON, WY.
--------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, FOR PROJECTS....... 1,687,308 1,987,854
ABANDONED MINE RESTORATION......... .............. 656 REID, FEINSTEIN, BAUCUS
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 11,278 25,000 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, FEINSTEIN, ALLARD,
(SECTION 206). INOUYE, CRAIG, DURBIN, HARKIN, LANDRIEU,
MIKULSKI, LAUTENBERG, REED, ALEXANDER,
LEAHY, SALAZAR, DODD, LIBERMAN, BILL
NELSON, CHAMBLISS, ISAKSON, CRAPO,
GRASSLEY, CARDIN, KENNEDY, KERRY, COLEMAN,
MENENDEZ, BINGAMAN, SCHUMER, CLINTON,
WYDEN, SMITH, CASEY, WHITEHOUSE, CORNYN,
WARNER, WEBB, CANTWELL, FEINGOLD
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL.............. 3,000 4,000 PRESIDENT
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL 2,663 5,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, KOHL, GRASSLEY,
(SECTION 204, 207, 933). FEINGOLD
CHIEF'S 12 ACTIONS................. 4,600 .............. PRESIDENT
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY 39,000 39,000 PRESIDENT
CORRECTION PROGRAM.
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL 8,241 8,241 PRESIDENT
FACILITIES PROGRAM (DMDF).
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE 907 12,000 PRESIDENT, BYRD, COCHRAN, DORGAN, LANDRIEU,
PROTECTION (SECTION 14). GREGG, LAUTENBERG, KOHL, CHAMBLISS,
GRASSLEY, SNOWE, COLLINS, MENENDEZ,
VOINOVICH
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION FUND........ 21,000 21,000 PRESIDENT
ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC 5,000 1,000 PRESIDENT
LAW 106-457).
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 11,716 45,000 PRESIDENT, BYRD, COCHRAN, DOMENICI,
205). FEINSTEIN, INOUYE, BROWNBACK, LANDRIEU,
MIKULSKI, BOND, BEN NELSON, LAUTENBERG,
ALEXANDER, HUTCHISON, LINCOLN, PRYOR,
BIDEN, CARPER, AKAKA, LUGAR, BAYH,
GRASSLEY, ROBERTS, BUNNING, CARDIN,
KENNEDY, KERRY, COLEMAN, HAGEL, MENENDEZ,
BINGAMAN, SCHUMER, CLINTON
INLAND WATERWAY USER BOARD (COE 185 185 PRESIDENT
EXP).
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD (BOARD 40 40 PRESIDENT
EXPENSES).
MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGES 4,874 2,500 PRESIDENT, SNOWE, COLLINS, SCHUMER, CLINTON
(SECTION 111).
NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107).. 477 10,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, INOUYE, LANDRIEU,
MIKULSKI, REED, PRYOR, AKAKA, SNOWE,
COLLINS, CARDIN, KENNEDY, KERRY, LEVIN,
STABENOW, VOINOVICH
PROJECT MODS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE 11,190 25,000 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, FEINSTEIN, INOUYE,
ENVIRONMENT (SECTION 1135). HARKIN, LANDRIEU, MIKULSKI, BOND,
LAUTENBERG, LEAHY, MURRAY, LINCOLN, PRYOR,
BIDEN, CARPER, AKAKA, GRASSLEY, CARDIN,
KENNEDY, KERRY, WARNER, WEBB, CANTWELL,
FEINGOLD
SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103)..... 422 5,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, MIKULSKI, CARDIN,
CASEY
SNAGGING AND CLEARING (SECTION 208) 10 500 PRESIDENT
--------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, FOR PROJECTS NOT 124,603 204,122
LISTED UNDER STATES.
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS .............. -126,030
AND SLIPPAGE.
USE OF PRIOR BALANCES.............. .............. -6,472
--------------------------------
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL.. 1,818,811 2,059,474
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuscaloosa, Alabama.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000
for the relocation project at Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Akutan Harbor, Alaska.--The Committee recommendation
includes $2,500,000 to initiate construction of this project.
Alaska Coastal Erosion, Alaska.--The Committee
recommendation provides $5,000,000 for Alaska Coastal Erosion.
The following communities are eligible recipients of these
funds: Kivalina, Newtok, Shishmaref, Koyukuk, Barrow, Kaktovik,
Point Hope, Unalakleet, and Bethel.
Nogales Wash, Arizona.--The Committee provides $4,461,000
for completion of this project.
Red River Below Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma
and Texas.--The Committee provides $2,500,000 to continue levee
rehabilitation work in Arkansas and Louisiana.
Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas and
Louisiana.--The Committee provides $4,000,000 for bank
stabilization along the Red River below Index, Arkansas.
American River Watershed, California.--The Committee has
chosen not to combine the various, separately authorized,
components of the project into a single line item as was
proposed in the budget. The Committee believes that it is
prudent to maintain visibility of the various project elements
in the budget process.
American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Miniraise),
California.--The Committee provides $18,500,000. Within the
funds provided, $14,000,000 is for completion of the bridge.
CALFED Levee Stability Program, California.--The Committee
recommendation includes $5,000,000 to initiate this program.
Within the funds provided, the Committee has provided $500,000
for the Corps to coordinate and complete within 6 months a
review of Delta levees emergency preparedness and response
planning with appropriate Federal and State agencies. The
review will address preparation and response to protect (1)
life and property within the Delta and (2) statewide interests
reliant on water and other resources of the Delta, including
measures to prevent salt water contamination of fresh water
supplies consistent with the Delta Levee Stability Program High
Priority, Priority Group A projects.
Mid Valley Area Levee Reconstruction, California.--The
Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for a limited
reevaluation report as well as other necessary studies in
advance of reconstruction.
Oakland Harbor, California.--The Committee recommends
$40,000,000 to continue construction of this project. The
reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any
diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to
balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the
various missions of the Corps.
Santa Ana River, California.--The Committee provides
$17,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
West Sacramento, California.--The Committee recommendation
includes $900,000 for a general reevaluation of the project and
other project needs.
Delaware Coast, Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Rehobeth
Beach to Dewey Beach, Delaware.--The Committee recommendation
includes $2,700,000 to complete the second nourishment cycle.
Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration,
Florida.--The Committee has chosen not to combine the various,
separately authorized components of the project into a single
line item as was proposed in the budget. The Committee believes
that it is prudent to maintain visibility of the various
project elements in the budget process. The reduction made to
the various component projects under this heading should not be
viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an
attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide
program among the various missions of the Corps.
The Committee has chosen not to fund the $35,000,000
request for the Modified Waters Delivery Plan as proposed in
the budget. The Committee does not believe that it is
appropriate for the Corps to fund this work. This is not a
traditional authorization of work for the Corps. It is
direction for the Corps to be involved in the implementation of
the project. As the work involved primarily benefits Everglades
National Park, budgeting for this work should be continued by
the Interior Department as was the practice prior to fiscal
year 2006. The Committee has included legislative language that
limits the Corps of Engineers share of this project to the
amount previously appropriated.
The Committee directs the administration to include the
Modified Waters Delivery Plan funding in the Interior budget in
future budget submissions.
Central and South Florida, Florida.--Within the funds
provided, the Corps shall continue work on the Upper St. Johns
River project.
Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements, Florida.--The
Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for continued
implementation of this project. The Committee urges the
administration to budget for this project due to the
interrelationship of this work to the Everglades Restoration
project, Biscayne Bay and southern Florida's nearshore waters.
Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.--The Committee has provided
$3,000,000 to continue work on the project as well as for a
second general reevaluation report.
Tampa Harbor, Florida.--$304,000 is provided to complete
the General Reevaluation Report.
Atlanta, Georgia.--The Committee recommendation includes
$2,000,000 to continue this project.
Tybee Island, Georgia.--The Committee recommendation
provides $2,000,000 for the next scheduled renourishment.
Rural Idaho Environmental Infrastructure, Idaho.--The
Committee provides $5,000,000 for this project. Within the
funds provided the Corps should give consideration to projects
at Emmett, Burley, Deary, Rupert, Donnelly, East Idaho Regional
Water Authority, and Smelterville. Other communities that meet
the program criteria should be considered as funding allows.
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.--The Committee
has provided $3,250,000 for construction on Barriers I and II.
Legislative language has been included for these projects as
requested in the budget.
McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.--The Committee
includes $31,500,000 for continued construction of this
project. The reduction made to this project should not be
viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an
attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide
program among the various missions of the Corps.
Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky.--
The Committee provides $94,000,000 to continue construction of
this project. The reduction made to this project should not be
viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an
attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide
program among the various missions of the Corps. None of the
funds provided for the Olmsted Locks and Dam Project are to be
used to reimburse the Claims and Judgment Fund.
Indiana Harbor (Confined Disposal Facility), Indiana.--The
Committee has retained funding for this project in the
Construction, General account rather than moving it to the
Operations and Maintenance account as proposed in the budget.
Missouri Fish and Wildlife Recovery, Iowa, Kansas,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.--
The Committee provides $50,000,000 for this project.
Legislative language is included in the bill that accompanies
this report to make modifications to the Intake Dam, as
requested by the administration, to provide additional habitat
for the pallid sturgeon. Funding for the modifications to
Intake Dam are provided in this account rather than as a
separate line as proposed in the budget.
Turkey Creek, Kansas and Missouri.--The Committee
recommendation includes $9,000,000 to continue construction of
this project.
Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, Kentucky.--The
Committee recommendation includes $47,000,000 to continue
construction of this project. The reduction made to this
project should not be viewed as any diminution of support for
this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of
Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the
Corps.
Markland Locks and Dam, Kentucky and Illinois.--The
Committee has provided $7,000,000 to initiate construction on
this major rehabilitation requested by the administration. The
Committee has provided these funds here rather than in O&M as
proposed in the budget request.
McAlpine Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Kentucky and Indiana.--
The Committee has provided $57,000,000 to continue construction
of this project and legislative language, as requested in the
budget request, to raise the cost ceiling for the project so
the funds can be utilized in fiscal year 2008. The reduction
made to this project should not be viewed as any diminution of
support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the
Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the various
missions of the Corps.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee has
provided $7,000,000 for navigation channel refinement features,
land purchases and development for mitigation of project
impacts, and construction of project recreation and appurtenant
features.
Southeast Louisiana project, Louisiana.--The Committee has
provided $18,500,000 to continue construction of this vital
interior drainage project. Additionally, the Committee has
included legislative language directing the Secretary of the
Army to include the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control project
authorized in section 533 of Public Law 104-303, as amended,
and other related internal pumping requirements as integral
components of the comprehensive protection plan required to
achieve certification for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program directed by Public Law 109-234. As the recent
inundation study for the city of New Orleans and vicinity by
the Corps of Engineers concluded, the improvements to the
pumping capacity and levee system in the area have contributed
to an improved mitigation of risk of catastrophic flooding in
the region. However, a peripheral line of protection alone does
not provide a truly comprehensive protection system without
adding the ability to efficiently collect and evacuate the
significant amounts of flood water that accumulate inside of
this line of protection. The southeast Louisiana project and
related interior pumping capacity projects are essential
component pieces to such a comprehensive system and to the
National Flood Insurance Program and, accordingly, must be
designed and constructed concurrently with other projects in
the area.
Chesapeake Bay Environmental Program, Maryland,
Pennsylvania and Virginia.--The Committee has included
$1,000,000 for continuation of this project. Within the funds
provided, $450,000 is included to complete the environmental
studies concerning non-native oysters.
Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, Maryland and Virginia.--The
Committee includes $2,000,000 to continue construction of this
project.
Fort Peck Dam and Lake, Montana.--The Committee
recommendation includes $500,000 for continuation of Fort Peck
cabin sales.
Rural Montana, Montana.--The Committee provides $5,000,000
for this project. Within the funds provided the Corps should
give consideration to the following projects: Crow Tribe Water
and Wastewater System; Cabinet Heights Wastewater Collection
Systems; Ranch Water District, Bigfork; Town of Medicine Lake;
County Water District of Billings Heights; Power Water System
improvements; Seely Lake, Greater Woods Bay Wastewater System;
Basin Creek Reservoir, Butte; Dayton Wastewater Collection and
Treatment Facility; Phillipsburg Wastewater Improvements;
Glasgow Wastewater; Whitehall Wastewater; Cut Bank Water;
Hamiliton Wastewater; Conrad Wastewater; Billings, West Wicks
Lane Water and Sewer; and Port of Montana Water. Other
communities that meet the program criteria should be considered
as funding allows.
Sand Creek, Nebraska.--The Committee includes $1,000,000 to
continue construction of this project.
Rural Nevada, Nevada.--The Committee recommendation
provides $19,000,000 for this project. Within the funds
provided the Corps should give consideration to projects at
North Lemmon Valley; Spanish Springs Valley Phase II; Huffaker
Hills Water Conservation; Lawton-Verdi; Boulder City; Lyon
County; Gerlach; Searchlight; Incline Village; Esmeralda
County; Cold Springs; Fallon; Goldfield; Churchill County; West
Wendover; Yearington; Virgin Valley Water District; Lovelock;
Truckee Meadows Water Authority; McGill-Ruth Consolidated Sewer
and Water District; Carlin; Moapa; Indian Springs; Eldorado
Valley; Ely and Carson City. Other communities that meet the
program criteria should be considered as funding allows.
Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, Nevada.--The Committee
recommendation includes $13,000,000 to continue construction of
this flood control project. Within the funds provided
$9,600,000 is provided for work performed in accordance with
section 211 of Public Law 104-303.
Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-basin, New Jersey.--
The Committee includes $10,000,000 to continue construction of
this project.
Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.--The
Committee provides $5,111,000 for this periodic renourishment
here rather than in O&M as proposed by the administration's
budget request.
Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.--The Committee
provides $3,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
Acequias Irrigation System, New Mexico.--The Committee
provides $2,400,000 to continue restoration of these historic
irrigation distribution systems.
Central New Mexico [EI], New Mexico.--The Committee
includes $7,500,000 to continue construction of this project.
New Mexico [EI], New Mexico.--The Committee includes
$10,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The original health care
facility for the Three Affiliated Tribes tribe was permanently
inundated due to the impoundment of Lake Sakakawea. A
replacement healthcare facility was promised but never
constructed. Legislative text has been included in the Bill
this report accompanies that directs the Corps to construct
this replacement facility. The Committee recommendation
includes $3,000,000 for design of the replacement health care
facility. The Corps should work closely with the Indian Health
Service and the Three Affiliated Tribes on the design and
construction of this facility. The Committee suggests that the
Corps utilize the expertise in their military programs office
for this project.
North Dakota [EI], North Dakota.--The Committee has
provided up to $6,000,000 for work related to the replacement
of the Devils Lake Water supply pipeline. The Committee has
included legislative text that reallocates the unexpended
balance of $4,972,000 from the Devils Lake outlet to this
project.
Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River,
Pennsylvania.--The Committee recommendation includes
$65,300,000 to continue construction of this project. The
reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any
dimunition of support for this project, rather an attempt to
balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the
various missions of the Corps.
Presque Isle, Pennsylvania.--The Committee provides
$1,000,000 to continue this project.
Big Sioux River, South Dakota.--The Committee includes
$3,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South
Dakota.--The Committee notes that title IV of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999, Public Law 106-53 as
amended, authorizes funding to pay administrative expenses,
implementation of terrestrial wildlife plans, activities
associated with land transferred or to be transferred, and
annual expenses for operating recreational areas. The Committee
includes $4,000,000 for this effort. Within the funds provided,
the Committee directs that not more than $1,000,000 shall be
provided for administrative expenses, and that the Corps is to
distribute the remaining funds as directed by title IV to the
State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.
Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee.--The Committee provides
$35,200,000 to continue construction of this project.
Central City, Fort Worth, Upper Trinity River Basin,
Texas.--The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for the
Central City, Fort Worth, Texas, project. The Committee
continues to be interested in the merits of combining the
authorized Central City project with the proposed Riverside
Oxbow project. The Committee understands that the Corps has an
ongoing evaluation of the combined project and encourage that
it be completed expeditiously and the results furnished to the
Committee.
Red River Basin Chloride Control, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas
and Louisiana.--The Committee includes $1,000,000 to continue
construction.
San Antonio Channel Improvement, Texas.--The Committee
recommendation include $10,000,000 to continue this flood
control project.
Sims Bayou, Houston, Texas.--The Committee recommendation
includes $20,000,000 for this project. The reduction made to
this project should not be viewed as any dimunition of support
for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of
Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the
Corps.
Rural Utah, [EI], Utah.--The Committee recommendation
includes $10,000,000 to continue construction of this project.
Burlington Harbor, Vermont.--The Committee includes
$500,000 to initiate removal of oil bollards in the harbor.
Lake Champlain Watershed Initiative.--The Committee
recommendation includes $2,500,000 for continuation of this
project. The Committee has included legislative text that
reallocates the unexpended balance of $1,500,000 from the
completed Waterbury Dam Seepage Correction repairs to this
project.
Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Washington, Oregon, and
Idaho.--The Committee has chosen not to follow the budget
proposal to include this work within the various O&M items in
the system. The Committee believes that it is prudent to
maintain visibility of the costs of environmental compliance
activities for this project and have included funding in this
account in the traditional items. $83,500,000 is provided for
this project.
Mud Mountain, Washington.--The Corps has provided
$11,500,000 for fish passage at this project.
Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland
River, West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia.--The Committee
provides $26,500,000 for the continuation of the project.
Within the funds provided, the Committee recommendation
includes $7,500,000 for the Buchanan County, Dickenson County,
and Grundy, Virginia elements. Further, the recommendation
includes $18,000,000 for Kermit, Lower Mingo County, McDowell
County, Upper Mingo and Wayne County, West Virginia.
Aquatic Plant Control Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $4,000,000 for this program. Funds
above the budget requests are included for cost-shared programs
for Lake Gaston, North Carolina; Lake Champlain, Vermont; and
Lake Chautauqua, New York.
Chief's 12 Actions.--The Committee did not include funding
for this item. The Committee believes that the activities
proposed in the budget request for this line item should be
incorporated into the various funded construction activities
that the Corps has underway.
Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program.--The
Committee has retained this program in the Construction,
General account rather than the Operations and Maintenance
account as proposed by the budget.
Shore Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration
Program.)--The Committee understands that this program will be
considerably expanded and modified in the pending Water
Resources Development Act. Therefore the Committee has included
legislative text to extend the duration of this program so that
the COE can continue monitoring of complete projects and finish
work on projects, where possible with previousl appropriated
funds. No new funds are provided.
Collection and Study of Basic Data.--The recommendation
includes $1,400,000 for these efforts. Funds provided above the
budget request are for LIDAR mapping to be undertaken in the
Delta portion of Mississippi.
Ability to Pay.--Section 103(m) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 Public Law 99-662, as amended, requires
that all project cooperation agreements for flood damage
reduction projects, to which non-Federal cost sharing applies,
will be subject to the ability of non-Federal sponsors to pay
their shares. Congress included this section in the landmark
1986 act to ensure that as many communities as possible would
qualify for Federal flood damage reduction projects, based more
on needs and less on financial capabilities. The Secretary
published eligibility criteria in 33 CFR 241, which requires a
non-Federal sponsor to meet an ability-to-pay test. However,
the Committee believes that the Secretary's test is too
restrictive and operates to exclude most communities from
qualifying for relief under the ability-to-pay provision. For
example, 33 CFR 241.4(f) specifies that the test should be
structured so that reductions in the level of cost sharing will
be granted in ``only a limited number of cases of severe
economic hardship,'' and should depend not only on the economic
circumstances within a project area, but also on the conditions
of the State in which the project area is located.
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM
When Congress authorized the initial Continuing Authorities
in the 1940s and 1950s, they were envisioned to provide a small
pool of money available to the Corps of Engineers to solve very
small localized problems without being encumbered by the longer
study and project authorization process. As more programs were
added to the Continuing Authorities Program [CAP] they became
increasingly popular with congressional Members and the public.
More and more congressionally directed projects began to appear
in the annual appropriations bills. At first these
congressionally directed projects were added to the base
program. As more and more of these congressionally directed
projects came into the program it became difficult for these
congressionally directed projects to be added to the base, and
as such, the base program began to shrink. Congressionally
directed projects now dominate all sections of the CAP Program.
Congressionally directed projects have proliferated to such an
extent that several of the sections are over-subscribed.
The table below shows the unfunded costs in each of the
various sections of the CAP program along with the Statutory
Limit of each section and the Mean Annual Allocation from 2001-
2007 for each section. At current levels of funding it will
take nearly 16 years to clear out this backlog.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean annual
Section Statutory allocation Total unfunded
limit 2001-2007 Federal cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.............................................................. $15,000 $13,730 $43,193
103............................................................. 30,000 4,179 45,435
107............................................................. 35,000 8,389 148,262
111............................................................. (\1\) 1,417 38,279
145............................................................. (\1\) 904 2,700
204............................................................. 15,000 1,876 26,754
205............................................................. 50,000 31,664 547,862
206............................................................. 25,000 29,658 734,545
208............................................................. 7,500 233 1,151
1135............................................................ 25,000 28,951 323,226
-----------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................... +202,500 121,001 1,911,409
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\None.
The Committee tried to address the oversubscribed nature of
some of the CAP sections by instituting a moratorium on new
cost sharing agreements in fiscal year 2006. Due to the Joint
funding resolution for fiscal year 2007, the moratorium was
continued through the current year. The Committee does not
recommend that the moratorium be continued into fiscal year
2008.
Prioritization of these projects by the Corps is still
essential. The Committee directs the Corps to prioritize
projects in the following manner to try to get the backlog of
these projects reduced. The first priority for funding should
be for construction projects that are ready to execute Project
Cooperation Agreements. The next priority should be for
projects that are ready to execute design agreements. Third
priority would be for those that are ready to execute
feasibility agreements. The fourth priority would be for those
projects progressing from design to construction. The last
priority should be new starts. Priority should be given to
those projects that have demonstrated capability to move
forward. This would include having non-Federal financing in
place and ready to be utilized. The Committee has provided no
new starts in any of the sections.
Starting with fiscal year 2008 the Committee will no longer
provide any congressional earmarks for the section 14,
Emergency Bank Stabilization authority. By definition these are
projects that are estimated to fail within 9-12 months. As an
``emergency situation'' the Chief of Engineers should have the
responsibility for determining how these funds are expended in
the most efficient and effective manner. Budget justifications
for this section should display the anticipated projects and
associated costs to be undertaken in the budget year as well as
the anticipated resources necessary to address emergencies that
arise in the budget year.
The Committee will not provide dollar amounts for the
projects that are named in the report. The Committee directs
that the Chief should have 100 percent reprogramming
flexibility within the various sections of the CAP program in
order to address the backlog. This reprogramming guidance has
been addressed in section 101 of the bill accompanying this
report. The Chief of Engineers should provide a report to the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees within 30 days of
enactment of this bill detailing how funds will be distributed
to the individual items in the various CAP sections for the
fiscal year. The Chief should also provide an annual report at
the end of each fiscal year detailing the progress made on the
backlog of projects. The report should include the completions
and terminations as well as progress of on going work. The
Committee would be willing to work with the Corps on any
reforms that they might suggest to improve this program.
The Committee is concerned that if the Corps adhered
strictly to the priorities above, that all funding would be
exhausted for construction. Therefore, in order to provide a
mix of studies, design and construction within each CAP section
the Committee directs that funding be generally divided in the
following manner for each of the CAP sections. These
percentages should be considered upper limits in each section,
not absolutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
CAP Section Available Available for
Funding Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 103........................... $5,000,000 75
Section 107........................... 10,000,000 75
Section 1135.......................... 25,000,000 70
Section 14............................ 12,000,000 80
Sections 204, 207, 933................ 5,000,000 75
Section 205........................... 45,000,000 65
Section 206........................... 25,000,000 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though the Committee is providing a listing of
projects that are of interest, the Corps should develop the
program based on all of the projects in each section whether
named or not. Priorities should be based on the factors
outlined above and should not consider prior year earmarks or a
listing in this report. The Corps is directed not to initiate
any new continuing authorities projects without explicit
congressional direction. Only projects that have been named in
prior appropriation bills or received prior year funds or are
listed in this bill should be considered for funding.
A listing of CAP projects follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 103 Shoreline Protection:
Goleta Beach, CA................... Feinstein
Pismo Beach, CA.................... Feinstein
Conquest Preserve, MD.............. Mikulski, Cardin
Franklin Point Park, MD............ Mikulski, Cardin
Mayo Beach Park, MD................ Mikulski, Cardin
Pleasure Island, Baltimore County, Mikulski, Cardin
MD.
Philadelphia Shipyard Sea Wall, Casey
Philadelphia, PA.
Section 107 Small Navigation Projects:
Blytheville Harbor, AR............. Pryor
Kahoolawe Harbor, Kahoolawe, HI.... Inouye, Akaka
Port Fourchon Extension, Lafourche Landrieu
Parish, LA.
Bucks Harbor, ME................... Snowe, Collins
Naticoke Harbor, Wicomico, MD...... Mikulski, Cardin
Rhodes Point, MD................... Mikulski, Cardin
St. Jerome's Creek, St. Mary's Mikulski, Cardin
County, MD.
Woods Hole, Great Harbor, Woods Kennedy, Kerry
Hole, MA.
Northwestern Michigan College, Levin, Stabenow
Great Lakes Maritime Academy,
Harbor Renovation, Traverse City,
MI:.
Ontonagon Channel Extension, MI.... Levin, Stabenow
Yazoo Diversion Canal, MS.......... Cochran
Ottawa River Recreational Dredging, Voinovich
NC.
Charlestown Breachway, RI.......... Reed
Section 111 Mitigation of Shore Damages
Attributable to Navigation Projects:
Camp Ellis Restoration Project, ME. Snowe, Collins
Mattituck Harbor, NY............... Schumer, Clinton
Sections 204, 207, 933 Beneficial Uses
of Dredged Material:
Blackhawk Bottoms, IA.............. Grassley
Barataria Bay Waterway, LA......... Landrieu
Calcasieu River, Cameron Parish, LA Landrieu
Restoration of the Cat Islands Kohl
Chain, Green Bay, WI.
Section 205 Small Flood Control
Projects:
Wynne, AR.......................... Lincoln, Pryor
Las Gallinas Creek/Santa Venetia Feinstein
Levee, CA.
Little Mill Creek, Elsemere, DE.... Biden, Carper
Kuliouou Stream, Oahu, HI.......... Inouye
Palai Stream, Hawaii, HI........... Inouye, Akaka
Waiakea Stream, Hawaii, HI......... Inouye, Akaka
White River, Anderson, IN.......... Lugar, Bayh
Indian Creek, Cedar Rapids, IA..... Grassley
Mad Creek, Muscatine, IA........... Grassley
Red Oak Creek, Red Oak, IA......... Grassley
Winnebago River, Mason City, IA.... Grassley
Eureka Creek, Manhattan, KS........ Roberts, Brownback
Red Duck Creek, Mayfield, KY....... Bunning
Bayou Choupique, St Mary Parish, LA Landrieu
Bayou Queue de Tortue, Vermillion Landrieu
Parish, LA.
Coushatta Indian Reservation, LA Landrieu
[FC].
Jean Lafitte, Fisher School Basin, Landrieu
LA.
Pailet Basin, Barataria, LA........ Landrieu
Rosethorn Basin, LA................ Landrieu
Town of Carencro, Lafayette Parish, Landrieu
LA.
Elkton, MD......................... Mikulski, Cardin
North River, Peabody, MA........... Kennedy, Kerry
Ada, MN............................ Coleman
Montevideo, MN..................... Coleman
McKinney Bayou, Tunica County, MS.. Cochran
Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, MO... Bond
Festus-Crystal City, MO............ Bond
Little River Diversion, Dutchtown, Bond
MO.
Fremont South,NE................... Hagel, Ben Nelson
Schuyler, NE....................... Hagel, Ben Nelson
Jackson Brook, Morris County, NJ... Lautenberg, Menendez
Mill Brook, Highland Park, NJ...... Lautenberg, Menendez
Upper Passaic River and Lautenberg, Menendez
Tributaries, Long Hill Township,
NJ.
Hatch, NM.......................... Domenici, Bingaman
Steel Creek, NY.................... Schumer, Clinton
Poplar Brook, Deal and Ocean Lautenberg, Menendez
Township, NJ.
Beaver Creek, TN................... Alexander
Pecan Creek, Gainesville, TX....... Hutchison
WV Statewide Flood Warning System.. Byrd
Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration:
Upper York Creek, Dam Removal, CA.. Feinstein
Arkansas River Habitat Restoration Allard, Salazar
Project, CO.
Goose Creek, Boulder, CO........... Salazar
Lower Boulder Creek, CO............ Salazar
Tamarisk Eradication, CO........... Salazar
Stamford Mill River Restoration, CT Dodd, Lieberman
Rose Bay, FL....................... Nelson
Chattahoochee Fall-Line Ecosystem Chambliss, Isakson
Estoration, GA.
Mokuhinia/Mokuula Restoration, HI.. Inouye
Paradise Creek Ecosystem Craig, Crapo
Restoration, Moscow, Idaho.
Salmon River, Challis, ID.......... Craig, Crapo
Emiquon Preserve, Fulton County, IL Durbin
Squaw Creek Restoration, IL........ Durbin
Chariton River/Rathbun Lake, Iowa.. Grassley
Duck Creek, Davenport, IA.......... Grassley
Iowa River/Clear Creek, Iowa City, Grassley
IA.
Storm Lake, IA..................... Grassley
Ventura Marsh Habitat Restoration, Harkin, Grassley
IA.
Whitebreast Creek Watershed, IA.... Grassley
Bayou Grosse Tete Restoration, Landrieu
Iberville Parish, LA.
Lake Fausse Pointe, Iberia Parish, Landrieu
LA.
Lake Killarney, Louisiana State Landrieu
Penitentiary, LA.
Lake Verret Assumption Parish, LA.. Landrieu
Mandeville Ecosystem Restoration, Landrieu
LA.
University Lakes, Baton Rouge, LA.. Landrieu
Vermillion River Ecosystem Landrieu
Restoration, LA.
Zemurray Park Lake Restoration, Landrieu
Tangipahoa Parish, LA.
Deep Run/Tiber Hudson, Howard Mikulski, Cardin
County, MD.
Dog Island Shoals, MD.............. Mikulski, Cardin
Greenbury Point, Anne Arundel Mikulski, Cardin
County, MD.
Hanover Street Wetlands, Baltimore Mikulski, Cardin
City, MD.
North Beach Wetland Restoration, MD Mikulski, Cardin
Northwest Branch Anacostia River, Mikulski, Cardin
MD.
Paint Branch Fish Passage, MD...... Mikulski, Cardin
Tidal Middle Branch, MD............ Mikulski, Cardin
Urieville Lake, Kent Conrad, MD.... Mikulski, Cardin
Wright's Creek, Dorchester Creek, Mikulski, Cardin
MD.
Milford Pond, Milford, MA.......... Kennedy, Kerry
Painters Creek, Minnehaha Creek, Coleman
Watershed, MN.
Rancocas Creek Fish Passage Lautenberg, Menendez
Restoration Project, NJ.
Blue Hole Lake State Park, NM...... Domenici, Bingaman
Bottomless Lakes State Park, NM.... Domenici, Bingaman
Janes-Wallace Memorial Dam, Santa Domenici, Bingaman
Rosa, NM.
Chenango Lake, NY.................. Schumer, Clinton
Gerritsen Creek, Booklyn, NY....... Schumer, Clinton
Lower Hempstead Harbor, NY......... Schumer, Clinton
Manhasset Bay, NY.................. Schumer, Clinton
Mud Creek, Great South Bay, NY..... Schumer, Clinton
Northport Harbor, Huntington, NY... Schumer, Clinton
Soundview Park, Bronx, NY.......... Schumer, Clinton
Pennsville, Salem County, NJ....... Lautenberg, Menendez
Christine and Hickson Dams, ND..... Dorgan
Drayton Dam, ND.................... Dorgan
Arrowhead Creek, OR................ Wyden, Smith
Camp Creek-Zumwalt Prairie, OR..... Wyden, Smith
Springfield Mill Race Stabilization Wyden, Smith
and Protection, OR.
Dents Run, Elk County, PA.......... Casey
North Park Lake Restoration, PA.... Casey
Brush Neck Cove, RI................ Reed, Whitehouse
Narrow River Restoration, RI....... Reed
Ten Mile River restoration, RI..... Reed, Whitehouse
Winneapaug Pond Restoration, RI.... Reed, Whitehouse
Pistol Creek, Maryville, TN........ Alexander
San Marco River Ecosystem Cornyn
Restoration, TX.
West Branch of Little River, VT.... Leahy
Wild Branch of Lamoille River, VT.. Leahy
Elizabeth River, Scuffletown Creek, Warner, Webb
Chesapeake, VA.
Tangier Island, Accomack County, VA Warner, Webb
Swift Creek Asbestos Sediment Cantwell
Management, WA.
Section 1135 Project Modifications for
the Improvement of the Environment:
Lower Cache Restoration, AR........ Lincoln, Pryor
Millwood Lake, Grassy Lake, AR..... Lincoln, Pryor
Tujunga Wash Environmental Feinstein
Restoration, CA.
Oyster Revitalization in the Biden, Carper
Delaware Bay, DE.
Kanaha Pond Wildlife Sanctuary Inouye
Restoration, HI.
Kaunakakai Stream Environmental Inouye, Akaka
Restoration, HI.
Kawainui Marsh Restoration, HI..... Inouye
Charitan River, Rathbun Lake Harkin
Watershed, IN.
Rathbun Lake, South Fork Grassley
Restoration, IA.
Amite River Diversion Canal Bank Landrieu
Gapping, LA.
Frazier/Whitehouse Oxbow Lake Weir, Landrieu
LA.
Lake St. Joseph, Tensas Parish, LA. Landrieu
Hart-Miller Island, MD............. Mikulski, Cardin
Broad Meadows Marsh, Quincy, MA.... Kennedy, Kerry
Duck Creek Conservation Area, Bond
Stoddard County, MO.
Assunpink Creek, NJ................ Lautenberg, Menendez
Delaware Bay Oyster Restoration, NJ Lautenberg, Menendez
Lincoln Park West, Ecosystem Lautenberg, Menendez
Restoration Study, NJ.
Lower Assunpink Creek, NJ.......... Lautenberg, Menendez
Mordecai Island Coastal Wetland Lautenberg, Menendez
Restoration, NJ.
Pine Mount Creek, NJ............... Lautenberg, Menendez
Pond Creek Salt Marsh Restoration, Lautenberg, Menendez
Cape May County, NJ.
Rahway River, Rahway, NJ........... Lautenberg, Menendez
Las Cruces Dam environmental Domenici, Bingaman
Restoration, Dona Ana County, NM.
Pueblo of Santa Ana Aquatic Domenici, Bingaman
Restoration, NM.
Route 66 Environmental Restoration, Domenici, Bingaman
Albuquerque, NM.
Smokes Creek, NY................... Schumer, Clinton
Spring Creek, NY................... Schumer, Clinton
Whitney Point Lake, NY............. Schumer, Clinton
Joe Creek restoration, OK.......... Inhofe
Lake Champlain Lamprey Barriers, VT Leahy
Village of Oyster, Northampton Warner, Webb
County, VA.
Mapes Creek Restoration, WA........ Murray, Cantwell
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has included a rescission of $6,472,000 in
unobligated funds from the Construction account of the fiscal
year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act
(Public Law 109-103).
FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ARKANSAS, ILLINOIS,
KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, AND TENNESSEE
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $396,565,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 260,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 375,000,000
This appropriation funds planning, construction, and
operation and maintenance activities associated with water
resource projects located in the lower Mississippi River Valley
from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico. The
Committee wishes to reiterate that MR&T project is a good model
for the Corps to examine for moving towards a watershed
approach.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
Project title estimate recommendation Requested by
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INVESTIGATIONS
BAYOU METO BASIN, AR............... .............. 1,400 LINCOLN, PRYOR
SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR............. .............. 400 LINCOLN, PRYOR
ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA......... 200 200 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM 200 200 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
LAND STUDY, LA.
MORGANZA TO THE GULF, LA........... .............. 4,000 LANDRIEU, VITTER
SPRING BAYOU, LA................... .............. 100 LANDRIEU
COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW 300 300 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS.
MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER .............. 148 COCHRAN
MGMT STUDY, T.
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA. 400 1,400 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
CONSTRUCTION
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, 53,395 55,414 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
LA, MS, MO & TN.
GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR........... .............. 10,000 LINCOLN, PRYOR
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, 28,767 51,767 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, LANDRIEU, BOND,
KY, LA, MS, MO & TN. LINCOLN, PRYOR, VITTER
ST FRANCIS RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, .............. 7,000 LINCOLN, PRYOR
AR & MO.
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, 1,800 1,800 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
LA.
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA.............. 23,800 23,800 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA....... .............. 1,000 LANDRIEU
YAZOO BASIN--BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, .............. 200 COCHRAN
MS.
YAZOO BASIN--DELTA HEADWATERS .............. 20,000 COCHRAN
PROJECT, MS.
YAZOO BASIN--MAIN STEM, MS......... .............. 25 COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN--REFORMULATION UNIT, MS .............. 1,500 COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN--UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, .............. 13,000 COCHRAN
MS.
YAZOO BASIN--YAZOO BACKWATER F&WL .............. 50 COCHRAN
MITIGATION LANDS, M.
YAZOO BASIN--YAZOO BACKWATER, MS... .............. 10,000 COCHRAN
ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID .............. 4,000 BOND
FLOODWAY, MO.
WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN..... .............. 200 ALEXANDER, CORKER
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, 59,977 64,951 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, LANDRIEU
LA, MS, MO & TN.
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR. 63 400 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR.. 249 249 PRESIDENT
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, 100 300 PRESIDENT
AR.
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, 115 115 PRESIDENT
AR.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, 10,726 11,800 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, LANDRIEU, BOND,
KY, LA, MS, MO & TN. LINCOLN, PRYOR,
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO.......... 4,725 10,000 PRESIDENT, BOND, LINCOLN, PRYOR
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS 2,667 2,667 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR
RIVERS, AR & LA.
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR.......... 900 1,000 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL.. 170 170 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY.. 93 93 PRESIDENT
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, 2,291 2,700 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
LA.
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA.............. 11,019 12,500 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA 17 400 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA. 41 41 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
BONNET CARRE, LA................... 2,367 3,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA.. 1,037 1,237 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, 45 80 PRESIDENT
LA.
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA....... 125 125 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
OLD RIVER, LA...................... 9,045 10,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, 2,500 4,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
LA.
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS.............. 30 300 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS.. 143 143 PRESIDENT
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS............... 71 300 PRESIDENT
YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS.... 5,995 6,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, 196 196 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
MS.
YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS......... 7,011 10,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS......... 1,558 1,500 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS...... 6,664 8,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS......... 2,075 3,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS....... 7,476 11,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS....... 818 1,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX 191 191 PRESIDENT
CHAN, MS.
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, 613 613 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
MS.
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS........ 578 578 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO.. 185 185 PRESIDENT
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO................ 4,819 4,819 PRESIDENT, BOND
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN.. 81 81 PRESIDENT
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN.. 2,866 2,866 PRESIDENT, ALEXANDER, CORKER
MAPPING............................ 1,496 1,496 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
ANTICIPATED REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS .............. -11,000
AND SLIPPAGE.
--------------------------------
TOTAL........................ 260,000 375,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believes that it is essential to provide
adequate resources and funding to the Mississippi River and
Tributaries program in order to protect the large investment in
flood control facilities. Although much progress has been made,
considerable work remains to be done for the protection and
economic development of the rich natural resources in the
Valley. The Committee expects the additional funds to be used
to advance ongoing studies, initiate new studies, and advance
important construction and maintenance work.
General Investigations
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System Land Study, Louisiana.--
The Committee has provided $100,000 to initiate this study as
recommended in the budget request.
Morganza to the Gulf, Louisiana.--The Committee has
provided $4,000,000 to continue Preconstruction Engineering and
Design for this study.
Memphis Metro, Storm Water Management Study, Tennessee and
Mississippi.--The Committee has provided $148,000 to complete
the reconnaissance phase and initiate feasibility studies.
Construction
Grand Prairie, Arkansas.--The Committee has provided
$10,000,000 for continued construction of the project.
Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisisna, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.--Additional
funds above the budget request could be used to continue Item
2, New Madrid levee closure and box culvert and mitigation land
acquisition for New Madrid levee closure and box culvert; award
contracts for Reid-Bedford-King, Item 424-L; Magna Vista-
Brunswick, Item 468-L; Bayou Vidal-Elkridge, Item 421-R;
Carrollton Levee Enlargement; continue Floodway assessments;
Trotters, Mississippi relief wells; Wilson, Arkansas relief
wells; Cairo, Illinois Grade Raise and complete LMRMRIS.
Yazoo Basin, Backwater Pumping Plant, Mississippi.--The
Committee has provided $10,000,000 to fully fund pump and motor
contracts and initiate purchase of conservation easements.
Funds are also provided for the center associated with the
Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge.
Yazoo Basin, Delta Headwaters Project, Mississippi.--The
Committee has provided $20,000,000 to continue construction of
this project.
Yazoo Basin, Upper Yazoo Project, Mississippi.--The
Committee has provided $13,000,000 which could be used to fully
fund a contract for Item 6B structures; fund a contract for one
bridge relocation; fund a contract for Item 7 channel; continue
design of Item 7 and Item 8 channel; purchase project and
mitigation lands; and reforestation.
Maintenance
Mississippi River Levees, Arkasnas, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.--Funds provided
above the budget request are to provide gravel surfacing to
selected locations along roads on top of levees in Arkansas,
Mississippi, and Louisiana to ensure all weather access for
flood fights and for other backlog maintenance.
The Committee has provided additional funding to address
the maintenance backlog at Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid and Grenada
Lakes in Mississippi.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $1,973,347,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 2,471,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,291,971,000
\1\Excludes emergency appropriation of $3,000,000.
This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and
related activities at the water resources projects that the
Corps operates and maintains. Work to be accomplished consists
of dredging, repair, and operation of structures and other
facilities, as authorized in the various River and Harbor,
Flood Control, and Water Resources Development Acts. Related
activities include aquatic plant control, monitoring of
completed projects where appropriate, removal of sunken
vessels, and the collection of domestic waterborne commerce
statistics.
The Committee continues to believe that it is essential to
provide adequate resources and attention to operation and
maintenance requirements in order to protect the large Federal
investment. In order to cope with the current fiscal situation,
the Corps has had to defer or delay scheduled maintenance
activities.
The O&M budget request appears to have been increased by
nearly $500,000,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted amount.
However this is very misleading. Shifting of projects from the
CG account to the O&M account totals almost $300,000,000 of the
$500,000,000 increase to O&M. That still leaves an increase of
$200,000,000 for traditional O&M projects. The Committee is
pleased that the administration has provided this increase to
O&M for fiscal year 2008. This is the first real increase in
many years. Unfortunately, the Committee notes that the Corps
maintenance backlog is more than $1,000,000,000 and increases
by about $100,000,000 annually as the inventory of projects
ages.
The Committee has chosen to display the budget request as
the discreet projects that are the tradition as opposed to the
regional budget proposed by the administration. Also the
Committee has chosen to migrate the projects that the
administration proposed in O&M back to their traditional
location in the CG account. This makes the actual budget
request for O&M $2,175,189,000 rather than $2,471,000,000 as
presented in the budget. A list of these migrated projects is
displayed under the CG heading earlier in this report.
Maintenance of our aging water infrastructure inventory
gets more expensive every year, however, it is consistently
underfunded. If this trend continues, the Corps will not be
able to maintain expected levels of service at all of its
projects. The Committee has maintained its tradition of
supporting what the budget request terms as ``low use harbors
and waterways''. The Committee recognizes the importance of
these facilities and will continue to provide funding for them.
CORPS HOPPER DREDGE FLEET
During fiscal year 2002, the Committee requested the
General Accounting Office [GAO] to review the benefits and
effects of current and proposed restrictions on the Corps'
hopper dredge fleet. The Committee faces significant future
investments in the Corps hopper dredge fleet, as it is rapidly
aging. The Committee believes that the investment decisions
must take into consideration the subsequent use of the fleet.
The final GAO report, released March 2003, reviewed the impacts
of operational changes to the fleet since fiscal year 1993.
GAO's findings made it clear to the Committee that additional
costs have been imposed upon the Corps with the decreased use
of the fleet, but that the benefits have not been realized.
Additionally, the GAO found that the Corps' contracting process
for hopper dredges was not effective. Most importantly, the GAO
reported that the Corps of Engineers did not have even a
limited system to evaluate the costs and benefits of the
varying operational levels of its hopper dredge fleet, nor did
it have a means to make maintenance and repair decisions of the
fleet taking operational use into consideration. The Committee
remains concerned that since 2000, the Corps has provided a
report to Congress which has been found to have no analytical
basis, thus calling into question the ready reserve policy.
Therefore, the Committee has provided legislative language
which changes the current dredge policy.
The Committee is concerned that lead and asbestos abatement
measures have been deferred aboard the McFarland due to
guidance in prior Energy and Water Appropriation Acts and
uncertainties about its future based on the Corps' report
recommending its retirement. The Committee is understandably
skeptical of the findings of this report, particularly in light
of the GAO study mentioned above. As the McFarland is likely to
be in continued use for the foreseeable future, the Committee
believes that addressing these health and safety concerns are
critical and have provided legislative direction that the
Revolving Fund be utilized to expeditiously fund lead and
asbestos abatment.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project title Budget estimate recommendation Requested by
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
ALABAMA--COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER 500 500 PRESIDENT
STUDY, AL.
ALABAMA--COOSA RIVER, AL.......... 3,686 3,686 PRESIDENT, SHELBY, SESSIONS
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE 20,948 20,948 PRESIDENT, SHELBY
RIVERS, AL.
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL.... 5,102 5,102 PRESIDENT
MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, 5,564 5,564 PRESIDENT, SHELBY, SESSIONS
WILLIAM ``BILL'' DANNELLY LA.
MOBILE HARBOR, AL................. 20,000 20,000 PRESIDENT, SHELBY
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL..... 125 125 PRESIDENT
ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL... 5,767 5,767 PRESIDENT, SHELBY
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 99 99 PRESIDENT
AL.
TENNESSEE--TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY 1,967 2,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, SHELBY
WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL.
TENNESSEE--TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL 21,848 26,848 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, SHELBY
& MS.
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & 7,039 7,039 PRESIDENT
GA.
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, 35 35 PRESIDENT
AL.
ALASKA
ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK.............. 16,115 16,115 PRESIDENT, STEVENS
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK............. 2,601 2,601 PRESIDENT, STEVENS
CORDOVA HARBOR, AK................ 500 500 PRESIDENT, STEVENS
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK............. 800 800 PRESIDENT, STEVENS
HOMER HARBOR, AK.................. 350 350 PRESIDENT, STEVENS
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK. 55 55 PRESIDENT, STEVENS
KETCHIKAN HARBOR, BAR POINT, AK... 600 600 PRESIDENT, STEVENS
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK.............. 350 350 PRESIDENT, STEVENS
NOME HARBOR, AK................... 1,650 1,650 PRESIDENT, STEVENS
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK..... 525 525 PRESIDENT, STEVENS
ARIZONA
ALAMO LAKE, AZ.................... 1,783 1,783 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ. 95 95 PRESIDENT
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ.............. 1,217 1,217 PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 37 37 PRESIDENT
AZ.
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ............. 183 183 PRESIDENT
ARKANSAS
BEAVER LAKE, AR................... 5,204 5,204 PRESIDENT
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR. 8,043 8,043 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR............ 2,068 2,068 PRESIDENT
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR.............. 6,864 6,864 PRESIDENT, BOND, LINCOLN, PRYOR
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR....... 7,006 7,006 PRESIDENT
DEGRAY LAKE, AR................... 9,333 9,333 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR.................. 1,545 1,545 PRESIDENT
DIERKS LAKE, AR................... 1,653 1,653 PRESIDENT
GILLHAM LAKE, AR.................. 1,078 1,078 PRESIDENT
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR............. 6,945 6,945 PRESIDENT
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR 438 438 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR. 228 228 PRESIDENT
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER 26,144 29,144 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR.
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR................. 2,360 2,360 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR..... 4,179 4,179 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
NIMROD LAKE, AR................... 2,484 2,484 PRESIDENT
NORFORK LAKE, AR.................. 5,794 5,794 PRESIDENT
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR................ 12 700 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA 9,865 9,865 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR,
VITTER
OZARK--JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, 4,855 4,855 PRESIDENT
AR.
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR..... 8 8 PRESIDENT
WHITE RIVER, AR................... 30 1,000 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR.............. ............... 176 LINCOLN, PRYOR
CALIFORNIA
BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA.............. 2,462 2,462 PRESIDENT
BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA. 2,257 2,257 PRESIDENT
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, 7,165 7,165 PRESIDENT
CA.
CRESCENT CITY HARBOR, CA.......... ............... 500 FEINSTEIN, BOXER
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND 6,893 6,893 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
CHANNEL, CA.
FARMINGTON DAM, CA................ 453 453 PRESIDENT
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA...... 2,415 2,415 PRESIDENT
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA....... 5,600 5,600 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA. 1,796 1,796 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
ISABELLA LAKE, CA................. 1,414 1,414 PRESIDENT
LOS ANGELES--LONG BEACH HARBORS, 2,560 4,560 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
CA.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, 4,582 4,582 PRESIDENT
CA.
MARINA DEL REY, CA................ 2,550 2,550 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA......... 351 351 PRESIDENT
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA.............. 290 290 PRESIDENT
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA.............. 1,426 1,426 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
NAPA RIVER, CA.................... ............... 500 FEINSTEIN
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA................ 2,249 2,249 PRESIDENT
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM 1,764 1,764 PRESIDENT
CHANNEL, CA.
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA................ 7,510 7,510 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA.............. 1,115 1,115 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
PETALUMA RIVER, CA................ ............... 500 FEINSTEIN
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA................ 3,395 3,395 PRESIDENT
PINOLE SHOAL MANAGEMENT STUDY, CA. ............... 500 FEINSTEIN
PORT HUENEME, CA.................. 1,309 1,309 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA..... 2,422 2,422 PRESIDENT
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA............... 7,775 7,775 PRESIDENT
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT 3,078 3,078 PRESIDENT
PROJECT), CA.
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES 1,432 1,432 PRESIDENT
(DEBRIS CONTROL), CA.
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT 173 173 PRESIDENT
CHANNEL, CA.
SAN DIEGO HARBOR, CA.............. 2,471 2,471 PRESIDENT
SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM ............... 1,000 FEINSTEIN
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, CA.
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL 1,121 1,121 PRESIDENT
STRUCTURE, CA.
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA 2,805 2,805 PRESIDENT
(DRIFT REMOVAL).
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA.......... 2,793 2,793 PRESIDENT
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA............. 3,094 3,094 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER
SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND ............... 1,000 FEINSTEIN
STRAIT, CA.
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA......... 3,455 3,455 PRESIDENT
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA.......... 1,940 1,940 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 1,681 1,681 PRESIDENT
CA.
SUCCESS LAKE, CA.................. 2,156 2,156 PRESIDENT
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA............ 2,825 2,825 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA..... 2,247 2,247 PRESIDENT
VENTURA HARBOR, CA................ 3,695 3,695 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
YUBA RIVER, CA.................... 117 117 PRESIDENT
COLORADO
BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO............... 283 283 PRESIDENT
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO................ 1,013 1,679 PRESIDENT, ALLARD, SALAZAR
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO............. 612 1,280 PRESIDENT, ALLARD, SALAZAR
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO. 165 165 PRESIDENT
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO......... 5,723 5,723 PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 713 713 PRESIDENT
CO.
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO................. 1,158 1,824 PRESIDENT, ALLARD, SALAZAR
CONNECTICUT
BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT............... 600 600 PRESIDENT
BRIDGEPORT HARBOR DREDGING, CT.... ............... 500 DODD, LIEBERMAN
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT.......... 858 858 PRESIDENT
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT............ 391 391 PRESIDENT
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT................ 991 991 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT. 90 90 PRESIDENT
LONG ISLAND SOUND DMMP, CT........ 2,800 2,800 PRESIDENT
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT......... 684 684 PRESIDENT
NORTH COVE HARBOR, CT............. ............... 2,000 LIEBERMAN
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT......... 490 490 PRESIDENT
NORWALK HARBOR DREDGING ............... 3,000 DODD, LIEBERMAN
INITIATIVE, CT.
PATCHOGUE RIVER, WESTBROOK, CT.... ............... 100 DODD, LIEBERMAN
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT..... 1,000 1,000 PRESIDENT
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT.... 649 649 PRESIDENT
THOMASTON DAM, CT................. 826 826 PRESIDENT
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT............ 681 681 PRESIDENT
DELAWARE
HARBOR OF REFUGE, LEWES, DE....... ............... 750 BIDEN, CARPER
INDIAN RIVER INLET AND BAY, SUSSEX ............... 1,500 BIDEN, CARPER
COUNTY, DE.
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R 11,295 13,295 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, BIDEN, CARPER, CARDIN
TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, D.
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH 20 20 PRESIDENT
BAY TO DELAWARE BAY, D.
MISPILLION RIVER, DE.............. 20 850 PRESIDENT, BIDEN, CARPER
MURDERKILL RIVER, DE.............. 20 20 PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE..... 131 131 PRESIDENT
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE............. 2,683 3,683 PRESIDENT, BIDEN, CARPER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC. 25 25 PRESIDENT
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC 850 850 PRESIDENT
(DRIFT REMOVAL).
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC..... 25 25 PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC............. 20 20 PRESIDENT
FLORIDA
AIWW, NORFOLK, VA TO ST JOHNS 100 100 PRESIDENT
RIVER, FL, GA, SC, NC &.
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL.............. 4,880 4,880 PRESIDENT, MARTINEZ
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL.. 13,971 13,971 PRESIDENT
EAST PASS CHANNEL, FL............. ............... 500 BILL NELSON
ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL... 930 930 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON
EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA, SBC 300 300 PRESIDENT
RESERVATION PLAN, FL.
FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL............. 1,800 1,800 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL. 300 300 PRESIDENT
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, 150 1,000 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
CALOOSAHATCHEE R TO ANCLOTE R,.
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, 325 4,000 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL.
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL........... 4,750 4,750 PRESIDENT
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE 7,553 7,553 PRESIDENT, SHELBY
SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA.
MANATEE HARBOR, FL................ 2,400 2,400 PRESIDENT, MARTINEZ
MIAMI HARBOR, FL.................. 75 75 PRESIDENT
MIAMI RIVER, FL................... 4,500 7,500 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL........... 2,017 2,017 PRESIDENT
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL............. 2,170 2,170 PRESIDENT, MARTINEZ
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL............ 953 953 PRESIDENT
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL.............. 935 935 PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL..... 1,075 1,075 PRESIDENT
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL..... 3,650 3,650 PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 30 30 PRESIDENT
FL.
TAMPA HARBOR, FL.................. 4,250 4,250 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, 300 300 PRESIDENT
FL.
GEORGIA
ALLATOONA LAKE, GA................ 5,452 5,452 PRESIDENT
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND 4,045 2,000 PRESIDENT, SHELBY
FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL &.
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA 257 1,000 PRESIDENT, CHAMBLISS, ISAKSON
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA.............. 4,993 4,993 PRESIDENT
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, 7,960 7,960 PRESIDENT
GA.
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA.......... 7,445 7,445 PRESIDENT
HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC............ 10,774 10,774 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED 50 50 PRESIDENT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, GA.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA. 48 48 PRESIDENT
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC.... 10,201 10,201 PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA..... 325 325 PRESIDENT
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA 7,384 7,384 PRESIDENT
& SC.
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA............... 12,906 12,906 PRESIDENT
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA.. 243 243 PRESIDENT
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA & AL.. 12,147 12,147 PRESIDENT
HAWAII
BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI.......... 218 218 PRESIDENT
HALEIWA HARBOR, OAHU, HI.......... ............... 220 INOUYE
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI. 216 326 PRESIDENT, INOUYE
PORT ALLEN, BREAKWATER REPAIR, HI. ............... 1,700 INOUYE
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI..... 360 360 PRESIDENT, INOUYE
WAIANAE HARBOR, HI................ ............... 220 INOUYE
IDAHO
ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID.............. 1,614 1,614 PRESIDENT
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID.... 4,073 4,073 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID. 82 82 PRESIDENT
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID............... 1,741 1,741 PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 456 456 PRESIDENT
ID.
ILLINOIS
CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN. 3,852 3,852 PRESIDENT
CARLYLE LAKE, IL.................. 4,443 4,443 PRESIDENT
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL................ 1,875 1,875 PRESIDENT
CHICAGO RIVER, IL................. 450 450 PRESIDENT
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL... ............... 500 DURBIN
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL......... 396 396 PRESIDENT
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), 31,379 31,379 PRESIDENT
IL & IN.
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), 1,929 1,929 PRESIDENT
IL & IN.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL. 857 857 PRESIDENT
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL.... 3,175 3,175 PRESIDENT
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL....... 624 624 PRESIDENT
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL.............. 5,072 5,072 PRESIDENT, DURBIN
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND 48,425 49,970 PRESIDENT, BOND, GRASSLEY
MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION).
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND 26,657 26,657 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY
MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION).
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL..... 99 99 PRESIDENT
REND LAKE, IL..................... 4,424 4,424 PRESIDENT
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 123 123 PRESIDENT
WATERS, IL.
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL............... 718 718 PRESIDENT
INDIANA
BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN............... 945 945 PRESIDENT
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN......... 3,680 3,680 PRESIDENT
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN.............. 830 830 PRESIDENT
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN........... 916 916 PRESIDENT
INDIANA HARBOR, IN................ 760 760 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN. 300 300 PRESIDENT
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN........... 2,022 2,022 PRESIDENT
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN............. 970 970 PRESIDENT
MONROE LAKE, IN................... 971 971 PRESIDENT
PATOKA LAKE, IN................... 952 952 PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN..... 177 177 PRESIDENT
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN................ 831 831 PRESIDENT
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 117 117 PRESIDENT
WATERS, IN.
IOWA
CORALVILLE LAKE, IA............... 3,169 3,169 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA. 227 227 PRESIDENT
MISSOURI RIVER--KENSLERS BEND, NE 161 161 PRESIDENT
TO SIOUX CITY, IA.
MISSOURI RIVER--RULO TO MOUTH, IA, 4,615 6,000 PRESIDENT, BOND, GRASSLEY
NE, KS & MO.
MISSOURI RIVER--SIOUX CITY TO 1,889 1,889 PRESIDENT
RULO, IA & NE.
RATHBUN LAKE, IA.................. 3,067 3,067 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA 3,650 3,650 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA.............. 4,308 4,308 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY
KANSAS
CLINTON LAKE, KS.................. 2,112 2,112 PRESIDENT
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS............ 1,594 1,594 PRESIDENT
EL DORADO LAKE, KS................ 402 402 PRESIDENT
ELK CITY LAKE, KS................. 1,063 1,063 PRESIDENT
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS............... 2,489 2,489 PRESIDENT
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS................ 871 871 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS. 222 222 PRESIDENT
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS 2,689 2,689 PRESIDENT
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS................ 1,366 1,366 PRESIDENT
MARION LAKE, KS................... 1,671 1,671 PRESIDENT
MELVERN LAKE, KS.................. 2,099 2,099 PRESIDENT
MILFORD LAKE, KS.................. 2,569 2,569 PRESIDENT
PEARSON--SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS 1,047 1,047 PRESIDENT
PERRY LAKE, KS.................... 2,252 2,252 PRESIDENT
POMONA LAKE, KS................... 2,174 2,174 PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 39 39 PRESIDENT
KS.
TORONTO LAKE, KS.................. 1,551 1,551 PRESIDENT
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS............. 2,406 2,406 PRESIDENT
WILSON LAKE, KS................... 1,667 1,667 PRESIDENT, ROBERTS
KENTUCKY
BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & 10,975 10,975 PRESIDENT
TN.
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY............. 2,007 2,007 PRESIDENT
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY.............. 1,393 1,393 PRESIDENT
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY................. 1,734 1,734 PRESIDENT
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY............... 1,644 1,644 PRESIDENT
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY................. 1,039 1,039 PRESIDENT
DEWEY LAKE, KY.................... 1,704 1,704 PRESIDENT
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY.. 9 9 PRESIDENT
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY................. 2,162 2,162 PRESIDENT
GRAYSON LAKE, KY.................. 1,316 1,316 PRESIDENT
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY....... 2,294 2,294 PRESIDENT
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY.............. 1,838 1,838 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY. 237 237 PRESIDENT
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY................ 20 20 PRESIDENT
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY............. 1,587 1,587 PRESIDENT
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY............. 986 986 PRESIDENT
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER 897 897 PRESIDENT
BASIN, KY.
NOLIN LAKE, KY.................... 2,229 2,229 PRESIDENT
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, 38,861 38,861 PRESIDENT
IN & OH.
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, 4,330 4,330 PRESIDENT
IL, IN & OH.
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY.............. 857 857 PRESIDENT
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY.............. 2,289 2,289 PRESIDENT
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, FALLS, OF OHIO, 16 16 PRESIDENT
KY.
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY............. 955 955 PRESIDENT
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, 8,804 9,804 PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL
KY.
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY............... 1,028 1,028 PRESIDENT
LOUISIANA
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS 6,717 14,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L.
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA........ ............... 1,000 LANDRIEU
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA........ 766 766 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
BAYOU LACOMBE, LA................. ............... 450 LANDRIEU
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP 1,273 1,273 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
WATERWAY, LA.
BAYOU PIERRE, LA.................. 35 35 PRESIDENT
BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA....... ............... 750 LANDRIEU
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, 60 270 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
LA.
BAYOU TECHE, LA................... 209 209 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
CADDO LAKE, LA.................... 196 196 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA...... 16,108 20,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA.............. 5,570 5,570 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA.... 21,851 21,851 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA........ 135 2,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA. 1,025 1,025 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA... 10,431 12,431 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA........ 25 546 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA........... 4 81 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA............... 1,685 1,685 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT 290 2,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
VENICE, LA.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO 59,424 59,424 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
THE GULF OF MEXICO.
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA..... 60 60 PRESIDENT
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA..... 2,000 2,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
TANGIPAHOA RIVER, LA.............. ............... 700 LANDRIEU
TCHEFUNCTE RIVER & BOGUE FALIA, LA ............... 400 LANDRIEU
WALLACE LAKE, LA.................. 211 211 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, ............... 1,500 LANDRIEU
LA.
WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL ............... 125 LANDRIEU
WATERWAY TO BAYOU DULAC, LA.
MAINE
DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME...... 1,100 1,100 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME. 20 20 PRESIDENT
NARRAGUAGUS RIVER, ME............. ............... 1,000 SNOWE, COLLINS
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME..... 760 760 PRESIDENT
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 17 17 PRESIDENT
WATERS, ME.
MARYLAND
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 16,655 18,655 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN
FOOT), MD.
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT 335 335 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN
REMOVAL).
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV... 168 168 PRESIDENT
GOOSE CREEK, MD................... ............... 120 MIKULSKI, CARDIN
HERRING BAY AND ROCKHOLD, MD...... ............... 700 MIKULSKI, CARDIN
HONGA RIVER AND TAR BAY, MD....... ............... 1,000 MIKULSKI, CARDIN
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD. 40 40 PRESIDENT
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV... 1,722 1,722 PRESIDENT
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND 150 150 PRESIDENT
SINEPUXENT BAY, MD.
PARISH CREEK, MD.................. ............... 60 MIKULSKI, CARDIN
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD..... 380 380 PRESIDENT
RHODES POINT TO TYLERTON, MD...... 140 140 PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 89 89 PRESIDENT
MD.
TWITCH COVE AND BIG THOROFARE ............... 140 MIKULSKI, CARDIN
RIVER, MD.
WICOMICO RIVER, MD................ 800 800 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN
MASSACHUSETTS
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA............... 922 922 PRESIDENT
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA................ 795 795 PRESIDENT
BOSTON HARBOR, MA................. 7,000 7,000 PRESIDENT, KENNEDY, KERRY
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA.............. 637 637 PRESIDENT
CAPE COD CANAL, MA................ 9,200 9,200 PRESIDENT
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY 358 358 PRESIDENT
STORAGE AREA, MA.
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA............. 280 280 PRESIDENT
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA........... 525 525 PRESIDENT
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA............ 658 658 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA. 129 129 PRESIDENT
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA............... 728 728 PRESIDENT
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA.............. 734 734 PRESIDENT
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET 385 385 PRESIDENT
HURRICANE BARRIER.
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA..... 1,100 1,100 PRESIDENT
TULLY LAKE, MA.................... 852 852 PRESIDENT
WEST HILL DAM, MA................. 767 767 PRESIDENT
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA................ 691 691 PRESIDENT
MICHIGAN
ARCADIA HARBOR, MI................ ............... 159 LEVIN, STABENOW
AU SABLE, MI...................... ............... 214 LEVIN, STABENOW
BAY PORT HARBOR, MI............... ............... 550 LEVIN, STABENOW
BOLLES HARBOR, MI................. ............... 388 LEVIN, STABENOW
CASEVILLE HARBOR, MI.............. ............... 114 LEVIN, STABENOW
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI..... 90 90 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI............. 188 188 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
CLINTON RIVER, MI................. ............... 330 LEVIN, STABENOW
CROOKED RIVER LOCK UPGRADES, MI... ............... 375 LEVIN, STABENOW
DETROIT RIVER, MI................. 5,523 5,523 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI.............. ............... 237 LEVIN, STABENOW
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI............ 656 656 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MI........... ............... 1,500 LEVIN, STABENOW
GRAYS REEF PASSAGE, MI............ ............... 125 LEVIN, STABENOW
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI................ 497 497 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
INLAND ROUTE, MI.................. ............... 400 LEVIN, STABENOW
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI. 149 149 PRESIDENT
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI............. 15 250 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
LELAND HARBOR, MI................. ............... 190 LEVIN, STABENOW
LEXINGTON HARBOR, MI.............. ............... 175 LEVIN, STABENOW
LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI............ ............... 311 LEVIN, STABENOW
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI.............. ............... 500 LEVIN, STABENOW
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI............... 677 1,196 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
MARQUETTE HARBOR, MI.............. 387 387 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI.............. ............... 300 LEVIN, STABENOW
MONROE HARBOR, MI................. ............... 500 LEVIN, STABENOW
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI............... 566 566 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI............ ............... 130 LEVIN, STABENOW
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI.............. 643 643 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
PENTWATER HARBOR, MI.............. ............... 163 LEVIN, STABENOW
PETOSKEY HARBOR, MI............... ............... 3,198 LEVIN, STABENOW
PORT SANILAC HARBOR, MI........... ............... 150 LEVIN, STABENOW
PORTAGE HARBOR, MI................ ............... 245 LEVIN, STABENOW
PRESQUE ISLE HARBOR, MI........... ............... 320 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI..... 184 184 PRESIDENT
ROUGE RIVER, MI................... ............... 900 LEVIN, STABENOW
SAGINAW RIVER, MI................. 2,148 2,148 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
SAUGATUCK HARBOR, MI.............. ............... 315 LEVIN, STABENOW
SEBEWAING RIVER, MI............... ............... 337 LEVIN, STABENOW
SOUTH HAVEN HARBOR, MI............ ............... 302 LEVIN, STABENOW
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI................ 1,515 1,515 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI.............. 667 667 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
ST MARYS RIVER, MI................ 21,999 21,999 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 2,806 2,806 PRESIDENT
WATERS, MI.
WHITE LAKE HARBOR, MI............. ............... 319 LEVIN, STABENOW
MINNESOTA
BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN 242 242 PRESIDENT
& SD.
DULUTH--SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI.. 3,794 3,794 PRESIDENT
HARRIET ISLAND LOWER HARBOR ............... 100 COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR
DREDGING, MN.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN. 129 129 PRESIDENT
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES, MN... 105 105 PRESIDENT
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA 713 713 PRESIDENT
RIVER, MN.
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN............... 194 194 PRESIDENT
MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND 53,025 53,025 PRESIDENT
MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION).
ORWELL LAKE, MN................... 341 341 PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN..... 70 70 PRESIDENT
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN............ 133 133 PRESIDENT
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF 3,700 3,700 PRESIDENT, COLEMAN
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN.
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 223 223 PRESIDENT
WATERS, MN.
TWO HARBORS, MN................... 368 368 PRESIDENT
MISSISSIPPI
BILOXI HARBOR, MS................. 1,250 1,250 PRESIDENT
CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS......... ............... 63 COCHRAN
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS.... 135 135 PRESIDENT
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS............... 3,559 5,059 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS. 153 153 PRESIDENT
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS.......... 110 134 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS................ 1,455 1,895 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS............. 4,646 12,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, LOTT
PEARL RIVER, MS & LA.............. 212 212 PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS..... 100 100 PRESIDENT
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS............... 20 600 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, 25 25 PRESIDENT
MS.
YAZOO RIVER, MS................... ............... 140 COCHRAN
MISSOURI
CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO......... 10 500 PRESIDENT, BOND
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN 5,692 5,692 PRESIDENT, BOND
LAKE, MO.
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO............... 3,899 3,899 PRESIDENT, BOND
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, 9,324 9,324 PRESIDENT, BOND
MO.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED 62 62 PRESIDENT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, MO.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO. 799 799 PRESIDENT
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO....... 1,065 1,065 PRESIDENT
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO.............. 1,036 1,036 PRESIDENT
MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO 25,813 25,813 PRESIDENT, BOND
RIVERS (LOWER RIVER).
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO............. 783 783 PRESIDENT, BOND
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO (MILE 889).. ............... 200 BOND
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO........... 2,162 2,162 PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 327 327 PRESIDENT
MO.
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO............... 1,376 1,376 PRESIDENT
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MO....... ............... 275 BOND
STOCKTON LAKE, MO................. 3,776 3,776 PRESIDENT
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO............... 6,326 6,326 PRESIDENT, BOND
UNION LAKE, MO.................... 6 6 PRESIDENT
MONTANA
FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT.......... 4,862 4,862 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT. 32 32 PRESIDENT
LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT..... 1,891 1,891 PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 90 90 PRESIDENT
MT.
NEBRASKA
GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK 5,625 5,625 PRESIDENT
LAKE, NE & SD.
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE............ 2,173 2,173 PRESIDENT, HAGEL
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE. 117 117 PRESIDENT
PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES 387 387 PRESIDENT
LAKES, NE.
PAPIO CREEK, NE................... 40 40 PRESIDENT
SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE.... 585 585 PRESIDENT
NEVADA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV. 48 48 PRESIDENT
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV & CA........ 812 812 PRESIDENT
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV 247 247 PRESIDENT
NEW HAMPSHIRE
BLACKWATER DAM, NH................ 779 779 PRESIDENT
COCHECO RIVER, NH................. ............... 3,000 GREGG
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH......... 667 667 PRESIDENT
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH............ 749 749 PRESIDENT
HOPKINTON--EVERETT LAKES, NH...... 1,281 1,281 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH. 28 28 PRESIDENT
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH.............. 802 802 PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH..... 233 233 PRESIDENT
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH........... 1,238 1,238 PRESIDENT
NEW JERSEY
ABSECON INLET, NJ................. ............... 145 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
BARNEGAT INLET, NJ................ 54 1,000 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ............. 250 650 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ...... 5 5 PRESIDENT
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO 20,005 20,005 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, SPECTER, MENENDEZ
THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE.
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA 870 2,375 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, SPECTER, MENENDEZ
TO TRENTON, NJ.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ. 120 123 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ............... 200 200 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, 50 2,110 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
NJ.
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC 3,410 3,410 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
RIVERS, NJ.
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING 575 575 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
SYSTEMS, NJ.
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ..... 1,312 1,312 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
RARITAN RIVER, NJ................. 3,150 3,150 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
SALEM RIVER, NJ................... 25 25 PRESIDENT
SHARK RIVER, NJ................... 300 300 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
SHOAL HARBOR AND COMPTON CREEK, NJ 175 175 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
SHREWSBURY RIVER, MAIN CHANNEL, NJ 150 150 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ
NEW MEXICO
ABIQUIU DAM, NM................... 2,693 3,097 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
COCHITI LAKE, NM.................. 4,493 7,815 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
CONCHAS LAKE, NM.................. 3,533 7,556 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
GALISTEO DAM, NM.................. 899 1,404 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM. 166 1,060 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM.............. 13,868 2,177 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
RIO GRANDE BOSQUE REHABILITATION, ............... 4,000 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
NM.
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM....... 1,711 2,210 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 291 291 PRESIDENT
NM.
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM................ 689 781 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS 2,270 2,670 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
MODEL STUDY, NM.
NEW YORK
ALMOND LAKE, NY................... 583 583 PRESIDENT
ARKPORT DAM, NY................... 320 320 PRESIDENT
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA 1,368 1,368 PRESIDENT
HARBOR, NY.
BRONX RIVER, NY................... ............... 1,000 SCHUMER, CLINTON
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY................ 2,045 2,045 PRESIDENT
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY............ 300 300 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY........... 480 480 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY.............. 671 671 PRESIDENT
EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY............. 80 80 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, 350 2,000 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
NY.
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY........ 150 150 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
GLEN COVE CREEK, NY............... ............... 350 SCHUMER, CLINTON
GREAT KILLS HARBOR, S.I., NY...... ............... 50 SCHUMER, CLINTON
GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY............... 150 150 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY.......... 80 80 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT).......... 3,190 3,190 PRESIDENT
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C)............ 1,155 1,155 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY. 809 809 PRESIDENT
JAMAICA BAY, NY................... 3,400 3,400 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
JONES INLET, NY................... 100 3,000 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY........... 120 120 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY....... 10 10 PRESIDENT
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, 280 280 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
NY.
MORICHES INLET, NY................ 180 900 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY.............. 3,985 3,985 PRESIDENT
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, 7,960 7,960 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER,
NY. CLINTON
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY............... 4,580 4,580 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER,
CLINTON
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT 6,145 6,145 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER,
REMOVAL). CLINTON
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF 950 950 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER,
OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSIT. CLINTON
PORTCHESTER HARBOR, NY............ 100 100 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY..... 1,516 1,516 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY.............. 10 10 PRESIDENT
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY.............. 210 1,000 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL 1,149 1,149 PRESIDENT
PROJECTS, NY.
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 496 496 PRESIDENT
WATERS, NY.
WESTCHESTER CREEK, NY............. 80 80 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY............ 676 676 PRESIDENT
NORTH CAROLINA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC 4,900 7,000 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC. 1,817 1,817 PRESIDENT
BOGUE INLET, NC................... ............... 900 DOLE, BURR
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, 588 588 PRESIDENT
NC.
CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC.......... ............... 600 DOLE, BURR
FALLS LAKE, NC.................... 2,013 2,013 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC. 39 39 PRESIDENT
LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC......... ............... 1,000 DOLE, BURR
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC....... 7,600 10,600 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING 65 600 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR
CHANNELS, NC.
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC.......... 5,500 5,500 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR
NEW RIVER INLET, NC............... 500 500 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR
NEW TOPSAIL INLET, NC............. ............... 900 DOLE, BURR
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC..... 675 675 PRESIDENT
ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC............. 650 650 PRESIDENT
SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC............ 900 900 PRESIDENT
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC 3,050 3,050 PRESIDENT
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC............. 11,200 11,200 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR
NORTH DAKOTA
BOWMAN--HALEY LAKE, ND............ 140 140 PRESIDENT
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND.. 9,261 10,411 PRESIDENT, DORGAN
HOMME LAKE, ND.................... 176 176 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND. 91 91 PRESIDENT
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES, ND... 35 35 PRESIDENT
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, 1,289 1,289 PRESIDENT
ND.
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND................. 185 185 PRESIDENT
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND................. 342 342 PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 120 120 PRESIDENT
ND.
SOURIS RIVER, ND.................. 279 279 PRESIDENT
OHIO
ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH............... 1,102 1,102 PRESIDENT
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH.............. 900 900 PRESIDENT, VOINOVICH
BERLIN LAKE, OH................... 3,340 3,340 PRESIDENT
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH............. 2,010 2,010 PRESIDENT
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH.......... 2,439 2,439 PRESIDENT
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH.............. 8,310 8,310 PRESIDENT, VOINOVICH
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH............... 840 840 PRESIDENT
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH............... 1,414 1,414 PRESIDENT
DELAWARE LAKE, OH................. 2,244 2,244 PRESIDENT
DILLON LAKE, OH................... 5,840 5,840 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH. 338 338 PRESIDENT
LORAIN HARBOR, OH................. 1,040 1,040 PRESIDENT
MASSILLON, OH..................... 155 155 PRESIDENT
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND 1,523 1,523 PRESIDENT
RESERVOIR, OH.
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH........... 1,729 1,729 PRESIDENT
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH......... 7,505 7,505 PRESIDENT
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, 268 268 PRESIDENT
OH.
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH.............. 1,746 1,746 PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH..... 368 368 PRESIDENT
ROSEVILLE, OH..................... 35 35 PRESIDENT
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH............... 1,050 1,050 PRESIDENT
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 195 195 PRESIDENT
WATERS, OH.
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH................. 3,975 3,975 PRESIDENT, VOINOVICH
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH............... 550 550 PRESIDENT
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH.. 701 701 PRESIDENT
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH......... 1,341 1,341 PRESIDENT
OKLAHOMA
ARCADIA LAKE, OK.................. 837 837 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
BIRCH LAKE, OK.................... 602 602 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK............... 2,168 2,168 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
CANTON LAKE, OK................... 1,604 1,604 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
COPAN LAKE, OK.................... 1,118 1,118 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
EUFAULA LAKE, OK.................. 5,095 5,095 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK.............. 6,536 6,536 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK.............. 796 796 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK........ 254 254 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
HEYBURN LAKE, OK.................. 855 855 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
HUGO LAKE, OK..................... 1,292 1,292 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
HULAH LAKE, OK.................... 996 996 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK. 238 238 PRESIDENT
KAW LAKE, OK...................... 2,145 2,145 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK................. 4,173 4,173 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER 5,307 5,307 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK.
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK.................. 2,083 2,083 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
OPTIMA LAKE, OK................... 231 231 PRESIDENT
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE 85 85 PRESIDENT
CHEROKEES, OK.
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK............... 1,197 1,197 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND 5,131 5,131 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
RESERVOIRS, OK.
SARDIS LAKE, OK................... 1,056 1,056 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 868 868 PRESIDENT
OK.
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK................. 1,743 1,743 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK.......... 3,700 3,700 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
WAURIKA LAKE, OK.................. 1,371 1,371 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK.... 3,783 3,783 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
WISTER LAKE, OK................... 760 760 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
OREGON
APPLEGATE LAKE, OR................ 901 901 PRESIDENT
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR............... 400 400 PRESIDENT
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA.. 15,176 15,176 PRESIDENT
CHETCO RIVER, OR.................. 443 443 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
COLUMBIA & LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW 25,212 25,512 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, WYDEN, SMITH
VANCOUVER, WA & PORTLA.
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & 12,050 14,820 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, WYDEN, SMITH
WA.
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, 484 484 PRESIDENT
WA AND THE DALLES, O.
COOS BAY, OR...................... 3,967 3,967 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
COQUILLE RIVER, OR................ 275 275 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR............ 968 968 PRESIDENT
COUGAR LAKE, OR................... 1,324 1,324 PRESIDENT
DETROIT LAKE, OR.................. 1,285 1,285 PRESIDENT
DORENA LAKE, OR................... 1,044 1,044 PRESIDENT
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR............... 1,099 1,099 PRESIDENT
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR............... 1,379 1,379 PRESIDENT
GREEN PETER--FOSTER LAKES, OR..... 1,646 1,646 PRESIDENT
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR.............. 816 816 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED 43 43 PRESIDENT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OR.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR. 174 174 PRESIDENT
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA.... 4,686 4,686 PRESIDENT
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR............ 1,632 1,632 PRESIDENT
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR............... 3,134 3,134 PRESIDENT
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA...... 5,711 5,711 PRESIDENT
PORT ORFORD, OR................... 333 333 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR..... 150 150 PRESIDENT
ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR..... 462 462 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 64 64 PRESIDENT
OR.
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR................. 520 520 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 400 400 PRESIDENT
WATERS, WA.
TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR......... ............... 2,000 WYDEN, SMITH
UMPQUA RIVER, OR.................. 974 974 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE 80 258 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
FALLS, OR.
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, 62 62 PRESIDENT
OR.
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR............. 617 617 PRESIDENT
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR........ 1,348 1,348 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
YAQUINA RIVER, OR................. ............... 400 WYDEN, SMITH
PENNSYLVANIA
ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA............... 7,039 7,039 PRESIDENT, CASEY
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA.............. 813 813 PRESIDENT
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA......... 320 320 PRESIDENT
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA............... 2,457 2,457 PRESIDENT
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA............... 3,115 3,115 PRESIDENT
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA.......... 1,630 1,630 PRESIDENT
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA............... 2,326 2,326 PRESIDENT
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA............ 1,457 1,457 PRESIDENT
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA............. 805 805 PRESIDENT
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA 1,682 1,682 PRESIDENT
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA...... 805 805 PRESIDENT
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA.......... 1,286 1,286 PRESIDENT
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND 372 372 PRESIDENT
RESERVOIR, PA.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA. 456 456 PRESIDENT
JOHNSTOWN, PA..................... 1,247 1,247 PRESIDENT
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY 1,377 1,377 PRESIDENT
RESERVOIR, PA.
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA............... 1,166 1,166 PRESIDENT
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA........... 2,408 2,408 PRESIDENT
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA............. 17,170 17,170 PRESIDENT
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH 24,723 24,723 PRESIDENT
& WV.
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, 520 520 PRESIDENT
OH & WV.
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA..... 85 85 PRESIDENT
PROMPTON LAKE, PA................. 792 792 PRESIDENT
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA.................. 786 786 PRESIDENT
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA................. 4,420 4,420 PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 63 63 PRESIDENT
PA.
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA.............. 150 1,500 PRESIDENT, SPECTER
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA........... 3,002 3,002 PRESIDENT
STILLWATER LAKE, PA............... 572 572 PRESIDENT
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 87 87 PRESIDENT
WATERS, PA.
TIOGA--HAMMOND LAKES, PA.......... 2,760 2,760 PRESIDENT
TIONESTA LAKE, PA................. 2,216 2,216 PRESIDENT
UNION CITY LAKE, PA............... 320 320 PRESIDENT
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA........... 956 956 PRESIDENT
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA.......... 632 632 PRESIDENT
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD.. 2,149 2,149 PRESIDENT
RHODE ISLAND
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI. 22 22 PRESIDENT
POINT JUDITH HARBOR OF REUGE, RI.. ............... 200 REED, WHITEHOUSE
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI..... 400 400 PRESIDENT
WARWICK COVE, RI.................. ............... 200 REED, WHITEHOUSE
SOUTH CAROLINA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC 872 3,872 PRESIDENT, GRAHAM
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC............. 9,342 9,342 PRESIDENT, GRAHAM
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, 3,982 3,982 PRESIDENT, GRAHAM
SC.
FOLLY RIVER, SC................... ............... 500 GRAHAM
GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC............. 3,360 3,360 PRESIDENT, GRAHAM
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC. 60 60 PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC..... 593 593 PRESIDENT
SOUTH DAKOTA
BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD..... 7,996 7,996 PRESIDENT
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER ............... 3,000 JOHNSON, THUNE
BRULE SIOUX, SD.
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD............... 237 237 PRESIDENT
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD....... 174 174 PRESIDENT
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS 7,533 7,533 PRESIDENT
CASE, SD.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD. 25 25 PRESIDENT
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN............ 570 570 PRESIDENT
MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM 150 150 PRESIDENT
AND GAVINS PT, SD, MT.
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD & ND...... 9,079 9,379 PRESIDENT, DORGAN
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 54 54 PRESIDENT
SD.
TENNESSEE
CENTER HILL LAKE, TN.............. 5,431 5,431 PRESIDENT
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN......... 7,095 7,095 PRESIDENT
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, 1,140 1,140 PRESIDENT, ALEXANDER, CORKER
TN.
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN 5,298 5,298 PRESIDENT
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN.............. 6,414 6,414 PRESIDENT, ALEXANDER, CORKER
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN. 35 35 PRESIDENT
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, 4,240 4,240 PRESIDENT
TN.
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN...... 8,156 8,156 PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN..... 2 2 PRESIDENT
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN............... 22,264 22,264 PRESIDENT, SHELBY
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN............. 251 251 PRESIDENT
TEXAS
AQUILLA LAKE, TX.................. 944 944 PRESIDENT
ARKANSAS--RED RIVER BASINS 1,410 1,410 PRESIDENT
CHLORIDE CONTROL--AREA VI.
BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX...... 188 188 PRESIDENT
BARDWELL LAKE, TX................. 2,168 2,168 PRESIDENT
BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX.......... 188 188 PRESIDENT
BELTON LAKE, TX................... 3,227 3,227 PRESIDENT
BENBROOK LAKE, TX................. 2,498 2,498 PRESIDENT
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX.......... ............... 1,000 CORNYN
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX. 6,272 6,272 PRESIDENT
CANYON LAKE, TX................... 3,219 3,219 PRESIDENT
CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX....... 569 569 PRESIDENT
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX... 10,597 10,597 PRESIDENT
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX...... 7,415 7,415 PRESIDENT, INHOFE
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL 1 1 PRESIDENT
PROJECT, TX.
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE 3,251 3,251 PRESIDENT
PINES, TX.
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX............... 5,735 5,735 PRESIDENT, CORNYN
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX.. 20,567 20,567 PRESIDENT
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX.......... 2,336 2,336 PRESIDENT
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX................ 3,047 3,047 PRESIDENT
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX.... 24,161 25,000 PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX.............. 1,336 1,336 PRESIDENT
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX.......... 14,442 17,221 PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON, CORNYN
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX. 713 713 PRESIDENT
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX.............. 1,748 1,748 PRESIDENT
JOE POOL LAKE, TX................. 785 785 PRESIDENT
LAKE KEMP, TX..................... 617 617 PRESIDENT
LAVON LAKE, TX.................... 2,595 2,595 PRESIDENT
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX................ 3,780 3,780 PRESIDENT
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX........ 8,713 8,713 PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX............ 2,266 2,266 PRESIDENT
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE 2,007 2,007 PRESIDENT
GEORGETOWN, TX.
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX....... 871 871 PRESIDENT
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX................ 1,049 1,049 PRESIDENT
PROCTOR LAKE, TX.................. 2,347 2,347 PRESIDENT
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX.............. 1,421 1,421 PRESIDENT
SABINE--NECHES WATERWAY, TX....... 12,612 12,612 PRESIDENT
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX. 4,229 4,229 PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 196 196 PRESIDENT
TX.
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX............... 3,932 3,932 PRESIDENT
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX......... 1,912 1,912 PRESIDENT
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX....... 4,587 4,587 PRESIDENT
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, 100 1,000 PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON, CORNYN
TX.
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN 3,081 3,081 PRESIDENT
LAKE, TX.
WACO LAKE, TX..................... 2,669 2,669 PRESIDENT
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX.............. 2,358 2,358 PRESIDENT
WHITNEY LAKE, TX.................. 6,493 6,493 PRESIDENT
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX.... 3,610 3,610 PRESIDENT
UTAH
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT. 50 50 PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 695 695 PRESIDENT
UT.
VERMONT
BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT............ 988 988 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT. 55 55 PRESIDENT
NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT & NY 80 80 PRESIDENT
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT........... 1,229 1,229 PRESIDENT
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT........ 951 951 PRESIDENT
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT................ 965 965 PRESIDENT
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT............. 695 695 PRESIDENT
VIRGINIA
APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA.............. ............... 750 WARNER, WEBB
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY-- 1,795 1,795 PRESIDENT
ACC, VA.
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY-- 561 1,619 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB
DSC, VA.
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA............ 650 650 PRESIDENT
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA. 2,019 2,019 PRESIDENT
HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT 897 897 PRESIDENT
NEWS HBR, VA (DRIFT REM.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA. 243 243 PRESIDENT
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA........... 4,320 4,320 PRESIDENT
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC......... 11,102 11,102 PRESIDENT
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND 1,730 1,730 PRESIDENT
RESERVOIR, VA.
LITTLE WICOMICO RIVER, VA......... 100 100 PRESIDENT
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA................ 10,687 10,687 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA (PREVENTION OF 210 210 PRESIDENT
OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS.
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA 435 435 PRESIDENT
ONANCOCK RIVER, VA................ ............... 1,400 WARNER, WEBB
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA................. 4,875 4,875 PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA..... 860 860 PRESIDENT
RUDEE INLET, VA................... 1,023 1,023 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB
TYLERS BEACH, VA.................. 200 200 PRESIDENT
WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, 190 190 PRESIDENT
VA.
YORK RIVER, VA.................... 50 50 PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA.............. 814 814 PRESIDENT
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA & ............... 500 MURRAY, CANTWELL
OR.
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND ............... 500 MURRAY
SAND ISLAND, WA.
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH 1,637 1,637 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL
RIVER, WA.
GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, 8,705 8,705 PRESIDENT
WA.
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA............. 3,615 3,615 PRESIDENT
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA....... 4,052 4,052 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED 65 65 PRESIDENT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WA.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA. 320 320 PRESIDENT
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA.... 5,952 5,952 PRESIDENT, CANTWELL
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA..... 1,467 1,467 PRESIDENT
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA.... 3,944 3,944 PRESIDENT
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA. 3,202 3,202 PRESIDENT, CRAPO
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA............... 1,539 1,539 PRESIDENT
MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA. 278 278 PRESIDENT
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA.............. 3,830 3,830 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL
NEAH BAY, WA...................... 33 33 PRESIDENT
PORT TOWNSEND, WA................. 275 275 PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA..... 447 447 PRESIDENT
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, 910 910 PRESIDENT
WA.
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA.............. 66 66 PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 515 515 PRESIDENT
WA.
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA................ 55 55 PRESIDENT
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA........... 182 182 PRESIDENT
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 64 64 PRESIDENT
WATERS, WA.
SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA............. ............... 500 MURRAY, CANTWELL
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA........ 146 146 PRESIDENT
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA & OR.. 3,978 3,978 PRESIDENT
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA...... 34 34 PRESIDENT
WEST VIRGINIA
BEECH FORK LAKE, WV............... 1,236 1,236 PRESIDENT
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV................ 2,592 2,592 PRESIDENT
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV............... 1,987 1,987 PRESIDENT
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV................ 1,799 1,799 PRESIDENT
ELKINS, WV........................ 13 13 PRESIDENT
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV. 121 121 PRESIDENT
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV.. 10,293 10,293 PRESIDENT
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY 31,709 31,709 PRESIDENT
& OH.
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, 2,541 2,541 PRESIDENT
KY & OH.
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV............... 1,994 1,994 PRESIDENT
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV........ 1,120 1,120 PRESIDENT
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV............. 1,696 1,696 PRESIDENT
SUTTON LAKE, WV................... 1,962 1,962 PRESIDENT
TYGART LAKE, WV................... 3,753 3,753 PRESIDENT
WISCONSIN
EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI.......... 789 789 PRESIDENT
FOX RIVER, WI..................... 2,135 4,535 PRESIDENT, KOHL
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI.............. 2,845 4,970 PRESIDENT, KOHL
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI. 42 42 PRESIDENT
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI............... 8 8 PRESIDENT
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI.............. 1,519 1,519 PRESIDENT
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI..... 108 108 PRESIDENT
STURGEON BAY, WI.................. 20 20 PRESIDENT
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY 487 487 PRESIDENT
WATERS, WI.
TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI............. ............... 2,000 KOHL
WYOMING
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY. 16 16 PRESIDENT
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY........... 332 332 PRESIDENT
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, 88 88 PRESIDENT
WY.
----------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED 2,083,432 2,237,653
UNDER STATES.
REMAINING ITEMS:
AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL 690 690 PRESIDENT
RESEARCH.
ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES 4,000 4,000 PRESIDENT
AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE.
BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR 5,365 5,365 PRESIDENT
O&M BUSINESS LINES.
CHIEF'S 12 ACTIONS............ 8,737 8,737 PRESIDENT
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM 2,475 2,475 PRESIDENT
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/ 1,500 1,500 PRESIDENT
CURATION).
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE.. 8,000 8,000 PRESIDENT
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK 1,062 1,062 PRESIDENT
PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM.
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND 6,080 6,080 PRESIDENT
ENVIRONMENTAL R.
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL 1,391 1,391 PRESIDENT
SUPPORT PROGRAM.
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION 270 270 PRESIDENT
PROGRAM.
FACILITY PROTECTION........... 12,000 12,000 PRESIDENT
GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT 900 900 PRESIDENT
MODEL.
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA 725 725 PRESIDENT
COLLECTION.
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION 3,708 3,708 PRESIDENT
CHARTS.
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS. 1,780 1,780 PRESIDENT
MONITORING OF COASTAL 1,575 1,575 PRESIDENT
NAVIGATION PROJECTS.
NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING...... 4,000 10,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM... 10,000 10,000 PRESIDENT
NATIONAL EMERGENCY 5,000 5,000 PRESIDENT
PREPAREDNESS (NEPP).
NATIONAL NATURAL RESOURCES 3,296 3,296 PRESIDENT
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.
NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT 300 300 PRESIDENT
FOR REALLOCATION.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL 300 300 PRESIDENT
SUPPORT.
PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION-- 500 500 PRESIDENT
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS.
PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION-- 50 50 PRESIDENT
STRAIGHTENING OF CHANNELS.
RECREATIONONESTOP(R1S) 1,130 1,130 PRESIDENT
NATIONAL RECREATION
RESERVATION.
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT 1,391 4,391 PRESIDENT, INOUYE, CARDIN, DOLE, BURR,
PROGRAM. WYDEN, SMITH, REED, WHITEHOUSE, SCHUMER
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR 608 608 PRESIDENT
MAJOR REHAB.
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL 653 653 PRESIDENT
SUPPORT (WOTS).
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS 4,271 4,271 PRESIDENT
----------------------------------
SUBTOTAL FOR ITEMS NOT 91,757 100,757
LISTED UNDER STATES.
REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS ............... -46,439
AND SLIPPAGE.
----------------------------------
TOTAL, OPERATION AND 2,175,189 2,291,971
MAINTENANCE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi.--The
Committee recommendation includes $26,848,000. Funds provided
above the budget request are provided for the construction of
mooring cells near Columbus, Mississippi for safety of tows
tying up during high water levels.
Helena Harbor, Arkansas.--The Committee includes $438,000
for maintenance dredging of this harbor.
McClellan-Kerr, Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkansas
and Oklahoma.--An additional $3,000,000 is provided above the
budget request to begin Planning, Engineering and Design [PED]
for the Arkansas/White Cutoff project and to complete repairs
on the Jim Smith Lake Structure, south end.
Crescent City, California.--The Committee has provided
$500,000 for dredging.
Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, California.--An additional
$2,000,000 is provided for dredging the Los Angeles River
Estuary.
Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Lakes, Colorado.--The
Committee has included an additional $2,000,000 for continued
repairs at these three lakes. This action in no way is intended
to alter the Corps of Engineers' lease and property
accountability policies. It is the Committee's understanding
that the State of Colorado has agreed to cost share this
project on a 50-50 basis. It is also the understanding of the
Committee that the Secretary is not to assume, nor share in the
future of the operation and maintenance of these recreation
facilities. Of the funds provided, the Corps is directed to
conduct a reallocation study for Chatfield Reservoir project.
Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay,
Delaware and Maryland.--The Committee recommendation includes
$13,295,000 for this project. Additional funds provided above
the budget request are for repairs to the Summit Bridge.
Intracoastal Waterway, Caloosahatchee to Anclote,
Florida.--The Committee provides $1,000,000 for maintenance
dredging.
Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Florida.--The
Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for maintenance
dredging.
Miami River, Florida.--The Committee provides $7,500,000
for continued operations and maintenance of the Miami River
Channel. This project will provides the first maintenance
dredging of the Miami River since its original authorization in
1930.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Georgia.--$1,000,000 is
provided for dredging critical areas of this waterway as well
as for work related to new upland disposal sites.
Port Allen Breakwater Repair, Hawaii.--The Committee
includes $1,700,000 for the breakwater repair.
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.--The Committee
has provided $500,000 for maintenance of the Asian Carp
Barriers.
Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis
(MVR Portion), Illinois.--The Committee recommendation includes
$49,970,000. Additional funds are provided for backlogged
maintenance.
Missouri River--Rulo to the Mouth, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas,
and Missouri.--Additional funds provided above the budget
request are for dike repairs.
Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland, Kentucky.--The Committee
notes that Lake Cumberland has been drastically lowered for on-
going seepage/stability correction repairs to Wolf Creek Dam.
Additional funds provided above the budget request are for pool
lowering mitigation features.
Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black,
Louisiana.--The Committee has provided an additional funds for
maintenance dredging activities.
Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.--The Committee
provides additional funding for maintenance dredging of this
channel.
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.--The Committee
recommendation includes an additional $2,000,000 for bank
stabilization repairs, dredging entrances to oxbow lakes,
routine operation and maintenance activities, annual dredging
requirements, and backlog maintenance.
Herring Bay and Rockhold Creek, Maryland.--The Committee
recommendation includes funds to dredge this project.
Boston Harbor, Massachusetts.--The Committee has provided
$7,000,000 for dredging in the Harbor.
Michigan Harbors, Michigan.--The Committee notes that there
are some 30 federally maintained harbors in Michigan. However,
the Committee also notes that fewer than 10 are budgeted. The
Committee has attempted to provide for some of the dredging
needs of the State. However, recognizing that conditions on
these harbors are constantly changing and that the Great Lakes
are continuing to suffer from historic low water levels, the
Committee is directing the Corps to propose a dredging program
for fiscal year 2008 that would most effectively utilize the
scarce funds available for these harbor projects. This plan
should be presented within 30 days of enactment of this act as
a reprogramming action for approval by the House and Senate
Appropriation Committees.
Grand Marais Harbor, Michigan.--The Committee provides
$1,500,000 to continue construction of the replacement
breakwater.
Mouth of the Yazoo River, Mississippi.--The Committee
includes additional funds for the maintenance dredging of the
entrance to Vicksburg Harbor.
Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi.--The Committee has provided
$12,000,000 for this project. Additional funds above the budget
request are to perform maintenance dredging of the Bar Channel,
the Pascagoula River and Bayou Casotte channels.
Rosedale Harbor, Mississippi.--The Committee recommendation
includes $600,000 for maintenance dredging of the harbor.
Cocheco River, New Hampshire.--The Committee provides
$3,000,000 continue dredging of the Cocheco River project.
Rio Grande Bosque Rehabilitation, New Mexico.--The
Committee includes $4,000,000 to continue fire reduction work
and general Bosque rehabilitation in order to complete repairs
and fire protection resulting from 2003 and 2004 fires in the
urban interface.
Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model, New Mexico.--The
Committee recommendation includes $500,000 to develop an
outline for an integrated management plan of the Rio Grande in
New Mexico in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.--The
Committee includes an additional $2,100,000 for dredging of the
project.
Manteo (Shallowbag Bay), North Carolina.--The Committee
includes additional funds for dredging of the project.
Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.--The
Committee provides $200,000 for mosquito control, $950,000 for
the Corps to work in cooperation with the Friends of Lake
Sakakawea to ensure the recreation sites around the lake can be
utilized.
Columbia River at the Mouth, Oregon and Washington.--The
Committee recommendation includes $14,820,000 for the project.
Additional funds above the budget request are to initiate a
design documentation report to serve as supporting information
for plans and specifications for the major rehabilitation of
the jetties and to repair a foredune at the North Jetty that
breached during the winter storms of 2007.
Cheyenne River Siuox Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South
Dakota.--The Committee notes that title VI of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999, as amended, requires that
funding to inventory and stabilize cultural and historic sites
along the Missouri River in South Dakota, and to carry out the
terrestrial wildlife habitat programs, shall be provided from
the Operation and Maintenance account. The Committee provides
$3,000,000 to protect cultural resource sites and provide
funding to the State and tribes for approved restoration and
stewardship plans and in compliance with the requirements of
title VI, directs the Corps to contract with or reimburse the
State of South Dakota and affected tribes to carry out these
duties.
Oahe Dam, Lake Oahe, South Dakota and North Dakota.--The
Committee has provided additional funds above the budget
request to allow the Corps to modify public facilities so that
they can be utilized with the extreme low water levels
currently being experienced on the lake.
Houston Ship Channel, Texas.--The Committee includes an
additional $2,779,000 for additional dredging and dredging
related activities.
Texas Water Allocation Study, Texas.--The Committee
provides $1,000,000 for this ongoing study.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway-DSC, Virginia.--The
Committee has provided additional operation and maintenance
funds for the project.
Chinook, Head of Sand Island and Baker Bay, Washington.--
The conferees note the proximity of Corps navigation facilities
on the Columbia River between Chinook and the Head of Sand
Island, Washington, and at Baker Bay, Washington, and encourage
the Corps of Engineers to seek ways to achieve cost savings and
efficiency, such as by utilizing appropriate contracting
methods while having these two projects be considered together
when seeking bids and awarding contracts.
Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.--Within the funds provided,
the Corps is directed to use up to $903,000 to satisfy Federal
fish passage obligations for the term of the cooperative
agreement with Puget Sound Energy.
Fox River, Wisconsin.--Additional funds above the budget
request are to reimburse Wisconsin, in accordance with the
agreement, for the costs of repairs and rehabilitation of the
transferred locks and for the Corps of Engineers to undertake
major repairs for the dams and associated infrastructure.
Chief's 12 Actions.--The Committee has provided the
Administration's request for this item. The Committee believes
that these funds can serve to make significant improvements to
the way the Corps administers completed projects to account for
changed conditions since construction.
National Coastal Mapping.--$10,000,000 is provided for this
program. Additional funds provided above the budget request are
for LIDAR bathymetry for use in regional sediment management
and for Coastal Zone Mapping and Imaging LIDAR/LASER to be
conducted with the University of Southern Mississippi.
Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program.--The
Committee has provided $4,391,000 for this program, $3,000,000
above the budget request. Within the funds provided, the Corps
is directed to undertake studies for the southeast coast of
Oahu, Hawaii; the State of North Carolina; South Jetty and
Clatsop Spit, Oregon; South Coastal Rhode Island; and for Long
Island, New York coastal planning.
FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES
Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008................................... $40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 50,000,000
\1\Excludes emergency appropriation of $1,561,000,000.
The Committee has included $50,000,000 for the FCCE
account. This account provides funds for preparedness
activities for natural and other disasters, response, and
emergency flood fighting and rescue operations, hurricane
response, and emergency shore protection work. It also provides
for emergency supplies of clean water where the source has been
contaminated or where adequate supplies of water are needed for
consumption.
The Committee has provided an additional $10,000,000 in
this account to continue the National Flood Inventory rather
than authorize the work to be carried out in the General
Investigations Account as proposed by the administration. The
National Flood Inventory was initiated in this account through
supplemental funding following Hurricane Katrina. It is an
interagency effort to improve management of the Nation's flood
and storm damage reduction infrastructure. To date, work has
consisted of data collection and development of an assessment
methodology specific to levees and floodwalls. The COE has also
worked with the Federal Emergency Management agency on issues
such as risk communication and revisions to the Corps'
Rehabilitation and Inspection program. The recommended funds
will be used to continue development of the inventory of both
Federal and non-Federal projects, to initiate testing of a risk
assessment methodology for levees and floodwalls, to begin
preliminary identification of ``high risk'' levees and other
for other associated items. The Committee directs that outyear
funding should be budgeted in this account unless specific
authorization is enacted for this study in a Water Resource
Development Act.
REGULATORY PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $159,273,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 180,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 180,000,000
An appropriation of $180,000,000 is recommended for the
regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers.
This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred
administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters,
including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 33 U.S.C. section 401, the Clean Water Act of 1977
Public Law 95-217, and the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 Public Law 92-532.
The appropriation helps maintain program performance,
protects important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships
with States and local communities through watershed planning
efforts.
The Committee is aware that the Corps of Engineers has
begun a pilot program aimed at streamlining decisions for
certain complex, high impact permit applications which have
national or large regional implications. Specifically, we
understand this program is focusing on projects related to rail
capacity expansion, highway construction and pipelines where
knowledge and experience gained in one district can be shared
with other districts facing similar challenges, thus promoting
efficiencies, the development and sharing of ``best
practices,'' and use of virtual or dedicated teams to expedite
broad-impact permit applications. Since the Committee continues
to be concerned about the permit application backlog and delays
in making permit decisions, it fully supports this effort and
encourages the Corps to dedicate even more attention and expand
its efforts to an even greater extent in developing and using
this pilot program to minimize negative impacts of the backlog
and resulting delays, especially where there are significant
impacts to the nation's economy and environmental health. The
Committee further supports the three emphasis areas selected
for the pilot program as it believes them to be critical
elements of a healthy, expanding economy which must be
vigorously developed, but in an environmentally sound manner.
The Committee is keenly aware that U.S. economic health and
national security depends on the continued availability of
reliable and affordable energy. The Committee is also aware
that the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Branch
plays a key role by authorizing much of the 1.13 billion tons
of coal production expected this year through its regulatory
program.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps to work with the
Office of Surface Mining [OSM] to develop a more efficient
process for issuing permits associated with surface coal mining
operations. To avoid unnecessary time delays and duplication of
agency resources, the Corps shall maintain the availability of
a meaningful general permit for surface coal mining that may be
issued in coordination with and for the term of the permit
already required pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act [SMCRA]. The Corps should also dedicate
sufficient personnel and financial resources to support a
consistent program for permit review and issuance.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $138,672,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 130,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 140,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,000,000
to continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 2005.
The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites
under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was
transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the fiscal year
1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Public
Law 105-62.
FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program
was established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic
Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup
of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the
Department of Energy through existing appropriation accounts.
In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible
sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not
intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real
property interests that remain with the Department of Energy.
The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies.
The Committee always intended for the Corps' expertise be used
in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under
FUSRAP. The Committee expects the Corps to continue programming
and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers--
Civil program. The Committee directs the Corps to prioritize
sites that are nearing completion during fiscal year 2008.
GENERAL EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $167,250,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 177,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 175,000,000
This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office,
Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research
and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. The
Committee recommendation is $175,000,000. The Committee rejects
the proposal to include the Office of the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Civil Works) within the GE account. The Committee
continues to believe that the office should be funded in the
Defense Appropriations Act due to the other Army related duties
of the Assistant Secretary's office and directs that it be
funded in the Department of Defense, Operation and
Maintenance--Army budget account in future budgets. However,
the Committee recognizes that this office will likely be funded
in this bill this year. The Committee believes that if the
Secretary's office is going to be funded in this bill, it
should be funded in a separate account. The Committee's
recommendation includes funding for this office under a
separate account.
Executive Direction and Management.--The Office of the
Chief of Engineers and eight division offices supervise work in
38 district offices.
Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.--This support
center provides administrative services (such as personnel,
logistics, information management, and finance and accounting)
for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate
field operating activities.
Institute for Water Resources.--This institute performs
studies, analyses, and develops planning techniques for the
management and development of the Nation's water resources.
United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.--This
center provides centralized support for all Corps finance and
accounting.
Office of Congressional Affairs.--The Committee has
included statutory language for the past several years
prohibiting any funds from being used to fund an Office of
Congressional Affairs within the executive office of the Chief
of Engineers. The Committee believes that an Office of
Congressional Affairs for the Civil Works Program would hamper
the efficient and effective coordination of issues with the
Committee staff and Members of Congress. The Committee believes
that the technical knowledge and managerial expertise needed
for the Corps headquarters to effectively address Civil Works
authorization, appropriation, and Headquarters policy matters
resides in the Civil Works organization. Therefore, the
Committee strongly recommends that the Office of Congressional
Affairs not be a part of the process by which information on
Civil Works projects, programs, and activities is provided to
Congress.
The Committee reminds the Corps that the General Expenses
account is to be used exclusively for executive oversight and
management of the Civil Works Program.
In 1998, The Chief of Engineers issued a Command Directive
transferring the oversight and management of the General
Expenses account, as well as the manpower associated with this
function, from the Civil Works Directorate to the Resource
Management Office. The Corps is reminded that General Expense
funds are appropriated solely for the executive management and
oversight of the Civil Works Program under the direction of the
Director of Civil Works.
The Committee is pleased with the efforts of the Corps to
restructure the management of general expense funds. It
continues to believe that the general expense dollars are
ultimately at the discretion of the Chief of Engineers and are
intended to be utilized in his effort to carry out the Corps'
civil works mission. The new controls put in place to manage
the general expense dollars and evaluate the needs of the Corps
address the Committee's previous concerns. The Committee
requests the Corps continue to provide biannual written
notification of the dispersal of general expense funds.
Millions of dollars have been spent over the last several
years on an initiative to contract out Government jobs in order
to make the Government more efficient. However, in more than 70
percent of the cases Government employees win the competition
for their jobs. The Committee fails to see any evidence of cost
savings or increased efficiency by undergoing these expensive
competitions. Therefore, the Committee directs that no funds
provided in this account or otherwise available for expenditure
shall be used to comply with the competitive sourcing
initiative.
The Committee acknowledges that the General Expense account
has not kept pace with inflation. Over the last 6 years this
account has fluctuated. The low point was in fiscal year 2000,
when the account was funded at $149,500,000 for a
$4,100,000,000 program. The high point was in fiscal year 2005,
when the account was funded at $167,000,000 for a
$4,700,000,000 program. Both of these numbers represent about
3.6 percent of the total dollars appropriated. The Committee
recommendation for the fiscal year 2007 program is about
$5,450,000,000. Using the same percentage, this translates to
more than $196,000,000 for the GE account for fiscal year 2007.
Obviously other variables must be considered than a single
percentage, but it is one way to approximate the level of
funding needed in the GE account to provide similar levels of
service.
While the Committee recommendation did not provide
$192,000,000 for the GE account, it did increase the account by
$3,000,000 to $175,000,000. These additional funds are provided
in recognition of the heavier workload of the Corps
Headquarters offices resulting from recent budget increases
unrelated to hurricane Katrina. The costs for overseeing the
New Orleans area are temporary and are being addressed in
current budgets. The additional funds are provided for the
recent budget increases to the Corps' program and that the
recognition by this Committee that effective oversight of the
Corps' program was being endangered by the lean budgets of the
last few years. The Committee believes that these additional
funds should be used to hire an additional 15-20 positions and
that these additional positions should continue to be budgeted
for in future budget submissions.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ $4,500,000
The Committee has recommended $4,500,000 for the Office of
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) [OASA(CW)].
As has been previously stated, the Committee believes that this
office should be funded through the Defense appropriations bill
and directs the administration to budget for this office under
the Department of Defense, Operation and Maintenance--Army
account in future budget submissions. The Committee continues
to believe that the ASA(CW) has neither the time nor should he
be involved in the day-to-day operational matters of the civil
works program. It is the Committee's opinion that the
traditional role of the ASA(CW) is to provide the Chief of
Engineers advice about policy matters and generally be the
political spokesperson for the administration's policies;
however, the Chief of Engineers is responsible for carrying out
the program. This is underscored by the administration's budget
documents that state that the OASA(CW) provides policy
direction and oversight for the civil works program and the
Headquarters of the Corps provides executive direction and
management of the civil works program.
The decisions of fiscal year 2005 through 2007 to fund the
expenses of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Works through Energy and Water appropriations were an
experiment in striving for management improvements in the Civil
Works program. The desired management improvements can be and
are being achieved but, based on the experience of these 3
years, it is apparent that funding the Assistant Secretary's
office out of Energy and Water appropriations, rather than the
military appropriation that funds the rest of the Army
Secretariat, is neither necessary to achieve these improvements
nor is it an efficient way to fund the office.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works advises
the Secretary of the Army on a variety of matters, including
the Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers. The
Assistant Secretary is a member of the Army Secretariat with
responsibilities, such as participating in Continuity of
Government exercises that extend well beyond Civil Works. The
Assistant Secretary also oversees the administration, operation
and maintenance, and capital development of Arlington National
Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery.
Congressional oversight of the Army Cemetery program lies not
with the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, but
rather with the Appropriation Subcommittee on Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs and with the Committee on
Veterans Affairs.
The Assistant Secretary has broad responsibilities to
oversee the Support for Others program of the Corps of
Engineers, totaling nearly $2,400,000,000 in fiscal year 2005.
Through this program, the Corps provides reimbursable
engineering and construction services for more than 70 other
Federal agencies and, under certain conditions specified in
law, provides services for States, localities and tribes. The
Assistant Secretary also has oversight over Corps international
activities that are not directly in support of U.S. military
forces overseas. These include more than $500,000,000 in design
and construction for the Defense Department's Foreign Military
Sales program and more than $150,000,000 in vertical
construction for the Department of State's Cooperative Threat
Reduction program. Oversight of domestic activities includes
support for the Department of Homeland Security (in both
national security activities and emergency response under the
Stafford Act in support of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency), the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund
program, the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, and many other agencies.
The Army's accounting system does not track OMA funding of
overhead or Army-wide support offices on the basis of which
office receives support, nor would it be efficient or effective
to do so for a 20 person office. Instead, expenses such as
legal support, personnel services, finance and accounting
services, the executive motor pool, travel on military
aircraft, and other support services are centrally funded and
managed on a department-wide basis. Transferring the funding
for the expenses of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works to
a separate account has greatly complicated the Army's
accounting for such indirect and overhead expenses with no
commensurate benefit to justify the change. The Committee does
not agree that these costs should be funded in this bill and
therefore has only provided funding for salaries and expenses
as in previous years.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
Section 101. The bill includes language concerning
reprogramming guidelines.
Section 102. The bill includes language prohibiting
implementation of competitive sourcing or HPO.
Section 103. The bill includes language prohibiting the
divesting or transferring Civil Works functions.
Section 104. The bill includes language prohibiting any
steps to dismantle the St. Georges Bridge in Delaware. (Biden,
Carper)
Section 105. The bill includes language concerning report
notifications.
Section 106. The bill includes language concerning
reallocations in Lake Cumberland, Kentucky. (McConnell)
Section 107. The bill includes language regarding the Lower
Mud River, Milton, West Virginia, project. (Byrd)
Section 108. The bill includes language allowing the use of
the revolving fund for construction of two buildings at the
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Design Center. (Cochran)
Section 109. The bill includes language concerning
cooperative agreements. (Domenici)
Section 110. The bill includes language concerning in-kind
services for the Rio Grande Basin Watershed study. The
provision allows for local sponsors of this project to be
reimbursed for overpayment of the non-Federal share of the
costs of the study. (Domenici)
Section 111. The bill includes language regarding the
Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program, New Mexico. (Domenici)
Section 112. The bill includes language regarding
Apalachiacola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers and Alabama,
Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.
(Shelby)
Section 113. The bill includes language regarding the Rio
De Flag, Arizona, project. The provision increases the cost
ceiling on this ongoing project to allow progress on te project
to continue uninterrupted. (Kyl)
Section 114. The bill includes language regarding Avian
Predation in the Columbia River Fish Mitigation project. The
provision increases the authorization of funding to allow
continued work on aviation predation. (Murray)
Section 115. The bill includes language regarding the Santa
Ana, California, project. The provision increases the cost
ceiling for the project in order to allow incorporation of the
replacement of an aging wastewater line to be incorporated as a
project feature. The line is endangered by bank erosion caused
by other features of the Santa Ana project. (Feinstein)
Section 116. The bill includes language regarding the Upper
Guadalupe, California, project. The provision increases the
cost ceiling on this ongoing project to allow progress on te
project to continue uninterrupted. (Feinstein)
Section 117. The bill includes language concerning the
conveyance of surplus property in Tate County, Mississippi.
(Cochran)
Section 118. The bill includes a modification to section
594 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The
modification provides authority for North Dakota to be eligible
for this assistance. (Dorgan)
Section 119. The bill includes language regarding the
Kahuku Storm Damage Reduction Project, Hawaii. This provision
allows the Corps to initiate PED and to include interior
drainage improvements as part of the project. (Inouye)
Section 120. The bill includes language regarding the
Federal dredge fleet.
Section 121. The bill includes language regarding the
Federal dredge fleet.
Section 122. The bill includes language regarding the
Federal dredge fleet.
Section 123. The bill includes language concerning Missouri
River mitigation. The provision authorizes provision of
facilities at Intake Dam for endangered species recovery.
(President, Baucus, Tester)
Section 124. The bill includes language limiting Corps of
Engineers expenditure on a project.
Section 125. The bill includes language repealing a
sections of Public Law 109-103 pertaining to continuing
contracts.
Section 126. The bill includes language concerning the
Shore Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration
Program. This provision extends the authorization and will
allow the Corps to expend funds that have been previously
appropriated to complete on going projects and continue
monitoring of completed projects.
Section 127. The bill includes language regarding
congressional budget justifications.
Section 128. The bill includes language regarding a
replacement health care facility at Lake Sakakawea, North
Dakota. (Dorgan)
Section 129. The bill includes language regarding
reimbursements. This provision increases the limits allowed on
certain reimbursements for work undertaken by local interests.
Section 130. The bill includes language regarding Johnson
Creek, Texas. This amends the previous authorization for the
flood control project. (Hutchison)
Section 131. The bill includes language regarding McAlpine
Lock and Dam. The provision increases the cost ceiling on this
ongoing project to allow progress on te project to continue
uninterrupted. (President, McConnell)
Section 132. The bill includes a provision concerning
reimbursement for expenses incurred by locals carrying out
portions of authorized Federal flood and storm damage reduction
projects. (Landrieu, Vitter)
Section 133. The bill includes language regarding crediting
of non-Federal expenditures on the San Lorenzo River,
California project. (Feinstein)
Section 134. The bill includes a provision regarding the
Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project.
(Bond)
Section 135. The bill includes a provision concerning
Nogales Wash, Arizona. The provision increases the cost ceiling
on this ongoing project to allow progress on the project to
continue uninterrupted. (Kyl)
Section 136. The bill includes a provision concerning
Tucson Drainage Area, Arizona. The provision increases the cost
ceiling on this ongoing project to allow progress on the
project to continue uninterrupted. (Kyl)
Section 137. The bill includes a provision on the Coronado,
California project. The provision allows the local project
sponsor credit for work undertaken prior to a project
cooperation agreement. (Feinstein)
Section 138. The bill includes a provision concerning the
Rural Utah [EI], Utah project. The provision increases the cost
ceiling on this ongoing project to allow progress on the
project to continue uninterrupted. (Bennett)
Section 139. Te bill includes a provision for the Navajo
Reservation, Arizona, Utah and New Mexico project. This
provision modifies the project by allowing the non-Federal
share to be in the form of in-kind services. (Domenici)
Section 140. The bill contains a provision concerning the
Connecticut River Watershed Study, New Hampshire, Connecticut,
Massachusetts and Vermont. The provision allows The Nature
Conservancy to serve as the non-Federal sponsor of the study.
(Lieberman, Gregg)
Section 141. The bill contains a provision concerning the
Asian carp barriers on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal,
Illinois. (President, Durbin, Obama, Levin. Stabenow)
Section 142. The bill contains a funding limitation on a
project.
Section 143. The bill contains a provision concerning the
visitor reservation services for Corps of Engineers recreation
sites.
Section 144. The bill includes a provision concerning
Marshall, Minnesota project. The provision increases the cost
ceiling on this completed ongoing project allowing the Corps to
do the final fiscal closeouts of the project. (Coleman,
Klobuchar)
Section 145. The bill includes a provision concerning the
St. John's-New Madrid Floodway, Missouri. The provision makes
the St. John's-New Madrid project a part of the Mississippi
River Levees project. (Bond)
Section 146. The bill contains a provision concerning the
Southeast Louisiana, Louisiana project. The provision
recognizes the Southeast Louisiana project as an integral part
of the project to provide 100-year level of protection to
certain areas of the New Orleans metropolitan area. (Landrieu)
Section 147. The bill contains a provision allowing funds
provided in Public Law 110-28 to be utilized for the purposes
for which they were appropriated.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project Completion Account
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $34,020,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 43,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 43,000,000
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2008 to carry
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act
totals $43,000,000. An appropriation of $40,404,000 has been
provided for Central Utah project construction; $976,000 for
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation.
The Committee recommendation provides $1,620,000 for program
administration and oversight.
Legislative language in the bill that accompanies this
report allows up to $1,500,000 to be used for administrative
costs. The one time increase in administrative expenses is to
provide funding for costs associated with securing new office
space and relocating the Commission's office in fiscal year
2007.
The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II-VI of
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the central
Utah project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.
The Act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish,
wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation; establishes
an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and
of other contributions for mitigation and conservation
activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account.
The act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the
act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation
of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation.
Bureau of Reclamation
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $878,623,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 816,197,000
Committee recommendation................................ 950,106,000
\1\Includes Emergency Supplemental Appropriations of $18,000,000.
An appropriation of $950,106,000 is recommended by the
Committee for general investigations of the Bureau of
Reclamation. The water and related resources account supports
the development, management, and restoration of water and
related natural resources in the 17 Western States. The account
includes funds for operating and maintaining existing
facilities to obtain the greatest overall level of benefits, to
protect public safety, and to conduct studies on ways to
improve the use of water and related natural resources. Work
will be done in partnership and cooperation with non-Federal
entities and other Federal agencies.
The Committee has divided underfinancing between the
Resources Management Subaccount and the Facilities Operation
and Maintenance subaccount. The Committee directs that the
underfinancing amount in each subaccount initially be applied
uniformly across all projects within the subaccounts. Upon
applying the underfinanced amounts, normal reprogramming
procedures should be undertaken to account for schedule
slippages, accelerations or other unforeseen conditions.
It has been nearly 10 years since the Committee addressed
reprogramming guidance for Reclamation. The Committee believes
that Reclamation is managing funds in the appropriate manner,
but thinks that it would be prudent to reiterate the
guidelines. The guidelines are as follows:
The Bureau is permitted to transfer, without prior
congressional approval and without regard to percentage
limitation, not more than $5,000,000 in any one case to provide
adequate funds for settled contractor claims, increased
contractor earnings due to accelerated rates of operations, and
real estate deficiency judgments, provided that such
reprogramming is necessary to discharge legal obligations of
the Bureau of Reclamation.
As to each project within the Resources Management and
Development category for which $2,000,000 or more is available
at the beginning of the fiscal year, the Bureau is permitted to
transfer to such project in that fiscal year no more than 15
percent of the amount available at the beginning of the fiscal
year for such project, without prior congressional approval. As
to each project within the Resources Management and Development
category for which less than $2,000,000 is available at the
beginning of the fiscal year, the Bureau is permitted to
transfer to such project no more than $300,000 in that fiscal
year without prior congressional approval.
The Bureau is further permitted to transfer funds within
the Facility Operation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation category
without prior congressional approval and without regard to
percentage or dollar limitation. The Bureau may not transfer,
without prior congressional approval, more than $500,000 from
either the Facilities Operation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation
category or the Resources Management and Development category
to any project in the other category. The Bureau is prohibited
from initiating any program, project or activity through an
internal reprogramming action.
DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS
The Committee received more than 130 requests for projects,
programs, studies or activities for the Bureau of Reclamation
for fiscal year 2008. These were items that were in addition to
the budget request as well as those included in the budget
request. The Committee obviously was unable to accommodate all
of these requests.
In the interest of providing full disclosure of funding
provided in the Energy and Water bill, all disclosures are made
in this report accompanying the bill.
All of the projects funded in this report have gone through
the same rigorous public review and approval process as those
proposed for funding by the President. The difference in these
projects, of course, is that the congressionally directed
projects are not subject to the artificial budgetary
prioritization criteria that the administration utilizes to
decide what not to fund.
A new column has been added to the tables to show the
requestors of the various projects. For those programs,
projects, or studies that were included in the budgetary
documents provided in the budget request, the word President
has been added to denote this administration request. The level
of funding provided for each of these programs projects or
studies should not be construed as what was requested. Rather,
the only intent is to disclose the requestor.
It should be noted that many line items only have President
listed as the requestor. It should not be inferred that the
affected members are not interested in these projects studies
or activities. Rather this is due to Committee direction that
the President's budget requests are assumed to be requested by
the affected Members unless they notify the Committee to the
contrary.
The purposes for the funding provided in the various
accounts is described in the paragraphs associated with each
account. The location of the programs, projects or studies are
denoted in the account tables.
The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the
following table along with the budget request.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate Committee
------------------------ recommendation
Project title ------------------------ Requested by
Resources Facilities Resources Facilities
management OM&R management OM&R
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIZONA
AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT.... .......... 8,700 .......... 8,700 PRESIDENT
CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER BASIN.. 26,961 218 27,811 218 PRESIDENT, KYL, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM..... 3,312 .......... 3,312 .......... PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........ 385 .......... 385 .......... PRESIDENT
PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT....... 200 .......... 200 .......... PRESIDENT
SALT RIVER PROJECT............................. 360 240 360 240 PRESIDENT
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT... 310 .......... 310 .......... PRESIDENT
SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM... 915 .......... 915 .......... PRESIDENT
SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT 4,445 .......... 4,445 .......... PRESIDENT
PROJECT.
YUMA AREA PROJECTS............................. 1,652 21,257 1,652 21,257 PRESIDENT
YUMA EAST WETLANDS............................. .......... .......... 1,500 .......... KYL
CALIFORNIA
CACHUMA PROJECT................................ 1,071 640 1,821 640 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.............. 460 .......... 460 .......... PRESIDENT
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING 900 .......... 900 .......... PRESIDENT
PLANT.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS:
AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION.................... 1,903 7,725 1,903 7,725 PRESIDENT
AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT................... 4,723 100 4,723 100 PRESIDENT
DELTA DIVISION............................. 11,818 5,830 11,818 5,830 PRESIDENT
EAST SIDE DIVISION......................... 1,551 2,903 1,551 2,903 PRESIDENT
FRIANT DIVISION............................ 2,261 3,686 3,761 4,261 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS............. 12,697 1,083 14,697 1,083 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY .......... 19,410 .......... 19,410 PRESIDENT
MAINT.
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION.................. 6,522 1,506 6,522 1,506 PRESIDENT
SAN FELIPE DIVISION........................ 891 29 891 29 PRESIDENT
SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION....................... 327 .......... 327 .......... PRESIDENT
SHASTA DIVISION............................ 584 7,957 584 7,957 PRESIDENT
TRINITY RIVER DIVISION..................... 7,329 3,133 9,329 3,133 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS................. 1,407 8,874 1,407 8,874 PRESIDENT
WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT... 3,460 6,504 3,460 6,504 PRESIDENT
YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION............ 562 .......... 562 .......... PRESIDENT
IRVINE BASIN GROUND AND SURFACE WATER .......... .......... 1,000 .......... FEINSTEIN
IMPROVEMENT.
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS................... .......... .......... 2,300 .......... REID
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE 600 .......... 600 .......... PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
PROJECT.
LONG BEACH DESALINATION RESEARCH AND 250 .......... 250 .......... PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
DEVELOPMENT PROJ.
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING 1,500 .......... 1,500 .......... PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
PROJECT.
ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION 1,500 .......... 1,500 .......... PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN
PROJECT, PHAS.
ORLAND PROJECT................................. 15 702 15 702 PRESIDENT
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT.................... 300 .......... 300 .......... PRESIDENT
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE 3,450 .......... 3,450 .......... PRESIDENT
PROGRAM.
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT...................... 700 .......... 700 .......... PRESIDENT
SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE 200 .......... 200 .......... PRESIDENT
PROGRAM.
SOLANO PROJECT................................. 1,452 2,533 1,452 2,533 PRESIDENT
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM..... 190 .......... 237 .......... PRESIDENT
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT.......................... 402 56 402 56 PRESIDENT
COLORADO
ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, CRSP.................. 57,750 250 63,000 250 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, ALLARD, SALAZAR, BINGAMAN
COLLBRAN PROJECT............................... 172 1,321 172 1,321 PRESIDENT
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT.................. 370 11,319 370 11,319 PRESIDENT
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................ 304 .......... 304 .......... PRESIDENT
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT....................... 57 151 57 151 PRESIDENT
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT..................... 172 8,897 172 8,897 PRESIDENT
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II............ 144 1,014 144 1,014 PRESIDENT
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY.............. 36 1,994 36 1,994 PRESIDENT
MANCOS PROJECT................................. 51 101 51 101 PRESIDENT
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II.......... 62 2,501 62 2,501 PRESIDENT
PINE RIVER PROJECT............................. 124 145 124 145 PRESIDENT
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT........................ 272 4,715 272 4,715 PRESIDENT
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT............................ 108 132 108 132 PRESIDENT
UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS................ 200 .......... 200 .......... PRESIDENT
HAWAII
HAWAII RECLAIMATION PROJECTS--LAHAINA.......... .......... .......... 1,000 .......... INOUYE
IDAHO
BOISE AREA PROJECTS............................ 2,420 2,743 2,420 2,743 PRESIDENT
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY 15,000 .......... 15,000 .......... PRESIDENT
PROJECT.
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................... 331 .......... 331 .......... PRESIDENT
LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS..................... 576 27 576 27 PRESIDENT
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS......................... 3,029 2,720 3,029 2,720 PRESIDENT
KANSAS
KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................. 72 .......... 72 .......... PRESIDENT
WICHITA-CHENEY PROJECT......................... 8 419 8 419 PRESIDENT
WICHTITA PROJECT--EQUUS BEDS DIVISION.......... .......... .......... 1,000 .......... ROBERTS
MONTANA
FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER .......... .......... 10,000 .......... BAUCUS, TESTER
SYSTEM.
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT........................... .......... 913 .......... 913 PRESIDENT
HUNTLEY PROJECT................................ 56 105 56 105 PRESIDENT
LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT...................... 235 65 235 65 PRESIDENT
MILK RIVER PROJECT............................. 471 1,255 471 1,255 PRESIDENT
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS......................... 23 .......... 23 .......... PRESIDENT
ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA RURAL WATER .......... .......... 6,000 .......... BAUCUS, TESTER
SYSTEM.
SUN RIVER PROJECT.............................. 108 262 108 262 PRESIDENT
NEBRASKA
MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT........................... 29 111 29 111 PRESIDENT
NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................ 8 .......... 8 .......... PRESIDENT
NEVADA
HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY..................... 175 .......... 175 .......... PRESIDENT
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT......................... 4,875 3,704 4,875 3,704 PRESIDENT
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM............... 900 .......... 2,750 .......... PRESIDENT, REID, ENSIGN
NORTH LAS VEGAS WATER REUSE.................... .......... .......... 3,000 .......... REID
NEW MEXICO
ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND .......... .......... 1,500 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
REUSE.
CARLSBAD PROJECT............................... 2,231 660 3,181 660 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
CHIMAYO WATER PLAN............................. .......... .......... 1,000 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
EASTERN NEW MEXICO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAMS..... 38 .......... 38 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI
EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER REUSE................. .......... .......... 500 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY.......... .......... .......... 500 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT...................... 12,005 11,195 20,655 18,895 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY, NM, UT, CO......... .......... .......... 500 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........... 84 .......... 84 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI
PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT........ .......... 197 .......... 197 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI
RIO GRANDE PROJECT............................. 833 3,683 833 3,683 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.... 133 .......... 133 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI
SANTA FE BUCKMAN DIVERSION, NM................. .......... .......... 500 .......... DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS 140 .......... 140 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI
PROGRAM.
TUCUMCARI PROJECT.............................. 23 10 23 10 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI
UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS.......... 76 .......... 76 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI
NORTH DAKOTA
DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................. 204 .......... 204 .......... PRESIDENT
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN--GARRISON DIVERSION 15,495 4,725 64,275 4,725 PRESIDENT, DORGAN
UNIT.
OKLAHOMA
ARBUCKLE PROJECT............................... 51 137 51 137 PRESIDENT
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT............................ 42 568 42 568 PRESIDENT
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT.......................... 15 400 15 400 PRESIDENT
NORMAN PROJECT................................. 16 387 16 387 PRESIDENT
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT.......................... 26 1,467 26 1,467 PRESIDENT
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT............................ 18 357 18 357 PRESIDENT
OREGON
BURNT, MALHEUR, OWYHEE, AND POWER RIVER BASIN .......... .......... 300 .......... WYDEN, SMITH
WATER OPTIMAZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY.
CROOKED RIVER PROJECT.......................... 426 548 426 548 PRESIDENT
DESCHUTES PROJECT.............................. 264 172 264 172 PRESIDENT
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS........................ 521 289 521 289 PRESIDENT
KLAMATH PROJECT................................ 23,605 1,395 23,605 1,395 PRESIDENT
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................. 232 .......... 732 .......... PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION..... 851 490 851 490 PRESIDENT
SAVAGE RAPIDS DAM REMOVAL...................... 15,000 .......... 15,000 .......... PRESIDENT
TUALATIN BASIN WATER SUPPLY PROJECT............ .......... .......... 250 .......... WYDEN, SMITH
TUALATIN PROJECT............................... 125 243 125 243 PRESIDENT
TUALATIN PROJECT TITLE TRANSFER AND FACILITY .......... .......... 400 .......... WYDEN, SMITH
ASSESMENT STUDY.
UMATILLA PROJECT............................... 957 2,689 957 2,689 PRESIDENT
SOUTH DAKOTA
LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM............. 15,000 .......... 28,000 .......... PRESIDENT, JOHNSON, HARKIN, GRASSLEY, COLEMAN
KLOBUCHAR, THUNE
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT................. .......... 15 .......... 15 PRESIDENT
MNI WICONI PROJECT............................. 19,474 9,526 30,909 9,526 PRESIDENT, JOHNSON, THUNE
PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER SYSTEM, SD.......... .......... .......... 1,500 .......... JOHNSON, THUNE
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM............ .......... 74 .......... 74 PRESIDENT
TEXAS
BALMORHEA PROJECT.............................. 41 17 41 17 PRESIDENT
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT......................... 72 72 72 72 PRESIDENT
DALLAS-TRINITY WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE .......... .......... 500 .......... HUTCHISON
STUDY.
LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES........ 50 .......... 3,500 .......... PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON
NUECES RIVER PROJECT........................... 29 718 29 718 PRESIDENT
SAN ANGELO PROJECT............................. 10 331 10 331 PRESIDENT
TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM................... 114 .......... 114 .......... PRESIDENT
UTAH
HYRUM PROJECT.................................. 120 33 120 33 PRESIDENT
MOON LAKE PROJECT.............................. 3 29 3 29 PRESIDENT
NEWTON PROJECT................................. 54 25 54 25 PRESIDENT
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........... 76 .......... 576 .......... PRESIDENT, BENNETT
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT............................ 160 92 160 92 PRESIDENT
PARK CITY FEASIBILLTY STUDY.................... .......... .......... 500 .......... BENNETT
PROVO RIVER PROJECT............................ 553 314 553 314 PRESIDENT
SCOFIELD PROJECT............................... 56 37 56 37 PRESIDENT
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........... 114 .......... 114 .......... PRESIDENT
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT...................... 204 16 204 16 PRESIDENT
WEBER BASIN PROJECT............................ 1,546 421 1,546 421 PRESIDENT
WEBER RIVER PROJECT............................ 48 69 48 69 PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT......................... 3,658 8,299 5,658 8,299 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL
MAKAH INDIAN COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY............ .......... .......... 300 .......... MURRAY
ODESSA SUBAREA SPECIAL STUDY................... 185 .......... 1,185 .......... PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL
STORAGE DAM FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY..... 400 .......... 400 .......... PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS....................... 82 10 82 10 PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.............. 138 .......... 138 .......... PRESIDENT
YAKIMA PROJECT................................. 1,155 6,789 1,155 6,789 PRESIDENT
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT... 8,470 .......... 8,470 .......... PRESIDENT
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE PROJECT....... .......... .......... 1,000 .......... MURRAY, CANTWELL
WYOMING
KENDRICK PROJECT............................... 108 3,839 108 3,839 PRESIDENT
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT........................... 323 1,816 323 1,816 PRESIDENT
SHOSHONE PROJECT............................... 76 960 76 960 PRESIDENT
------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL FOR PROJECTS.................... 321,433 211,064 459,948 218,764
REGIONAL PROGRAMS
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE I. .......... 9,441 .......... 9,441 PRESIDENT, KYL
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE II 7,850 .......... 8,350 .......... PRESIDENT, BENNETT
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE, SECTION 5.............. 2,110 3,884 2,110 3,884 PRESIDENT
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE, SECTION 8.............. 4,690 .......... 4,690 .......... PRESIDENT
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT 440 .......... 440 .......... PRESIDENT
PROGRAM.
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.............. .......... 1,400 .......... 1,400 PRESIDENT
INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION............. .......... 57,100 .......... 57,100 PRESIDENT
SAFETY OF EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS...... .......... 18,500 .......... 18,500 PRESIDENT
DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM........... 436 .......... 436 .......... PRESIDENT, INOUYE
EMERGENCY PLANNING & DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM. .......... 1,442 .......... 1,442 PRESIDENT
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION..... 16,614 .......... 16,614 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BENNETT, SALAZAR, BINGAMAN, HATCH
ENVIRONMENTAL & INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 1,637 .......... 1,637 .......... PRESIDENT
ACTIVITIES.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION........... 855 .......... 855 .......... PRESIDENT
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES............. .......... 6,440 .......... 6,440 PRESIDENT
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM........ .......... 1,496 .......... 1,496 PRESIDENT
GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES....................... 2,006 .......... 2,006 .......... PRESIDENT
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.............. 7,584 .......... 7,584 .......... PRESIDENT
LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM......................... 1,000 .......... 1,000 .......... PRESIDENT
LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.... 236 .......... 236 .......... PRESIDENT
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM........ 15,418 .......... 15,418 .......... PRESIDENT
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS......... .......... 675 .......... 675 PRESIDENT
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM................ 6,179 .......... 6,179 .......... PRESIDENT
NEGOTIATION & ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING 1,597 .......... 1,597 .......... PRESIDENT
OPERATIONS AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 828 458 828 458 PRESIDENT
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN...................... 4,130 36,836 4,130 36,836 PRESIDENT
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES......................... 786 240 786 240 PRESIDENT
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM............... 1,088 155 1,088 155 PRESIDENT
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION................. 2,073 .......... 2,073 .......... PRESIDENT
RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT (TITLE XXVII) .......... .......... 1,000 .......... DOMENICI
RECREATION & FISH & WILDLIFE PROGRAM 1,076 .......... 1,076 .......... PRESIDENT
ADMINISTRATION.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DESALINATION AND WATER 2,275 2,100 5,400 2,100 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
PURIFICATION PROGRAM.
SALT CEDAR AND RUSSIAN OLIVE CONTROL PROGRAM... .......... .......... 600 .......... DOMENICI, BEN NELSON, BINGAMAN
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM................. 9,003 .......... 9,003 .......... PRESIDENT
SITE SECURITY.................................. .......... 35,500 .......... 35,500 PRESIDENT
TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM.. 800 .......... 3,800 .......... PRESIDENT, DOMENICI
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES--TECHNICAL 90 .......... 90 .......... PRESIDENT
SUPPORT.
WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM...... 6,232 .......... 7,000 .......... PRESIDENT
WATER 2025..................................... 11,000 .......... 14,000 .......... PRESIDENT, REID, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN
UNDER FINANCING................................ .......... .......... -22,158 -3,688 PRESIDENT
------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES.... 429,466 386,731 559,363 390,743
------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES...... 816,197 .......... 950,106 ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Arizona Project, Colorado River Basin.--The
Committee recommendation includes $600,000 for activities
related to the Gila River Settlement in New Mexico and $500,000
to initiate environmental compliance for the San Carlos
Irrigation Project.
Central Valley Project--Friant Division.--The Committee
recommendation includes an additional $1,000,000 for the
Friant-Kern and Madera canals capacity improvements and an
additional $500,000 for the Semi Tropic Phase II groundwater
banking.
Miscellaneous Project Programs.--An additional $2,000,000
above the budget request is provided for anadromous fish screen
projects.
Trinity River Division.--The Committee has provided
$2,000,000 above the budget request to accelerate
implementation of the Trinity River Restoration Program.
Animas-La Plata, Colorado.--The Committee has provided
$63,000,000 for construction of this project.
Hawaii Reclamation Projects, Lahaina.--The Committee has
included $1,000,000 for this water reuse project.
Fort Peck, Dry Prairie Rural Water System, Montana.--The
Committee has provided $10,000,000 for continued construction
of the project.
Carlsbad Project, New Mexico.--The committee provided an
additional $200,000 to assess the rehabilitation of radial
gates at Sumner Dam, New Mexico and $750,000 for implementation
of water salvage in partnership with the New Mexico Interstate
Stream Commission under the Pecos River Settlement.
Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.--The Committee
recommendation includes $39,550,000 for the Middle Rio Grande
project, $20,655,000 for Resources Management and $18,895,000
for Operations, Maintenance and Replacements. Within the
$20,655,000 for Resources Management, the Committee includes
$16,271,000 for the Collaborative Program; and $1,000,000 for
the Silvery Minnow Sanctuary operations. Within the $18,895,000
for Operations, Maintenance and Replacements, the Committee
includes $2,200,000 for further development of the Upper Rio
Grande Water Operations Model and ESA Water conservation
planning; $500,000 for initial development of an integrated
management plan in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; and $2,000,000 to be transferred to the USGS for
stream gage repair and development in New Mexico. The Committee
encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to be transparent in its
communication of the cost of administration of the Middle Rio
Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program and to rapidly
implement project management improvements to address the issues
and recommendations of the non-Federal partners to the
Collaborative Program. The Committee also encourages the Bureau
of Reclamation to work closely with the Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
develop a rehabilitation plan for the levee system in the
Middle Rio Grande.
Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin, Garrison Diversion Unit, North
Dakota.--An additional $48,780,000 has been provided for rural
water projects. Of this amount, $24,390,000 shall be expended
for the following projects: $10,000,000 for the Northwest Area
Water Supply; $500,000 for the Lakota Water Supply; $3,000,000
for the South Central Regional Water District; $1,000,000 for
the Walsh Rural Water District; $1,000,000 for the South Benson
County/North Central Rural Water System; $1,000,000 for the
Traill Rural Water District; $500,000 for the Upham/All Seasons
Rural Water System;$2,000,000 for the Williston Water Treatment
Plant; $4,000,000 for the Southwest Pipeline; and $1,390,000
for Garrison Water Treatment.
Northern Utah Investigations Program, Utah.--The Committee
has included an additional $500,000 for the Rural Water
Technology Alliance.
Odessa Subarea Special Study, Washington.--The Committee
has provided $1,185,000 for this study.
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I.--In
the fiscal year 2006 conference report (House Report 109-275),
the conferees expressed their concern that the Bureau of
Reclamation was making excess releases of approximately 100,000
acre-feet of water per year from storage in Colorado River
reservoirs to help meet the United States' Colorado River water
quality obligations to Mexico. The excess releases are being
made because Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District's
agricultural return flows--that bypass the Colorado River and
are discharged to the Cienega de Santa Clara in Mexico (bypass
flows)--are not counted as part of the 1.5 million acre-feet of
water that the United States is required to deliver annually to
Mexico. Because the bypass flows are not counted, system
storage from the Colorado River has been used to make up for
the bypass flows. The Yuma Desalting Plant was originally
constructed to treat the flows and return a portion of them to
the river, thus reducing excess releases from Colorado River
reservoirs.
The current drought and projected long-term water demands
have heightened concern about this demand on the river system.
Consequently, in fiscal year 2006, the conferees indicated
their support for Reclamation's ongoing public process to
address this complex hydrologic problem, considering various
methods of recovering or replacing the flows, including options
that address potential impacts to wetlands in the Cienega de
Santa Clara. This Committee encourages Reclamation to continue
this stakeholder process. In fiscal year 2006, the conferees
also directed the Bureau of Reclamation to dedicate sufficient
resources to the Yuma Desalting Plant so that one-third
operational capacity may be achieved by the end of calendar
year 2006. To date, the plant is not one-third operational,
although Reclamation did conduct a demonstration run at one-
tenth capacity for 90 days in 2007. The Committee, once again,
directs the Bureau of Reclamation, within the funds provided
for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, title I,
to dedicate sufficient funds to the Yuma Desalting Plant so
that one-third operational capacity may be achieved by the end
of calendar year 2007. The Bureau of Reclamation is also
directed to provide the Committee with a status report of the
plant's operational status by no later than March 1, 2008. If
the plant is not one-third operational by the end of calendar
year 2007, the report shall include an explanation as to why
the Bureau of Reclamation has failed to comply with the
Committee's directive.
Drought Emergency Assistance.--The Committee has provided
the budget request for this program. Within the funds provided,
the Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to provide full
and fair consideration for drought assistance from the State of
Hawaii.
Research and Development, Desalination Research and
Development Program.--The Committee has provided $7,500,000. Of
the funds provided, $2,100,000 is provided to New Mexico State
University to undertake operations and maintenance of the newly
constructed National Inland Desalination Research Facility in
Alamogordo, New Mexico, on behalf of the Bureau of Reclamation;
$1,900,000 is provided to New Mexico State University for
research activities undertaken at or associated with the
National Inland Desalination Research Facility; and $3,000,000
is provided to New Mexico State University to undertake a
research program for development and commercialization of water
treatment technology in collaboration with Federal agencies,
national laboratories, State agencies, local agencies,
industry, educational institutions or other water research
entities.
Title XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse.--The Committee has
provided $3,800,000 for this program. Within the funds
provided, the Committee has included $3,000,000 for the
WateReuse Foundation. These are available to support the
Foundation's research priorities.
Water Conservation Field Service Program.--The Committee
has provided $7,000,000 for the Water Conservation Field
Services Program. Within the amounts provided, Reclamation is
urged to continue urban water conservation projects identified
through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Innovative Conservation Program; industrial water efficiency
surveys to assess opportunities to conserve water in industrial
water use; and for weather based irrigation controller
activities to pilot ways to speed distribution and acceptance
of these landscape water efficiency devices.
Water 2025.--The dire drought the West is currently
experiencing, combined with an unprecedented number of water
users and endangered species and related requirements, make
water use efficiencies more critical than ever. The Committee
has provided $14,000,000 for this initiative proposed by the
administration. The Committee has included additional funds
above the budget request to provide for continued efficiency
and water improvements related to the Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District. A critical component of reducing tension
among multiple water users is collaborative planning and joint
operations. Within the funds provided, funds are provided for
the Desert Research Institute to address water quality and
environmental issues in ways that will bring industry and
regulators to mutually acceptable answers.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $52,150,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... \1\59,122,000
Committee recommendation................................ 51,622,000
\1\Includes $7,500,000 legislative proposal on which Congress has not
acted.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $51,622,000
for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. The Committee
recommendation does not reflect the establishment of the San
Joaquin River Restoration Fund as proposed by the
administration as this program is not yet authorized.
Consequently the Budget request is reduced by $7,500,000.
The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized
in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of
Public Law 102-575. This fund was established to provide
funding from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration,
improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife
restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of
California. Revenues are derived from payments by project
beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project
beneficiaries include several required by the act (Friant
Division surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to
non-CVP users, and tiered water prices) and, to the extent
required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation
and restoration payments.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $36,648,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 31,750,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,750,000
This account funds activities that are consistent with the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18
State and Federal agencies and representatives of California's
urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals
of the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water
supply reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-
San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California's
water distribution system.
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $57,575,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 58,811,000
Committee recommendation................................ 58,811,000
The Committee recommendation for general administrative
expenses is $58,811,000. This is the same as the budget
request.
The policy and administrative expenses program provides for
the executive direction and management of all reclamation
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in
Washington, DC, Denver, Colorado, and five regional offices.
The Denver office and regional offices charge individual
projects or activities for direct beneficial services and
related administrative and technical costs. These charges are
covered under other appropriations.
General Provisions--Department of the Interior
Section 201. The bill includes language regarding the San
Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
(President)
Section 202. The bill includes language that states
requirements for purchase or lease of water from the Middle Rio
Grande or Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico. (Domenici)
Section 203. The bill includes language regarding Drought
Emergency Assistance.
Section 204. The bill includes language concerning Water
2025.
Section 205. The bill includes language regarding the Rio
Grande Collaborative water operations team. (Domenici)
Section 206. The bill includes language concerning the
project at Las Vegas Wash and Lake Mead. (Reid)
Section 207. The bill includes language concerning expended
funds from the Desert Terminus Lakes program for the Truckee
River Settlement Act. (Reid)
Section 208. The bill includes language concerning expended
funds from the Desert Terminus Lakes program for a number of
purposes within Nevada. (Reid)
Section 209. The bill includes a provision extending the
authorization of the Mni Wiconi project from 2008 until 2013.
Without this provision work would have to stop during fiscal
year 2008. (Johnson)
Section 210. The bill includes a provision concerning
operations of the Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research
Facility. (Domenici)
Section 211. The bill includes a provision for a reporting
requirement to the appropriate House and Senate authorizing
committees concerning changed land use determinations. (Dorgan)
Section 212. The bill contains a provision that increases
the appropriation ceiling for the Indian Irrigation projects in
the Pick-Sloan--Garrison Diversion Unit, North Dakota and South
Dakota. (Dorgan)
TITLE III
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Laboratory Directed Research and Development [LDRD]
The Committee recognizes the invaluable role the Laboratory
Directed Research and Development [LDRD] program provides to
the Federal Government and the Nation in general. Discretionary
LDRD investments have been and will continue to be responsive
to the energy needs of the Nation, as evidenced by recent R&D
projects in materials science, optoelectronics, computer
science, and high energy density physics. Cutting-edge LDRD
research provides the science base for energy-specific
applications such as fuel cells, hydrogen technologies, carbon
management, nuclear energy and solid state lighting. In
addition, LDRD is the national labs' most important tool for
maintaining the vitality of the national labs in support of
other national security missions. LDRD enables the labs to hire
the ``best and brightest'' young scientists and engineers and
allows them to seek innovative science and technology solutions
for current or emerging national security issues, including
those of energy security. LDRD investments have been effective
in providing solutions for today's energy problems and
demonstrate the inherent flexibility of the program to provide
national security mission support on a very timely basis.
Energy research needs can best be addressed by continuing a
vibrant LDRD program at the national labs.
Reprogramming Guidelines
The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully
inform the Committee when a change in program execution or
funding is required during the fiscal year. A reprogramming
includes the reallocation of funds from one activity to another
within an appropriation, or any significant departure from a
program, project, or activity described in the agency's budget
justification, including contemplated site budgets as presented
to and approved or modified by Congress in an appropriations
act or the accompanying statement of managers or report. For
construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the
reallocation of funds from one construction project identified
in the justifications to another or a significant change in the
scope of an approved project.
Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new
programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations
specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the
act or report. In cases where unforeseen events or conditions
are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be
submitted in advance to the Committee and be fully explained
and justified. The Committee has not provided the Department
with any internal reprogramming flexibility in fiscal year
2008, unless specifically identified in the House, Senate, or
conference reports. Any reallocation of new or prior year
budget authority or prior year de-obligations must be submitted
to the Committees in writing and may not be implemented prior
to approval by the Committees on Appropriations.
ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $1,474,285,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 1,236,199,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,715,551,000
The Committee recommendation is $1,715,551,000 for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $479,352,000 above the
President's request. The Committee notes that virtually every
program except Hydrogen Research and Development [R&D] suffers
a reduction from the fiscal year 2007 Operating Plan. Hardest
hit are the energy efficiency programs. Vehicle Technologies,
Building Technologies, and Industrial Technologies are down
about $40,000,000, while Weatherization grants are down over
$60,000,000. The Department plays a key role in developing new
energy-efficient technologies. For every dollar invested in
Energy Efficiency R&D, the U.S. economy receives about $20 in
return through energy savings, new jobs, and new products. This
Committee sees wisdom in such investments, and supports
increases above the President's request in the efficiency
programs. The Committee understands the Department has made
awards for projects within the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, but has not provided funding to carryout
these awards. The Committee strongly urges the Department to
fulfill it prior commitments, and to provide notification to
the Committee on any awards that are not being funded and for
what purpose.
Hydrogen Technology.--The Committee recommends
$228,000,000, a total of $15,000,000 above the request. The
Committee notes that fiscal year 2008 request completes the
President's 5-year, $1,200,000,000 commitment to the Hydrogen
Fuel Initiative. Along with the Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy request, the President's budget also requests research
and development funding for hydrogen projects in the budgets of
the Office of Science ($59,500,000), the Office of Nuclear
Energy ($22,600,000), and the Office of Fossil Energy
($12,450,000), as well as in the Department of Transportation
($1,425,000). In total, the fiscal year 2008 request amounts to
$308,975,000 for hydrogen research and development, the largest
for hydrogen in the 5-year period.
Since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, there
has been insufficient attention paid to the guidance Congress
gave the Department regarding the hydrogen program which had
several purposes. It broadened the Secretary's authority to
accelerate the research, development and demonstration process
toward commercialization; made Government a more reliable
partner in more ambitious public/private partnerships; and gave
the program permanent authority beyond the 5-year span of the
President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. The Committee is
encouraged by the Department's efforts to establish a program
facilitating the deployment of hydrogen and fuel cell
technology and to cultivate a competitive market for such
technologies as demonstrated by its recent request for
information [DE-PS36-07GO37002]. The Committee believes that
the Federal Government can be an early adopter of new
technology and can play a role in its deployment. In order to
facilitate Federal purchases it is essential to provide Federal
procurement officials with proven validation of operational
performance data and expected lifecycle costs of alternative
energy technologies. The Department, using its extensive
laboratory capabilities and in partnership with technology
venders, could validate the operational and economic
capabilities of specific technologies. This review is likely to
provide procurement officials more confidence in deploying
alternative, energy saving technologies. Within the additional
funds provided, the Committee recommends an additional
$5,000,000 to support the development of a technology
validation strategy. The Department may establish a pilot
program to demonstrate such a capability if it believes it will
have a positive impact. The Committee authorizes the Department
to recover all costs associated with the validation activities.
The Committee also notes that the Department requested 24
percent less funding for Technology Validation Program than the
enacted fiscal year 2007 program. This runs counter to the
intent of the Energy Policy Act, and endangers the success of
worthwhile public investments already made. The validation
program has ambitious and critical goals concerning durability,
vehicle range, storage, attainable hydrogen fuel cost, data
reporting, technology evolution, renewable hydrogen feedstock
generation, codes and standards coordination and public
outreach. Within the funding available to the Program, the
Committee directs that $40,000,000 be allocated to Technology
Validation efforts in fiscal year 2008.
The Committee appreciates that this program has achieved
its objective and is beginning to phase out research on
hydrogen production from natural gas starting in fiscal year
2008. The full benefits of a hydrogen economy will be realized
when our Nation is able to generate hydrogen from renewable
sources and nuclear energy rather than fossil fuels. The
Committee supports continued research and development into
solar-powered hydrogen generation research and development
programs including both thermo-chemical and photolysis
processes. The Committee commends the Department for this
progress in these areas and urges the Department to provide
additional funds to the Department's Hydrogen Production and
Delivery program for its continuation.
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.--The Committee
strongly endorses the commitment to decrease our reliance on
foreign oil. The President's goal of reducing gasoline usage by
20 percent in the next 10 years, coupled with growth in the
Biomass R&D budget, could significantly reduce this Nation's
``oil addiction.'' Unfortunately, the President's request is
$20,424,000 below the fiscal year 2007 Operating Plan, and well
below this Committee's recommendation from last year.
Therefore, the Committee recommends $244,000,000, an increase
of $64,737,000 over the request. Of the increase, $32,897,000
is for the Integration of Biorefinery Technologies under the
Utilization of Platform Outputs R&D subprogram, and $5,000,000
is for the Products Development element within this subprogram.
Within the available funds, the Committee directs the
Department to conduct a study on the feasibility of increasing
consumption in the United States of ethanol-blended gasoline
with levels of ethanol blends between 10-25 percent, including
a study of production and infrastructure constraints on
increasing the consumption. In addition, the Committee requests
that Department provide periodic updates on the National
Biofuels Action Plan and have a goal of providing the final
plan to Congress no later than the submission of the fiscal
year 2009 budget request.
Within the available funds, the Committee recommends the
Department provide a report to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committee on how it intends to develop the
proposed reverse auction as proposed in the fiscal year 2008
budget request before establishing such a program. The report
should include information on market data and pricing and
proposals as to which incentives would be the most effective in
facilitating the deployment of cellulosic biomass and the
expected costs.
The Feedstock Infrastructure subprogram provides for work
with the Department of Agriculture on biomass feedstock.
Lowering feedstock costs and ensuring sustainable supplies of
biomass are necessary to greatly increase the amount of
Biofuels production in the United States. To meet this goal,
the Department developed a Regional Feedstock Partnership and
should continue to work with the Sun Grant Initiative as well
as other laboratories, and universities to assess and improve
biomass resource availability throughout five distinct regions.
The Committee is encouraged by the Department commitment to
developing a variety of biomass feedstock. The Committee
expects the Department to evaluate all manner of regional
feedstock materials that include sorghum, switch grass, rice
straw, corn stover, as well as other feedstock material.
The Committee also notes that the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory is building on key competencies in the
areas of catalysis and biotechnology, and conducts R&D with
industry as part of the DOE/Office of Biomass core program. The
core research program also is an important part of expanding
research with Washington State University, in a new
Bioproducts, Sciences, and Engineering Laboratory [BSEL] being
constructed in Richland, Washington, by the State of
Washington.
Solar Energy.--The Committee recommends $180,000,000, an
increase of $31,696,000 over the President's request. The
Committee is pleased with the administration's efforts to
diversify our energy supply while minimizing the generation of
greenhouse gases. The Solar Energy Technology Program has
established a target of making solar power cost-competitive by
2015, 5 years sooner than targeted in fiscal year 2006 budget
request. Under this scenario, solar would provide hundreds of
thousands of new high-tech jobs throughout the United States
and would reduce natural gas demand on the order of billions of
cubic feet. Unfortunately, as is painfully clear from the
Department's budget, the promise of solar energy stretches back
33 years, to the 1974 Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration
Act, and the program has only lost ground to other nations ever
since. Now, the United States must make substantial investments
if it is to reclaim technological leadership in this critical
sector. Therefore, the Committee directs an increase of
$8,000,000 for Photovoltaic Energy Systems, an increase of
$2,696,000 for Solar Heating and Lighting Systems to support
deployment of this technology, and an increase of $16,000,000
for Concentrating Solar Power. The increase in Concentrating
Solar Power is to help reduce the cost of heliostat technology
to improve the economic performance of power towers and to
facilitate the deployment of demonstration facilities. The
Committee recommends $4,000,000 to demonstrate thermo-chemical
processes in producing hydrogen using high temperature solar
facilities.
Wind Energy.--The recommendation is $57,500,000, a total of
$17,431,000 above the request.
Geothermal Technology.--The recommendation for Geothermal
Technology is $25,000,000, similar to the fiscal year 2006
level, and above the administration's request of $0. The
Committee notes the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
report on the Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems on the
United States in the 21st century recommended a number of
actions that could be taken to encourage development of
renewable energy sources. Among the short-term recommendations
in this report is a call for more detailed and site-specific
assessment of geothermal energy resources in the United States,
as well as demonstrations of reservoir stimulation technology
at as many as five enhanced geothermal systems within or on the
edges of existing geothermal fields. The Committee urges the
Department to build upon the success of its geothermal program
and move the program forward.
Hydropower.--The Committee provides $2,000,000 for
continuation of the program.
Water Power Energy R&D.--The Committee recommends creating
a new program, authorized in EPACT 2005, which explores
technologies that could convert the kinetic energy from non-
impounded water sources, such as waves, currents and tidal
streams, into renewable energy. The Committee recommends
$8,000,000 to initiate this R&D effort.
Vehicle Technologies.--The Committee provides $230,000,000
for vehicles technology. This is an increase of $53,862,000
over the request. The recommendation provides $100,000,000 for
hybrid electric systems. The increase of $19,336,000 is for
Energy Storage Research and Development to make improvements in
plug-in hybrid technology. Other increases provide a total of
$50,000,000 for Advanced Combustion Energy Research and
Development, $45,000,000 for Materials Technology, $18,000,000
for Fuels Technology, and $17,000,000 for Technology
Integration Innovative Concepts. The Committee urges the
Department to continue to support the Advanced Reciprocating
Engine Systems program.
The Committee fully funds the fiscal year 2008 request for
FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, a $207,819,000 departmental
effort of which $126,619,000 is requested under the Vehicle
Technologies program.
The Committee urges the Department to integrate the
transportation sector's fuel and energy needs with zero
emission and renewable electricity generation to improve the
Nation's energy and environmental security by providing a
minimum of $10,000,000 from the funds made available for
Vehicles Technology in competitively awarded grants for
developing, researching, testing and operating grid-enabled
plug-in electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and
batteries and technology, and related power electronics that
use zero emission generated electricity for recharging. The
Committee wishes to reinforce and recommend further enhancing
research, development and demonstration of advanced battery
technology (in partnership with the private sector), for
electric, hybrid-electric, and plug-in hybrid vehicles. The
Committee is concerned that many advanced batteries are
currently being sourced from outside the United States. The
prohibitively high costs of many advanced battery technologies
must be addressed, along with the remaining performance
barriers.
The Committee includes $5,000,000 for Off-highway Engine
R&D within the Advanced Combustion Engine R&D subprogram. Off-
highway Engine R&D supports diesel engine research and
development having a high potential for improving fuel
efficiency and low emission engines. The Committee also
supports the 21st Century Truck Partnership. This cooperative
effort between commercial vehicle (truck and bus) industry and
major Federal agencies is developing technologies that will
make commercial vehicles more efficient, clean, and safe. The
21st Century Truck Partnership will use research and
development funding to increase engine efficiency, improve
hybrid powertrains, and reduce losses.
The Committee directs the Department to study methods of
increasing the fuel efficiency of alternative fueled vehicles
by optimizing alternative fueled vehicles to operate using E-85
fuel. Within this funding the Committee directs the Department
to use at least $2,000,000 for E-85 infrastructure deployment.
Building Technologies.--The Committee provides
$137,000,000, an increase of $50,544,000 above the request. The
increase is distributed as follows: $7,300,000 for Residential
Buildings Integration; $10,000,000 for Commercial Buildings
Integration; $8,244,000 for Emerging Technologies; $18,639,000
for Technology Validation and Market Introduction; and
$6,361,000 for Equipment Standards and Analysis. The increase
supports technology deployment of increased energy efficiency
technologies that can improve energy savings in the home and
reduce the cost of operating lighting, heating and cooling, and
electricity using energy efficient appliances in residential
and commercial buildings. The Department has set a goal of
achieving zero emission homes by 2020 using the most energy-
efficient technology and applying state-of-the-art distributed
renewable generation so as to achieve a net zero energy
consumption.
The Committee specifically recommends $24,283,000 for the
solid state lighting research and development portion of the
Emerging Technologies budget, an increase of $5,000,000 to
support advanced research. The Committee recognizes the
potential to achieve significant energy savings in this area.
Industrial Technologies.--The Committee provides
$57,000,000, an increase of $11,002,000 over the request. Of
the increase, the Committee directs $6,000,000 to be applied to
the specific industries budget subprogram to begin focusing on
new process development that can provide energy savings,
environmental and economic benefits. The Committee directs
$2,002,000 to be applied to the combustion budget for continued
development and deployment on Super Boiler technology. The
Committee recommends that from within available funds,
$3,000,000 is provided to support research and development to
increase the efficiency of computer chips and systems.
Federal Energy Management Program.--This program is
intended to support the deployment of energy efficiency and
renewable technology to U.S. Government buildings. Since 1985,
the Program has assisted in the reduction of energy intensity
in Federal buildings by nearly 30 percent. Considering today's
energy challenges, it hardly seems the time to reduce funding
for this Program. Therefore, the Committee recommends
$23,000,000, a total of $6,209,000 above the request.
Facilities and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends
$6,982,000, the same as the budget request.
Weatherization.--The Committee provides $240,550,000, a
total of $96,550,000 above the request. This program provides
critical assistance to encourage the use of energy efficient
technology to reduce energy costs for low and moderate income
families hit hardest by high energy costs. The Secretary is
directed to make fiscal year 2008 Weatherization funding
available from October 1, 2007, through March 31, 2009, for
States that submit plans requesting allocations for all or part
of this period.
The Committee also provides $55,000,000 to the State Energy
Program Grants, $7,000,000 for Tribal Energy Activities, and
$5,000,000 for Renewable Energy Production Incentive programs.
The Committee eliminates funding for the Asia-Pacific
Partnership [APP]. The Committee remains unclear about the
goals and direction of APP.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $105,013,000,
the same as the budget request.
Program Support.--The Committee recommends $13,481,000,
consistent with the budget request.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed
projects, within available funds, for the purposes of research,
development, and demonstration of energy efficiency or
renewable energy technologies or programs. The Committee
reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may
apply to these projects.
COMMITTEE DIRECTED ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project recommendation Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Auburn, NY, Auburn Regional $500,000 Schumer, Clinton
Bioenergy Enterprise.
Southern Illinois University, 300,000 Durbin
Carbondale, Biofuels Research.
Chariton Valley R.C.&D., 500,000 Harkin, Grassley
Chariton Valley Biomass for
Rural Development.
Chautauqua County, NY, Methane 500,000 Schumer, Clinton
Gas Utilization Project from
landfill at Ellery.
Department of Energy's Clean 600,000 Byrd
Energy Technology Export
Program (CETE), to export U.S.
clean energy technologies.
Compact Membrane Systems, Inc., 500,000 Biden, Carper
Wilmington, DE, Development of
Applied Membrane Technology
for Processing Ethanol from
Biomass.
DBS Energy, Inc., Glastonbury 1,000,000 Dodd
CT, Connecticut Biofuels
Technology Project in
Suffield, CT.
Consortium for Plant 2,000,000 Stabenow, Brown, Kohl,
Biotechnology Research, Inc., Inouye, Bayh, Levin,
St. Simons Island, GA. Klobuchar, McConnell,
Bunning, Bond,
Chambliss, Lugar
Costilla County, CO, and 275,000 Salazar
Costilla County Economic
Development Council, Inc.,
Biodiesel Project.
Council of Energy Resource 500,000 Salazar
Tribes, Denver, CO.
Dakota Gold Research 1,000,000 Johnson
Association, Sioux Falls, SD,
Biomass.
U. of Florida, Gainesville, 1,000,000 Nelson, Bill
with the EARTH University
Foundation, Biofuel Project.
Eikos, Inc., Franklin, MA, 1,000,000 Kennedy, Kerry
National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Conductive,
Transparent Coatings for Solar
Cells.
Electro Energy, Inc., Danbury, 500,000 Lieberman
CT, Development of bipolar
wafer cell vehicle batteries.
Foster-Glocester Regional 1,000,000 Reed, Whitehouse
School District, RI,
Ponaganset Alternative Energy
Lab and Biomass Facilities
Project.
Hawaii Natural Energy 2,000,000 Inouye
Institute, Honolulu, HA,
Hawaii-New Mexico Sustainable
Energy Security Partnership.
Koochiching County, Renewable 400,000 Klobucher
Energy Clean Air Project
(RECAP), Koochiching County,
MN, Plasma Gasification Waste-
to-Energy project.
Iowa Association of Municipal 1,500,000 Harkin
Utilities, Iowa Stored Energy
Plant.
Iowa Central Community College, 1,000,000 Harkin, Grassley
Iowa Renewable Fuels Testing
Laboratory.
Lilliputian Systems, Inc., 500,000 Kennedy, Kerry
Woburn, MA, Silicon Based
Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Chip for
Portable Consumer Electronics.
Louisiana State University, 1,000,000 Landrieu, Vitter
Agriculture Center Biorefinery
for Ethanol, Chemicals, Animal
Feed and Biomaterials from
Sugar Cane Bagasse.
Michigan State University, 400,000 Levin
Advanced Hybrid Vehicle
Technology, Hybrid Electric
Vehicle group.
Michigan Technological 500,000 Stabenow, Levin
University, Fuel Cell Research
at the Center for
Nanostructured and Lightweight
Materials.
National Center for 400,000 Levin
Manufacturing Sciences, Ann
Arbor, MI, Lightweight
Automotive Materials for
Increased Fuel Efficiency.
Nevada Institute for Renewable 1,500,000 Reid
Energy Commercialization,
Reno, NV.
North Dakota State University, 6,000,000 Dorgan
Center for Nanoscale Energy.
Oregon Institute of Technology, 1,000,000 Wyden, Smith
Geothermal Power Generation
Study.
Pacific International Center 1,250,000 Inouye
for High Technology Research,
Honolulu, HI, Renewable Energy
Development Venture.
Pierce County, WA, Landfill Gas- 3,550,000 Murray
to-Clean-Fuel Project, Biomass.
Raceland Raw Sugar Corporation, 1,500,000 Landrieu
Raceland, LA, Bio-Renewable
Ethanol and Co-Generation
Plant, Biomass.
Stamford, CT, Waste-to-Energy 500,000 Lieberman
Project.
South Dakota State University, 3,500,000 Johnson
SD, Sun Grant Initiative,
Regional Biomass Feedstock
Development Partnerships,
Biomass.
Snohomish County, WA, Biodiesel 100,000 Murray, Cantwell
Project.
Trenton, NJ, Trenton Fuel Works 1,500,000 Lautenberg, Menendez
Biofuels Plant Re-
Construction, Biomass.
U. of Hawaii, College of 500,000 Inouye
Tropical Agriculture and Human
Resources, Development of High
Yield Tropical Feedstocks,
Biomass.
U. of Nebraska, Kearney, CIBS 950,000 Ben Nelson, Hagel
Solar Cell Development, Solar.
U. of Nebraska, Lincoln, 2,000,000 Ben Nelson, Hagel
Bioenergy Demonstration
Project: Value-Added Products
from Renewable Fuels.
U. of Nevada, Las Vegas, Light 600,000 Reid
Emitting Diode Display
Engineering.
U. of Nevada, Las Vegas, Solar 750,000 Reid
Cell Nanotechnology.
U. of North Dakota, Grand 2,000,000 Dorgan
Forks, Center for Biomass
Utilization.
U. of Northern Iowa, National 1,000,000 Harkin, Grassley
Agriculture-Based Industrial
Lubricants (NABL), Biomass.
U. of Rhode Island, Research 1,500,000 Reed
and Technology Development for
genetic improvement of
Switchgrass, Biomass.
University of Akron, OH, Carbon 1,000,000 Brown
Based Fuel Cell.
Vermont Biomass Energy 1,000,000 Leahy
Resources Center, Biomass.
Vermont Public Power Supply 500,000 Sanders
Authority, Renewable Energy
from Animal Bio- mass.
Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, 500,000 Leahy
Montpelier, VT, Central
Vermont Recovered Biomass
Facility, Biomass.
Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, 1,000,000 Leahy
Montpelier, VT, Vermont
Biofuels Initiative, Biomass.
West Virginia University, 500,000 Byrd
Lightweight Composite Material
for Heavy Duty Vehicles.
West Virginia University, 1,000,000 Byrd
Transportable Emissions
Testing Laboratory (TESL), for
alternative vehicles emissions
testing.
City of Chula Vista, CA, 750,000 Boxer
Alternative Fuels Pilot
Project.
Affordable, Energy Efficient, 300,000 Cochran
Self Help Housing, Mississippi.
Alternate Fuel Cell Membranes 1,000,000 Cochran
for Energy Independence at
USM, Mississippi.
Alternate Fuel for Cement 1,500,000 Shelby
Processing at Auburn
University, Alabama.
Center for Advanced Vehicular 4,000,000 Cochran
Systems (CAVS) at MSU,
Mississippi.
Center for Producer-Owned 1,000,000 Coleman
Energy, Minnesota.
Cloud County Community College 1,000,000 Brownback
Wind Turbine, Kansas.
Cooling, Heating, and Power 2,000,000 Cochran
(CHP) at MSU, Mississippi.
Kansas City Area Transportation 1,000,000 Brownback
Authority, Demonstration of
Plug-in Vehicles, Kansas.
Great Plains Wind Power Test 2,000,000 Hutchison
Facility at Texas Tech
University, Texas.
Kentucky Rural Energy 2,000,000 McConnell
Consortium at the University
of Louisville, Kentucky.
MidSouth/Southeast Bioenergy 2,000,000 Chambliss, Isakson
Consortium, Georgia.
Nanostructured Materials for 1,000,000 Dole
Energy at NC State, North
Carolina.
Renewable Energy for Rural 1,000,000 Bennett
Economic Development Program,
Utah.
Sandia National Lab 3,000,000 Domenici
Concentrating Solar, New
Mexico.
Sustainable Buildings Project 400,000 McConnell
at the University of
Louisville, Kentucky.
Sustainable Energy Research 11,000,000 Cochran
Center at MSU, Mississippi.
Ocean Power Technologies, 2,000,000 Smith, Wyden
Reedsport, OR, Wave Energy
Research and Demo Center,
Reedsport, Oregon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $137,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 114,937,000
Committee recommendation................................ 168,437,000
The Committee recommendation is $168,437,000, a total of
$53,500,000 above the request. The increase brings the High
Temperature Superconductivity [HTS] R&D subaccount up to
$40,242,000. As no technology has greater potential to resolve
the transmission and distribution dilemma than HTS wire and
cables and attendant HTS equipment can potentially provide,
this funding level will permit continued strategic research at
universities and National Laboratories; develop second
generation (2G) wire; and will continue superconductivity
industry partnerships which design, fabricate, test and
demonstrate prototype products for the Nation's aging electric
power grid. Additionally, $25,305,000 is provided for
Visualization and Controls subaccount, the same as the request,
from which the Committee encourages the Department to continue
its efforts at the Electricity Infrastructure Operations Center
at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The Operations
and Analysis subaccount recommendation is $19,500,000,
$7,944,000 above the request. The Committee encourages
continuation of the electricity transmission, distribution, and
energy assurance activities including the Modern Grid
Initiative, and, in particular, the Phase 2 Development Field
Tests for the Allegheny Power Initiative.
Renewable Energy Deployment.--In order to facilitate
further deployment of renewable energy resources, the Committee
has provided additional funding to support the development of
large scale energy storage capabilities to mitigate the effects
of the intermittent nature of wind and solar power. Developing
low-cost, reliable technologies will have a positive impact on
renewable energy deployment. The Committee expects the Office
of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability and the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to work together
developing transmission and distribution technologies to enable
a smart, reliable grid; developing technical and regulatory
standards for interconnecting our Nation's renewable and
distributed energy portfolio; and enabling demand response. To
the extent possible, the Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability will be the primary Federal interface with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the States for the
Department of Energy.
The Committee is interested to understand the commercial
potential of the distributed generation market, including
deployment of fuel cells, combined heat and power systems or
other technologies that will increase the efficiency of
existing generating (electric and thermal) sources. The
Committee encourages the Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability to identify the possible energy savings that
may be achieved from increased efficiency and from transmission
line losses as a result of locating generating facilities
closer to the users. The Committee hopes this study will
provide a clearer potential of the best commercial
opportunities that can be realized immediately and the
possibilities of technologies in the future for both industrial
and residential systems.
The Committee recommends $21,803,000 for energy storage
activities, and increase of $15,000,000. The Committee also
provides $30,700,000 for Distributed systems integration, an
increase of $5,000,000 in order to support the study on
distributed generation and to enable this office to play a
greater role in the deployment of renewable energy onto the
transmission grid.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed
projects, within available funds for the purposes of research,
development, and demonstration of electricity delivery and
energy reliability technologies or programs. The Committee
reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may
apply to these projects.
COMMITTEE DIRECTED OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY
PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project recommendation Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gonzaga University, Spokane, $800,000 Murray, Cantwell
WA, Electricity Utility
Transmission and Distribution
Line Engineering Program.
Navajo Tribal Utility 2,000,000 Bingaman, Domenici
Authority, Fort Defiance, AZ,
Navajo Electrification
Demonstration Program.
Bismarck State College, Center 5,200,000 Dorgan
of Excellence.
Florida State University, FL, 1,000,000 Bill Nelson, Martinez
Electric Power Infrastructure
Security Research &
Development.
Rolls-Royce Fuel Cell Systems 500,000 Brown, Voinovich
(US), Inc., Stark State
College of Tech., Fuel Cell
Prototyping Center, Canton,
OH, solid oxide fuel cell.
Energy Surety Research Center 2,000,000 Domenici
at New Mexico Tech University,
New Mexico.
Alabama Power Project, 2,000,000 Shelby
Integrated Distribution
Management System, Alabama.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Energy
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $618,190,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 801,703,000
Committee recommendation................................ 720,558,000
The Committee recommendation for the Office of Nuclear
Energy is $720,558,000.
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.--The Committee
recognizes the administration, through the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership, is seeking to reduce the amount of nuclear
waste that will need to be placed in a permanent repository or
repositories. The goal of providing a comprehensive solution to
the nuclear fuel cycle is understandable in light global growth
of nuclear power. The policy of reinitiating the recycling of
spent nuclear fuel in the United States is a significant issue
and one that has international implications. While the
Committee has members who support the administration's efforts
on GNEP there are also members who have questions regarding the
cost, pace, science, technology, and nonproliferation
implications underpinning the GNEP initiative. The Committee
believes the administration must come forward with greater
scientific, technical, and policy information that examines
more alternatives in the fuel cycle and recycling process. The
administration is directed to limit the fiscal year 2008 work
scope to research and development and technology demonstrations
at existing facilities. No funds may be used beyond conceptual
design of new facilities or the sodium cooled fast burner
reactor.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research
and development includes a total of $470,600,000. This is
$97,145,000 below the budget request of $567,745,000.
University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.--For the
second year, the Committee rejects the administration's
proposal to include funding within the research and development
accounts and provides $15,000,000 for this program. The
Committee has decided to break this funding out of the research
and development accounts, and therefore, doesn't expect the
Department to duplicate these efforts.
Nuclear Power 2010.--The Committee has included
$135,000,000 to support the development of license applications
for new nuclear power plant designs under the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's combined Construction and Operating
License process, an increase of $21,000,000.
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.--The Committee provides
$22,600,000 for nuclear hydrogen research and development, as
requested. The Committee recommends the Department work to
accelerate the experiments for thermochemical and high-
temperature electrolysis production methods and move to a
hydrogen production pilot scale demonstration to test the
system under extreme temperatures.
Generation IV.--The Committee provides $55,000,000 for the
Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative. Of the total
funding provided, $45,000,000 is for the Very High Temperature
Reactor at Idaho National Laboratory. $7,000,000 is provided
for continued research and development of gas cooled reactors.
The Department is urged to coordinate research between the
GenIV and AFCI programs was conducting this research, but
diverted funding to GNEP activities.
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.--The Committee recommends
$243,000,000 for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. The
Committee notes that the Department seems to have decided on a
recycling pathway that consists of the UREX+ separations
technology and sodium cooled advanced burner reactors. Many
feel the decision to down-select to these technologies was made
too soon. The Committee directs the Department to support a
broader technology research and development program that better
defines the technical requirements, validates the proliferation
resistance and demonstrates the commercial feasibility of
various recycling technologies. In addition, the Committee does
not support the integration of the NNSA's mixed oxide fuel
facility into the GNEP. This technology is intended to support
a key nonproliferation objective of destroying weapons grade
plutonium. The Committee does not support additional delays
that may result in attempt to redesign the plant to handle
spent nuclear fuel. As such, the Committee expects the
Department, on August 1, 2007, to proceed with the construction
of the facilities that will support the MOX program in South
Carolina.
Of the funds provided, $50,000,000 is provided for
separations technology development. DOE is directed to examine
a broader array of technologies than UREX+, including
pyroprocessing, and other technologies to determine the most
cost-effective and proliferation resistant technology.
$50,000,000 is provided for advanced fuels technology,
including investments in testing facilities to support fuel
irradiation experiments. Reactor and separations designs will
be dependent on the type of fuel to be used, so fuels are on
the critical path--and they pose substantial complexities. DOE
is directed to examine different approaches for fuels that
could be used for recycling, including, oxide, triso, metal,
and nitride fuels; fuels with the plutonium and minor actinides
together or separate; inert matrix fuels; and fuels that do or
do not leave some of the fission products in the recycling
fuel. $8,000,000 is provided for transmutation science.
$50,000,000 is provided for systems analysis. DOE is urged to
analyze a broad range of scenarios, including both once-through
and recycling scenarios that include more than and UREX+.
$25,000,000 is provided for reactor technology. DOE is directed
to work with our international partners to examine other
advanced burner reactor technology, including molten-salt,
lead-cooled, and gas-cooled thermal fast-reactors, as well as
sodium cooled reactors. DOE should focus on whether technical
barriers can be overcome and costs reduced enough so that these
reactors might make sense for commercial deployment. $5,000,000
is provided for the budget request related to small reactors
that are passively safe and proliferation resistant. As the
Committee recommends no funding to support the advanced fuel
cycle facility for either technology development or
demonstration, the Committee instead recommends $40,000,000 to
be provided to make needed upgrades to existing hot cells at
the NNSA and Department of Energy facilities. Of this funding,
the Committee provides $10,000,000 to Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, $7,000,000 to Idaho National Laboratory and
$23,000,000 to Los Alamos National Laboratory to make badly
needed investments to the existing infrastructure to support
nuclear fuel production and testing. The Committee also
recognizes the strong technical capabilities of the existing
laboratory staff, and encourages the Department to make
additional investment in upgrading existing nuclear facilities
in future budget submissions. The Committee recommendation
includes the following congressionally directed projects,
within available funds. The Committee reminds recipients that
statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these
projects. $3,000,000 is provided to Technologies Ventures
Corporation for technology transfer activities (Domenici).
RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Committee provides $53,021,000, the same as the budget
request, for the Radiological Facilities Management program.
IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommends $120,713,000, an increase of
$16,000,000 to support nuclear research and development at the
Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee has included an
increase of $16,000,000 for research and development as well as
planning design, modernization, and construction of safety
posture improvements at the Advanced Test Reactor.
PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee provides $76,244,000 in Program Direction.
IDAHO SITE-WIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee recommends $75,949,000 consistent with the
budget request and provided in 050 Defense Activity under the
Other Defense Activities account.
LEGACY MANAGEMENT
The Committee provides $35,104,000 for Energy Supply-
related activities of the Office of Legacy Management, the same
the budget request. Funds will be used to protect human health
and the environment through efficient long-term surveillance
and maintenance, to protect and make accessible legacy records
and information, and to ensure contractor worker pension and
medical benefits.
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
(INCLUDING DEFERRAL AND RECISSION)
The Committee recommends the deferral of $149,000,000 in
the Clean Coal Technology funding until fiscal year 2009. The
Committee is aware that not all of the previously awarded
projects have been successfully developed for a variety of
reasons and available balances will not be used. The Committee
recommends that the Department transfer $166,000,000 from the
Clean Coal Technology account and apply $88,000,000 in funding
to the FutureGen project, $73,000,000 in funding to the Clean
Coal Power Initiative for the current competitive solicitation,
and $5,000,000 in funding to the Fossil Energy Research and
Development program.
Fossil Energy Research and Development
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $592,621,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 566,801,000
Committee recommendation................................ 808,113,000
The Committee recommendation for Fossil Energy Research and
Development is $808,113,000 an increase of $215,492,000 above
the request.
The Committee is concerned with the reduction in the fossil
energy research and development activities proposed as part of
this budget. In 2005, the Congress passed and the President
signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This legislation provided
incentives to support the deployment of clean coal technology
that would provide reliable domestic energy supply and the
potential to diversify our transportation fuel supply. The
Department is challenged with developing new technology that
will support the continued deployment of coal through
affordable and environmentally sound generating facilities,
while creating opportunities for production of hydrogen and
other coal technologies. The Committee has provided additional
funding to sustain technology development and to send a clear
message to the administration that the Congress is serious
about making a long-term investment in fossil energy.
Clean Coal Power Initiative.--The Committee recommends
$88,000,000. The Committee is frustrated by the remarkably low
level of funding provided to this initiative which demonstrates
advanced coal technologies including carbon sequestration,
emission control and other co-production opportunities. The
budget only provided $15,000,000 in new funding in addition to
the $58,000,000 transferred from the Clean Coal Technology
account. The Committee is aware that the Department has
announced a new solicitation for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative for the capture of carbon dioxide for sequestration
or other beneficial uses. However, the Committee strongly urges
the Department to select projects after September 30, 2008, so
that sufficient funding will be available to award projects
that will result in significant technological impact. Funds
previously awarded for the WMPI project selected under DOE
solicitation DE-PS26-02NT41428 shall remain available for
obligation to the project provided that a cooperative agreement
is awarded not later than September 30, 2008.
FutureGen.--The Committee understands and recognizes the
potential value of the FutureGen project. However, the
Committee is concerned about maintaining adequate funding for
the core fossil energy research, development, and demonstration
programs. The Committee has emphatically stated its intent, and
has warned that this R&D project must not be funded at the
expense of the balance of the core coal R&D program. Yet the
administration has continued to ignore congressional intent and
has eliminated or decreased funding for other core coal
programs. Therefore, the Committee provides $88,000,000 for the
FutureGen project. This is $20,000,000 less than the budget
request, but $34,000,000 more than was provided in fiscal year
2007.
Fuels and Power Systems.--The Committee recommends
$374,025,000 for fuels and power systems, an increase of
$128,423,000. The recommendation includes $34,000,000 for
Innovations for Existing Plants. Because carbon capture from
existing plants is a substantial ongoing challenge to the
existing fleet, the Innovations for Existing Plants program is
directed to consider carbon capture as a future focus of this
program. Included in Innovations for Existing Plants is
$12,000,000 for Federal laboratories, in collaboration with
research institutions, to conduct research and development on
the critical link between water and fossil energy extraction
and utilization and how different regions of the country can
employ water efficiency technology. The Committee recommends
$55,000,000 for the Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle activities and $25,000,000 for Advanced Turbines. The
Committee recommends $132,000,000 for Carbon Sequestration
activities. The Committee believes that carbon capture and
sequestration must be accelerated while also advancing other
important related coal research and development activities. The
Committee urges the Department to continue to support the
carbon sequestration demonstration projects authorized in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, including section 413 of Public Law
109-58. Additional funds are needed for the Regional
Partnerships to expand to field and large-scale injection in
various geologic formations. The Committee encourages the
Department to develop and validate a science-based, site-
specific risk assessment framework based on appropriate field
observations from pilot injections and analog sites, including
both short-term and long-term risks; this framework should
serve as a common resource for assessing large-scale
demonstrations and storage efforts. The Committee recommends
$10,000,000 within the available funds to support this report.
Within available funds for Carbon Sequestration, the Committee
encourages the program to study CO2 accelerated
growth algae technology to recycle carbon and produce fuels.
The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for Fuels to support both
fuels from coal liquids and hydrogen. Within available funds
for Fuels, the Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 to
initiate an integrated coal and biomass research activity to
address carbon emissions and technology barrier issues. The
Committee recommends $65,025,000 for Fuel Cell Research. Within
available funds for Fuel Cell Research, $5,000,000 is available
for the manufacturing initiative for coal-based systems. The
Committee recommends $33,000,000 for Advanced Research. Within
available funds for Advanced Research, the Committee
recommendation includes $5,000,000 for computational energy
sciences.
Natural Gas Technology.--The Committee recommendation
includes $20,000,000. Of this amount, $15,000,000 is provided
for methane hydrates, and $5,000,000 for research in developing
technology solutions to minimize the impact, or develop
treatment technologies for produced water as a by-product of
natural gas production.
Oil Technology.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000.
Within the available funds, the Committee provides $1,500,000
to continue support for the Risk Based Management System, a
nationwide database for oil and gas regulations and technology
developments. The Committee recommends the continuation of the
stripper well program.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $149,962,000
for Program Direction.
Other Programs.--The Committee recommends $16,570,000 for
fossil energy environmental restoration. The increase of
$7,000,000 is to carryout research authorized in section 964 of
EPACT 2005 that supports research in advanced coal mining
recovery and to minimize the environmental impacts associated
with underground mining. The Committee recommendation is
$656,000 for the special recruitment program. The Committee
recommendation for plant and capital equipment is $13,000,000.
The Committee recommendation for cooperative research and
development is $8,000,000.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed
projects, within available funds for the purposes of research,
development, and demonstration of fossil energy related
technologies or programs. The Committee reminds recipients that
statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these
projects.
COMMITTEE DIRECTED FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project recommendation Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado School of Mines, $1,000,000 Salazar, Allard
Golden, CO, Colorado Center
for Sustainable Energy at the
Colorado School of Mines.
North Dakota Energy and 4,000,000 Dorgan
Environment Research Center,
Grand Forks, ND, Fossil Fuel
Cooperative Research &
Development.
Ramgen, Bellevue, WA, CO2 1,200,000 Murray
compression initiative
utilizing shockwave/ramjet
compression technology.
Sparks, NV, City of Sparks 1,000,000 Reid
Methane Reclamation project.
US/China Energy and 1,200,000 Landrieu
Environmental Center, Clean
Coal Technologies, Tulene
University, Louisiana.
North Dakota Energy and 3,000,000 Dorgan
Environment Research Center,
Grand Forks, ND, National
Center for Hydrogen Technology.
West Virginia University, 350,000 Byrd
Advanced coal technology
(liquefaction) in China.
Center for Zero Emissions 6,000,000 Baucus, Tester
Technology, Montana State
University, Clean Coal
Technologies.
Interdisciplinary Clean Energy 3,500,000 Bennett
Program at the University of
Utah, Utah.
Shallow Carbon Sequestration 2,500,000 Bond
Pilot Demonstration, Missouri.
Gulf of Mexico Hydrates 1,000,000 Cochran
Research Consortium at the
University of Mississippi, MS.
Membrane Technology for 1,500,000 Domenici
Produced Water at Lea County,
New Mexico.
Carbon Sequestration Monitoring 1,650,000 Enzi
Activities, Wyoming.
Penn State University, Solid 4,000,000 Specter
Oxide Fuel Cells, Pennsylvania.
Arctic Energy Office, Alaska... 7,000,000 Stevens
Center for Advanced Separation 1,000,000 Warner, Webb
Technologies, Virginia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $21,326,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 17,301,000
Committee recommendation................................ 21,301,000
The Committee recommends $21,301,000 for fiscal year 2008.
$2,000,000 of the increase provided is for the operation of the
naval petroleum and oil shale reserves. Within available funds
and consistent with the budget request, $3,000,000 is provided
to support the Rocky Mountain Oil Technology Centers and
$3,810,000 is recommended to support NPR-3 to continue and
maintain production.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed
projects, within available funds. The Committee reminds
recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply
to these projects. $2,000,000 is provided to Los Alamos
National Laboratory in New Mexico to support research for
inbasin scale environmental impacts for oil shale production
(Domenici, Bingaman).
Elk Hills School Lands Fund
Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The State of California maintains that they are due
$9,710,000 under the Elk Hills program from fiscal year 2007.
The Department disagrees. If this legal dispute is resolved
prior to the completion of the conference report, this issue
may be re-visited.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $164,441,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 331,609,000
Committee recommendation................................ 163,472,000
The Committee supports maintaining the existing storage
program but does not support the expansion program request at
this time. Current cost estimates and schedule for an expansion
are $10,000,000,000 for new facilities and $55,000,000,000 for
the cost of the oil fill, which would not be complete until
2027. The Committee does not believe that it makes sense to
spend Federal funds to take oil off the market when prices are
at record levels when such funds can be used for more pressing
needs. The Committee recommends $163,472,000 for the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. Within available funds for the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, $10,000,000 is provided for the Secretary to
conduct an updated inventory of the oil and natural gas
resources of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS planning area using
the latest non-drilling seismic technologies. The committee has
also included section 313 regarding land acquisition related to
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 5,325,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,825,000
The Committee recommends $12,825,000, an increase of
$7,500,000 above the budget request. The Department will use
the additional funds to meet costs associated with increased
storage contracts.
Energy Information Administration
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $90,653,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 105,095,000
Committee recommendation................................ 105,095,000
The Committee recommends $105,095,000 for the Energy
Information Administration.
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $349,687,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 180,937,000
Committee recommendation................................ 195,437,000
For the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup program, the
Committee recommends $195,437,000, a net increase of
$14,500,000 above the President's request (this increase
reflects an offset of $10,000,000 to prior year funds located
at the Consolidated Business Center for which the program has
no identified need). The Committee realizes that the
Department's effort to complete cleanup in the future will be
challenged by the failure to request sufficient funding. The
Committee reminds the Department that it is not enough to
simply fund projects that have the greatest perceived reduction
to public risk; the Department committed to the public that it
would meet regulatory agreements too. The Committee expects
future funding requests to include sufficient funding to meet
that commitment.
Control Levels.--In fiscal year 2006, the Environmental
Management Program's budget was restructured to better display
site information, which paralleled its management of the
program. However, Congress increased the number of
congressional reprogramming control points from approximately
25 line items in fiscal year 2005 to nearly 100 in fiscal year
2006. This Committee understands and continues to support the
need for site managers to have the flexibility to meet the
changing requirements at the sites and recommends the following
reprogramming control points for fiscal year 2008:
--West Valley Demonstration Project;
--Gaseous Diffusion Plants;
--Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and
Decommissioning;
---Small Sites;
--All construction line items.
Internal Reprogramming Authority.--In fiscal year 2008,
Environmental Management may transfer up to $2,000,000, one
time, between accounts listed below to reduce health and safety
risks, gain cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a
program or project is not increased or decreased by more than
$2,000,000 in total during the fiscal year. This reprogramming
authority may not be used to initiate new programs or to change
funding levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or
increased by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within
30 days after the use of this internal reprogramming authority.
The following is a list of account control points for
internal reprogramming purposes:
--West Valley Demonstration Project
--Gaseous Diffusion Plants;
--Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and
Decommissioning;
--Small Sites;
--Transfers between construction line item(s) and operating
projects within the same site, as applicable.
West Valley Demonstration Project.--The Committee includes
$78,895,000 for West Valley, $24,500,000 above the budget
request. The Committee notes that this budget request is
significantly lower than that enacted fiscal year 2006 or the
program's own preferred funding level displayed in their fiscal
year 2007 Operating Plan submitted to Congress in March 2007.
The fiscal year 2008 reduction is puzzling considering the
amount of waste, decontamination and decommissioning, and
remediation of contaminated groundwater that still must be
accomplished. The Committee therefore provides an additional
$18,000,000 for decontamination and decommissioning of excess
ancillary facilities, per the State agreement, as well as
$6,500,000 for additional low-level waste shipments for
disposal from the ongoing decontamination and decommissioning.
Gaseous Diffusion Plants.--The Committee recommends
$38,120,000 for operation of gaseous diffusion plant uranium
conversion and stabilization activities, the same as the
President's request.
Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and
Decommissioning Project.--The Committee recommends $10,342,000,
the same as the budget request.
Small Sites.--The Committee includes $78,080,000 for fiscal
year 2008. These funds are distributed as follows: Argonne
National Laboratory, $2,437,000; Brookhaven National
Laboratory, $23,699,000; Idaho National Laboratory, $5,400,000;
California Site Support, $160,000; Inhalation Toxicology,
$427,000; Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, $5,900,000;
Energy Technology Engineering Center, $13,000,000; Los Alamos
National Laboratory, $1,905,000; Consolidated Business Center's
Completed Sites Administration and Suppport, $1,200,000; and
Moab, $23,952,000. The Committee is concerned with the lack of
progress and funding in the request for Moab. The removal of
the tailings pile must be accelerated to cut costs. The
Committee expects to see increased funding in fiscal year 2009.
The Committee is aware of the suspension of the
Department's deactivation and decommissioning activities at the
Energy Technology and Engineering Site, Santa Susanna Field
Laboratory, in Simi Valley, California, while the Department
evaluates stakeholder concerns and input regarding the
deactivation and decommissioning activities at the site. The
Department has placed all operations in a safe and stable
configuration during this pause that allows time to complete
the evaluation, but will continue to perform environmental
monitoring activities. The Department claims it is committed to
cleaning up the Energy Technology and Engineering Site in
accordance with applicable Federal and State regulations. The
Committee is very concerned with this situation and will be
monitoring the Department's actions during the ``pause'' in
cleanup.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $556,606,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 573,509,000
Committee recommendation................................ 573,509,000
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund.--The Committee provides
$573,509,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee
also recommends $250,406,000, an increase of $20,000,000, to
keep the decontamination and decommissioning of the East
Tennessee Technology Park's K-25 process building on schedule
for completion by fiscal year 2010. This building is on the
critical path for the regulatory-driven completion of the
cleanup of East Tennessee Technology Park by fiscal year 2012.
Uranium/Thorium Reimbursement.--The Committee recommends no
funding for this activity, $20,000,000 below the request.
SCIENCE
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $3,797,294,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 4,397,876,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,496,759,000
The Committee recommends $4,496,759,000 for the Office of
Science. These funds represent an investment in basic research
that is critical to both the future economic competitiveness of
the United Sates and to the success of our national and energy
security.
Report on Scientific Cooperation.--The Department is
directed to prepare a report supported by the Office of Science
and the Office of Energy Supply and Conservation regarding the
specific steps the Department is taking to ensure cooperation
between the two offices in identifying broad research
objectives and goals as well as specific R&D priorities
required in the short term. This report should contain
information as to how the various Department of Energy
laboratories are supporting these activities and budget
projections in the next 5 years. This report is due to the
Committee concurrent with the President's fiscal year 2009
budget submission.
Advanced Materials Testing.--Many of the stockpile
stewardship, Office of Science, and nuclear energy R&D programs
face scientific challenges posed by ultra high temperature and
pressure and high radiation environments. As such, the
Committee urges the Department to begin to develop a research
and development roadmap that considers the questions of what
types of facilities are needed to perform experiments on
materials under extreme temperature and pressure. This facility
should be shared between the Department of Energy and the
National Nuclear Security Administration and likewise should
contribute to the benefit of both programs.
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
For High Energy Physics, the Committee recommends
$789,238,000. Understanding the way the universe works is the
key mission of the High Energy Physics program, and it succeeds
by probing interactions among matter, energy, space and time.
The High Energy Physics program has many promising
opportunities to advance our understanding of the universe and
its makeup. However, the Department must make important
decisions about the future of this program, including balancing
the immediate opportunities provided through the Joint Dark
Energy Mission and large future investments in the
International Linear Collider.
International Linear Collider.--The Committee provides
$60,000,000 to support research to support the U.S. ILC effort
within the Accelerator Development, International Linear
Collider R&D activities. The Committee appreciates the
scientific challenge of building the ILC in the United States,
establishing our leadership in this discipline among an
international team. Despite the large financial commitment by
the President in scientific research, the Committee is
concerned that the ILC will crowd out other valuable research
as has been demonstrated with both the National Ignition
Facility within the NNSA, the Rare Isotope Accelerator and
ITER, both within the Office of Science. The Department must
provide a cost estimate including an out year funding plan and
an explanation of how this initiative will impact other
facilities and scientific research.
Joint Dark Energy Mission.--The Committee has consistently
urged the Department to move forward toward launch of the Joint
Dark Energy Mission [JDEM]. Unfortunately, in spite of the
Committee's support and the Department's own scientific
facilities planning process, this has not happened. The
Department's fiscal year 2008 request for JDEM will cripple the
Department's capacity to move forward either in partnership
with NASA or as a single agency mission in 2008. Unfortunately,
this budget reduction may also discourage international
collaborations interested in a near term launch--collaborations
which could significantly reduce the United States' costs. The
Committee reasserts its strong support of JDEM, directs DOE to
down select from among the three JDEM competitors immediately
following the decision of the NRC committee, and provides
$7,000,000 above the combined requests for JDEM, SNAP and other
Dark Energy research programs to fund the competition and to
aggressively ramp up activities focused on a launch in 2014.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS
The Committee provides $471,319,000 for Nuclear Physics.
The Nuclear Physics program fosters fundamental research that
will advance our understanding of nuclear matter, helping the
United States maintain a leading role in developing nuclear
energy, nuclear medicine, and national security.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
For Biological and Environmental Research [BER], the
Committee provides $605,320,000. BER uses competitive and peer-
reviewed research at national laboratories, universities, and
private institutions to further the Nation's competitiveness in
the scientific arena.
Low Dose Research.--The Committee supports the Department's
ongoing research efforts to understand the relationship between
low dose radiation exposure and the impact to human health.
After eight years of research, the Department is now compiling
the data for independent scientific review. Following this
review, the Committee encourages the Department to share its
finding with other agencies and Congress as it may support
review of our existing regulatory thresholds.
Medical Applications and Measurement Science.--Of the funds
provided, $34,000,000 is for Medical Applications and Medical
Science. The increase of $20,000,000 is for nuclear medicine
research and should be distributed through a grant program. The
Committee is disappointed that for the third year in a row the
Department has eliminated from its budget funding for nuclear
medicine research.
The Committee recommends that funding by used to support
new isotope development R&D and increased availability of
research isotopes for critical nuclear medicine applications.
The Committee also notes that diagnostics are currently in
development between the University of New Mexico and Los Alamos
utilizing the unique capabilities of Los Alamos at the IPF at
LANSCE and the radiopharmaceutical expertise of UNM at the
Center for Isotopes in Medicine.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed
projects, within available funds. The Committee reminds
recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply
to these projects. $400,000 is provided to the University of
Rochester in New York to support biosensor and fuel cell
research (Schumer, Clinton); $2,000,000 is provided to the
Neurosciences Institute in Morgantown, West Virginia, to
support molecular genetics research (Byrd); $1,000,000 is
provided to the Inland Northwest Research Alliance in Idaho
Falls, Idaho, to support water research (Murray, Cantwell);
$500,000 is provided to the Nevada Cancer Institute in Las
Vegas to support research of cellular antigens and nuclei acids
(Reid); $2,500,000 is provided to the University of North
Dakota in Grand Forks to support antibodies research (Dorgan);
$2,000,000 is provided to the University of California, San
Diego to support seismic research (Feinstein); $500,000 is
provided to the University of Massachusetts at Boston to
support marine systems research (Kennedy, Kerry); $3,000,000 is
provided to the University of Vermont in Burlington to support
research in agricultural, environmental, and biological
sciences (Leahy); $1,000,000 is provided to the University of
Vermont in Burlington to conduct research of MRI science
(Leahy); $250,000 is provided to the Center for Nanomedicine at
the University of Maryland in Baltimore to support research
into new nanoconstructs (Mikulski, Cardin); $2,000,000 is
provided to the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha
to conduct nanoscale imaging of proteins (Ben Nelson, Hagel);
$1,500,000 is provided to WIPP in Carlsbad, New Mexico, to
support neutrino research (Domenici, Bingaman); $12,000,000 is
provided the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, for the Mind Institute ongoing research into brain
related research including supporting research of military
personnel suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,
depression and traumatic brain injuries (Domenici, Bingaman);
$1,500,000 is provided to New Mexico Tech University in
Socorro, New Mexico, for Applied Energy Science Design
(Domenici); $2,000,000 is provided to Jackson State University
in Jackson, Mississippi, for Bioengineering Research Training
(Cochran); $600,000 is provided to the University of
Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi, to fund
research in the areas of increasing efficiency by reducing the
amount of contrast media needed for certain procedures
(Cochran); $6,000,000 is provided to the University of
California, Los Angeles for the Institute for Molecular
Medicine radiation research (Stevens); $1,200,000 is provided
to Northwest Missouri State University in Maryville, Missouri,
for the Nanoscience Education Project (Bond); $1,000,000 is
provided to The University of Louisville Regional NMR Facility
in Louisville, Kentucky, to support ongoing research in
fundamental processes of electron transport systems and the
structural biology of proteins (McConnell); $1,000,000 is
provided to Ultra-dense Supercomputing memory storage in
Colorado for further research in this field (Allard);
$1,000,000 is provided to Northern Hemisphere Pierre Auger
Observatory in Colorado for the northern hemisphere location of
a particle detection observatory (Allard); $1,000,000 is
provided to University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma, for the
Large Scale Application of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes
(Inhofe); $1,000,000 is provided to the University of Maine in
Orono, Maine, for research in Integrated Forest Products
Refinery technology (Snowe, Collins); $1,000,000 is provided to
Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
the Institute for Regenerative Medicine (Burr, Dole);
$1,100,000 is provided to the South Dakota Catalyst Group for
Alternative Energy to support research that will synthesize,
characterize and scale up production of catalysts important for
energy alternatives to fossil fuels (Thune); $1,500,000 is
provided to Louisiana Tech University in Ruston, Louisiana, for
research in nanotechnology (Vitter, Landrieu); $300,000 is
provided to Dominican University in River Forest, Illinois for
research related to the role of transglutaminases in
Alzheimer's and Huntington's diseases (Durbin); $300,000 is
provided to the University of Chicago to research multi-
modality, image-based markers for assessing breast density and
structure to determine risk of breast cancer (Durbin).
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES
The Committee recommends $1,512,257,000 for Basic Energy
Sciences, an increase of $13,760,000 from the budget request.
The Committee fully funds facilities within this account
including the four Nanoscale Science Research Centers and
provides $15,992,000 for the Manuel Lujan, Jr., Neutron
Scattering Center. The Committee provides $17,000,000 for the
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
[EPSCoR].
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
The Committee provides $334,898 for Advanced Scientific
Computing Research. The increase of $7,700,000 is for the Oak
Ridge Leadership Computing Facility to maintain budget and cost
schedule. The Committee has also included language in the NNSA
Advanced Simulation and Computing program to encourage the
Office of Science and the NNSA to work together to establish a
high performance computing capability within the Department by
joining the capabilities of both program support advanced
computing architecture, improvements in cyber security and to
support the development of advanced software and algorithms to
increase the speed and efficiency of existing and future
systems. The Committee does not support the Department
transferring $19,000,000 to the Department of Defense to play a
minor role in that effort. Instead, the Committee has shifted
$13,000,000 from the Office of Science to the NNSA Advanced
Computing and Simulation program to reestablish the Department
leadership role in high performance computing.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES
For Fusion Energy Sciences, the Committee recommends
$427,850,000. This program advances plasma science, fusion
science, and fusion technology through collaborations among
U.S. universities, industry, national research laboratories,
and the international fusion community.
High Energy Density Plasma Laboratory Program.--The
Committee is pleased that the Department has developed a
multidisciplinary research program, which this Committee has
been an advocate for the past several years. The Committee
believes this program will provide greater interaction between
the Office of Science researchers and the NNSA scientists and
provide greater access to user facilities such as the Z
machine, NIF and Omega. While these activities have their
primary responsibility in the weapons program, these facilities
can offer scientists new capabilities to support their
experiments. The Committee encourages the Department to
increase their investment in this modest program to ensure it
future success. The Committee supports the budget request of
$12,281,000 for the Office of Science. The Committee notes a
similar amount has been included in the NNSA program.
SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE
The Committee provides $88,956,000 to support
infrastructure activities, an increase of $10,000,000 over the
budget request. The Committee continues to be supportive of the
Physical Sciences Facility at the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory. The Physical Sciences Facility is supported by the
Office of Science, the National Nuclear Security Administration
[NNSA], and the Department of Homeland Security. The Committee
is aware of the MOU that was signed by the three agencies in
November 2006 but it is unable to understand why the fiscal
year 2008 budget request does not support this interagency
agreement. This Committee provides the requested amount of
$35,000,000 from the Office of Science. The Committee is aware
that a portion of this project is to be developed by a third
party and that the financing proposal has not yet been approved
by OMB. To prevent further delay of this project the Committee
provides an additional $10,000,000 to proceed with the design
of the buildings expected to be financed by the third party.
All funding provided in fiscal year 2008 and all funds provided
in previous bills for this project shall not be held in
reserve.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee recommendation provides $76,592,000 for
Safeguards and Security activities, the same as the budget
request. The Safeguards and Security program provides funding
for physical security, information protection, and cyber
security for the national laboratories and facilities of the
Office of Science.
SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee recommends $184,934,000 for the Office of
Science Program Direction, the same as the budget request.
SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
These initiatives support the missions of the Department's
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists program. The
Committee provides $11,000,000.
Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $99,206,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 202,454,000
Committee recommendation................................ 204,054,000
The Committee recommendation for the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management include $202,454,000 from fees
collected by the Secretary which are deposited into the fund
established by Public Law 97-425 as amended and $242,046,000
provided from the defense appropriation. An additional
$1,600,000 is provided for a total of $446,100,000.
The Committee directs the Department to exercise great
discretion to ensure that any work undertaken at or near Yucca
Mountain is consistent with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act's
requirements that no repository construction can be undertaken
prior to the issuance of a repository license by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. The Committee provides $1,600,000 for
the cooperative agreement between the Department of Energy and
Inyo County, California. (Feinstein)
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $7,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 8,390,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,390,000
The Committee recommendation to support the Office of Loan
Guarantees is $8,390,000, as requested. The Committee has
provided full funding to enable to the Department to hire
experienced staff with a background in project finance or have
experience with existing U.S. Government agencies such as the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation or the Export-Import
Bank. These entities have effectively utilized loan guarantees
to encourage foreign countries to invest in U.S. technology,
including the recent sale of nuclear reactor technology to
China. The Committee strongly believes the administration
should support a domestic initiative of greater proportion here
in this country to diversity our energy portfolio. The
Committee has included language regarding the terms and
conditions of the loan guarantees provided under section
1702(b)(2) of the Energy Policy Act. The Committee does note
that in an April 20, 2007 letter, the Government Accountability
Office concluded the following: ``EPACT section 1702(b)(2)
confers upon DOE independent authority to make loan guarantees,
notwithstanding the FCRA requirements.'' The Committee agrees
with this determination and doesn't believe Congress is
required to provide statutory authorization in an
appropriations bill to comply with the Fair Credit Reform Act.
However, the Committee is taking this prudent step to avoid
complications in the future over legal interpretations intended
to frustrate the effectiveness of this program.
The Committee expects the Department to move expeditiously
to complete the rulemaking process and make awards on the first
solicitation once the regulations have been finalized. The
Committee, however, is concerned that the draft rules propose
to limit the Federal guarantee to 90 percent of the debt
portion, which is inconsistent with the statute, which allows
for the Government to guarantee up to 100 percent of the debt
portion. The Committee urges the administration to make the
correction in order to optimize the effectiveness of the loan
guarantee program to support the deployment of a diversified
portfolio of energy saving applications and clean generation
sources.
Departmental Administration
(GROSS)
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $276,832,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 310,366,000
Committee recommendation................................ 308,596,000
(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)
Appropriations, 2007.................................... -$123,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... -161,818,000
Committee recommendation................................ -161,818,000
The Committee recommends $308,596,000 for Departmental
Administration, a net appropriation of $146,778,000. The
Departmental Administration account funds eleven Department-
wide management organizations support administrative functions
such as human resources, accounting, budgeting, workforce
diversity and project management activities.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $41,819,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 47,732,000
Committee recommendation................................ 47,732,000
For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee
recommends $47,732,000 consistent with the budget request. The
Office of Inspector General identifies opportunities for cost
savings and operational efficiencies and provides the
Department of Energy with the assurance that those attempting
to defraud the Government are apprehended.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
National Nuclear Security Administration
Weapons Activities
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $6,275,583,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 6,511,312,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,489,024,000
Reliable Replacement Warhead.--The Committee is divided on
the Reliable Replacement Warhead [RRW] program, but unified in
its desire to review and discuss our national strategic defense
policy and the role of nuclear weapons in the post-cold war and
post-September 11th world. The President requested $88,000,000
for the RRW program and the bill will provide funding of
$66,000,000. This is the amount required to complete phase 2a,
design definition and cost studies, of the RRW research and
planning outline. Following the completion of phase 2a,
Congress will have to authorize any continuation of the RRW
program.
The information developed from phase 2a will be helpful in
assessing the role RRW might play in the reliability, safety,
and nonproliferation areas of the nuclear weapon arsenal, but
the information alone will not be enough upon which to base a
decision on its construction or deployment. Congress should
have a more vigorous analysis and debate of our national
strategic defense policy prior to deciding whether to continue
or terminate RRW development.
Specifically, we need to decide the type and size of our
future inventory of nuclear weapons. We have thousands of
warheads. Under treaties we have committed to substantial
reductions and eventual elimination of nuclear warheads. We
must decide the methodology of meeting those obligations and
over what time. In the meantime, we also have to determine how
we maintain the warheads we decide we must keep. Do we continue
the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which has been used for many
years to maintain our nuclear deterrence, or do we develop the
RRW program to replace the current nuclear warheads with new
ones?
These are important questions that must be answered before
we decide whether to continue with or terminate the RRW
program. Some of these answers will be influenced by how long
the current nuclear warheads can be maintained in the Stockpile
Stewardship Program without degradation. New evidence suggests
that the life of those warheads is decades longer than
previously estimated. The future funding requirements for a new
RRW program will also have to be weighed against and compared
to the costs of the Life Extension Program within the Stockpile
Stewardship Program.
We should also consider what impact the RRW program would
have on international nonproliferation efforts. The United
States is engaged around the world on trying to halt the spread
of nuclear weapon capability and we must consider the role of
RRW in those efforts. These are among the most important issues
policy makers will face in the months and years ahead. The
question of whether the RRW program should be continued must be
based on accurate information and thorough debate.
The Committee favors the development of a bipartisan
commission created by the Congress to evaluate and make
recommendations on the role of nuclear weapons in our future
strategic posture. That commission should engage the
administration, the Congress and the best minds in the public
and private sector to evaluate the future role of nuclear
weapons as a part of our defense and strategic policies. That
Commission report can form the basis of information and advice
from which the President and the Congress can make decisions
about the future of RRW and other weapons programs.
Complex 2030.--The Committee rejects the Department's
premature deployment of the NNSA Complex 2030 consolidation
effort. This plan was based on the adoption and deployment of
the Reliable Replacement Warhead systems. The Government
Accountability Office found this proposal to be lacking
critical details about the size and military mission of the RRW
system, which of course would dictate the size and makeup of
the future stockpile including the necessity for a new pit
manufacturing capability. The Committee has previously canceled
the Modern Pit Facility, because the National Nuclear Security
Administration, the Nuclear Weapons Council and the Department
of Defense were unable to make a compelling case for a
significantly larger pit manufacturing need. The Committee has
not provided any funding for the Consolidated Pit Center for
the very same reason. For as much thought as the Department has
given to supporting Complex 2030 and its deployment, the
Committee is concerned about sustaining the science capability
at the laboratories and ensuring a balanced program that
continues to make critical investment in improving the
scientific mission. For example, the NNSA has established a
preeminent capability in super computing to simulate warhead
reliability without underground testing. However, the
Department has no plans to advance the field of high
performance computing, but instead proposes to reduce computing
capacity within the laboratory system. This, however, doesn't
mean that the NNSA doesn't have plans to purchase additional
platforms in the future, but it is unclear what is driving
these decisions. The Committee is frustrated by the lack of
planning to ensure that the laboratory mission is not
compromised. The Committee directs the Department to provide a
comprehensive computing proposal that involves the input from
the weapons laboratories that includes a long term strategy to
maintain the necessary simulation capabilities within the
complex and to drive innovation and competition for technology
and performance. The Committee is also frustrated with the lack
of scientific development vision for the labs. The NNSA has
focused on its transformational plan, based on the RRW systems,
but appears to have given little thought to the scientific path
forward. The Committee directs the Department, drawing on the
resources within NNSA and the Office of Science, to provide to
the Committee a research and development plan that addresses
unresolved physics and materials questions that will support
national security mission as well as contributed to improving
our energy independence, nonproliferation mission and to
support biomedical applications. This plan should explore
technology options that can be deployed and provide an added
capability to our R&D program to update the scientific
capabilities at each of the laboratories.
Consolidation.--The Committee does believe the
consolidation for disposal of the various amounts of special
nuclear material, including highly enriched uranium; plutonium
and excess pits should be aggressively pursued. The Committee
is concerned that rising security costs continue to erode
mission critical funding. The Committee encourages the
administration to careful evaluate the future mission need for
all special nuclear material. Any and all material that no
longer has a specific mission need should be consolidated and
destroyed, preferably into other forms that can be reused in
other applications such as light water reactor fuel if
possible. The Committee also supports utilizing existing
facilities to recycle or destroy excess material at the H
Canyon at the Savannah River Site. The facility, which is the
last of its kind, can play a key role in down-blending a
significant and varied amount of highly enriched uranium and
various forms of plutonium and uranium. The cost of running
this facility to support the consolidation campaign appears to
be much more cost effective than attempting to develop a new
capability. The Committee continues to encourage the Department
to maintain its campaign to remove plutonium from the Livermore
National Laboratory as soon as possible and urges the
Department to give greater consideration to expanding the
amount of plutonium that can be added to the 34 tons of weapons
grade material that will be turned in to mixed oxide fuel for
use in civilian reactors for electric generation.
DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK
The Committee recommendation provides $1,409,521,000 for
the Directed Stockpile Activities, a reduction of $37,715,000.
These activities support the activities needed to provide
critical surveillance, engineering, research and development,
maintenance, and dismantlement of the stockpile.
Life Extension Programs.--The Committee recommends
$238,686,000, as requested. The Committee is concerned about
the growing costs associated with the Life Extension Program
for the W-76. The Committee is aware of the fact that the NNSA
is facing a challenge posed by attempting to reengineer cold
war capabilities. However, the Committee expects that
Department to establish a better program assessment and
reporting requirements to better manage this program.
Stockpile Systems.--The Committee recommends $346,717,000
for the Stockpile Systems account as requested.
Reliable Replacement Warhead.--The Committee recommends
$66,000,000 and directs the Department to conduct the
appropriate feasibility studies allowed under phase 2a. The
Committee commends the NNSA and laboratories for their work in
the design competition for the RRW program. The design teams
made security, reliability and manufacturability the foundation
of both designs and both teams should be commended for their
effort. The Committee expects the NNSA to conduct a timely and
thorough feasibility review of the weapon system in order to
provide Congress with the necessary information to make an
informed decision as to whether or not it will authorize the
National Nuclear Security Administration to proceed with the
next phase of development. It will be incumbent upon NNSA to
provide specific details as to how many RRW weapons will be
manufactured, how the Department of Defense intends to
integrate the system into the stockpile and how many weapons
from the existing deterrent can be retired. No funds may be
used for initial research of a RRW2.
Weapons Dismantlement.--The Committee provides the
requested level of $52,500,000 as requested. The Committee
commends the Department for their recent efforts to increase
the number of dismantlement and fulfill the terms of the
Washington-Moscow Treaty, which calls for the reduction of the
active stockpile to the lowest level in over three decades.
Stockpile Services.--The Committee recommends $705,868,000
for these activities, a reduction of $14,946,000. The Committee
expects the Department to focus on providing adequate funding
support to protect the ongoing research and development,
engineering and production support to maintain the existing
life extension program, and not to undertake significant
transformational activities proposed as part of Complex 2030 or
to accommodate the proposed RRW workload. The Committee
recommends $284,979,000 for the Production support program as
requested. The Committee provides no funding for the responsive
infrastructure activity. The Committee recommends $205,576,000
for the Management, Technology and Production activity. The
Committee provides full funding of the production of limited
life components for the existing stockpile. Key limited life
components, such as neutron generators, contain radiological
sources that cannot be manufactured by private vendors. The
Committee directs the NNSA to continue to provide full support
for the continued production of neutron generators to support
the existing stockpile. The Committee also supports the
Department's efforts to deploy new core surveillance diagnostic
capabilities developed in the Engineering Campaign.
CAMPAIGNS
The campaigns provide the foundation for the experimental
science-based activities that support the NNSA Stockpile
Stewardship mission. Research supported by the programs provide
data that is used with the super computing capabilities at each
of the laboratories needed to support the life extension
program and to certify to the President the confidence of the
nuclear deterrent.
The Committee recommends $1,933,193,000, an increase of
$66,973,000 above the budget request. Within the funds
provided, for the various campaigns, the Committee supports the
budget request for the university research program in robotics
[URPR] for the development of advanced robotic technologies for
strategic national applications
Science Campaign.--The Committee recommends $273,075,000 as
requested to support the science campaign. This is the same as
the budget request.
Engineering Campaign.--The Committee recommends
$172,749,000, an increase of $20,000,000 for the engineering
campaign. This account provides critical engineering support to
the stockpile and can provide solutions to deploy state-of-the-
art use control technologies. There remains a significant
amount that still must be understood regarding limited life
components. The Committee expects the NNSA to develop a better
predictive capability to better understand why systems fail and
what must be done to increase reliability and component
lifetimes. The Committee recognizes the continued threat posed
by international terrorist organizations that seek to acquire
and detonate nuclear weapons within the stockpile of the United
States and those possessed by other nations. The Committee
recommends that the NNSA accelerate efforts within the Enhanced
Surety subactivity of the engineering campaign to increase the
safety, security and improved surveillance of nuclear weapons
in the existing stockpile by developing modern surety
technologies, and to take advantage of every opportunity to
implement these technologies in any weapon program.
Furthermore, the Committee recommends that the NNSA work with
other nations to explore opportunities to share these
technologies, within the bounds of existing laws and treaties
so that nuclear weapons can be better secured against
international terrorist threats. The Committee recommends
$44,803,000, an increase of $20,000,000 above the request, to
enhance these important activities. The Committee also requests
the NNSA to report back by July 1, 2008 on progress made both
in the inclusion of modern surety technologies in the RRW
studies and the plan for making surety technologies available
for other nations. The Committee expects the Department to
complete the buildout of the MESA facility. The Committee also
directs the NNSA to initiate the refurbishment of the Ion Beam
Lab by reprogramming uncosted Microsystems and Engineering
Science Applications and Exterior Communication Infrastructure
Modernization contingency funds. This program is on the
critical path and the replacement of these existing facilities
will be offset against the increasing costly maintenance and
repair activities.
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield
Campaign.--The Committee recommends $459,146,000 for the ICF
campaign activities including $10,139,000 for the final year of
construction of the National Ignition Facility as requested.
The baseline ignition approach on NIF is x-ray or indirect
drive. This approach was chosen after detailed review of its
maturity and value to the weapons program. Significant
challenges remain for the baseline approach as independent
reviews have concluded. In addition there are severe budgetary
constraints on the overall Stockpile Stewardship Program. The
Department is therefore directed to allocate all of its
resources for the first ignition demonstration with indirect
drive and to defer other approaches such as direct drive until
after achievement of x-ray driven ignition or after experiments
have shown that the baseline approach will not succeed. The
funds budgeted for direct drive should be used to increase the
operating capacity of all other ICF funded facilities within
the complex.
Facility Operations and Target Production.--The Committee
recommends $132,970,000 for the facility operations and target
production. This funding increase reflects the Committee's
desire to consolidate funding for the Z machine operations and
experimentation into NNSA Science and ICF campaign accounts.
The Z facility at Sandia National Laboratories is a model NNSA
shared national user facility. The request for Z experiments
continues to grow. Scientists at the NNSA weapons laboratories
are focused on the mission needs of the Stockpile Stewardship
Program, and the new initiative in high energy density
laboratory plasmas will increase the interest from scientists
in the fundamental research fields of high-energy-density
science, planetary science, and laboratory astrophysics. NNSA
has invested $120,000,000 in the Z facility and a petawatt-
class laser. Despite this investment, the budget request fails
to provide sufficient funding to reestablish experimental
capabilities (precision, performance, and shot rate) required
to support the many users of the facility. This funding
shortfall will severely restrict the ability to conduct high-
priority weapons science, ICF, and basic science research using
the refurbished Z facility. The Committee concurs with the
President's budget request for Z using $12,800,000 in the
Science Campaign, $10,440,000 in the ICF Pulsed Power and
$1,200,000 in the ICF National Ignition Campaign activities.
The Committee has provided $58,357,000 in the Facility
Operations and Target Production category of the ICF Campaign
in order to fully reestablish experimental capabilities on the
refurbished Z facility. The Committee shifts $28,887,000 from
the RTBF Campaign budgeted for Z to the ICF Facility Operations
and Target Production category. Within the available funds,
$13,000,000 has been added to ensure full operations and target
production on Z and $5,000,000 to support a new approach known
as a Linear Transformer Driver or LTD to create high current
pulsed power devices has recently been demonstrated at Sandia.
The funding shall be used to refine the baseline design
including all of the critical elements of rep-rated high yield
fusion facility and begin component improvements and
demonstrations as appropriate. The Committee expects that the
Department will provide adequate funding for the full
utilization of Z machine in the out-year budgets.
Joint Program in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas.--
The Committee appreciates the Department's effort to establish
the High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas joint program. The
Committee is encouraged the Department is taking the proper
steps to coordinate research between the Office of Science and
NNSA, and to expand it to other agencies as well. The
Department has provided $24,637,000 divided equally between
Fusion Energy Sciences and NNSA. The Committee recommends the
entire NNSA contribution of $12,356,000 be provided in the High
Energy Density Laboratory Plasma line. The Committee has
shifted funds from experimental support activities.
NIF Assembly and Installation.--The Committee provides
$136,912,000 for NIF assembly and installation.
Advanced Simulation and Computing.--The Committee
recommends $610,738,000 for the activities with the Advanced
Simulation and Computing program. This is an increase of
$25,000,000 above the President's request. The Committee has
provided an additional $12,000,000 for infrastructure
improvements such as power, storage and visualization across
the complex. The Committee has also reallocated funding
targeted to subsidize the Department of Defense research
program and applied it to support a joint NNSA and Office of
Science high performance computing effort; $19,000,000 is
reprioritized to support this initiative. The Committee expects
the Department to complete work on this computing system before
proceeding with other platform acquisitions. The National
Nuclear Security Administration and the Office of Science both
have major High Performance Computing [HPC] programs. These
programs have provided national leadership in the development
of HPC technologies and their application to stockpile
stewardship and scientific discovery. To address emerging
issues in the Nation's security, economic competitiveness and
scientific leadership, advances in HPC need to be accelerated
beyond what each office can accomplish individually.
The Committee expects the Department to continue to
diversify it computing potential and bring together national
laboratories, computer industries and universities to develop
critical technologies for future supercomputing platforms.
Important areas for research and development include advanced
supercomputer architectures, new algorithms and system software
to enable efficient use of emerging architectures, advanced
interconnection network technologies and advanced memory
subsystems technologies that keep pace with advances in
microprocessors. The Department is directed to establish a
joint program office lead by the NNSA Administrator and the
Under Secretary for Science. This office will have the primary
responsibility to ensure the sustained availability of a well
balanced, and hence productive and highly scalable, computing
platforms for the DOE and the Nation and will serve the
missions of NNSA, the Office of Science and emerging economic
competitiveness initiatives. Within this responsibility, the
institute will develop and maintaining a long-range HPC roadmap
and create the strategy and guidelines for competitive
acquisition of supercomputer platforms for the DOE including
pre-competitive HPC R&D. These supercomputers protect national
security information and thus have demanding cyber security
requirements. The Department is expected to support research
and development efforts to ensure these systems are protected
from cyber attack. The Department of Energy has requested
$19,000,000 to be provided to the Department of Defense to
subsidize the creation of its own high performance computing
program. Since the Department of Energy plays such a minor role
in this effort, the Committee recommends no funding be provided
to the Department of Defense from either the Office of Science
or the NNSA and instead use the funds to revitalize the
Department's own R&D capability. The Committee is aware of
several competitive ideas for increased computing capacity from
several different technology providers. The Committee
encourages the NNSA to ensure the three laboratories have
sufficient computing capacity to support each of the laboratory
missions well into the future.
The Committee supports the administration's request to
provide $52,100,000 for the Roadrunner at Petaflop scale.
Pit Manufacturing.--The Committee recommends $256,316,000
to support the Pit Manufacturing mission, down $24,914,000. The
Committee does not endorse the consolidated plutonium center
and has not provided any funding for this activity. The NNSA,
Nuclear Weapons Council and the Defense Department have failed
to clearly articulate its vision for the stockpile and the
explain how it will utilize the proposed tools in the Complex
2030 plan to reduce the overall number of warheads as well as
individual weapons systems.
Readiness Campaign.--The Committee recommends $161,169,000,
as requested. The Committee understands that $12,400,000 in
uncosted obligations remain available from the completed
Tritium Extraction Facility (98D125000). The Committee has
rescinded these available funds for use in other priorities in
the weapons program. This still leaves sufficient funding for
closeout activities.
READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES
The Committee provides $1,659,248,000. This funding is used
to support the operations and maintenance of the NNSA
laboratories, productions facility, equipment purchases and
personnel.
Operations of Facilities.--The Committee recommends
$1,126,409,000 for this account. This funding level reflects a
reduction of $32,896,000. Within this amount the Committee
shifted $28,887,000 to the ICF Campaign in order to consolidate
funding for operations of the Z machine. The Committee also
recommends a reduction of $4,009,000 from the Institution Site
Support activities. This cut is expected to be spread equally
among all sites.
Program Readiness.--The Committee provides the requested
amount of $71,466,000.
Material Recycle and Recovery.--The Committee notes this
activity continues to have uncosted obligations. As such
funding has been reduced by $5,000,000 to $64,962,000.
Containers.--The Committee recommends $19,184,000.
Storage.--The Committee recommendation included
$25,133,000, a reduction of $10,000,000. According to the GAO,
this activity also contains uncosted balances.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $352,094,000, an
increase of $45,000,000. The Committee has provided this
funding increase to make key investments in laboratory
infrastructure and security needs.
Project 08-D-801, High Pressure Fire Loop, Pantex, Texas.--
The Committee recommends $7,000,000, the same as the request.
--08-D-802, High Explosives Pressing Facility, Pantex,
Texas.--The Committee recommends $25,300,000, the same
as the request.
--08-D-804, TA-55 Reinvestment Project, Los Alamos, New
Mexico.--The Committee recommends $6,000,000, the same
as the request.
--08-D-805, Classified Vaults, Los Alamos, New Mexico.--The
Committee recommends an additional $45,000,000 to
demonstrate proposed super vault type rooms at Los
Alamos to consolidate 142 existing vaults into 10
vaults. Consolidation of classified data will deploy
advanced security technology to defeat both internal
and external threats.
--07-D-140 Project Engineering and Design, Various
Locations.--The Committee recommends $2,500,000, the
same as the request.
--07-D-220 Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility
Upgrade Project, LANL, New Mexico.--The Committee
recommends $26,672,000, the same as the request.
--06-D-140 Project Engineering and Design, Various
Locations.--The recommendation for this activity is
$23,862,000, the same as the budget request.
--06-D-420 NTS Replace Fire Stations 1&2, Nevada Test Site,
Nevada.--The Committee recommends $6,719,000, the same
as the request.
--05-D-140, Project Engineering and Design, Various
Locations.--The Committee recommends $7,000,000, the
same as the request.
--04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement
Project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,
New Mexico.--The Committee recommends $95,586,000 for
the Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement
Project. The current authorization basis for the
existing CMR lasts only through 2010, as it does not
provide adequate worker safety or containment
precautions. However, deep spending cuts implemented by
the NNSA in the 2007 Spend Plan and a significant cut
to the 2008 budget request will likely result in delays
that will require the laboratory to continue operations
in the existing CMR facility. Any further reductions
below the $95,586,000 request, which is $65,000,000
below the proposed spend plan from the 2007 request,
would stop all work on the Nuclear Facility and long
lead equipment purchases and would result in the layoff
of key design personnel. Attempting to reconstitute a
new team at a later day would likely result in a new
round of delays and cost increases. The NNSA's
indecision regarding future facilities will also result
in added costs, delays and keep workers in unsafe
working conditions at least 2 years beyond the existing
2010 deadline. The Committee has not provided funding
to initiate work on the new multibillion consolidated
plutonium because the Defense Department has been
unable to articulate a coherent policy and pit
requirement for the stockpile.
--04-D-128 TA-18 Criticality Experiments Facility [CEF], Los
Alamos National Lab, Los Alamos, New Mexico.--The
Committee recommends $29,455,000, the same as the
request.
--01-D-124 HEU Materials Facility, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $77,000,000, the
same as the request.
Test Capabilities Revitalization Phase II.--The Committee
is very concerned about the lack of funding for the Test
Capabilities Revitalization Phase II located at Sandia National
Laboratory. The NNSA has previously indicated its desire to
upgrade this testing facility, but has failed to provide any
funding in the fiscal year 2008 budget request. The Committee
is concerned that this facility, which represents a single
point failure in the complex and cannot be operated for much
longer in this State. The Committee directs the Department to
provide a report to the Appropriations Committee identifying
the options for the recovery of this facility and the expected
cost and timetable.
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION
The Committee recommends $262,743,000 for Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization activities, a decrease of
$31,000,000. This program was developed to reduce the backlog
of deferred maintenance of aging infrastructure facilities
throughout the complex. The old facilities continue to be a
drain on resources and should be demolished or disposed of as
quickly as possible. The Committee recommends $200,023,000 to
support the FIRP program and $62,720,000 to support
construction activities as requested.
SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET
The Committee recommendation for the Secure Transportation
Asset program is $215,646,000 as requested. This organization
provides an invaluable service that is responsible for the safe
and secure transport of our nuclear weapons, weapons components
and special nuclear material.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE
The Committee recommends full funding for the nuclear
weapons incident response program. The Committee provides
$161,748,000 as requested.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT AND OPERATIONS
The Committee recommends $17,518,000 as requested for long
term stewardship responsibilities.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee recommendation for the Safeguards and
Security program is $893,057,000, an increase of $12,000,000.
The Committee is frustrated with the continued climb in funding
for this activity and the constantly increasing demands for
additional resources. Currently, the Department and
laboratories spend over $1 billion on physical security costs.
The ever increasing costs lies in the application of the Design
Basis Threat, which is linked to manpower needs. The Committee
continues to be concerned that the Department does not have a
realistic threat assessment in which to accurately assign risk
and allocate scarce resources. This view is based on the
continued escalation of security costs around the complex that
seem to have no ceiling. Therefore, the Committee recommends
the National Academy of Sciences analyze how the Design Basis
Threat is currently formulated along with the funding requests
to meet these requirements and then build a comprehensive
``probabilistic risk assessment'' tool for comparison purposes
and provide a report back to the Committee on Appropriations.
The Committee expects the NAS to perform this evaluation for
both the physical and cyber environments and to inform the
Committee if the Department has identified the proper balance
between the two activities.
Operations.--The Committee recommends $733,318,000, an
increase of $12,000,000 to be used to complete the cyber
security upgrades of the red network at Los Alamos. This
funding will provide the interconnectivity and hardening to
facilitate this complete transformation of the site and allow
the diskless classified workstation program to come rapidly to
full implementation. Operating costs for classified computing
and media will drop to provide annual savings that can continue
to support world-class cyber security.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $57,496,000, as
requested to support the following projects:
--08-D-701 Nuclear Materials S&S Upgrade Project Los Alamos
National Laboratory.--The Committee provides
$49,496,000 as requested.
--05-D-170 Project Engineering and Design, Various
Locations.--The Committee recommends $8,000,000 as
requested.
Cyber Security.--The Committee encourages this office to
redouble its efforts to increase the level of cyber protection
of national security data and help facilitate the deployment of
new technology and red networks throughout the complex in order
to better control classified data. Despite the constant and
evolving cyber threat, the Committee is surprised that the rate
of growth in cyber security has failed to keep pace with
physical security demands. The Committee hopes the National
Academy Study will shed some light on our best opportunity to
defeat this growing danger.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed
projects, within available funds. The Committee reminds
recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply
to these projects. The Committee provides $8,000,000 for North
Dakota State University (Fargo) to support computing capability
(Dorgan); $600,000 is provided to the Atomic Testing Museum in
Las Vegas, Nevada, for operations and maintenance (Reid);
$19,650,000 is provided to the Nevada Test Site for operations
and infrastructure improvements (Reid); $1,000,000 is provided
to Arrowhead Center at New Mexico State University to promote
prosperity and public welfare in New Mexico through economic
development (Domenici, Bingaman); $750,000 is provided to the
National Museum of Nuclear Science and History in Albuquerque,
New Mexico, for the museum site (Domenici); $3,500,000 is
provided to the University of Texas in Austin, Texas, to
complete the construction of the Petawatt Laser (Hutchison);
$3,500,000 is provided to the Sandia Institute for Advanced
Computing Algorithms, New Mexico, for high performance
computing and advanced algorithm development (Domenici);
$350,000 is provided to the University of Nevada-Las Vegas for
in-situ nanomechanics (Reid).
Unused Carryover Balances.--The Government Accountability
Office has conducted a review of the NNSA budget and found that
$67,000,000 in unobligated carryover balances are available for
reuse. The Committee has shifted these funds to support vital
activities with the weapons accounts.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $1,818,339,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 1,672,646,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,872,646,000
NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee recommends $322,252,000 for Nonproliferation
and Verification Research and Development activities, an
increase of $57,000,000. The Committee is disappointed that the
Department of Energy has reduced the funding for this activity
over the past 2 years, despite out year budget estimates that
show additional needs. The Committee recognizes this program
provides a critical tool to prevent against technical surprise
from other nations. The Committee recognizes it is the
capabilities developed by this program that enable the Federal
Government to monitor, detect and verify clandestine efforts by
other countries to hide or disguise their nuclear capability.
This program also plays a critical role in the development of
technologies that secure civilian nuclear technology and to
provide international monitoring of enrichment, reprocessing
and reactor operations. The Committee also believes innovations
in detection equipment can provide port and rail cargo better
screening facilities and provide the NNSA with greater
capability to screen more cargo in a timely fashion, including
the deployment of mobile portal detection systems. Of the
funding provided, $17,000,000 is for Project 06-D-180, National
Security Laboratory at the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory. In providing this funding the Committee accelerates
half of the NNSA's fiscal year 2009 funding share for this
facility. Acceleration of completion of this facility is driven
by the Department of Energy's environmental cleanup of the
Hanford 300 Area. The NNSA is urged to meet its commitments to
this replacement facility and continue to work closely with the
Office of Science and the Department of Homeland Security.
NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
For Nonproliferation and International Security, the
Committee recommends $210,870,000, an increase of $86,000,000.
These activities provide critical oversight capabilities to
ensure compliance with international treaties and agreements to
reduce and eliminate nuclear material that poses a
proliferation threat. Within available funds, the Committee
recommends $1,500,000 to New England Research in White River
Junction, Vermont, for the Caucasus Seismic Network (Leahy).
International Fuel Bank.--The Committee recommends an
additional $50,000,000 to provide the U.S. contribution toward
the establishment of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank under
the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency, [IAEA].
The fuel bank would accept contributions from many nations and
private contributors to operate a civilian nuclear fuel reserve
for countries that agree to forgo the development of a domestic
enrichment capability. This international reserve will protect
countries from potential economic and political disruptions in
the nuclear fuel supply. Before the U.S. contribution is made
to establish this international reserve, the Department will
negotiate the terms and conditions for participation and use of
the fuel bank and certify to Congress that the conditions are
acceptable. Sixty days following the congressional
notification, and assuming no legislative action is taken to
prevent the Department from proceeding, the Department is
directed to make the appropriated contribution.
Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention.--The
Committee recommends $28,000,000 for the Global Initiatives for
Proliferation and Prevention. This is an increase of $8,000,000
to support international science collaboration. The Committee
believes that the efforts to engage both Iraqi and Libyan
scientific institutions are unlikely to bear significant
results and the Committee authorizes the NNSA to use these
funds and others to develop stronger research ties with China.
Global Regimes.--The Committee recommends $10,126,000 for
the Global Regimes program, an increase of $8,000,000. This
additional funding shall be used by the Department to conduct
an international ministerial-level conference on nuclear
nonproliferation goals and objectives. The Committee encourages
the administration to press for new multilateral options to
address the spread of fissile material, equipment and
technology, particularly with respect to international supplier
rules, strengthened IAEA safeguards and physical protection
requirements, bilateral and multilateral cooperation to support
implementation UNSCAR 1540 and the Global Initiative to Combat
Nuclear Terrorism, and multilateral cooperative agreements on
civilian nuclear technology.
INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION
The Committee recommends $391,771,000, an increase of
$20,000,000. The fiscal year 2007 global war on terror
supplemental enacted on May 25, 2007 provided additional
funding to support efforts to secure special nuclear material.
The Committee will closely follow the Department's efforts as
it works off the amount of un-obligated balances as a result of
the supplemental appropriation.
ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION
The Committee recommends $152,593,000, a decrease of
$29,000,000. This nominal reduction is enabled by the fact that
the Department has succeeded in raising this amount of funding
from other countries such as United Kingdom, Canada,
Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Republic of Finland and New
Zealand. The Committee provided the Department with the
statutory authority in 2005 to apply international
contributions to the program and continues to encourage the
Department to find offsetting contributions that allows the
Department to provide funding to other priorities.
FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION
The Committee recommends $609,534,000 as requested to
support the Fissile Materials Disposition program. The
Committee provides full funding to the Plutonium Disposition
Program and expects the Department to proceed expeditiously
with construction of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
a Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility. The Committee would
note that the Department has also completed certification of
the surplus pit shipping containers and are beginning to
fabricate them. During the delay in the start of construction
due to the 2007 joint resolution, the Department has undertaken
a thorough review of all the options available in disposing of
excess weapons-grade plutonium. Despite the increasing projects
costs associated with the MOX facility, the Department has
found the MOX path still offers the lowest cost and quickest
path to disposal. The Committee expects the Department to focus
on delivering this project at cost and on time.
Russian Program.--The Committee continues to wait for an
final agreement with the Russian Government as to terms and
conditions Russian intends to fulfill the Plutonium Management
and Disposition Agreements and dispose of 34 tons of excess
Russian plutonium. The Committee is frustrated with the delay.
The Committee is aware of the fact that more than $250,000,000
has been appropriated earmarked for Russia if they commit to a
disposition pathway. The Committee directs the Department to
rescind $57,000,000 in previously appropriated funds for the
Russian program and apply it to the construction activities of
the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility. This will increase that
account from $333,849,000 to $390,849,000 for construction of
the MOX facility on the currently validated baseline and
schedule. The Committee is not backing away from the United
States obligation to provide assistance to this program and
will support future budget requests for the Russian program
once the Russian Government commits to a specific disposal
pathway that includes a cost-sharing arrangement and on a
timetable consistent with the United States effort. Further,
the plutonium discharged from the portion of the reactors used
weapons plutonium must be less than the weapons plutonium
loaded into these reactors, and any material eventually
reprocessed from these operations should be mixed in such a way
that any plutonium recovered is not weapons-grade. The
Committee emphasizes the importance of reaching agreement with
Russia quickly on a monitoring regime, so that disposition in
those facilities that already exist can begin; it should not be
difficult to reach agreement on measures that will confirm that
weapon-grade plutonium is being dispositioned. The Committee is
disappointed that the Department does not yet appear to have
focused on (a) the measures needed to ensure that high levels
of security are maintained throughout the disposition process
in Russia, and (b) working with Russia to ensure that the
disposition pathway chosen is expandable to handle much larger
quantities of plutonium, should the two sides agree to
disposition of much larger quantities (which the Committee
believes would significantly enhance the national security
value of this effort). In both cases, the needed measures will
be more effective and less expensive if designed in from the
outset. The Committee's future support for the Russian effort
will be affected by the progress made in these two areas.
GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE
The Committee provides $185,626,000 for the Global Threat
Reduction Initiative, an increase of $66,000,000 over the
request. The program serves the important role of securing and
reducing vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials located
at civilian sites around the world. The program is central to
our efforts to prevent the use of such materials in weapons of
mass destruction and acts of terrorism.
Naval Reactors
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $781,800,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 808,219,000
Committee recommendation................................ 808,219,000
Through the Naval Reactors program, the National Nuclear
Security Administration is working to provide the U.S. Navy
with nuclear propulsion plants that are capable of responding
to the challenges of 21st century security concerns. The
Committee recommends $808,219,000 for the Naval Reactors
program.
Office of the Administrator
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $340,291,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 394,656,000
Committee recommendation................................ 394,656,000
The Committee recommends $394,656,000 for the Office of the
Administrator, the same as the President's request.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $5,731,839,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 5,363,905,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,690,380,000
For Defense Environmental Cleanup, the Committee provides
$5,690,380,000, an increase of $326,475,000 above the
President's request. This total includes $10,000,000 for
Hazardous Waste Worker Training. The Committee recognizes the
program's focus on project management and encourages the
program to continue its disciplined approach to managing its
projects under the Department's Project Management Order (DOE
Order 413). Using this process, 73 percent (in terms of dollar
value) of all near-term project baselines have been validated,
and 96 percent of those baselines are operating within an
acceptable performance range (plus or minus 10 percent).
However, the program is only requesting sufficient funding to
provide a 50 percent confidence that the objectives (cost,
scope, and schedule) of its projects will remain unchanged. The
Department's effort to complete clean up in the future will be
challenged by the failure to request sufficient funding. More
importantly, it is not enough to simply fund projects that have
the greatest perceived reduction to public risk; the Department
committed to the public that it would meet regulatory
agreements too. The Committee expects future funding requests
to include sufficient funding to meet that commitment.
Recently, the Office of Envirenmental Management's
Leadership determined that a number of activities that were
directed by the Congress in the past have merit, benefiting the
cleanup program as well as the taxpayer. Activities such as the
historic preservation activities related to the Manhattan
Project sites, the Self-Reliance Foundation/Hispanic
Communications Network, the Diagnostic Instrumentation and
Analysis Laboratory, and the Western Environmental Technology
Office have now been incorporated into the fabric of the EM
Cleanup program. The Committee recognizes that this
determination came too late to be included in the fiscal year
2008 request, but will be supported within available funds. The
Committee expects these meritorious activities to be supported
in fiscal year 2009 and future budgets.
Control Levels.--In fiscal year 2006, the Environmental
Management Program's budget was restructured to better display
site information, which paralleled its management of the
program. However, Congress increased the number of
congressional reprogramming control points from approximately
25 line items in fiscal year 2005 to nearly 100 in fiscal year
2006. This Committee understands and continues to support the
need for site managers to have the flexibility to meet the
changing requirements at the sites and recommends the following
reprogramming control points for fiscal year 2008:
--Closure sites;
--Savannah River site, 2012 completion projects;
--Savannah River site, 2035 completion projects;
--Savannah River site, tank farm operations projects;
--Waste Isolation Pilot Plant;
--Idaho National Laboratory;
--Oak Ridge Reservation;
--Hanford site; 2012 completion projects;
--Hanford site; 2035 completion projects;
--Office of River Protection, tank farm operations projects;
--Office of River Protection, Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant;
--Program Direction;
--Program Support;
--Technology Development and Deployment;
--All construction line items;
--NNSA sites;
--Safeguards and Security.
Internal Reprogramming Authority.--In fiscal year 2008,
Environmental Management may transfer up to $5,000,000, one
time, between accounts listed below to reduce health and safety
risks, gain cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a
program or project is not increased or decreased by more than
$5,000,000 in total during the fiscal year. This reprogramming
authority may not be used to initiate new programs or to change
funding levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or
increased by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within
30 days after the use of this internal reprogramming authority.
The following is a list of account control points for
internal reprogramming purposes:
--Savannah River site, 2012 completion projects;
--Savannah River site, 2035 completion projects;
--Savannah River site, tank farm operations projects;
--Hanford site; 2012 completion projects;
--Hanford site; 2035 completion projects;
--Transfers between construction line item(s) and operating
projects within the same site, as applicable.
Closure Sites.--The Committee includes $55,937,000, an
increase of $13,500,000 above the request, to assure disposal
of the Fernald Byproducts Waste. Miamisburg receives
$30,308,000, Consolidated Business Center receives $11,834,000,
and Ashtabula receives $295,000, all as requested.
Hanford Site.--The Committee includes $950,376,000, a total
of $73,296,000 above the budget request. The Committee
recommendation includes an increase of $23,000,000 for solid
waste activities, $19,400,000 for soil remediation in the
Central Plateau (U Plant & BC Cribs), Plutonium-Uranium
Extraction Facility remedial investigation/feasibility study to
meet Tri-Party Agreement milestones, $23,000,000 for the River
Corridor Closure project to meet near-term milestones and
continue the deactivation of critical facilities to meet mid-
term compliance milestones, and the transfer and combination of
$471,000 from the Office of River Protection to the Hanford
Office for Community and Regulatory Support. The Committee also
recognizes that the program has determined the Hazardous
Materials Management and Emergency Response [HAMMER] facility
has merit to the needs of the cleanup program and is included
in the Hanford budget. The program should separately provide
funding for this activity in its fiscal year 2009 request.
Office of River Protection.--The Committee is frustrated
that the Department of Energy continues to request inadequate
funds for Tank Farm Activities. The safe operation of the tank
farms, retrieval of waste and the closure of the tank farms is
an increasingly important activity as the underground storage
tanks are past their planned life expectancy. Additionally, DOE
has selected a supplemental treatment technology as part of its
overall treatment plan for low-activity waste but has requested
no funds for the demonstration project for the past 2 years.
The delay of the Waste Treatment Plant highlights the need to
test, evaluate, and ultimately deploy alternatives for
treatment of liquid tank waste instead of relying solely on one
solution. To support a robust program the Committee provides an
additional $53,000,000 for the Tank Farm Activities. Funding at
this level will keep an experienced, well-trained workforce on
the job, achieving real cleanup results. The Committee also
transfers $471,000 from the Office of River Protection to the
Hanford Office to consolidate the Community and Regulatory
Support function in one place. The total for the Tank Farm
Activities is $325,972,000. The Committee includes $690,000,000
for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant [WTP],
bringing the site total to $1,015,972,000. A significant factor
in establishing an annual funding level of $690,000,000 for
this project was to moderate the Federal budget impact of
significant year-to-year swings in actual construction costs by
allowing for carryover of excess funds in years with lower
costs to years where costs rise above the appropriation.
Continued support for this funding level will provide both
solutions to identified problems with the project as well as
ramp up in construction.
Idaho Cleanup Project.--The Committee recommends
$532,926,000, an increase of $28,900,000. The increase supports
shipping legacy mixed low-level waste offsite for disposal at
the Nevada Test Site; plant and equipment upgrades that will
permit Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Plant to operate at
capacity to meet Settlement Agreement milestones; and
completion of the remote handled-transuranic waste shipments to
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant by the end of fiscal year 2008
to meet its operational requirements (to emplace remote-handled
waste prior to emplacing contact-handled waste in disposal
rooms).
NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommendation is $361,663,000,
a total of $90,533,000 above the request. The Committee
recommends $222,000,000 for cleanup at Los Alamos National
Laboratory, $82,533,000 above the request, of which $5,000,000
is to support environmental impact studies and environmental
remediation to support land transfer activities from the Los
Alamos National Laboratory to Los Alamos County. The increase
is necessary to prevent the site from missing agreed upon
cleanup milestones in fiscal year 2008, and will also enable
the laboratory to undertake the necessary predatory work
necessary to remain on schedule for fiscal year 2009. The
Committee also provides $8,000,000 above the request of
$81,106,000 for characterization and certification of remaining
transuranic waste stored at Nevada for disposal at the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant. The Committees also includes $8,680,000
for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, $1,511,000 for the
NNSA Service Center, $27,585,000 for the Separations Process
Research Unit, $12,411,000 for Pantex, and $370,000 for
California Site Support, all as requested.
Oak Ridge Reservation.--The recommendation is $179,284,000,
the same as the budget request.
Savannah River Site.--The Committee includes
$1,200,090,000. Within the recommendation, the Committee
provides $311,811,000 for the nuclear materials stabilization
and disposition activity, the same as the budget request.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [WIPP].--The recommendation is
$250,739,000, an increase of $31,000,000 above the requested
amount. The increase provides for equipment to maintain
operational reliability, assurance of transuranic waste
receipts at an average rate of 21 contact- and 5 remote-handled
shipments per week, procurement of TRUPACT III shipping casks
for large containers, and finally, monitoring and plugging of
wells. The remaining funds are for Carlsbad educational
support, infrastructure improvements resulting from of
operations at WIPP and for construction of the WIPP digital
records center, activities the Program found meritorious enough
to support in fiscal year 2007.
Program Direction.--The Committee includes $309,760,000,
consistent with the requested amount.
Program Support.--The Committee includes $41,946,000.
Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommends
$273,581,000, an increase of $200,000, which is for WIPP.
Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee
provides $55,106,000, which provides for additional research
and development for High Level Waste retrieval, pretreatment
and immobilization, and decontamination and decommissioning
activities designed to reduce long-term costs.
The Committee recommendation includes the following
congressionally directed projects, within available funds. The
Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing
requirements may apply to these projects. $3,000,000 is
provided to the University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, for continued expansion of the
James E. Rogers and Louis Weiner Jr. Large-Scale Structures
Laboratory (Reid); $3,475,000 is provided to the University of
Nevada, Reno, Center for Materials Reliability (Reid);
$1,500,000 is provided to Cellular Bioengineering, Inc.,
Honolulu, Hawaii, to continue development of polymeric
hydrogels for radiation decontamination (Inouye); $1,500,000 is
provided to Cerematec Incorporated in Salt Lake City, Utah, for
Remediation of Low-Level Nuclear Waste Utilizing Ceramic Ionic
Transport Membranes (Bennett, Hatch); $1,000,000 is provided to
Savannah River National Lab in South Carolina for Integrated
Collaborative Prototyping Environment (Graham).
Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination
and Decommissioning Fund.--The recommendation is $463,000,000,
the same as the request.
Other Defense Activities
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $636,271,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 763,974,000
Committee recommendation................................ 765,464,000
The Committee recommends $765,464,000 for Other Defense
Activities.
HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY
The Committee recommends $429,348,000, including
$100,043,000 for Program Direction. The Committee does not
recommend a reduction of $990,000 of prior-year balances, as
these funds were not received by the program due to the year
long continuing resolution in fiscal year 2007.
The Office of Health, Safety and Security is the
Department's central organization responsible for health,
safety, environment, and security; providing corporate-level
leadership and strategic vision to coordinate and integrate
these programs. This Office provides the Department with
effective and consistent policy, assistance, enforcement, and
independent oversight activities. The integrated approach and
functional alignment of responsibility alleviates overlap in
reporting and provides consistency in policy and guidance while
increasing the effectiveness of communication and
accountability for worker health, safety and security.
The Committee directs the Office of Health, Safety and
Security to allocate $16,500,000 from within available funds
for the former worker medical screening programs. The Office of
Health, Safety and Security is directed to initiate an early
lung cancer screening program using helical low dose CT
scanning for former workers at Fernald facility in Harrison,
Ohio, and the Mound facility in Miamisburg, Ohio, who are at
elevated risk of lung cancer. Additionally, the Office of
Health, Safety and Security is to extend early lung cancer
screening at the three gaseous diffusion plants in Portsmouth,
Ohio, Paducah, Kentucky, and Oak Ridge (K-25), Tennessee, for
those who have not previously been screened but are now
eligible according to established eligibility protocols. Given
that lung cancer screening program carried out at the three
gaseous diffusion plants since 2000 has identified the majority
of lung cancers at early stages where surgical intervention has
been demonstrated to be successful, and studies indicate this
has led to an increase in survival rates, it is appropriate to
extend lung screening to at-risk workers at the Fernald and
Mound facilities.
LEGACY MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommends $159,063,000, the same as the
request. This funding is in addition to $35,401,000
appropriated under the Energy Supply and Conservation
appropriation of the Department. Funds are used to monitor
closed cleanup sites and manage DOE property as well as manage
the pension and benefit responsibilities of former DOE
contractors employed by the closed sites.
Congressionally Directed Projects.--The Committee
recommendation includes the following congressionally directed
projects, within available funds. The Committee reminds
recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply
to these projects. $500,000 is provided to the Rocky Flats Cold
War Museum in Colorado to recognize the work that went on at
Rocky Flats and those who contributed to the history (Allard).
FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES AT IDAHO
The recommendation is $75,949,000, the same as the request.
This provides for Safeguards and Security of the entire Idaho
National Laboratory, protecting both the Nuclear Energy and
Environmental Management cleanup employees.
DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
For Defense Related Administrative Support, the Committee
recommends $99,000,000, the same as the request. These funds
provide for departmental services which support the National
Nuclear Security Administration. The Secretary, Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretaries, and General Counsel are among the
offices receiving funds.
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
The Committee provides $4,607,000 for the Office of
Hearings and Appeals, the same as the President's request. The
Office of Hearings and Appeals conducts hearings to issue
decisions of the Department for any adjudicative proceedings
that the Secretary may delegate.
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $346,500,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 292,046,000
Committee recommendation................................ 242,046,000
The Committee recommendation for the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management is $242,046,000. This total is
$50,000,000 below the request.
Power Marketing Administrations
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin.
Bonneville markets the power from Federal hydropower projects
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-Federal generating
facilities in the region. Bonneville also exchanges and markets
surplus power with Canada and California. The Committee
recommends no new borrowing authority for BPA during fiscal
year 2008.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $5,602,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 6,463,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,463,000
For the Southeastern Power Administration, the Committee
recommends $6,463,000 the same as the budget request. The
Committee provides $62,215,000 for purchase power and wheeling.
The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric
power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 11
Southeastern States. Southeastern does not own or operate any
transmission facilities and carries out its marketing program
by utilizing the existing transmission systems of the power
utilities in the area. This is accomplished through
transmission arrangements between Southeastern and each of the
area utilities with transmission lines connected to the
projects. The utility agrees to deliver specified amounts of
Federal power to customers of the Government, and Southeastern
agrees to compensate the utility for the wheeling service
performed.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $29,998,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 30,442,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,442,000
For the Southwestern Power Administration, the Committee
recommends $30,442,000 the same as the budget request. The
Committee provides $45,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling.
The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing
agent for the power generated at the Corps of Engineers'
hydroelectric plants in the six State area of Kansas, Oklahoma,
Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana, with a total
installed capacity of 2,158 megawatts. It operates and
maintains some 1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating
projects, and 24 substations, and sells its power at wholesale,
primarily to publicly and cooperatively-owned electric
distribution utilities.
CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WESTERN AREA
POWER ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $232,326,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 201,030,000
Committee recommendation................................ 231,030,000
The Western Power Administration is responsible for
marketing the electric power generated by the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the International
Boundary and Water Commission. Western also operates and
maintains a system of transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles
long, providing electricity to 15 Central and Western States
over a service area of 1.3 million square miles.
The Committee notes that Western Area Power Administration
funding for Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and
Maintenance is significantly reduced from prior levels. The
budget proposes to offset this reduction by a far greater
reliance on use of alternative financing. While direct customer
financing is well established there are limits on the
availability of this alternative financing mechanism. The
Committee is concerned that continued reductions in Western's
construction program could impair the reliability of the
transmission systems.
The Committee recommends $231,030,000 for the Western Area
Power Administration. The total program level for Western in
fiscal year 2008 is $755,911,000 which includes $62,915,000 for
construction and rehabilitation, $53,271,000 for system power
operation and maintenance, $475,254,000 for purchase power and
wheeling, and $157,304,000 for program direction. The Committee
recommendation includes $7,167,000 for the Utah Mitigation and
Conservation Fund.
Offsetting collections total $312,639,000; with the use of
$3,937,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River
Dam Fund (as authorized in Public Law 98-381), this requires a
net appropriation of $231,030,000.
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $2,665,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 2,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,500,000
The Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam on the Rio Grande River
generate power through hydroelectric facilities and sell this
power to public utilities through the Western Power
Administration. This fund, created in the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, defrays the
costs of operation, maintenance, and emergency activities and
is administered by the Western Area Power Administration. For
the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund, the
Committee recommends $2,500,000 the same as the request.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $221,902,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 255,425,000
Committee recommendation................................ 255,425,000
REVENUES APPLIED
Appropriations, 2007.................................... -$221,902,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... -255,425,000
Committee recommendation................................ -255,425,000
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee recommendation
Committee compared to--
Revised enacted Budget estimate recommendation ---------------------------------
Revised enacted Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
Hydrogen Technology................................................ 193,551 213,000 228,000 +34,449 +15,000
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D................................ 199,687 179,263 244,000 +44,313 +64,737
Solar energy....................................................... 159,372 148,304 180,000 +20,628 +31,696
Wind energy........................................................ 49,319 40,069 57,500 +8,181 +17,431
Geothermal technology.............................................. 5,000 ............... 25,000 +20,000 +25,000
Hydropower......................................................... ............... ............... 2,000 +2,000 +2,000
Ocean Tech......................................................... ............... ............... 8,000 +8,000 +8,000
Vehicle technologies............................................... 188,024 176,138 230,000 +41,976 +53,862
Building technologies.............................................. 104,329 86,456 137,000 +32,671 +50,544
Industrial technologies............................................ 56,563 45,998 57,000 +437 +11,002
Federal Energy Management Program:
Departmental energy management program......................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Federal energy management program.............................. 19,480 16,791 23,000 +3,520 +6,209
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Federal Energy Management Program.................. 19,480 16,791 23,000 +3,520 +6,209
Facilities and infrastructure:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).................... 24,035 6,982 6,982 -17,053 ...............
Research Support Buildings..................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
NREL Solar equipment recapitalization.......................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
NREL South-table Mountain infrastructure....................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
NREL energy systems integration facility....................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Strategic investment facilities................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Construction:
07-EE-01 Integrated biorefinery research facility, NREL, 20,000 ............... ............... -20,000 ...............
Golden, CO................................................
06-EE-01 Research support facility Project-1 NREL, Golden, 63,000 ............... ............... -63,000 ...............
CO........................................................
02-E-001 Science and technology facility, NREL............. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Construction...................................... 83,000 ............... ............... -83,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Facilities and infrastructure..................... 107,035 6,982 6,982 -100,053 ...............
Program Support.................................................... 10,930 13,281 13,481 +2,551 +200
Program Direction.................................................. 99,264 105,013 105,013 +5,749 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation RDD&D........ 1,192,554 1,031,295 1,316,976 +124,422 +285,681
Federal energy assistance:
Weatherization assistance...................................... 200,000 139,450 236,000 +36,000 +96,550
Training and technical assistance.............................. 4,550 4,550 4,550 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weatherization..................................... 204,550 144,000 240,550 +36,000 +96,550
Other:
State energy program........................................... 49,457 45,501 55,000 +5,543 +9,499
State energy activities........................................ 9,348 ............... ............... -9,348 ...............
Gateway deployment............................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
International renewable energy program......................... 9,473 ............... ............... -9,473 ...............
Tribal energy activities....................................... 3,957 2,957 7,000 +3,043 +4,043
Renewable energy production incentive.......................... 4,946 4,946 5,000 +54 +54
Asia pacific................................................... ............... 7,500 ............... ............... -7,500
Congressionally directed technology deployments................ ............... ............... 91,025 +91,025 +91,025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Other.............................................. 77,181 60,904 158,025 +80,844 +97,121
Total, Federal energy assistance............................. 281,731 204,904 398,575 +116,844 +193,671
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY................. 1,474,285 1,236,199 1,715,551 +241,266 +479,352
====================================================================================
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY
High temperature superconductivity R&D............................. 47,000 28,186 40,242 -6,758 +12,056
Transmission reliability R&D....................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Electricity distribution transformation R&D........................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Energy storage R&D................................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Gridwise........................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Gridworks.......................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Visiualization and controls........................................ 25,054 25,305 25,305 +251 ...............
Energy storage and power electonics................................ 2,900 6,803 21,803 +18,903 +15,000
Distributed systems integration.................................... 24,189 25,700 30,700 +6,511 +5,000
Congressionally directed technology deployments.................... ............... ............... 13,500 +13,500 +13,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, Research and development.............................. 99,143 85,994 131,550 +32,407 +45,556
Electricity restructuring.......................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Operations and analysis............................................ 20,500 11,556 19,500 -1,000 +7,944
Program direction.................................................. 17,357 17,387 17,387 +30 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY........... 137,000 114,937 168,437 +31,437 +53,500
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Research and development:
University reactor infrastructure and education assist......... 16,547 ............... 15,000 -1,547 +15,000
Nuclear power 2010............................................. 80,291 114,000 135,000 +54,709 +21,000
Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative................ 35,586 36,145 55,000 +19,414 +18,855
Nuclear hydrogen initiative.................................... 19,265 22,600 22,600 +3,335 ...............
Advanced fuel cycle initiative................................. 167,484 395,000 243,000 +75,516 -152,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Research and development.............................. 319,173 567,745 470,600 +151,427 -97,145
Infrastructure:
Radiological facilities management:
Space and defense infrastructure........................... 30,650 35,110 35,110 +4,460 ...............
Medical isotopes infrastructure............................ 15,634 14,964 14,964 -670 ...............
Enrichment facility and uranium management................. 491 ............... ............... -491 ...............
Research reactor infrastructure............................ ............... 2,947 2,947 +2,947 ...............
Oak Ridge nuclear infrastructure........................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Radiological facilities management............. 46,775 53,021 53,021 +6,246 ...............
Idaho facilities management:
INL Operations and infrastructure.......................... 107,693 104,713 120,713 +13,020 +16,000
INL infrastructure:
Construction:
06-E-200 Project engineering and design (PED), INL, 6,030 ............... ............... -6,030 ...............
ID................................................
06-E-201 Gas test loop in the ATR, INL, ID......... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Idaho facilities management............ 113,723 104,713 120,713 +6,990 +16,000
Idaho sitewide safeguards and security......................... 75,919 ............... 75,949 +30 +75,949
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Infrastructure........................................ 236,417 157,734 249,683 +13,266 +91,949
Program direction.................................................. 62,600 76,224 76,224 +13,624 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear Energy..................................... 618,190 801,703 795,507 +177,317 -6,196
====================================================================================
Funding from other defense activities.............................. -122,634 ............... -75,949 +46,685 -75,949
Funding from Naval Reactors........................................ -13,365 ............... ............... +13,365 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY........................................ 482,191 801,703 719,558 +237,367 -82,145
====================================================================================
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH
Office of Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense)............. 7,848 ............... ............... -7,848 ...............
Program direction.................................................. 19,993 ............... ............... -19,993 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH........................ 27,841 ............... ............... -27,841 ...............
OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT
Legacy management.................................................. 33,187 35,104 35,104 +1,917 ...............
====================================================================================
TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION........................ 2,154,504 2,187,943 2,639,650 +485,146 +451,707
====================================================================================
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2005................. 257,000 ............... ............... -257,000 ...............
Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2007................. -257,000 ............... ............... +257,000 ...............
Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2008................. ............... 257,000 257,000 +257,000 ...............
Rescission, uncommitted balances................................... ............... -149,000 -149,000 -149,000 ...............
Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D (CCPI)............................... ............... -58,000 -73,000 -73,000 -15,000
Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D (FutureGen).......................... ............... -108,000 -88,000 -88,000 +20,000
Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D(Fuels & Power Systems)............... ............... ............... -5,000 -5,000 -5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Clean Coal Technology................................. ............... -58,000 -58,000 -58,000 ...............
FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Clean coal power initiative........................................ 60,433 73,000 88,000 +27,567 +15,000
FutureGen.......................................................... 54,000 108,000 88,000 +34,000 -20,000
Fuels and Power Systems:
Innovations for existing plants................................ 16,015 ............... 34,000 +17,985 +34,000
Advanced integrated gasification combined cycle................ 56,952 50,000 55,000 -1,952 +5,000
Advanced turbines.............................................. 20,000 22,000 25,000 +5,000 +3,000
Carbon sequestration........................................... 100,000 79,077 132,000 +32,000 +52,923
Fuels.......................................................... 22,127 10,000 30,000 +7,873 +20,000
Fuel cells..................................................... 63,352 62,025 65,025 +1,673 +3,000
Advanced research.............................................. 32,868 22,500 33,000 +132 +10,500
U.S./China Energy and environmental center..................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fuels and power systems............................ 311,314 245,602 374,025 +62,711 +128,423
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Coal............................................... 425,747 426,602 550,025 +124,278 +123,423
Natural Gas Technologies........................................... 12,000 ............... 20,000 +8,000 +20,000
Petroleum-Oil Technologies......................................... 2,700 ............... 10,000 +7,300 +10,000
Program direction.................................................. 129,803 129,973 149,962 +20,159 +19,989
Plant and Capital Equipment........................................ 12,000 ............... 13,000 +1,000 +13,000
Fossil energy environmental restoration............................ 9,715 9,570 16,570 +6,855 +7,000
Import/export authorization........................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Advanced metallurgical research.................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Special recruitment programs....................................... 656 656 656 ............... ...............
Cooperative research and development............................... ............... ............... 8,000 +8,000 +8,000
Congressionally directed technology deployments.................... ............... ............... 39,900 +39,900 +39,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT................ 592,621 566,801 808,113 +215,492 +241,312
====================================================================================
NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES............................. 21,316 17,301 21,301 -15 +4,000
ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUNDS....................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE........................................ 164,441 331,609 163,472 -969 -168,137
NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE................................. 5,000 5,325 12,825 +7,825 +7,500
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION.................................. 90,653 105,095 105,095 +14,442 ...............
NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
West Valley Demonstration Project.................................. 78,591 54,395 78,895 +304 +24,500
Gaseous Diffusion Plants........................................... 66,860 38,120 38,120 -28,740 ...............
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion, 02-U-101................. 52,179 ............... ............... -52,179 ...............
Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA)............................... 34,843 10,342 10,342 -24,501 ...............
Small Sites........................................................ 117,214 78,080 78,080 -39,134 ...............
Legacy management.................................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Use of Prior year balances......................................... ............... ............... -10,000 -10,000 -10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP..................... 349,687 180,937 195,437 -154,250 +14,500
====================================================================================
URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND
Decontamination and decommissioning................................ 536,806 553,509 573,509 +36,703 +20,000
Uranium/thorium reimbursement...................................... 19,800 20,000 ............... -19,800 -20,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT D&D FUND........................ 556,606 573,509 573,509 +16,903 ...............
Uranium sales and barter (scorekeeping adjustment)................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, UED&D FUND/URANIUM INVENTORY CLEANUP.................. 556,606 573,509 573,509 +16,903 ...............
SCIENCE
High energy physics:
Proton accelerator-based physics............................... 374,733 389,672 389,672 +14,939 ...............
Electron accelerator-based physics............................. 104,127 79,763 79,763 -24,364 ...............
Non-accelerator physics........................................ 59,865 72,430 79,430 +19,565 +7,000
Theoretical physics............................................ 56,407 56,909 56,909 +502 ...............
Advanced technology R&D........................................ 156,654 183,464 183,464 +26,810 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, High energy physics................................... 751,786 782,238 789,238 +37,452 +7,000
Nuclear physics.................................................... 410,646 453,619 453,619 +42,973 ...............
Construction:
07-SC-02 Electron beam ion source Brookhaven National 5,000 4,200 4,200 -800 ...............
Laboratory, NY............................................
06-SC-01 Project engineering and design (PED) 12 GeV 7,000 13,500 13,500 +6,500 ...............
continuous electron beam accelerator facility upgrade,
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator facility (was
project 07-SC-001), Newport News, VA......................
06-SC-02 Project engineering and design (PED), Electron 120 ............... ............... -120 ...............
beam ion source, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Nuclear physics................................. 422,766 471,319 471,319 +48,553 ...............
Biological and environmental research:
Biological research............................................ 349,097 393,773 467,196 +118,099 +73,423
Climate change research........................................ 134,398 138,124 138,124 +3,726 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Biological and environmental research................. 483,495 531,897 605,320 +121,825 +73,423
Basic energy sciences:
Research:
Materials sciences and engineering research................ 898,481 1,093,219 1,106,979 +208,498 +13,760
Chemical sciences, geosciences and energy biosciences...... 226,740 283,956 283,956 +57,216 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Research....................................... 1,125,221 1,377,175 1,390,935 +265,714 +13,760
Construction:
08-SC-01 Advanced light source (ALS) user support building, ............... 17,200 17,200 +17,200 ...............
LBNL, CA..................................................
08-SC-10 Project engineering and design (PED) Photon ............... 950 950 +950 ...............
ultrafast laser science and engineering (PULSE) building
renovation, SLAC, CA......................................
08-SC-11 Photon ultrafast laser science and engineering ............... 6,450 6,450 +6,450 ...............
(PULSE) building renovation, SLAC, CA.....................
07-SC-06 Project engineering and design (PED) National 3,000 45,000 45,000 +42,000 ...............
Synchrotron light source II (NSLS-II).....................
07-SC-12 Project engineering and design (PED) Advanced 1,500 ............... ............... -1,500 ...............
light source user building, LBNL..........................
05-R-320 LINAC coherent light source (LCLS)................ 101,000 51,356 51,356 -49,644 ...............
05-R-321 Center for functional nanomaterials (BNL)......... 18,864 366 366 -18,498 ...............
04-R-313 The molecular foundry (LBNL)...................... 257 ............... ............... -257 ...............
03-SC-002 Project engineering & design (PED) SLAC.......... 161 ............... ............... -161 ...............
03-R-313 Center for Integrated Nanotechnology.............. 247 ............... ............... -247 ...............
99-E-334 Spallation neutron source (ORNL).................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................................... 125,029 121,322 121,322 -3,707 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Basic energy sciences............................. 1,250,250 1,498,497 1,512,257 +262,007 +13,760
Advanced scientific computing research............................. 283,415 340,198 334,898 +51,483 -5,300
Fusion energy sciences program..................................... 318,950 427,850 427,850 +108,900 ...............
Science laboratories infrastructure:
Laboratories facilities support:
Infrastructure support..................................... 1,520 1,520 1,520 ............... ...............
General plant projects..................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Construction:
07-SC-05 Physical science facilities, PNNL................. 10,000 ............... ............... -10,000 ...............
07-SC-04 Science laboratories infrastructure project 8,908 ............... ............... -8,908 ...............
engineering and design (PED)..............................
04-SC-001 Project engineering and design (PED), various ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
locations.................................................
03-SC-001 Science laboratories infrastructure MEL-001 10,131 63,529 73,529 +63,398 +10,000
Multiprogram energy laboratory infrastructure projects,
various locations.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................................. 29,039 63,529 73,529 +44,490 +10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Laboratories facilities support.............. 30,559 65,049 75,049 +44,490 +10,000
Oak Ridge landlord............................................. 5,079 5,079 5,079 ............... ...............
Excess facilities disposal..................................... 6,348 8,828 8,828 +2,480 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Science laboratories infrastructure................... 41,986 78,956 88,956 +46,970 +10,000
Safeguards and security............................................ 75,830 76,592 76,592 +762 ...............
Workforce development for teachers and scientists.................. 7,952 11,000 11,000 +3,048 ...............
Science program direction:
Field offices.................................................. 95,716 104,193 104,193 +8,477 ...............
Headquarters................................................... 70,753 80,741 80,741 +9,988 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Science program direction............................. 166,469 184,934 184,934 +18,465 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science............................................ 3,802,899 4,403,481 4,502,364 +699,465 +98,883
====================================================================================
Less security charge for reimbursable work......................... -5,605 -5,605 -5,605 ............... ...............
====================================================================================
TOTAL, SCIENCE............................................... 3,797,294 4,397,876 4,496,759 +699,465 +98,883
====================================================================================
NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
Repository program................................................. 33,566 127,780 129,380 +95,814 +1,600
Program direction.................................................. 65,640 74,674 74,674 +9,034 ...............
Integrated spent fuel recycling.................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
====================================================================================
TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL................................ 99,206 202,454 204,054 +104,848 +1,600
====================================================================================
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH
Office of Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense)............. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Program direction.................................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH........................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program administrative ............... 8,390 8,390 +8,390 ...............
operations........................................................
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
Administrative operations:
Salaries and expenses:
Office of the Secretary.................................... 5,429 5,787 5,787 +358 ...............
Board of Contract Appeals.................................. 147 ............... ............... -147 ...............
Chief Financial Officer.................................... 38,044 40,260 40,260 +2,216 ...............
Management................................................. 54,161 63,939 63,939 +9,778 ...............
Human capital management................................... 22,107 28,161 28,161 +6,054 ...............
Chief Information Officer.................................. 39,172 47,502 47,502 +8,330 ...............
Congressional and intergovernmental affairs................ 4,813 4,762 4,762 -51 ...............
Economic impact and diversity.............................. 5,477 5,649 5,649 +172 ...............
General Counsel............................................ 23,202 30,076 30,076 +6,874 ...............
Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Policy and international affairs........................... 15,054 18,948 18,948 +3,894 ...............
Public affairs............................................. 4,493 3,860 3,860 -633 ...............
Loan guarantee office...................................... 7,000 ............... ............... -7,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Salaries and expenses.......................... 219,099 248,944 248,944 +29,845 ...............
Program support:
Minority economic impact....................................... 677 834 834 +157 ...............
Policy analysis and system studies............................. 389 625 625 +236 ...............
Environmental policy studies................................... 558 531 531 -27 ...............
Climate change technology program (prog. supp)................. 501 1,066 1,066 +565 ...............
Cybersecurity and secure communications........................ 43,075 35,184 35,184 -7,891 ...............
Corporate management information program....................... 22,825 28,421 28,421 +5,596 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Program support.................................... 68,025 66,661 66,661 -1,364 ...............
Competitive sourcing initiative (A-76)............................. 2,464 1,770 ............... -2,464 -1,770
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Administrative operations............................. 289,588 317,375 315,605 +26,017 -1,770
Cost of work for others............................................ 74,243 91,991 91,991 +17,748 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Departmental Administration........................ 363,831 409,366 407,596 +43,765 -1,770
====================================================================================
Funding from other defense activities.............................. -86,999 -99,000 -99,000 -12,001 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental administration (gross)................... 276,832 310,366 308,596 +31,764 -1,770
====================================================================================
Miscellaneous revenues............................................. -123,000 -161,818 -161,818 -38,818 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net)..................... 153,832 148,548 146,778 -7,054 -1,770
====================================================================================
Office of Inspector General........................................ 41,819 47,732 47,732 +5,913 ...............
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
Life extension program:
B61 Life extension program..................................... 58,302 63,115 63,115 +4,813 ...............
W76 Life extension program..................................... 193,566 175,571 175,571 -17,995 ...............
W80 Life extension program..................................... 12,491 ............... ............... -12,491 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Life extension program............................. 264,359 238,686 238,686 -25,673 ...............
Stockpile systems:
B61 Stockpile systems.......................................... 67,879 75,091 75,091 +7,212 ...............
W62 Stockpile systems.......................................... 2,075 2,153 2,153 +78 ...............
W76 Stockpile systems.......................................... 62,481 69,238 69,238 +6,757 ...............
W78 Stockpile systems.......................................... 38,667 38,991 38,991 +324 ...............
W80 Stockpile systems.......................................... 36,558 32,372 32,372 -4,186 ...............
B83 Stockpile systems.......................................... 24,412 25,012 25,012 +600 ...............
W84 Stockpile systems.......................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
W87 Stockpile systems.......................................... 63,098 57,147 57,147 -5,951 ...............
W88 Stockpile systems.......................................... 41,024 46,713 46,713 +5,689 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Stockpile systems.................................. 336,194 346,717 346,717 +10,523 ...............
Reliable replacement warhead....................................... 35,846 88,769 66,000 +30,154 -22,769
Weapons dismantlement and disposition.............................. 75,000 52,250 52,250 -22,750 ...............
Stockpile services:
Production support............................................. 258,722 284,979 284,979 +26,257 ...............
Research and development support............................... 68,245 33,329 33,329 -34,916 ...............
Research and development certification and safety.............. 194,998 181,984 181,984 -13,014 ...............
Management, technology, and production......................... 166,928 205,576 205,576 +38,648 ...............
Responsive infrastructure...................................... 25,430 14,946 ............... -25,430 -14,946
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Stockpile services................................. 714,323 720,814 705,868 -8,455 -14,946
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Directed stockpile work............................... 1,425,722 1,447,236 1,409,521 -16,201 -37,715
Campaigns:
Science campaign:
Primary assessment technologies............................ 54,844 63,527 63,527 +8,683 ...............
Test readiness............................................. 14,644 ............... ............... -14,644 ...............
Dynamic materials properties............................... 84,238 98,014 98,014 +13,776 ...............
Advanced radiography....................................... 36,387 30,995 30,995 -5,392 ...............
Secondary assessment technologies.......................... 80,345 80,539 80,539 +194 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science campaigns.............................. 270,458 273,075 273,075 +2,617 ...............
Engineering campaign:
Enhanced surety............................................ 26,666 24,803 44,803 +18,137 +20,000
Weapons system engineering assessment technology........... 21,102 19,691 19,691 -1,411 ...............
Nuclear survivability...................................... 15,962 8,813 8,813 -7,149 ...............
Enhanced surveillance...................................... 87,533 80,614 80,614 -6,919 ...............
Microsystem and engineering science applications (MESA), 4,603 7,630 7,630 +3,027 ...............
other project costs.......................................
Construction: 01-D-108 Microsystem and engineering science 6,920 11,198 11,198 +4,278 ...............
applications (MESA), SNL, Albuquerque, NM.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, MESA......................................... 11,523 18,828 18,828 +7,305 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Engineering campaign......................... 162,786 152,749 172,749 +9,963 +20,000
Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield campaign:
Ignition....................................................... 78,827 97,537 97,537 +18,710 ...............
Support of stockpile programs.................................. 5,872 ............... ............... -5,872 ...............
NIF diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support........... 45,959 67,935 58,792 +12,833 -9,143
Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion....................... 9,584 10,440 10,440 +856 ...............
University grants/other ICF support............................ 12,186 ............... ............... -12,186 ...............
Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas........ ............... 3,213 12,356 +12,356 +9,143
Facility operations and target production...................... 53,796 86,083 132,970 +79,174 +46,887
Inertial fusion technology..................................... 26,412 ............... ............... -26,412 ...............
NIF demonstration program...................................... 143,438 136,912 136,912 -6,526 ...............
High-energy petawatt laser development......................... 2,213 ............... ............... -2,213 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 378,287 402,120 449,007 +70,720 +46,887
Construction: 96-D-111 National ignition facility, LLNL........ 111,419 10,139 10,139 -101,280 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Inertial confinement fusion........................ 489,706 412,259 459,146 -30,560 +46,887
Advanced simulation and computing.................................. 611,973 585,738 610,738 -1,235 +25,000
Pit manufacturing and certification:
W88 pit manufacturing.......................................... 152,709 155,838 155,838 +3,129 ...............
W88 pit certification.......................................... 55,536 45,999 45,999 -9,537 ...............
Pit manufacturing capability................................... 34,147 54,479 54,479 +20,332 ...............
Pit campaign support activities at NTS......................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Consolidated plutonium center: other project cost.............. ............... 24,914 ............... ............... -24,914
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pit manufacturing and certification................ 242,392 281,230 256,316 +13,924 -24,914
Readiness campaign:
Stockpile readiness............................................ 21,964 18,924 18,924 -3,040 ...............
High explosives and weapon operations.......................... 19,256 9,835 9,835 -9,421 ...............
Non-nuclear readiness.......................................... 31,139 25,592 25,592 -5,547 ...............
Advanced design and production technologies.................... 51,609 33,587 33,587 -18,022 ...............
Tritium readiness.............................................. 77,745 73,231 73,231 -4,514
Construction: 98-D-125 Tritium extraction facility, SR......... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Tritium readiness.................................. 77,745 73,231 73,231 -4,514 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Readiness campaign................................. 201,713 161,169 161,169 -40,544 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Campaigns............................................. 1,979,028 1,866,220 1,933,193 -45,835 +66,973
Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF):
Operations of facilities....................................... 1,150,141 1,159,305 1,126,409 -23,732 -32,896
Program readiness.............................................. 75,167 71,466 71,466 -3,701 ...............
Material recycle and recovery.................................. 69,982 69,962 64,962 -5,020 -5,000
Containers..................................................... 20,130 19,184 19,184 -946 ...............
Storage........................................................ 35,285 35,133 25,133 -10,152 -10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and fac................ 1,350,705 1,355,050 1,307,154 -43,551 -47,896
Construction:
08-D-801 High pressure fire loop (HPFL) Pantex, TX............. ............... 7,000 7,000 +7,000 ...............
08-D-802 High explosive pressing facility Pantex Plant, ............... 25,300 25,300 +25,300 ...............
Amerillo, TX..................................................
08-D-804 TA-55 Reinvestment project Los Almos National ............... 6,000 6,000 +6,000 ...............
Laboratory (LANL).............................................
08-D-805 Classified Vault Los Almos National Laboratory (LANL). ............... ............... 45,000 +45,000 +45,000
07-D-140 Project engineering and design (PED), various ............... 2,500 2,500 +2,500 ...............
locations.....................................................
07-D-220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility upgrade ............... 26,672 26,672 +26,672 ...............
project, LANL.................................................
06-D-140 Project engineering and design (PED), various 16,577 23,862 23,862 +7,285 ...............
locations.....................................................
06-D-402 NTS replace fire stations 1 & 2 Nevada Test Site, NV.. 13,919 6,719 6,719 -7,200 ...............
06-D-403 Tritium facility modernization Lawrence Livermore 7,926 ............... ............... -7,926 ...............
National Laboratory, Livermore, CA............................
06-D-404 Building remediation, restoration, and upgrade, Nevada ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Test Site, NV.................................................
05-D-140 Project engineering and design (PED), various 9,615 7,000 7,000 -2,615 ...............
locations.....................................................
05-D-401 Building 12-64 production bays upgrades, Pantex plant, ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Amarillo, TX..................................................
05-D-402 Berylium capability (BEC) project, Y-12 National 7,494 ............... ............... -7,494 ...............
security complex, Oak Ridge, TN...............................
04-D-103 Project engineering and design (PED), various 3,478 ............... ............... -3,478 ...............
locations.....................................................
04-D-125 Chemistry and metallurgy facility replacement project, 53,422 95,586 95,586 +42,164 ...............
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM................
04-D-128 TA-18 mission relocation project, Los Alamos 24,197 29,455 29,455 +5,258 ...............
Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM....................................
03-D-103 Project engineering and design (PED), various 14,161 ............... ............... -14,161 ...............
locations.....................................................
01-D-103 Project engineering and design (PED), various 1,565 ............... ............... -1,565 ...............
locations.....................................................
01-D-124 HEU materials facility, Y-12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN..... 110,182 77,000 77,000 -33,182 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction....................................... 262,536 307,094 352,094 +89,558 +45,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities............ 1,613,241 1,662,144 1,659,248 +46,007 -2,896
Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program............. 123,750 231,023 200,023 +76,273 -31,000
Construction:
08-D-601 Mercury highway, Nevada Test Site, NV............. ............... 7,800 7,800 +7,800 ...............
08-D-602 Portable water system upgrades Y-12 Plant, Oak ............... 22,500 22,500 +22,500 ...............
Ridge, TN.................................................
07-D-253 TA 1 heating systems modernization (HSM) Sandia 14,500 13,000 13,000 -1,500 ...............
National Laboratory.......................................
06-D-160 Project engioneering and design (PED), various 2,700 ............... ............... -2,700 ...............
locations.................................................
06-D-601 Electrical distribution system upgrade, Pantex 6,429 2,500 2,500 -3,929 ...............
Plant, Amarillo, TX.......................................
06-D-602 Gas main and distribution system upgrade, Pantex 3,145 1,900 1,900 -1,245 ...............
Plant, Amarillo, TX.......................................
06-D-603 Steam plant life extension project (SLEP), Y-12 17,811 15,020 15,020 -2,791 ...............
National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN..................
05-D-160 Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization 1,048 ............... ............... -1,048 ...............
program project engineering design (PED), various
locations.................................................
05-D-601 Compressed air upgrades project (CAUP), Y-12, ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
National security complex, Oak Ridge, TN..................
05-D-602 Power grid infrastructure upgrade (PGIU), Los ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM................
05-D-603 New master substation (NMSU), SNL................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................................... 45,633 62,720 62,720 +17,087 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization 169,383 293,743 262,743 +93,360 -31,000
program.................................................
Secure transportation asset:
Operations and equipment....................................... 134,777 130,845 130,845 -3,932 ...............
Program direction.............................................. 74,760 84,801 84,801 +10,041 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Secure transportation asset........................... 209,537 215,646 215,646 +6,109 ...............
Nuclear weapons incident response.................................. 133,514 161,748 161,748 +28,234 ...............
Environmental projects and operations: Long term stewardship....... ............... 17,518 17,518 +17,518 ...............
Safeguards and security:
Defense nuclear security....................................... 656,653 721,318 733,318 +76,665 +12,000
Cybersecurity.................................................. 104,505 102,243 102,243 -2,262 ...............
Construction:
08-D-701 Nuclear materials S&S upgrade project Los Almos ............... 49,496 49,496 +49,496 ...............
National Laboratory.......................................
05-D-170 Project engineering and design (PED), various ............... 8,000 8,000 +8,000 ...............
locations.................................................
Material security and consolidation project, Idaho National ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Lab, ID...................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................................... ............... 57,496 57,496 +57,496 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense nuclear security....................... 761,158 881,057 893,057 +131,899 +12,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Safeguards and security........................ 761,158 881,057 893,057 +131,899 +12,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons activities............................. 6,291,583 6,545,312 6,552,674 +261,091 +7,362
Less security charge for reimbursable work......................... -33,000 -34,000 -34,000 -1,000 ...............
Transfer to Office of the Administrator............................ 17,000 ............... ............... -17,000 ...............
Congressionally directed technology deployments.................... ............... ............... 37,350 +37,350 +37,350
Use of prior year balances......................................... ............... ............... -67,000 -67,000 -67,000
====================================================================================
TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.................................... 6,275,583 6,511,312 6,489,024 +213,441 -22,288
====================================================================================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
Nonproliferation and verification, R&D............................. 262,467 265,252 305,252 +42,785 +40,000
Construction:
07-SC-05 Physical Science Facility, Pacific Northwest 4,220 ............... 17,000 +12,780 +17,000
National Laboratory, Richland, WA.........................
06-D-180 06-01 Project engineering and design [PED] 3,700 ............... ............... -3,700 ...............
National Security Laboratory, PNNL........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nonproliferation & verification R&D............ 270,387 265,252 322,252 +51,865 +57,000
Nonproliferation and international security........................ 128,911 124,870 210,870 +81,959 +86,000
International nuclear materials protection and cooperation..... 472,730 371,771 391,771 -80,959 +20,000
Global initiatives for proliferation prevention................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
HEU transparency implementation................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production program...... 225,754 181,593 152,593 -73,161 -29,000
Fissile materials disposition:
U.S. surplus materials disposition............................. 159,273 148,842 148,842 -10,431 ...............
Russian surplus materials disposition.......................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
U.S. uranium disposition....................................... ............... 66,843 66,843 +66,843 ...............
Construction:
99-D-141 Pit disassembly and conversion facility, Savannah 48,289 60,000 60,000 +11,711 ...............
River, SC.................................................
99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah 262,500 333,849 390,849 +128,349 +57,000
River, SC.................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction................................... 310,789 393,849 450,849 +140,060 +57,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Fissile materials disposition..................... 470,062 609,534 666,534 +196,472 +57,000
Global threat reduction initiative................................. 115,495 119,626 185,626 +70,131 +66,000
International nuclear fuel bank.................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................... 1,683,339 1,672,646 1,929,646 +246,307 +257,000
Use of prior year balances--Russian Surplus Fissile Materials ............... ............... -57,000 -57,000 -57,000
Disposition program...............................................
Use of prior year balances--Fissile Materials Disposition MOX ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
construction line.................................................
Use of prior year balances for Emergency Supplemental for fiscal ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
year 1999 (H.R. 4328, Public Law 105-277).........................
Supplemental Appropriations--Public Law 110-28 (emergency)......... 135,000 ............... ............... -135,000 ...............
====================================================================================
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION...................... 1,818,339 1,672,646 1,872,646 +54,307 +200,000
====================================================================================
NAVAL REACTORS
Naval reactors development......................................... 734,283 765,519 765,519 +31,236 ...............
Transfer to Nuclear Energy......................................... 13,365 ............... ............... -13,365 ...............
Construction:
08-D-901 Shipping and receiving and warehouse complex ............... 9,000 9,000 +9,000 ...............
(SRWC), BAPL..............................................
08-D-190 Project engineering and design Expended Core ............... 550 550 +550 ...............
Facility M-290 recovering discharge station, Naval Reactor
Facility, ID..............................................
07-D-190 Materials research technology complex (MRTC)...... 1,485 450 450 -1,035 ...............
06-D-901 Central office building II........................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Transfer to Nuclear Energy................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
05-N-900 Materials development facility building, 1,287 ............... ............... -1,287 ...............
Schenectady, NY...........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction....................................... 2,772 10,000 10,000 +7,228 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Naval reactors development............................ 750,420 775,519 775,519 +25,099 ...............
Program direction.................................................. 31,380 32,700 32,700 +1,320 ...............
====================================================================================
TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS........................................ 781,800 808,219 808,219 +26,419 ...............
====================================================================================
Office of the Adminstrator:
Office of the Administrator.................................... 340,291 394,656 394,656 +54,365 ...............
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
All other Office of the Administrator...................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
HBCU contribution from NNSA.................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Use of prior year balances..................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
ES & H transfer................................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
====================================================================================
TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR........................... 340,291 394,656 394,656 +54,365 ...............
====================================================================================
TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.............. 9,216,013 9,386,833 9,564,545 +348,532 +177,712
====================================================================================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Closure Sites...................................................... 468,063 42,437 55,937 -412,126 +13,500
Hanford Site:
2012 Completion projects....................................... 425,204 413,038 443,463 +18,259 +30,425
2035 Completion projects....................................... 410,112 464,042 506,913 +96,801 +42,871
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Hanford Site.......................................... 835,316 877,080 950,376 +115,060 +73,296
Office of River Protection:
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant....................... 690,000 690,000 690,000 ............... ...............
Tank Farm activities........................................... 277,127 273,443 325,972 +48,845 +52,529
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of River Protection............................ 967,127 963,443 1,015,972 +48,845 +52,529
Idaho National Laboratory: Operating expenses...................... 495,904 391,226 420,126 -75,778 +28,900
Construction:
06-D-401, Sodium bearing waste treatment project, ID....... 31,000 112,800 112,800 +81,800 ...............
04-D-414, Sodium bearing waste treatment facility, PED ID.. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Idaho National Laboratory......................... 526,904 504,026 532,926 +6,022 +28,900
NNSA............................................................... 306,509 271,130 361,663 +55,154 +90,533
Oak Ridge Reservation.............................................. 203,862 179,284 179,284 -24,578 ...............
Savannah River site:
2012 Completion projects: Oerating expenses.................... 244,626 ............... ............... -244,626 ...............
Construction:
04-D-423 Container surveillance capability in 235F......... ............... 31,000 31,000 +31,000 ...............
04-D-414 Project Engineering and Design, 105-K............. 2,935 ............... ............... -2,935 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 2012 accelerated completions................... 247,561 31,000 31,000 -216,561 ...............
2035 Completion projects:
Operating expenses......................................... 300,524 495,071 495,071 +194,547 ...............
Construction: 08-D-414 Project engineering and design ............... 15,000 9,000 +9,000 -6,000
Plutonium Vitrification Facility, VL......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 2035 accelerated completions................... 300,524 510,071 504,071 +203,547 -6,000
Tank Farm Activities: Radioactive liquid tank waste stabil & 513,809 524,018 524,018 +10,209 ...............
disposition...................................................
Construction:
05-D-405, Salt waste processing facility............... ............... 131,000 131,000 +131,000 ...............
04-D-408, Glass waste storage building #2.............. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
03-D-414, Salt waste processing facility PED SR........ 51,500 10,001 10,001 -41,499 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Tank farm activities....................... 565,309 665,019 665,019 +99,710 ...............
Nuclear material Stabilization and Disposition................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Savannah River site................................... 1,113,394 1,206,090 1,200,090 +86,696 -6,000
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: Operating expenses.................... 228,818 219,739 250,739 +21,921 +31,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant........................... 228,818 219,739 250,739 +21,921 +31,000
Program direction.................................................. 294,516 309,760 309,760 +15,244 ...............
Program support.................................................... 38,031 33,146 41,946 +3,915 +8,800
Safeguards and Security............................................ 275,920 273,381 273,581 -2,339 +200
Technology development............................................. 21,389 21,389 55,106 +33,717 +33,717
Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution........................... 452,000 463,000 463,000 +11,000 ...............
Material consolidation............................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Legacy Management.................................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Canyons and Pu Vitrification office................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP........................ 5,731,849 5,363,905 5,690,380 -41,469 +326,475
====================================================================================
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Health, safety and security:
Health, safety and security.................................... ............... 329,305 329,305 +329,305 ...............
Program direction.............................................. ............... 100,043 100,043 +100,043 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Health, safety and security........................... ............... 429,348 429,348 +429,348 ...............
Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance:
Nuclear safeguards and security................................ 196,546 ............... ............... -196,546 ...............
Security investigations........................................ 40,531 ............... ............... -40,531 ...............
rogram direction............................................... 76,818 ............... ............... -76,818 ...............
Use of prior year balances..................................... ............... -990 ............... ............... +990
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance 313,895 -990 ............... -313,895 +990
Environment, safety and health (Defense)........................... 60,304 ............... ............... -60,304 ...............
Program direction--EH.......................................... 20,076 ............... ............... -20,076 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Environment, safety & health (Defense)............. 80,380 ............... ............... -80,380 ...............
Office of Legacy Management:
Legacy management.......................................... 19,733 148,063 148,563 +128,830 +500
Program direction.......................................... 11,202 11,000 11,000 -202 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of Legacy Management.................... 30,935 159,063 159,563 +128,628 +500
Nuclear energy:
Infrastructure:
Idaho facilities management............................ 15,923 ............... ............... -15,923
Idaho sitewide safeguards and security................. 75,949 75,949 75,949 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Infrastruture.............................. 91,872 75,949 75,949 -15,923 ...............
Program direction.......................................... 30,844 ............... ............... -30,844 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear energy................................. 122,716 75,949 75,949 -46,767 ...............
Defense related administrative support......................... 86,999 99,000 99,000 +12,001 ...............
Office of Hearings and Appeals................................. 4,349 4,607 4,607 +258 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Other Defense Activities........................... 639,274 766,977 768,467 +129,193 +1,490
====================================================================================
Less security charge for reimbursable work..................... -3,003 -3,003 -3,003 ............... ...............
====================================================================================
TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.............................. 636,271 763,974 765,464 +129,193 +1,490
====================================================================================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
Defense nuclear waste disposal..................................... 346,500 292,046 242,046 -104,454 -50,000
====================================================================================
TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES...................... 15,930,633 15,806,758 16,262,435 +331,802 +455,677
====================================================================================
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Purchase power and wheeling.................................... 47,198 62,215 62,215 +15,017 ...............
Program direction.............................................. 5,602 6,463 6,463 +861 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance.......................... 52,800 68,678 68,678 +15,878 ...............
Less alternative financing (PPW)................................... -14,485 -13,802 -13,802 +683 ...............
Offsetting collections............................................. -32,713 -48,413 -48,413 -15,700 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION..................... 5,602 6,463 6,463 +861 ...............
====================================================================================
SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Operating expenses............................................. 5,604 11,978 11,978 +6,374 ...............
Purchase power and wheeling.................................... 12,400 45,000 45,000 +32,600 ...............
Program direction.............................................. 20,782 22,214 22,214 +1,432 ...............
Construction................................................... 3,612 4,300 4,300 +688 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance.......................... 42,398 83,492 83,492 +41,094 ...............
Less alternative financing (for program direction)................. ............... -877 -877 -877 ...............
Less alternative financing (for O&M)............................... ............... -6,304 -6,304 -6,304 ...............
Less alternative financing (PPW)................................... -9,400 -10,000 -10,000 -600 ...............
Less alternative financing (Const.)................................ ............... -869 -869 -869 ...............
Offsetting collections............................................. -3,000 -35,000 -35,000 -32,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION..................... 29,998 30,442 30,442 +444 ...............
====================================================================================
WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION
Operation and maintenance:
Construction and rehabilitation................................ 60,205 62,915 62,915 +2,710 ...............
Operation and maintenance...................................... 45,734 53,271 53,271 +7,537 ...............
Purchase power and wheeling.................................... 427,931 425,254 475,254 +47,323 +50,000
Program direction.............................................. 147,748 157,304 157,304 +9,556 ...............
Utah mitigation and conservation............................... 6,633 7,167 7,167 +534 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and maintenance.......................... 688,251 705,911 705,911 +17,660 ...............
Less alternative financing (for O&M)............................... -2,058 -11,971 -5,000 -2,942 +6,971
Less alternative financing (for Const.)............................ -17,177 -47,915 -30,690 -13,513 +17,225
Less alternative financing (for Program direction)................. -5,054 -15,804 -10,000 -4,946 +5,804
Less alternative financing (for PPW)............................... -148,931 -166,552 -166,552 -17,621 ...............
Offsetting collections (Public Law 108-477 and Public Law 109-103). -279,000 -258,702 -308,702 -29,702 -50,000
Offsetting collections (Public Law 98-381)......................... -3,705 -3,937 -3,937 -232 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION..................... 232,326 201,030 231,030 -1,296 +30,000
====================================================================================
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND
Operation and maintenance.......................................... 2,665 2,500 2,500 -165 ...............
====================================================================================
TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS....................... 270,591 240,435 270,435 -156 +30,000
====================================================================================
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Federal energy regulatory commission............................... 221,902 255,425 255,425 +33,523 ...............
FERC revenues...................................................... -221,902 -255,425 -255,425 -33,523 ...............
====================================================================================
GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY............................ 24,228,203 24,762,713 25,898,485 +1,670,282 +1,135,772
(Total amount appropriated).............................. (24,093,203) (24,911,713) (26,057,485) (+1,964,282) (+1,145,772)
(Emergency appropriations)............................... (135,000) ............... ............... (-135,000) ...............
(Rescissions)............................................ ............... (-149,000) (-159,000) (-159,000) (-10,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The following list of general provisions is recommended by
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions
which have been included in previous Energy and Water
Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:
Section 301. Language is included under section 301 to
prohibit the use of funds to make payments for a noncompetitive
management and operating contract unless certain conditions
have been met.
Section 302. Language is included under section 302 which
prohibits the use of funds for severance payments under the
worker and community transition program under section 3161 of
Public Law 102-484.
Section 303. Language is included under section 303 to
prohibit the augmentation of several payments under section
3161 of Public Law 102-484 unless a reprogramming request is
submitted to Congress.
Section 304. Language is included under section 304, which
prohibits the use of funds in this act to initiate a request
for proposal of expression of interest for new programs which
have not yet been presented to Congress in the annual budget
submission and which have not yet been approved and funded by
Congress.
Section 305. Language is included in section 305, which
permits the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior
appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this
bill.
Section 306. Language is included that prohibits the use of
funds by the Bonneville Power Administration to enter into
energy efficiency contracts outside its service area.
Section 307. This section establishes certain notice and
competition requirements for Department of Energy user
facilities.
Section 308. Language is included specifically authorizing
intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year
2008 Intelligence Authorization Act.
Section 309. Language is included in section 309 regarding
laboratory directed research and development activities.
Section 310. Language is included in section 312
prohibiting the Department of Energy to modify a ratemaking
policy by changing the interest rate on future obligation for
the Southeastern, Southwest, and Western Area Power
Administrations. The Committee rejects a pending proposal to
require Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern Power
Administration, and the Western Area Power Administration to
apply the interest rate charged Government corporations for new
investment and instead instructs the Secretary to apply the
yield rate for all new investment in hydroelectric plant. The
average yield shall be computed as the average during the
fiscal year of the daily bid prices. The Committee has
consistently opposed the use of budget gimmicks carried in the
budget request that will increase rates paid by power
customers. The Committee recommends the Department of Energy
heed this direction and refrain from requesting new regulations
to modify ratemaking procedures for Southeastern Power
Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and the
Western Area Power Administration.
Section 311. The Committee has included a provision related
to the Use Permit at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Section 312. The Committee has included a provision related
to Bonneville Power Administration.
Section 313. The Committee has included a provision related
to the Strategic Petroleum Preserve.
TITLE IV
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $64,858,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 65,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 75,000,000
Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission is
an economic development agency composed of 13 Appalachian
States and a Federal co-chair appointed by the President. For
fiscal year 2008, the Committee recommends the budget request
of $75,000,000 for the ARC, of which $5,597,000 is for salaries
and expenses and $64,087,000 is for area development and
$5,316,000 is for local development districts.
Area Development and Technical Assistant Program funds are
used to increase job opportunities and income, improve
education and health, strengthen infrastructure, and for the
Appalachian Highway System. Such funds are allocated by
formula, with assistance targeted to the most distressed and
underdeveloped areas.
Local Development Districts Program funds assist local
governments in promoting sustainable community and economic
development in the Appalachian region.
The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and
investment opportunities to the Appalachian Region and is
encouraged by the findings in a report that Appalachian firms
could find significant trade and investment opportunities,
particularly in the energy, high technology, and transportation
sectors in the Republic of Turkey and the surrounding region.
In this regard, the Committee supports the Appalachian-Turkish
Trade Project [ATTP], a project to promote opportunities to
expand trade, encourage business interests, stimulate foreign
studies, and to build a lasting and mutually meaningful
relationship between Appalachian States and the Republic of
Turkey, as well as the neighboring regions, such as Greece. The
Committee commends the ARC for its leadership role in helping
to implement the mission of the ATTP. The Committee expects the
ARC to continue to be a prominent ATTP sponsor.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $21,914,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 22,499,000
Committee recommendation................................ 22,499,000
For fiscal year 2008, the Committee recommends $22,499,000,
the same as the President's request, for the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board. This Board is responsible for
evaluating the implementation of standards for design,
construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Department
of Energy's defense nuclear facilities. Based on these
evaluations, the Board makes specific recommendations to the
Secretary of Energy to ensure that both public and employee
heath and safety are protected.
Delta Regional Authority
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $11,888,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,000,000
For the Delta Regional Authority, the Committee recommends
$12,000,000. The Delta Regional Authority was established to
assist the eight State Mississippi Delta Region in obtaining
basic infrastructure, transportation, skills training, and
opportunities for economic development. The Government
Accountability Office recently reported that the DRA has a
commendable record in the percentage of funds spent in rural
America, and the Committee recognizes the DRA's role in
bettering this underserved area of the Nation.
Denali Commission
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $49,509,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 1,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 31,800,000
The Denali Commission is a Federal-State partnership
responsible for promoting infrastructure development, job
training, and other economic development services in rural
areas throughout Alaska. For fiscal year 2008, the Committee
recommends $31,800,000.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $816,639,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 908,409,000
Committee recommendation................................ 910,559,000
REVENUES
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $659,328,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... -757,720,000
Committee recommendation................................ -757,720,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $157,311,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 150,689,000
Committee recommendation................................ 152,839,000
The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for fiscal year 2008 is $910,559,000, an increase of
$2,150,000 over the budget request. This amount is offset by
estimated revenues of $757,720,000 resulting in a net
appropriation of $152,839,000.
The Committee provides an additional $2,150,000 to support
enhancing foreign regulators' programs to enhance security over
radioactive sources. The Commission should continue to
coordinate its efforts with those at the Department of State
and the Department of Energy.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $8,285,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 8,144,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,744,000
REVENUES
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $7,410,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... -7,330,000
House allowance......................................... -7,330,000
Committee recommendation................................ -7,870,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $875,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 814,000
Committee recommendation................................ 874,000
The Committee recommends $8,744,000, an increase of
$600,000 over the budget request. The additional funds will
provide the Office of Inspector General with the necessary
resources to provide effective oversight of the agency's new
licensing activities while fulfilling its statutory
responsibilities under the Chief Financial Officers Act of
1990, and the Federal Information Security Management Act of
1992. The Committee also recommends that the current no year
authority of the Office of Inspector General be retained. The
Office of Inspector General, as an administrative entity, is
fully integrated into the administrative processes at the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to include its accounting, pay,
and travel system, as well as other infrastructure support
systems. In addition, the proposed two year funding authority
could limit the continuity of the Inspector General's
oversight.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Appropriations, 2007.................................... $3,591,000
Budget estimate, 2008................................... 3,621,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,621,000
The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established to
evaluate the scientific and technical validity of the
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The
Board reports its findings no fewer than two times a year to
Congress and to the Secretary of Energy. For fiscal year 2008,
the Committee recommends $3,621,000.
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects
Appropriation, 2007.....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008................................... $2,322,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,322,000
The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural
Gas Transportation Projects was established as an independent
agency in the Executive Branch on December 13, 2006, pursuant
to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004. The Committee
recommends $2,322,000, the same as the budget request.
Tennessee Valley Authority
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008................................... $15,100,000
Committee recommendation................................................
OFFSET FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FUND
Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008................................... -$15,100,000
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee recommendation does not include the
administration's proposal to establish a congressionally funded
Office of the Inspector General to oversee the Tennessee Valley
Authority. In recent years, the TVA has funded the requests of
the TVA-IG office out of power revenues and receipts. This
process has worked well, and the Committee sees no compelling
reason to change that mechanism for funding the TVA-IG.
GeneraL Provision, Independent Agencies
The following general provision is recommended by the
Committee.
Section 401. The Committee has included a provision related
to the Tennessee Valley Authority.
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The following list of general provisions are recommended by
the Committee.
Section 501. The provision prohibits the use of any funds
provided in this bill from being used to influence
congressional action.
Section 502. The provision addresses transfer authority
under this act.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.''
The Committee recommends funding for the following programs
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal
year 2006:
The US Army Corps of Engineers: General Investigations;
Construction, General; Mississippi River and Tributaries;
Operations and Maintenance; Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial
Action Program;
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation;
Water and Related Resources;
Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply
Activities:
Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal,
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Research;
Health, Safety and Security;
Non-Defense Environmental Management;
Office of Science;
Department of Administration;
National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons
Activities; Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval Reactors;
Office of the Administrator;
Defense Environmental Management, Defense Site Acceleration
Completion;
Other Defense Activities;
Defense Nuclear Waste Fund;
Office of Security and Performance Assurance;
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
Power Marketing Administrations: Southeastern,
Southwestern, Western Area; and
Energy Information Administration.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 28, 2007,
the Committee ordered reported en bloc: an original bill (S.
1745) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and
Justice, science, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2008, and authorized the chairman of the
committee or the chairman of the subcommittee to offer the text
of the Senate bill as a committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the House companion measure; an original bill (S.
1751) making appropriations for energy and water development
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2008, and for other purposes, and authorized the chairman of
the committee or the chairman of the subcommittee to offer the
text of the Senate bill as a committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute to the House companion measure; and H.R. 2764,
making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign
operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with an amendment
in the nature of a substitute; with each bill subject to
amendment and subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded
vote of 28-1, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Byrd Mr. Brownback
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Allard
Mr. Alexander
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the Committee.''
In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law
proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing
law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is
printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman.
TITLE 16--CONSERVATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 12A--TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 831a. Membership, operation, and duties of the Board of Directors
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Compensation
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) Adjustments in stipends
The amount of the [stipend under paragraph
(1)(A)(i)] stipends under paragraph (1)(A) shall be
adjusted by the same percentage, at the same time and
manner, and subject to the same limitations as are
applicable to adjustments under section 5318 of title
5.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 19B--WATER RESOURCES PLANNING
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1962d-5a. Reimbursement to States
(a) Combination of reimbursement of installation costs and
reduction in contributions; single project
limitation
The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, may, when he determines it to be in the public
interest, enter into agreements providing for reimbursement to
States or political subdivisions thereof for work to be
performed by such non-Federal public bodies at water resources
development projects authorized for construction under the
Secretary of the Army and the supervision of the Chief of
Engineers. Such agreements may provide for reimbursement of
installation costs incurred by such entities or an equivalent
reduction in the contributions they would otherwise be required
to make, or in appropriate cases, for a combination thereof.
The amount of Federal reimbursement, including reductions in
contributions, for a single project shall not exceed $5,000,000
or 1 percent of the total project cost, whichever is greater;
except that the amount of actual Federal reimbursement,
including reductions in contributions, for such project may not
exceed [$5,000,000] $7,000,000 in any fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990, PUBLIC LAW 101-640
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(10) McAlpine Lock and Dam, Indiana and Kentucky.--
The project for navigation, McAlpine Lock and Dam,
Indiana and Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated June 29, 1990, at a total cost of [$219,600,000]
$430,000,000, with a first Federal cost of
[$219,600,000]$430,000,000. The Federal share of costs
of construction of the project is 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.
* * * * * * *
RECLAMATION PROJECTS AUTHORIZATION AND ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1992, PUBLIC
LAW 102-575
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXXV--THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES AND STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE
EQUITABLE COMPENSATION PROGRAM, NORTH DAKOTA
SEC. 3501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the `Three Affiliated Tribes and
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act'.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3507. STANDING ROCK SIOUX INDIAN RESERVATION.
(a) * * *
(b) Specific.--There is authorized to be appropriated, in
addition to any other amounts authorized by this title, or any
other law, to the Secretary of the Interior [$4,660,000]
$12,660,000 for use by the Secretary of the Interior in
carrying out irrigation projects for the Standing Rock Sioux
Tribe.
* * * * * * *
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992, PUBLIC LAW 102-580
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
SEC. 219. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(71) Coronado, california.--$10,000,000 is
authorized for wastewater infrastructure, Coronado,
California.]
(71) Coronado, california.--
(A) $10,000,000 is authorized for
wastewater infrastructure, Coronado,
California.
(B) The Federal Share may be in the form of
grants or reimbursements of project costs
incurred by the non-Federal sponsor for work
performed by the non-Federal sponsor before or
after the execution of a project cooperation
agreement, if the Secretary determines that
such work is integral to the project.
(C) The Secretary is authorized to credit
towards the non-Federal share of project costs
the costs incurred by the non-Federal sponsor
for work performed by the non-Federal sponsor
before or after the execution of a project
cooperation agreement, if the Secretary
determines that such work is integral to the
project.
* * * * * * *
YAVAPAI-PRESCOTT INDIAN TRIBE WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1994,
PUBLIC LAW 103-434
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--MNI WICONI RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
* * * * * * *
SEC. 813. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 10 of the Act (102 Stat. 2571) is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) Planning, Design, and Construction.--There are
authorized to be appropriated $263,241,000 for the planning,
design, and construction of the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply
System, the Rosebud Sioux Rural Water Supply System, the Lower
Brule Sioux Rural Water Supply System, the West River Rural
Water Supply System, and the Lyman-Jones Rural Water Supply
System described in sections 3, 3A, 3B, and 4. Such funds are
authorized to be appropriated only through the end of the year
[2003] 2013. The funds authorized to be appropriated by the
first sentence of this section, less any amounts previously
obligated for the Systems, may be increased or decreased by
such amounts as may be justified by reason of ordinary
fluctuations in development costs incurred after October 1,
1992, as indicated by engineering costs indices applicable for
the type of construction involved.
* * * * * * *
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996, PUBLIC LAW 104-303
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) San lorenzo river, california.--
(A) In General._The project for flood
control, San Lorenzo River, California: Report
of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 30, 1994,
at a total cost of $21,800,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $10,900,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $10,900,000 and
habitat restoration, at a total cost of
$4,050,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$3,040,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,010,000.
(B) Credit Toward Non-Federal Share.--The
Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal
share of the project the costs expended by non-
Federal interests for the replacement and
reconstruction of the Soquel Avenue Bridge, if
the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
(C) Maximum Amount of Credit.--The credit
under paragraph (B) may not exceed $2,000,000.
(D) Limitation of Total Project Cost.--The
Secretary shall not include the costs to be
credited under paragraphs (B) and (C) in total
project costs in determining the amounts of the
Federal and non-Federal contributions.
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 227. SHORE PROTECTION.
(a) * * *
``SEC. 5. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment of Erosion Control Program.--The
Secretary shall establish and conduct a national shoreline
erosion control development and demonstration program for a
period of [7] 12 years beginning on the date that funds are
made available to carry out this section.
* * * * * * *
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999, PUBLIC LAW 106-53
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 514. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to pay the Federal share of the cost of
carrying out this section $30,000,000 [for the period of fiscal
years 2000 and 2001.] per year, and that authority shall extend
until Federal fiscal year 2015.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 582. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR COLUMBIA AND SNAKE
RIVERS SALMON SURVIVAL.
* * * * * * *
``(c) Management of Predation on Columbia/Snake River
System Native Fishes.--
``(1) Nesting avian predators.--In conjunction with
the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the
Interior, and consistent with a management plan to be
developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Secretary shall carry out methods to
reduce nesting populations of avian predators on dredge
spoil islands in the Columbia River under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated [$1,000,000] $2,000,000
to carry out research and development activities under
this subsection.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 520. NAVAJO RESERVATION, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, AND UTAH.
(a) * * *
(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of
activities carried out under this section shall be 75 percent.
Funds made available under the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) may be used by
the Navajo Nation in meeting the non-Federal share of the cost
of the activities. The local match for the funds appropriated
for flood plain delineation on the Navajo reservation in
Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah may be provided as in-kind
services.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 594. OHIO.] SEC. 594. OHIO AND NORTH DAKOTA.
(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall
establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-
Federal interests in [Ohio.] Ohio and North Dakota.
(b) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section
maybe in the form of design and construction assistance for
waterrelatedenvironmental infrastructure and resource
protection anddevelopment projects in [Ohio,] Ohio and North
Dakota, including projects for--
* * * * * * *
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorizedto
be appropriated to carry out this section [$240,000,000.]
$240,000,000 for Ohio and $100,000,000 for North Dakota.
* * * * * * *
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004, PUBLIC LAW 108-
137
* * * * * * *
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers-Civil
* * * * * * *
GENERAL PROVISIONS
CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CIVIL
* * * * * * *
Sec. 117. Section 595 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 383; 117 Stat. 142) is amended--
* * * * * * *
(4) in subsection (h), by striking ``2001--'' and
all that follows and inserting ``2001 $25,000,000 for
each of Idaho, Montana, [New Mexico, and rural Utah]
and New Mexico and $50,000,000 for Rural Utah, to
remain available until expended.''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE II
* * * * * * *
General Provisions
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 209. Endangered Species Collaborative Program. (a)
Using funds previously appropriated, the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service,
for purposes of improving the efficiency and expediting the
efforts of the Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program
Workgroup, is directed to establish an executive committee of
seven members consisting of--
[(1) one member from the Bureau of Reclamation;
[(2) one member from the Fish and Wildlife Service;
and
[(3) one member at large representing each of the
following seven entities (selected at the discretion of
the entity in consultation with the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service)
currently participating as signatories to the existing
Memorandum of Understanding:
[(A) other Federal agencies;
[(B) State agencies;
[(C) municipalities;
[(D) universities and environmental groups;
[(E) agricultural communities;
[(F) Middle Rio Grande Pueblos (Sandia,
Isleta, San Felipe, Cochiti, Santa Ana, and
Santo Domingo); and
[(G) Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District.
[(b) Formation of this Committee shall not occur later than
45 days after enactment of this Act.
[(c) Fiscal year 2004 appropriations shall not be obligated
or expended prior to approval of a detailed spending plan by
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
[(d) The above section shall come into effect within 180
days of enactment of this Act, unless the Bureau of
Reclamation, in consultation with the above listed parties, has
provided an alternative workgroup structure which has been
approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.]
Sec. 210. Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research
Facility. (a) Desalination Demonstration and Development.--
Pursuant to section 4(a) of Public Law 104-298; 110 Stat. 3622
(October 11, 1996), the Secretary may hereafter conduct or
contract for the design, construction, [testing and operation]
and testing of the Tularosa Basin National Desalination
Research Facility.
(b) The Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research
Facility is hereafter exempt from all provisions of section 7
of Public Law 104-298; 110 Stat. 3622 (October 11, 1996). The
Federal share of the cost of the Tularosa Basin National
Desalination Research Facility may be up to 100 percent,
including the cost of design, construction, operation,
maintenance, repair and rehabilitation.
(c) The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with New
Mexico State University for the operations, maintenance, and
the administration of research activities undertaken at the
Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility.
Operation and maintenance shall occur at full Federal cost and
title to the facility shall remain in the United States.
* * * * * * *
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 108-335
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 345. The project for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illinois, initiated under section 1135
of Public Law 99-662, is authorized at a total cost of
$9,100,000 with a Federal cost of $6,825,000 and a non-Federal
cost of $2,275,000.]
Sec. 345. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums
as are necessary to carry out the Barrier II project of the
project for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal
Barrier, Illinois, initiated pursuant to section 1135 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a).
* * * * * * *
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005, PUBLIC LAW 109-58
* * * * * * *
TITLE IX--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
* * * * * * *
SEC. 999H. FUNDING.
(a) Oil and Gas Lease Income.--[For each of fiscal years]
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph
(2), for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2017, from
any Federal royalties, rents, and bonuses derived from
Federal onshore and offshore oil and gas leases issued
under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C.
1331 et seq.) and the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C.
181 et seq.) which are deposited in the Treasury, and
after distribution of any such funds as described in
subsection (c), $50,000,000 shall be deposited into the
Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and
Other Petroleum Research Fund (in this section referred
to as the ``Fund''). [For purposes of this]
(2) Strategic petroleum reserve.--For fiscal year
2008 the Secretary of Energy shall direct not more than
$25,000,000 from Federal royalties, rents, and bonuses
described in paragraph (1) shall be used to carry out
land acquisition activities for the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve required under section 301(e)(1).
(3) Definition of royalties.--In this section, the
term ``royalties'' excludes proceeds from the sale of
royalty production taken in kind and royalty production
that is transferred under section 27(a)(3) of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1353(a)(3)).
* * * * * * *
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006, PUBLIC LAW 109-
103
* * * * * * *
TITLE I
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
* * * * * * *
GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 108. None of the funds made available in title I of
this Act may be used to award any continuing contract or to
make modifications to any existing continuing contract that
commits an amount for a project in excess of the amount
appropriated for such project pursuant to this Act: Provided,
That the amounts appropriated in this Act may be modified
pursuant to the authorities provided in section 101 of this Act
or through the application of unobligated balances for such
project.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 121. [(a) The Secretary of the Army may carry out and
fund projects to comply with the 2003 Biological Opinion
described in section 205(b) of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 2949)
as amended by subsection (b) and may award grants and enter
into contracts, cooperative agreements, or interagency
agreements with participants in the Endangered Species Act
Collaborative Program Workgroup referenced in section 209(a) of
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004
(Public Law 108- 137; 117 Stat. 1850) in order to carry out
such projects. Any project undertaken under this subsection
shall require a non-Federal cost share of 25 percent, which may
be provided through in-kind services or direct cash
contributions and which shall be credited on a programmatic
basis instead of on a project-by-project basis, with
reconciliation of total project costs and total non-Federal
cost share calculated on a three year incremental basis. Non-
Federal cost share that exceeds that which is required in any
calculated three year increment shall be credited to subsequent
three year increments.] (a) The Secretary of the Army may carry
out and fund planning studies, watershed surveys and
assessments, or technical studies at 100 percent Federal
expense to accomplish the purposes of the 2003 Biological
Opinion described in section 205(b) of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118
Stat. 2949) as amended by subsection (b) and the collaborative
program long-term plan. In carrying out a study, survey, or
assessment under this subsection, the Secretary of the Army
shall consult with Federal, State, tribal and local
governmental entities, as well as entities participating in the
Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program
referred to in section 205 of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2008. The Secretary of the Army may also
provide planning and administrative assistance to the Middle
Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program, which
shall not be subject to cost sharing requirements with non-
Federal interests.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 134. Project Modification. (a) In General.--The
project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration,
recreation, Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas, authorized by
section 101(b)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 280-281) is modified--
[(1) to deauthorize the ecosystem restoration
portion of the project that consists of approximately
90 acres of land located between Randol Mill and the
Union Pacific East/West line; and
[(2) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to
design and construct an ecosystem restoration project
on lands identified in subsection (c) that will provide
the same or greater level of national ecosystem
restoration benefits as the portion of the project
described in paragraph (1).
[(b) Credit Toward Federal Share.--The Secretary of the
Army shall credit toward the Federal share of the cost of the
modified project the costs incurred by the Secretary to carry
out the project as originally authorized under section
101(b)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
Stat. 280). The non-Federal interest shall not be responsible
for reimbursing the Secretary for any amount credited under
this subsection.
[(c) Comparable Property.--Not later than 6 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the City of Arlington,
Texas, shall identify lands, acceptable to the Secretary of the
Army, amounting to not less than 90 acres within the City,
where an ecosystem restoration project may be constructed to
provide the same or greater level of National ecosystem
restoration benefits as the land described in subsection
(a)(1).]
* * * * * * *
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR
ON TERROR, AND HURRICANE RECOVERY, 2006, PUBLIC LAW 109-234
* * * * * * *
TITLE II
FURTHER HURRICANE DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 3
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
* * * * * * *
CONSTRUCTION
For an additional amount for ``Construction'' for necessary
expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina and
other hurricanes of the 2005 season, $549,400,000, to remain
available until expended, of which up to $20,200,000 may be
used to reduce the risk of storm damage to the greater New
Orleans metropolitan area, at full Federal expense, by
restoring the surrounding wetlands through measures to begin to
reverse wetland losses in areas affected by navigation, oil and
gas, and other channels and through modification of the
Caernarvon Freshwater Diversion structure or its operations; at
least $495,300,000 shall be used consistent with the cost-
sharing provisions under which the projects were originally
constructed to raise levee heights where necessary and
otherwise enhance the existing Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity
project and the existing West Bank and Vicinity project to
provide the levels of protection necessary to achieve the
certification required for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program under the base flood elevations current at
the time of this [construction: Provided,] : Provided, That the
Secretary of the Army, in implementing projects and measures in
the New Orleans metropolitan area required to achieve
certification for participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program as directed in Public Law 109-234 shall include all
authorized features of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control
project and related internal pumping requirements as integral
elements of the comprehensive protection system for the area
and shall complete all authorized work for the Southeast
Louisiana project concurrently and integrally with other area
projects: Provided further, That the amount provided under this
heading is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to
section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006: Provided
further, That $1,500,000 shall be for the North Padre Island,
Texas project: Provided further, That $30,400,000 is available
for flood control work in the Sacramento, California, Area:
Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be provided at full
Federal expense for the Hawaii Water Systems Technical
Assistance Program.
* * * * * * *
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation\1\ bill allocation\1\ bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
allocations to its subcommittees of budget totals for
2008: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
Mandatory......................................... .............. ........... 1 \1\1
Discretionary..................................... 32,273 32,273 33,229 \1\33,083
Projections of outlays associated with the
recommendation:
2008.............................................. .............. ........... .............. \2\19,905
2009.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 9,152
2010.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 2,747
2011.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 203
2012 and future years............................. .............. ........... .............. 98
Financial assistance to State and local governments NA 111 NA 19
for 2008............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2008
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 2007 Budget estimate Committee ---------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2007
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Investigations..................................................... 162,916 90,000 172,147 +9,231 +82,147
Rescission..................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Emergency appropriations....................................... 8,165 ............... ............... -8,165 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Investigations........................................ 171,081 90,000 172,147 +1,066 +82,147
Construction....................................................... 2,336,368 1,523,000 2,059,474 -276,894 +536,474
Rescission..................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Emergency appropriations....................................... 36,500 ............... ............... -36,500 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Construction.......................................... 2,372,868 1,523,000 2,059,474 -313,394 +536,474
Mississippi River and tributaries.................................. 396,565 260,000 375,000 -21,565 +115,000
Operations and Maintenance......................................... 1,973,347 2,471,000 2,291,971 +318,624 -179,029
Emergency appropriations....................................... 3,000 ............... ............... -3,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Operations and Maintenance............................ 1,976,347 2,471,000 2,291,971 +315,624 -179,029
Regulatory program................................................. 159,273 180,000 180,000 +20,727 ...............
FUSRAP............................................................. 138,672 130,000 140,000 +1,328 +10,000
Flood control and coastal emergencies.............................. ............... 40,000 50,000 +50,000 +10,000
Emergency appropriations....................................... 1,561,000 ............... ............... -1,561,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Flood control and coastal emergencies................. 1,561,000 40,000 50,000 -1,511,000 +10,000
Expenses........................................................... 167,250 177,000 175,000 +7,750 -2,000
Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)............ 3,979 ............... 4,500 +521 +4,500
====================================================================================
Total, title I, Department of Defense--Civil................. 6,947,035 4,871,000 5,448,092 -1,498,943 +577,092
Appropriations........................................... (5,338,370) (4,871,000) (5,448,092) (+109,722) (+577,092)
Emergency appropriations................................. (1,608,665) ............... ............... (-1,608,665) ...............
Rescissions.............................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
====================================================================================
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project Completion Account
Central Utah project construction.................................. 31,351 40,404 40,404 +9,053 ...............
Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation......... 937 976 976 +39 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 32,288 41,380 41,380 +9,092 ...............
Program oversight and administration............................... 1,732 1,620 1,620 -112 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Central Utah project completion account............... 34,020 43,000 43,000 +8,980 ...............
Bureau of Reclamation
Water and related resources........................................ 878,623 816,197 950,106 +71,483 +133,909
Emergency appropriations....................................... 18,000 ............... ............... -18,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Water and related resources........................... 896,623 816,197 950,106 +53,483 +133,909
Central Valley project restoration fund............................ 52,150 59,122 51,622 -528 -7,500
California Bay-Delta restoration................................... 36,648 31,750 40,750 +4,102 +9,000
Policy and administration.......................................... 57,575 58,811 58,811 +1,236 ...............
Legislative proposal SJRRF......................................... ............... -7,500 ............... ............... +7,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Bureau of Reclamation................................. 1,042,996 958,380 1,101,289 +58,293 +142,909
====================================================================================
Total, title II, Department of the Interior.................. 1,077,016 1,001,380 1,144,289 +67,273 +142,909
Appropriations........................................... (1,059,016) (1,001,380) (1,144,289) (+85,273) (+142,909)
Emergency Appropriations................................. (18,000) ............... ............... (-18,000) ...............
====================================================================================
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Energy Programs
Energy efficiency and renewable energy............................. 1,474,285 1,236,199 1,715,551 +241,266 +479,352
Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................ 137,000 114,937 168,437 +31,437 +53,500
Nuclear energy..................................................... 482,191 801,703 720,558 +238,367 -81,145
(Reallocation from Energy supply and conservation)............. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
(Reallocation from Nuclear nonproliferation)................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Office of Legacy Management........................................ 33,187 35,104 35,104 +1,917 ...............
Clean coal technology:
Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2005............. 257,000 ............... ............... -257,000 ...............
Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2007............. -257,000 ............... ............... +257,000 ...............
Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2008............. ............... 257,000 257,000 +257,000 ...............
Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2009............. ............... ............... -149,000 -149,000 -149,000
Rescission, uncommitted balances............................... ............... -149,000 ............... ............... +149,000
Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D.................................. ............... -166,000 -166,000 -166,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Clean coal technology................................. ............... -58,000 -58,000 -58,000 ...............
Fossil Energy Research and Development............................. 592,621 400,801 642,113 +49,492 +241,312
Transfer from Clean Coal Technology............................ ............... 166,000 166,000 +166,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fossil Energy Research and Development............. 592,621 566,801 808,113 +215,492 +241,312
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves............................. 21,316 17,301 21,301 -15 +4,000
Strategic petroleum reserve........................................ 164,441 331,609 163,472 -969 -168,137
Northeast home heating oil reserve................................. 5,000 5,325 12,825 +7,825 +7,500
Energy Information Administration.................................. 90,653 105,095 105,095 +14,442 ...............
Non-defense environmental clean up................................. 349,687 180,937 195,437 -154,250 +14,500
(Reallocation from Energy supply and conservation)............. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund........ 556,606 573,509 573,509 +16,903 ...............
Science............................................................ 3,797,294 4,397,876 4,496,759 +699,465 +98,883
Nuclear Waste Disposal............................................. 99,206 202,454 204,054 +104,848 +1,600
Environment, safety and health (Reallocation from Energy supply and 27,841 ............... ............... -27,841 ...............
conservation).....................................................
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program....................... ............... 8,390 8,390 +8,390 ...............
Departmental administration........................................ 276,832 310,366 308,596 +31,764 -1,770
Miscellaneous revenues......................................... -123,000 -161,818 -161,818 -38,818 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net appropriation.......................................... 153,832 148,548 146,778 -7,054 -1,770
Office of the Inspector General.................................... 41,819 47,732 47,732 +5,913 ...............
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons activities............................................. 6,275,583 6,511,312 6,489,024 +213,441 -22,288
Defense nuclear nonproliferation............................... 1,683,339 1,672,646 1,872,646 +189,307 +200,000
(Reallocation to Nuclear energy)........................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Emergency appropriations................................... 135,000 ............... ............... -135,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense nuclear nonproliferation............... 1,818,339 1,672,646 1,872,646 +54,307 +200,000
Naval reactors................................................. 781,800 808,219 808,219 +26,419 ...............
Office of the Administrator.................................... 340,291 394,656 394,656 +54,365 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration........... 9,216,013 9,386,833 9,564,545 +348,532 +177,712
Defense environmental cleanup...................................... 5,731,839 5,363,905 5,690,380 -41,459 +326,475
Other defense activities........................................... 636,271 763,974 765,464 +129,193 +1,490
Defense nuclear waste disposal..................................... 346,500 292,046 242,046 -104,454 -50,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities...................... 15,930,623 15,806,758 16,262,435 +331,812 +455,677
====================================================================================
Power Marketing Administrations
Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration....... 38,315 54,876 54,876 +16,561 ...............
Offsetting collection.......................................... -32,713 -48,413 -48,413 -15,700 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, O&M, Southeastern Power Administration............. 5,602 6,463 6,463 +861 ...............
Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration....... 32,998 65,442 65,442 +32,444 ...............
Offsetting collection.......................................... -3,000 -35,000 -35,000 -32,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, O&M, Southwestern Power Administration............. 29,998 30,442 30,442 +444 ...............
Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western 515,031 463,669 493,669 -21,362 +30,000
Area Power Administration.........................................
Offsetting collection.......................................... -279,000 -258,702 -262,639 +16,361 -3,937
Offsettting collection Colorado River Dam Fund................. -3,705 -3,937 ............... +3,705 +3,937
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, O&M, Western Area Power Administration............. 232,326 201,030 231,030 -1,296 +30,000
Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund.................. 2,665 2,500 2,500 -165 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Power Marketing Administrations....................... 270,591 240,435 270,435 -156 +30,000
====================================================================================
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 221,902 255,425 255,425 +33,523 ...............
Revenues applied................................................... -221,902 -255,425 -255,425 -33,523 ...............
====================================================================================
Total, title III, Department of Energy....................... 24,228,193 24,762,713 25,897,985 +1,669,792 +1,135,272
Appropriations........................................... (24,093,193) (24,654,713) (25,789,985) (+1,696,792) (+1,135,272)
Emergency appropriations................................. (135,000) ............... ............... (-135,000) ...............
Rescissions.............................................. ............... (-149,000) ............... ............... (+149,000)
====================================================================================
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission.................................... 64,858 65,000 75,000 +10,142 +10,000
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............................ 21,914 22,499 22,499 +585 ...............
Delta Regional Authority........................................... 11,888 6,000 12,000 +112 +6,000
Denali Commission.................................................. 49,509 1,800 31,800 -17,709 +30,000
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Salaries and expenses.......................................... 816,639 908,409 910,559 +93,920 +2,150
Revenues....................................................... -659,328 -757,720 -757,720 -98,392 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 157,311 150,689 152,839 -4,472 +2,150
Office of Inspector General.................................... 8,285 8,144 8,744 +459 +600
Revenues....................................................... -7,410 -7,330 -7,870 -460 -540
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 875 814 874 -1 +60
====================================================================================
Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission......................... 158,186 151,503 153,713 -4,473 +2,210
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board............................... 3,591 3,621 3,621 +30 ...............
Tennessee Valley Authority: Office of Inspector General............ ............... 15,000 ............... ............... -15,000
Offset......................................................... ............... -15,000 ............... ............... +15,000
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas ............... 2,322 2,322 +2,322 ...............
Transportation Projects...........................................
====================================================================================
Total, title IV, Independent agencies........................ 309,946 252,745 300,955 -8,991 +48,210
====================================================================================
Grand total.................................................. 32,562,190 30,887,838 32,791,321 +229,131 +1,903,483
Appropriations........................................... (30,800,525) (31,036,838) (32,791,321) (+1,990,796) (+1,754,483)
Emergency appropriations................................. (1,761,665) ............... ............... (-1,761,665) ...............
Rescission............................................... ............... (-149,000) ............... ............... (+149,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------