H.R. 7776 — what changed
James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023
From Engrossed in House to Placed on Calendar Senate. 1 section amended between Engrossed in House and Placed on Calendar Senate.
Sec. 345 Environmental infrastructure
New projects— Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1258) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(274) Chandler, Arizona—$18,750,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Chandler, Arizona.
“(275) Pinal county, Arizona—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Pinal County, Arizona.
“(276) Tempe, Arizona—$37,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation and groundwater recharge, for the City of Tempe, Arizona.
“(277) Bell gardens, California—$12,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, in the city of Bell Gardens, California.
“(278) Calimesa, California—$3,500,000 for stormwater management and water supply infrastructure, including groundwater recharge and water recycling, in the city of Calimesa, California.
“(279) Compton creek, California—$6,165,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in the vicinity of Compton Creek, city of Compton, California.
“(280) Downey, California—$100,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Downey, California.
“(281) Lomita, California—$4,716,600 for stormwater management infrastructure in the city of Lomita, California.
“(282) East san diego county, California—$70,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, in East County, San Diego County, California.
“(283) Eastern los angeles county, California—$25,000,000 for the planning, design, and construction of water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, for the cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Duarte, El Monte, Glendora, Industry, Irwindale, La Puente, La Verne, Monrovia, San Dimas, and West Covina, and for Avocado Heights, Bassett, and Valinda, California.
“(284) Escondido creek, California—$34,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the vicinity of Escondido Creek, city of Escondido, California.
“(285) Fontana, California—$16,000,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in the city of Fontana, California.
“(286) Healdsburg, California—$23,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, in the city of Healdsburg, California.
“(287) Inland empire, California—$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Riverside County and San Bernardino County, California.
“(288) Marin county, California—$28,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Marin County, California.
“(289) Maywood, California—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the city of Maywood, California.
“(290) Monterey peninsula, California—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, and water supply, on the Monterey Peninsula, California.
“(291) North Richmond, California—$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including coastal flooding resilience measures for such infrastructure, in North Richmond, California.
“(292) Ontario, California—$40,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, in the city of Ontario, California.
“(293) Paramount, California—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Paramount, California.
“(294) Petaluma, California—$13,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling, in the city of Petaluma, California.
“(295) Rialto, California—$27,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the city of Rialto, California.
“(296) Rincon Reservation, California—$38,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure on the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians reservation, California.
“(297) Sacramento-san joaquin delta, California—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water protection and development, including flooding resilience measures for such infrastructure, in Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County, Solano County, Sacramento County, and Yolo County, California.
“(298) South San francisco, California—$270,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water recycling, at the San Francisco International Airport, California.
“(299) San joaquin and stanislaus, California—$200,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, and water supply, in San Joaquin County and Stanislaus County, California.
“(300) Santa rosa, California—$19,400,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the city of Santa Rosa California.
“(301) Sierra madre, California—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, and water supply, including earthquake resilience measures for such infrastructure and water supply, in the city of Sierra Madre, California.
“(302) Smith River, California—$25,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Howonquet Village and Resort and Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation, Smith River, California.
“(303) Torrance, California—$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including groundwater recharge and water supply, in the city of Torrance, California.
“(304) Western contra costa county, California—$15,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the cities of Pinole, San Pablo, and Richmond, and in El Sobrante, California.
“(305) Hebron, Connecticut—$3,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Hebron, Connecticut.
“(306) New london, Connecticut—$16,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the town of Bozrah and the City of Norwich, Connecticut.
“(307) Windham, Connecticut—$18,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Windham, Connecticut.
“(308) New castle, Delaware—$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in New Castle County, Delaware.
“(309) Washington, District of Columbia—$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Washington, District of Columbia.
“(310) Longboat key, Florida—$12,750,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Longboat Key, Florida.
“(311) Martin, st. lucie, and palm beach counties, Florida—$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, to improve water quality in the St. Lucie River, Indian River Lagoon, and Lake Worth Lagoon in Martin County, St. Lucie County, and Palm Beach County, Florida.
“(312) Polk county, Florida—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Polk County, Florida.
“(313) Okeechobee county, Florida—$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Okeechobee County, Florida.
“(314) Orange county, Florida—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation and water supply, in Orange County, Florida.
“(315) Guam—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Guam.
“(316) County of Hawai‘i, Hawaii—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the County of Hawai‘i, Hawaii.
“(317) Honolulu, Hawaii—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii.
“(318) Kaua‘i, Hawaii—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the County of Kaua‘i, Hawaii.
“(319) Maui, Hawaii—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the County of Maui, Hawaii.
“(320) Dixmoor, Illinois—$15,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the village of Dixmoor, Illinois.
“(321) Forest park, Illinois—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Forest Park, Illinois.
“(322) Lake County, Illinois—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Lake County, Illinois.
“(323) Lemont, Illinois—$3,135,000 for water infrastructure in the village of Lemont, Illinois.
“(324) Lockport, Illinois—$6,550,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Lockport, Illinois.
“(325) Montgomery and christian counties, Illinois—$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Montgomery County and Christian County, Illinois.
“(326) Will county, Illinois—$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Will County, Illinois.
“(327) Orleans parish, Louisiana—$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Orleans Parish, Louisiana.
“(328) Fitchburg, Massachusetts—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Fitchburg, Massachusetts.
“(329) Haverhill, Massachusetts—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Haverhill, Massachusetts.
“(330) Lawrence, Massachusetts—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Lawrence, Massachusetts.
“(331) Lowell, Massachusetts—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Lowell, Massachusetts.
“(332) Methuen, Massachusetts—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Methuen, Massachusetts.
“(333) Boonsboro, Maryland—$5,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of Boonsboro, Maryland.
“(334) Brunswick, Maryland—$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Brunswick, Maryland.
“(335) Cascade charter township, Michigan—$7,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Cascade Charter Township, Michigan.
“(336) Macomb County, Michigan—$40,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Macomb County, Michigan.
“(337) Northfield, Minnesota—$33,450,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Northfield, Minnesota.
“(338) Centertown, Missouri—$15,900,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the village of Centertown, Missouri.
“(339) St. louis, Missouri—$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of St. Louis, Missouri.
“(340) St. louis county, Missouri—$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in St. Louis County, Missouri.
“(341) Meridian, Mississippi—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Meridian, Mississippi.
“(342) Oxford, Mississippi—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the City of Oxford, Mississippi.
“(343) Manchester, New Hampshire—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Manchester, New Hampshire.
“(344) Bayonne, New Jersey—$825,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Bayonne, New Jersey.
“(345) Camden, New Jersey—$119,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Camden, New Jersey.
“(346) Essex and sussex counties, New Jersey—$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Essex County and Sussex County, New Jersey.
“(347) Flemington, New Jersey—$4,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the Borough of Flemington, New Jersey.
“(348) Jefferson, New Jersey—$90,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Jefferson Township, New Jersey.
“(349) Kearny, New Jersey—$69,900,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the town of Kearny, New Jersey.
“(350) Long hill, New Jersey—$7,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Long Hill Township, New Jersey.
“(351) Morris county, New Jersey—$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Morris County, New Jersey.
“(352) Passaic, New Jersey—$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Passaic County, New Jersey.
“(353) Phillipsburg, New Jersey—$2,600,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
“(354) Rahway, New Jersey—$3,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Rahway, New Jersey.
“(355) Roselle, New Jersey—$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the Borough of Roselle, New Jersey.
“(356) South orange village, New Jersey—$7,500,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the Township of South Orange Village, New Jersey.
“(357) Summit, New Jersey—$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Summit, New Jersey.
“(358) Warren, New Jersey—$4,550,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Warren Township, New Jersey.
“(359) Española, New Mexico—$21,995,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Española, New Mexico.
“(360) Farmington, New Mexico—$15,500,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Farmington, New Mexico.
“(361) Mora county, New Mexico—$2,874,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Mora County, New Mexico.
“(362) Santa Fe, New Mexico—$20,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, in the city of Santa Fe, New Mexico.
“(363) Clarkstown, New York—$14,600,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Clarkstown, New York.
“(364) Genesee, New York—$85,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water supply, in Genesee County, New York.
“(365) Queens, New York—$119,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in Queens, New York.
“(366) Yorktown, New York—$40,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Yorktown, New York.
“(367) Brunswick, Ohio—$4,510,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Brunswick, Ohio.
“(368) Brookings, Oregon—$2,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the City of Brookings and the Port of Brookings Harbor, Oregon.
“(369) Monroe, Oregon—$6,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Monroe, Oregon.
“(370) Newport, Oregon—$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and water storage, in the city of Newport, Oregon.
“(371) Lane county, Oregon—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and storage, distribution, and treatment systems, in Lane County, Oregon.
“(372) Palmyra, Pennsylvania—$36,300,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Palmyra Township, Pennsylvania.
“(373) Pike county, Pennsylvania—$10,000,000 for water and stormwater management infrastructure, including water supply, in Pike County, Pennsylvania.
“(374) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania—$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
“(375) Pocono, Pennsylvania—$22,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Pocono Township, Pennsylvania.
“(376) Westfall, Pennsylvania—$16,880,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Westfall Township, Pennsylvania.
“(377) Whitehall, Pennsylvania—$6,000,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in Whitehall Township and South Whitehall Township, Pennsylvania.
“(378) Beaufort, South Carolina—$7,462,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in Beaufort County, South Carolina.
“(379) Charleston, South Carolina—$25,583,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Charleston, South Carolina.
“(380) Mount pleasant, South Carolina—$7,822,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.
“(381) Portland, Tennessee—$1,850,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Portland, Tennessee.
“(382) Smith county, Tennessee—$19,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Smith County, Tennessee.
“(383) Trousdale, macon, and sumner counties, Tennessee—$178,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Trousdale County, Macon County, and Sumner County, Tennessee.
“(384) Virgin islands—$1,584,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the United States Virgin Islands.
“(385) Bonney lake, Washington—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Bonney Lake, Washington.
“(386) Burien, Washington—$5,000,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in the city of Burien, Washington.
“(387) Ellensburg, Washington—$3,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Ellensburg, Washington.
“(388) North bend, Washington—$30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of North Bend, Washington.
“(389) Port angeles, Washington—$7,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the City and Port of Port Angeles, Washington.
“(390) Snohomish County, Washington—$56,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Snohomish County, Washington.
“(391) Western Washington State—$200,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water supply, and conservation, in Chelan County, King County, Kittitas County, Pierce County, Snohomish County, Skagit County, and Whatcom County, Washington.
“(392) Milwaukee, Wisconsin—$4,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.”
Project modifications—
renumbered
was (3)(3)
Consistency with reports— Congress finds that the project modifications described in this subsection are in accordance with the reports submitted to Congress by the Secretary under section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d), titled “Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development”, or have otherwise been reviewed by Congress.
added
Modifications—
removed
Modifications—
renumbered
was (3)(4)(2)
Sacramento area, California— Section 219(f)(23) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 117 Stat. 1840; 134 Stat. 2718) is amended by striking “Suburban”.
renumbered
was (3)(4)(3)
Los angeles county, California— Section 219(f)(93) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 117 Stat. 1840; 121 Stat. 1259) is amended—
renumbered
was (3)(4)(3)(3)
by striking “$3,000,000” and inserting “$103,000,000”;
renumbered
was (3)(4)(3)(4)
by striking “wastewater and water related infrastructure,” and inserting “water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,”; and
renumbered
was (3)(4)(3)(5)
by inserting “Dominguez Channel, Santa Clarita Valley,” after “La Habra Heights,”.
renumbered
was (3)(4)(4)
Boulder county, Colorado— Section 219(f)(109) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 114 Stat. 2763A–220) is amended by striking “$10,000,000 for water supply infrastructure” and inserting “$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water supply”.
renumbered
was (3)(4)(5)
Charlotte county, Florida— Section 219(f)(121) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1261) is amended by striking “$3,000,000 for” and inserting “$33,000,000 for wastewater and”.
renumbered
was (3)(4)(6)
Miami-dade county, Florida— Section 219(f)(128) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1261) is amended by striking “$6,250,000 for” and inserting “$190,250,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including”.
renumbered
was (3)(4)(7)
Albany, Georgia— Section 219(f)(130) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1261) is amended by striking “$4,000,000 for a storm drainage system,” and inserting “$109,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows),”.
renumbered
was (3)(4)(8)
Atlanta, Georgia— Section 219(e)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334) is amended by striking “$25,000,000” and inserting “$75,000,000”.
renumbered
was (3)(4)(9)
East point, Georgia— Section 219(f)(136) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1261) is amended by striking “$5,000,000 for” and inserting “$15,000,000 for stormwater management and other”.
renumbered
was (3)(4)(10)
Cook county, Illinois— Section 219(f)(54) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220) is amended by striking “$35,000,000 for” and inserting “$100,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, and other”.
renumbered
was (3)(4)(11)
Calumet region, Indiana— Section 219(f)(12)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 117 Stat. 1843; 121 Stat. 1225) is amended by striking “$100,000,000” and inserting “$125,000,000”.
renumbered
was (3)(4)(12)
Baton rouge, Louisiana— Section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 121 Stat. 1226) is amended by striking “$35,000,000” and inserting “$90,000,000”.
renumbered
was (3)(4)(13)
South central planning and development commission, Louisiana— Section 219(f)(153) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1262) is amended by striking “$2,500,000” and inserting “$12,500,000”.
added
St. charles, st. bernard, plaquemines, St. john the baptist, st. james, and assumption parishes, Louisiana—
removed
St. charles, st. bernard, plaquemines, St. john the baptist, st. james, and assumption parishes, Louisiana—
renumbered
was (3)(4)(14)(2)
St. charles, st. bernard, and plaquemines parishes, Louisiana— Section 219(c)(33) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 114 Stat. 2763A–219) is amended by striking “Water and wastewater infrastructure” and inserting “Water supply and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater infrastructure”.
renumbered
was (3)(4)(14)(3)
St. john the baptist, st. james, and assumption parishes, Louisiana— Section 219(c)(34) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 114 Stat. 2763A–219) is amended—
renumbered
was (3)(4)(14)(3)(3)
in the paragraph heading, by striking “Baptist and St. James” and inserting “Baptist, St. James, and Assumption”; and
renumbered
was (3)(4)(14)(3)(4)
by striking “Baptist and St. James” and inserting “Baptist, St. James, and Assumption”.
renumbered
was (3)(4)(14)(4)
Authorization of appropriations for construction assistance— Section 219(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1192) is amended—
renumbered
was (3)(4)(14)(4)(3)
by striking the “and” at the end of paragraph (16);
renumbered
was (3)(4)(14)(4)(4)
by striking the period at the end of paragraph (17) and inserting a semicolon; and
renumbered
was (3)(4)(14)(4)(5)
by adding at the end the following:
“(18) $70,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(33); and
“(19) $36,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(34).”
renumbered
was (3)(4)(15)
Michigan combined sewer overflows— Section 219(f)(157) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1262) is amended by striking “correction of combined sewer overflows” and inserting “water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including correction of combined sewer overflows)”.
renumbered
was (3)(4)(16)
Allegheny county, Pennsylvania— Section 219(f)(66)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–221; 121 Stat. 1240) is amended by striking “$20,000,000 for” and inserting “$30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, and other”.
renumbered
was (3)(4)(17)
Lakes marion and moultrie, South Carolina— Section 219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 117 Stat. 1838; 130 Stat. 1677; 132 Stat. 3818; 134 Stat. 2719) is amended by striking “$110,000,000” and inserting “$165,000,000”.
renumbered
was (3)(4)(18)
Eastern shore and southwest Virginia— Section 219(f)(10)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1255) is amended by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “$52,000,000”.
renumbered
was (3)(5)
Effect on authorization— Notwithstanding the operation of section 6001(e) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016), any project included on a list published by the Secretary pursuant to such section the authorization for which is amended by this subsection remains authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.