PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 4, 1996
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 - Authorizes projects for navigation, flood damage reduction, hydropower, and lake level flooding and storm damage reduction in California, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Authorizes the Secretary of the Army to: (1) carry out specified ecosystem restoration and protection projects; (2) encourage innovative and environmentally sound engineering and environmental solutions to significant national problems; (3) make certain conveyances to the City of North Bonneville, Washington; (4) utilize contracts, cooperative research and development (R&D) agreements, cooperative agreements, and grants with non-Federal entities in carrying out R&D support for the Army Civil Works Program; (5) apply the technical and managerial expertise of the Corps of Engineers to domestic and international water resources-related problems; and (6) lease space available in buildings for which funding was provided from a specified revolving fund. (Sec. 4) Modifies projects for flood protection, flood damage reduction, navigation, and other purposes in Florida, Kansas, Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Puerto Rico. Amends the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA): (1) of 1986 to authorize the Secretary to determine if the operation of environmental improvement projects has contributed to the degradation of environmental quality; (2) of 1974 to repeal provisions regarding a phase-in of a cost-sharing program; (3) of 1988 to authorize the Secretary to provide temporary protection against the dissemination of information developed from Corps R&D activities likely to be subject to a cooperative R&D agreement which would be a trade secret if obtained from a participating non-Federal party under the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980; and (4) of 1986 to direct that prior to the construction of any Federal project for local flood protection, the non-Federal interests shall develop and adopt a comprehensive flood plain management plan. (Sec. 8) Establishes in the Treasury an Army Civil Works Regulatory Program Fund. Directs the Secretary to establish and collect fees for the evaluation of commercial permit applications and the recovery of costs associated with environmental impact statement preparation and certain wetlands delineations. (Sec. 12) Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) cost recovery for cleanup of hazardous substances; (2) Federal lump-sum payments for Federal operation and maintenance costs; and (3) selection and cost-sharing for dredged material disposal facilities. (Sec. 14) Amends: (1) the Flood Control Act of 1970 to provide a waiver of cost-sharing requirements if the Secretary determines that the administrative costs would exceed the contribution required from the non-Federal interest; (2) the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 to add the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) as a member of the Flood Insurance Interagency Task Force; (3) the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 to make certain recreation user fee revenues available to the Corps; and (4) the Flood Control Act of 1968 to increase the amount of Federal reimbursement that may be made for a single project. (Sec. 15) Directs the Secretary to acquire permanent flowage and saturation easements over specified lands in and around the Buford Trenton Irrigation District, North Dakota. (Sec. 19) Authorizes appropriations for a national inventory of dams. (Sec. 29) Directs the Secretary to develop and transmit to the Congress a list of harbors and channels that do not produce commercial benefits which exceed the cost of operation and maintenance of the harbor or channel. (Sec. 31) Authorizes the Secretary to undertake studies: (1) in navigation in part of the Pacific Region; (2) of the Charleston, South Carolina, estuary area; and (3) to investigate alternative modes of financing hydroelectric power facilities. (Sec. 35) Directs the Secretary to implement the Poplar Island, Maryland, project.
People & committees
Rep. Shuster, Bud [R-PA-9] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
See H.R.3592.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E993)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3563 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3563 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3563 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3563 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.