EP 1165-2-1
30 Jul 99
plans for construction of the structures in the line of protection,
subject to sponsor contributions equal to the related contract costs.
(4) Removals. The cost of removal of facilities (i.e., those
not being relocated from lands needed for the project development) are
considered to be part of project construction costs, and cost shared
accordingly. However, the cost of acquiring such facilities, so that
they may be removed, is part of the sponsor's LERRD responsibility.
b.
River and Harbor Projects.
(1) Highway and Railroad Bridges. Bridge alteration costs are
project construction costs to be assigned partially to the bridge
owner and partially to the navigation project, using the procedures of
the Truman-Hobbs Act (as described in ER 1165-2-25). The portion of
bridge alteration costs so assigned to the navigation project are
considered to be part of the general navigation features (GNF), and
are cost shared accordingly. In the case of new bridges, required
because of construction of new navigation channels that would
otherwise intercept existing highway or railroad routes, all costs are
considered to be part of GNF.
(2) Relocations and the Navigation Servitude. A relocation
must occur when a facility or part of a facility must be altered,
lowered, raised, or removed to allow for the construction of a
navigation project and the owner of the facility is entitled to a
substitute facility due to just compensation principles. Just
compensation principles generally require a substitute facility when
the facility's owner has a real property interest in the land on which
the facility is located, there is a public necessity for the service
provided by the facility and market value has been too difficult to
find, or the application of market value would result in injustice to
the owner or public. This definition focuses on the issue of just
compensation as between the facility owner and Federal Government and
takes into account rights the Federal Government has within the
navigation servitude. Therefore, the owner of a facility within the
navigation servitude has no compensable real property interest with
regard to the Federal Government for the portion of the structure
within the navigation servitude and the owner of the facility within
the servitude is not entitled to a substitute facility when compelled
to remove the facility because it is an obstruction to the Federal
navigation project.
(3) Deep-Draft Utility Relocations. "Deep draft utility
relocations" are handled differently and are only applicable to
projects authorized at a depth of greater than 45 feet and applicable
only to utilities located within the navigation servitude. A deep
draft utility relocation is defined as providing a functionally
equivalent facility to the owner of an existing utility serving the
general public when such action is not a "relocation" as defined in
paragraph 10-4. In accordance with Section 101(a)(4) of WRDA 1986, as
amended, one-half of the cost of the deep draft utility relocation
shall be borne by the utility owner and one-half shall be borne by the
non-Federal sponsor. Actual costs of deep draft utility relocations
borne by the non-Federal sponsor up to 50 percent of the total cost of
the utility relocation will be creditable against the non-Federal
sponsor's additional 10 percent share. The Corps might compel deep
draft utility relocations if confronted with reluctant utility owners.
However, such involuntary deep draft utility relocations would be for
the purpose of facilitating project construction and would not serve
to change the statutory requirement for 50/50 cost sharing between the
non-Federal sponsor and the utility owner. Therefore, in those cases
10-12
Previous Page
