H.R. 7776 — what changed
James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023
From Introduced in House to Reported in House. 75 sections amended and 15 added between Introduced in House and Reported in House.
Sec. 101 Federal breakwaters and jetties
changed
In general— In carrying out repair or maintenance activity of a Federal jetty or breakwater associated with an authorized navigation project, the Secretary shall, notwithstanding the authorized dimensions of the jetty or breakwater, ensure that such repair or maintenance activity is sufficient to meet the authorized purpose of such project, including ensuring that any harbor or inland harbor associated with the project is protected from projected changes in wave action or height (including changes that result from relative sea-level sea level change over the useful life of the project).
Classification of activity— The Secretary may not classify any repair or maintenance activity of a Federal jetty or breakwater carried out under subsection (a) as major rehabilitation of such jetty or breakwater—
if the Secretary determines that—
changed
projected changes in wave action or height, including changes that result from relative sea-level sea level change, will diminish the functionality of the jetty or breakwater to meet the authorized purpose of the project; and
such repair or maintenance activity is necessary to restore such functionality; or
if—
the Secretary has not carried out regular and routine Federal maintenance activity at the jetty or breakwater; and
the structural integrity of the jetty or breakwater is degraded as a result of a lack of such regular and routine Federal maintenance activity.
Sec. 102 Emergency response to natural disasters
changed
Section 5(a)(1) of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(a)(1)), 701n(a)(1)) is amended by striking “in the repair and restoration of any federally authorized hurricane or shore protective structure” and all that follows through “non-Federal sponsor.” and inserting “in the repair and restoration of any federally authorized hurricane or shore protective structure or project damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or water action of other than an ordinary nature to the pre-storm level of protection, to the design level of protection, or, notwithstanding the authorized dimensions of the structure or project, to a level sufficient to meet the authorized purpose of such structure or project, whichever provides greater protection, when, in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers, such repair and restoration is warranted for the adequate functioning of the structure or project for hurricane or shore protection, including to ensure the structure or project is functioning adequately to protect against projected changes in wave action or height or storm surge (including changes that result from relative sea-level sea level change over the useful life of the structure or project), subject to the condition that the Chief of Engineers may include modifications to the structure or project to address major deficiencies or implement nonstructural alternatives to the repair or restoration of the structure if requested by the non-Federal sponsor.”.
Sec. 103 Shoreline and riverine restoration
In general— Section 212 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332) is amended—
in the section heading, by striking “Flood mitigation and riverine restoration program” and inserting “Shoreline and riverine protection and restoration”;
in subsection (a)—
by striking “undertake a program for the purpose of conducting” and inserting “carry out”;
by striking “to reduce flood hazards” and inserting “to reduce flood and hurricane and storm damage hazards (including erosion)”; and
by inserting “and shorelines” after “rivers”;
in subsection (b)—
in paragraph (1)—
by striking “In carrying out the program, the” and inserting “The”;
by inserting “and hurricane and storm” after “flood”; and
by inserting “erosion mitigation,” after “reduction,”;
in paragraph (3), by striking “flood damages” and inserting “flood and hurricane and storm damages, including the use of natural features and nature-based features, as defined in section 1184(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a))”; and
in paragraph (4)—
by inserting “and hurricane and storm” after “flood”;
by inserting “, shoreline,” after “riverine”; and
by inserting “and coastal barriers” after “floodplains”;
in subsection (c)—
in paragraph (2)—
in the paragraph heading, by striking “flood control”; and
in subparagraph (A), by inserting “or hurricane and storm damage reduction” after “flood control”; and
in paragraph (3)—
in the paragraph heading, by inserting “or hurricane and storm damage reduction” after “flood control”; and
by inserting “or hurricane and storm damage reduction” after “flood control”;
changed
by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:follows:—
“(d) Project Justification—Notwithstanding any other provision of law or requirement for economic justification established under section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962–2), the Secretary may implement a project under this section if the Secretary determines that the project—
“(1) will significantly reduce potential flood, hurricane and storm, or erosion damages;
“(2) will improve the quality of the environment; and
“(3) is justified considering all costs and beneficial outputs of the project.”
in subsection (e)—
in paragraph (32), by striking “; and” and inserting a semicolon;
in paragraph (33), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(34) City of Southport, North Carolina.”
by striking subsections (f) through (i) and inserting the following:
“(f) Authorization of appropriations—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000, to remain available until expended.”
Clerical amendment— The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 269) is amended by striking the item relating to section 212 and inserting the following:
Sec. 105 Removal of manmade obstruction to aquatic ecosystem restoration projects
changed
In general— In carrying out an aquatic ecosystem restoration project, at the request of a non-Federal interest and with the consent of the owner of a man-made manmade obstruction, the Secretary shall determine whether the removal of such obstruction from the aquatic environment within the geographic scope of the project is necessary to meet the aquatic ecosystem restoration goals of the project.
Removal costs— If the Secretary determines under subsection (a) that removal of an obstruction is necessary, the Secretary shall consider the removal of such obstruction to be a project feature and the cost of such removal shall be shared between the Secretary and non-Federal interest as a construction cost.
Applicability— The requirements of subsection (a) shall apply to any project for ecosystem restoration authorized on or after June 10, 2014.
Sec. 106 National coastal mapping study
In general— The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Engineer Research and Development Center, is authorized to carry out a study of coastal geographic land changes, with recurring national coastal mapping technology, along the coastal zone of the United States to support Corps of Engineers missions.
Study— In carrying out the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall identify—
new or advanced geospatial information and remote sensing tools for coastal mapping;
changed
best practices for coastal change mapping; andmapping;
how to most effectively—
collect and analyze such advanced geospatial information;
disseminate such geospatial information to relevant offices of the Corps of Engineers, other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, and local governments; and
make such geospatial information available to other stakeholders.
Demonstration project—
Project area— In carrying out the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall carry out a demonstration project in the coastal region covering the North Carolina coastal waters, connected bays, estuaries, rivers, streams, and creeks, to their tidally influenced extent inland.
Scope— In carrying out the demonstration project, the Secretary shall—
identify potential hazards, such as debris, sedimentation, dredging effects, and flood areas;
identify best practices described in subsection (b)(2), including best practices relating to geographical coverage and frequency of mapping;
evaluate and demonstrate relevant mapping technologies to identify which are the most effective for regional mapping of the transitional areas between the open coast and inland waters; and
demonstrate remote sensing tools for coastal mapping.
Coordination— In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall coordinate with other Federal and State agencies that are responsible for authoritative data and academic institutions and other entities with relevant expertise.
Panel—
Establishment— In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall establish a panel of senior leaders from the Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies that are stakeholders in the coastal mapping program carried out through the Engineer Research and Development Center.
Duties— The panel established under this subsection shall—
coordinate the collection of data under the study carried out under this section;
coordinate the use of geospatial information and remote sensing tools, and the application of the best practices identified under the study, by Federal agencies; and
identify technical topics and challenges that require multiagency collaborative research and development.
Use of existing information— In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall consider any relevant information developed under section 516(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326b(g)).
Report— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that describes—
the results of the study carried out under this section; and
any geographical areas recommended for additional study.
Authorization of appropriation— There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Sec. 108 Preliminary analysis
In general— Section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c) is amended by striking subsections (e) and (f) and inserting the following:
“(e) Preliminary analysis
changed
“(1) In general—At the request of a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall, prior to executing a cost sharing cost-sharing agreement for a feasibility study described in subsection (a), carry out a preliminary analysis of the water resources problem that is the subject of the feasibility study in order to identify potential alternatives to address such problem.
“(2) Considerations—In carrying out a preliminary analysis under this subsection, the Secretary shall include in such analysis—
“(A) a preliminary analysis of the Federal interest, costs, benefits, and environmental impacts of the project;
“(B) an estimate of the costs of, and duration for, preparing the feasibility study; and
“(C) for a flood risk management or hurricane and storm risk reduction project, at the request of the non-Federal interest, the identification of any opportunities to incorporate natural features or nature-based features into the project.
“(3) Deadline—The Secretary shall complete a preliminary analysis carried out under this subsection by not later than 180 days after the date on which funds are made available to the Secretary to carry out the preliminary analysis.
“(4) Cost share—The cost of a preliminary analysis carried out under this subsection—
“(A) shall be at Federal expense; and
“(B) shall not exceed $200,000.
“(5) Treatment
“(A) Timing—The period during which a preliminary analysis is carried out under this subsection shall not be included for the purposes of the deadline to complete a final feasibility report under subsection (a)(1).
“(B) Cost—The cost of a preliminary analysis carried out under this subsection shall not be included for the purposes of the maximum Federal cost under subsection (a)(2).”
Conforming amendment— Section 905(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(a)(2)) is amended by striking “a preliminary analysis” and inserting “an analysis”.
Sec. 112 Managed aquifer recharge study and working group
Study—
In general— The Secretary shall, in consultation with applicable non-Federal interests, conduct a study at Federal expense to determine the feasibility of carrying out managed aquifer recharge projects to address drought, water resiliency, and aquifer depletion.
Requirements— In carrying out the study under this subsection, the Secretary shall—
assess and identify opportunities to support non-Federal interests, including Tribal communities, in carrying out managed aquifer recharge projects;
identify opportunities to carry out managed aquifer recharge projects in areas that are experiencing, or have recently experienced, prolonged drought conditions, aquifer depletion, or water supply scarcity; and
assess preliminarily local hydrogeologic conditions relevant to carrying out managed aquifer recharge projects.
Coordination— In carrying out the study under this subsection, the Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with the heads of other Federal agencies, States, regional governmental agencies, units of local government, experts in managed aquifer recharge, and Tribes.
Working group—
In general— Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment, the Secretary shall establish a managed aquifer recharge working group within the Corps of Engineers.
Composition— In establishing the working group under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ensure that members of the working group have expertise working with—
projects providing water supply storage to meet regional water supply demand, particularly in regions experiencing drought;
protection of groundwater supply, including promoting infiltration and increased recharge in groundwater basins, and groundwater quality;
aquifer storage, recharge, and recovery wells;
dams that provide recharge enhancement benefits;
changed
groundwater hydrology; andhydrology;
changed
conjunctive use water systems.systems; and
added
agricultural water resources, including the use of aquifers for irrigation purposes.
Duties— The working group established under this subsection shall—
advise and assist in the development and execution of the feasibility study under subsection (a);
coordinate Corps of Engineers expertise on managed aquifer recharge;
share Corps of Engineers-wide communications on the successes and failures, questions and answers, and conclusions and recommendations with respect to managed aquifer recharge projects;
assist Corps of Engineers offices at the headquarter, division, and district levels with raising awareness to non-Federal interests on the potential benefits of carrying out managed aquifer recharge projects; and
develop the report required to be submitted under subsection (c).
Report to Congress— Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on managed aquifer recharge that includes—
the results of the study conducted under subsection (a), including data collected under such study and any recommendations on managed aquifer recharge opportunities for non-Federal interests, States, local governments, and Tribes;
changed
a status update on the implementation of the recommendations included in the report of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources entitled “Managed Aquifer Recharge and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Water Security through Resilience”, published in April, April 2020 (2020–WP–01); and
an evaluation of the benefits of creating a new or modifying an existing planning center of expertise for managed aquifer recharge, and identify potential locations for such a center of expertise, if feasible.
Definitions— In this section:
Managed aquifer recharge— The term managed aquifer recharge means the intentional banking and treatment of water in aquifers for storage and future use.
Managed aquifer recharge project— The term managed aquifer recharge project means a project to incorporate managed aquifer recharge features into a water resources development project.
Sec. 113 Flood easement database
changed
In general— Not later than one 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish and maintain a database containing an inventory of—
all floodplain and flowage easements held by the Corps of Engineers; and
other federally held floodplain and flowage easements with respect to which other Federal agencies submit information to the Secretary.
Contents— The Secretary shall include in the database established under subsection (a)—
with respect to each floodplain and flowage easement included in the database—
the location of the land subject to the easement (including geographic information system information);
a brief description of such land, including the acreage and ecosystem type covered by the easement;
the Federal agency that holds the easement;
any conditions of the easement, including—
the amount of flooding, timing of flooding, or area of flooding covered by the easement;
any conservation requirements; and
any restoration requirements;
the date on which the easement was acquired; and
whether the easement is permanent or temporary, and if the easement is temporary, the date on which the easement expires; and
any other information that the Secretary determines appropriate.
Availability of information— The Secretary shall make the full database established under subsection (a) available to the public in searchable form, including on the internet.
Other Federal easements— The Secretary shall request information from other Federal agencies to incorporate other federally held floodplain and flowage easements into the database established under subsection (a).
Sec. 114 Assessment of Corps of Engineers levees
In general— The Secretary shall, at Federal expense, periodically conduct an assessment of levees constructed by the Secretary or for which the Secretary has financial or operational responsibility, to identify opportunities for the modification (including realignment or incorporation of natural and nature-based features) of levee systems to—
increase the flood risk reduction benefits of such systems;
achieve greater flood resiliency; and
changed
restore hydrological and ecological connections with adjacent floodplains.floodplains that achieve greater environmental benefits without undermining the objectives of paragraphs (1) and (2).
Assessment—
Considerations— In conducting an assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider and identify, with respect to each levee—
an estimate of the number of structures and population at risk and protected by the levee that would be adversely impacted if the levee fails or water levels exceed the height of the levee (which may be the applicable estimate included in the levee database established under section 9004 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303), if available);
changed
the number of times the non-Federal interest has received emergency flood-fighting or repair assistance under section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n), 701n) for the levee, and the total expenditures on post-flood postflood repairs over the life of the levee;
the functionality of the levee with regard to higher precipitation levels, including due to changing climatic conditions and extreme weather events; and
changed
the potential costs and benefits (including environmental benefits) benefits and implications for levee-protected communities located in a Special Flood Hazard Area) from modifying the applicable levee system to restore connections with adjacent floodplains.
Prioritization— In conducting an assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall prioritize levees—
associated with an area that has been subject to flooding in two or more events in any 10-year period; and
changed
for which the non-Federal interest has received emergency flood-fighting or repair assistance under section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n), 701n) with respect to such flood events.
Coordination— In conducting an assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall coordinate with any non-Federal interest that has financial or operational responsibility for a levee being assessed.
Flood plain management services— In conducting an assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider information on floods and flood damages compiled under section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a).
Report to Congress—
In general— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this section, and periodically thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of the assessment conducted under subsection (a).
Inclusion— The Secretary shall include in each report submitted under paragraph (1)—
identification of any levee for which the Secretary has conducted an assessment under subsection (a);
a description of any opportunities identified under such subsection for the modification (including realignment or incorporation of natural and nature-based features) of a levee system, including the potential benefits of such modification for the purposes identified under such subsection; and
a summary of the information considered and identified under subsection (b)(1).
Incorporation of information— The Secretary shall include in the levee database established under section 9004 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303) the information included in each report submitted under subsection (d).
Authorization of Appropriations— There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Sec. 115 Technical assistance for levee inspections
changed
In any instance where the Secretary requires, as a condition of eligibility for Federal assistance under section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n), that a non-Federal sponsor of a flood control project constructed by the Secretary undertake an electronic inspection of the portion of such project that is under normal circumstances submerged, the Secretary shall provide credit or reimbursement to the non-Federal sponsor of credit or reimbursement for the cost of carrying out such inspection against the non-Federal share of the cost of repair or restoration of such project carried out under such section.
Sec. 116 Assessment of Corps of Engineers dams
In general— The Secretary shall conduct an assessment of dams constructed by the Secretary or for which the Secretary has financial or operational responsibility, to identify—
changed
any dam that is meeting its authorized purposes and that may be a priority for rehabilitation, environmental performance enhancements, or retrofits to add or replace power generation (at a powered or non-powered nonpowered dam), and the recommendations of the Secretary for addressing each such dam; and
any dam that does not meet its authorized purposes, has been abandoned or inadequately maintained, or has otherwise reached the end of its useful life, and the recommendations of the Secretary for addressing each such dam, which may include a recommendation to remove the dam.
National dam inventory and assessment— The Secretary shall include in the inventory of dams required by section 6 of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467d) any information and recommendations resulting from the assessment of dams conducted under subsection (a).
Report— Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of the assessment of dams conducted under subsection (a).
Sec. 117 National low-head dam inventory
In general— The Secretary, in consultation with the heads of appropriate Federal and State agencies, shall—
establish and maintain a database containing an inventory of low-head dams in the United States that includes—
the location (including global information system information), ownership, description, current use condition, height, and length of each low-head dam;
any information on public safety conditions, including signage, at each low-head dam;
public safety information on the dangers of low-head dams; and
any other relevant information concerning low-head dams; and
include in the inventory of dams required by section 6 of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467d) the information described in paragraph (1).
Inclusion of information— In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall include in the database information described in subsection (a)(1) that is provided to the Secretary by Federal and State agencies pursuant to subsection (a).
Public availability— The Secretary shall make the database established under subsection (a) publicly available, including on a publicly available website.
changed
Low-Head dam defined— In this section, the term low-head dam means a man-made manmade structure, built in a river or stream channel, that is designed and built such that water flows continuously over all, or nearly all, of the crest from bank to bank.
Sec. 120 Tribal assistance
Definitions— In this section:
changed
Bonneville Dam— The term Bonneville Dam means the Bonneville Dam, Columbia River, Oregon, authorized by the first section of the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1038), 1038) and the first section and section 2(a) of the Act of August 20, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832, 832(a)).
Dalles Dam— The term Dalles Dam means the Dalles Dam, Columbia River, Washington and Oregon, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 179).
John Day Dam— The term John Day Dam means the John Day Dam, Columbia River, Washington and Oregon, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 179).
Village development plan— The term village development plan means the village development plan required by section 1133(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3782).
Clarification of existing authority—
In general— The Secretary, in consultation with the heads of relevant Federal agencies, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, shall revise and carry out the village development plan for the Dalles Dam to provide replacement villages for each Indian village submerged as a result of the construction of the Bonneville Dam and the John Day Dam.
Examination— Before revising and carrying out the village development plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall conduct an examination and assessment of the extent to which Indian villages, housing sites, and related structures were displaced by the construction of the Bonneville Dam and the John Day Dam.
Requirements— In revising the village development plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include, at a minimum—
an evaluation of sites on both sides of the Columbia River;
an assessment of suitable private, State, and Federal lands; and
an estimated cost and tentative schedule for the construction of each replacement village.
Provision of assistance on federal land— In carrying out subsection (b)(1), the Secretary may construct housing or provide related assistance on land owned by the United States.
Acquisition and disposal of land—
In general— In carrying out subsection (b)(1), the Secretary may acquire land or interests in land for the purpose of providing housing and related assistance.
Advance acquisition— The Secretary may acquire land or interests in land under paragraph (1) before completing all required documentation and receiving all required clearances for the construction of housing or related improvements on the land.
Disposal of unsuitable land— In the event the Secretary determines that land or an interest in land acquired by the Secretary under paragraph (2) is unsuitable for the purpose for which it was acquired, the Secretary is authorized to dispose of the land or interest in land by sale and credit the proceeds to the appropriation, fund, or account used to purchase the land or interest in land.
Conforming amendment— Section 1178(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1675; 132 Stat. 3781) is repealed.
Sec. 121 Cost sharing provisions for the territories and Indian Tribes
Section 1156(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2310(a)) is amended—
in paragraph (1), by striking “and” at the end;
changed
in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and” ; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(3) for any organization that—
“(A) is composed primarily of people who are—
“(i) recognized and defined under Federal law as indigenous people of the United States; and
“(ii) from a specific community; and
“(B) assists in the social, cultural, and educational development of such people in that community.”
Sec. 124 Strategic plan on beneficial use of dredged material
In general— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a strategic plan that identifies opportunities and challenges relating to furthering the policy of the United States to maximize the beneficial use of suitable dredged material obtained from the construction or operation and maintenance of water resources development projects, as described in section 125(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2326g).
Consultation— In developing the strategic plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
consult with relevant Federal agencies involved in the beneficial use of dredged material;
solicit and consider input from State and local governments and Indian Tribes, while seeking to ensure a geographic diversity of input from the various Corps of Engineers divisions; and
consider input received from other stakeholders involved in beneficial use of dredged material.
Inclusion— The Secretary shall include in the strategic plan developed under subsection (a)—
changed
identification of any specific barriers and conflicts that the Secretary determines impede the maximization of beneficial use of dredged material at the Federal, State, and local level, and any recommendations of the Secretary to address such barriers and conflicts; andconflicts;
changed
identification of specific measures to improve interagency and Federal, State, local, and Tribal communications and coordination to improve implementation of section 125(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2326g).2326g); and
added
identification of methods to prioritize the use of dredged material to benefit water resources development projects in areas experiencing vulnerabilities to coastal land loss.
Sec. 125 Funding to review mitigation banking proposals from non-Federal public entities
Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2352) is amended—
in the section heading, by inserting “and review proposals” after “permits”;
by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f) and inserting after subsection (d) the following:
“(e) Funding To review mitigation bank proposals
“(1) Definitions—In this subsection, the terms mitigation bank and mitigation bank instrument have the meanings given those terms in section 230.91 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation).
“(2) Proposal review—The Secretary, after public notice, may accept and expend funds contributed by a non-Federal public entity to expedite the review of a proposal for a mitigation bank for which the non-Federal public entity is the sponsor, without regard to whether the entity plans to sell a portion of the credits generated by a mitigation bank instrument of the entity to other public or private entities, if the entity enters into an agreement with the Secretary that requires the entity to use for a public purpose any funds obtained from the sale of such credits.
“(3) Effect on other entities—To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that expediting the review of a proposal for a mitigation bank through the use of funds accepted and expended under this subsection does not adversely affect the timeline for review (in the Corps of Engineers district in which the mitigation bank is to be located) of such proposals of other entities that have not contributed funds under this subsection.
changed
“(4) Effect on review—In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall ensure that the use of funds accepted under paragraph (1) will not impact impartial decision making decisionmaking with respect to proposals for mitigation banks, either substantively or procedurally.
“(5) Public availability
“(A) In general—The Secretary shall ensure that all final decisions regarding proposals for mitigation banks carried out using funds authorized under this subsection are made available to the public in a common format, including on the internet, and in a manner that distinguishes final decisions under this subsection from other final actions of the Secretary.
“(B) Decision document—The Secretary shall—
“(i) use a standard decision document for reviewing all proposals using funds accepted under this subsection; and
“(ii) make the standard decision document, along with all final decisions regarding proposals for mitigation banks, available to the public, including on the internet.”
in paragraph (1) of subsection (f), as so redesignated—
in subparagraph (B), by striking “; and” and inserting a semicolon; and
by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D) and inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
changed
“(C) a comprehensive list of the proposals for mitigation banks reviewed and approved using funds accepted under subsection (e) during the previous fiscal year; year, including a description of any effects of such subsection on the timelines for review of proposals of other entities that have not contributed funds under such subsection; and”
Sec. 126 Environmental dredging
changed
In general— The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, other Federal and State agencies, and the applicable non-Federal interest, shall coordinate efforts to remove or remediate contaminated sediments and legacy high-phosphorous sediments associated with the following water resources development projects:
The project for ecosystem restoration, South Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River, Bubbly Creek, Illinois, authorized by section 401(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2740).
The project for ecosystem restoration and recreation, Willamette River, Oregon, authorized by section 1401(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1714).
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mahoning River, Ohio, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
The project for navigation, South Branch of the Chicago River, Cook County, Illinois, in the vicinity of Collateral Channel.
added
The project for ecosystem restoration, Central and Southern Florida Project, Central Everglades Restoration Plan, Florida, in the vicinity of Lake Okeechobee.
Report to Congress— Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall jointly submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on efforts to remove or remediate contaminated sediments associated with the projects identified in subsection (a), including, if applicable, any specific recommendations for actions or agreements necessary to undertake such work.
Sec. 132 Contracts with institutions of higher education to provide assistance
addedadded Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
added “(e) Capacity To provide assistance—In carrying out this section, the Secretary may work with or contract with an institution of higher education, as determined appropriate by the Secretary.”
Sec. 133 Records regarding members and employees of the Corps of Engineers who perform duty at Lake Okeechobee, Florida, during a harmful algal bloom
added
added
Service records— The Secretary shall indicate in the service record of a member or employee of the Corps of Engineers who performs covered duty that such member or employee was exposed to microcystin in the line of duty.
added
Covered duty defined— In this section, the term covered duty means duty performed—
added
during a period when the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has determined that there is a concentration of microcystin of greater than 8 parts per billion in the waters of Lake Okeechobee resulting from a harmful algal bloom in such lake; and
added
at or near any of the following structures:
added
S–77.
added
S–78.
added
S–79.
added
S–80.
added
S–308.
Sec. 134 Sense of Congress on the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, Louisiana
addedadded It is the sense of Congress that—
added
sections 7012(b) and 7013 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1280), together with the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109–234), authorize and direct the Secretary to close and restore the ecosystem adversely affected by the construction and operation of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, Louisiana, at full Federal expense; and
added
the Secretary should quickly begin construction of such project using existing authorities.
Sec. 201 Authorization of proposed feasibility studies
New projects— The Secretary is authorized to conduct a feasibility study for the following projects for water resources development and conservation and other purposes, as identified in the reports titled “Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development” submitted to Congress pursuant to section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d) or otherwise reviewed by Congress:
Dudleyville, Arizona— Project for flood risk management, Dudleyville, Arizona.
Conn creek dam, California— Project for flood risk management, Conn Creek Dam, California.
City of huntington beach, California— Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, including sea level rise, and shoreline stabilization, City of Huntington Beach, California.
Napa river, California— Project for navigation, Federal Channel of Napa River, California.
Petaluma river wetlands, California— Project for ecosystem restoration, City of Petaluma, California.
City of rialto, California— Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, City of Rialto and vicinity, California.
North richmond, California— Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, including sea level rise, and ecosystem restoration, North Richmond, California.
Upper yuba river basin, California— Project for flood risk management, Upper Yuba River, California.
Stratford, Connecticut— Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and flood risk management, Stratford, Connecticut.
Woodbridge, Connecticut— Project for flood risk management, Woodbridge, Connecticut.
Federal triangle area, Washington, District of Columbia— Project for flood risk management, Federal Triangle Area, Washington, District of Columbia, including construction of improvements to interior drainage.
Potomac and anacostia rivers, Washington, District of Columbia— Project for recreational access, including enclosed swimming areas, Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, District of Columbia.
Washington metropolitan area, Washington, District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia— Project for water supply, including the identification of a secondary water source and additional water storage capability for the Washington Metropolitan Area, Washington, District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia.
changed
Duval county, Florida— Project for periodic beach nourishment for the project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Duval County shoreline, Florida, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1092; 90 Stat. 2933), for an additional period of 50 years, Duval County shoreline, Shoreline, Florida.
Town of longboat key, Florida— Project for whole island hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Town of Longboat Key, Florida.
Lake runnymede, Florida— Project for ecosystem restoration, Lake Runnymede, Florida.
Tampa back bay, Florida— Project for flood risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, including the use of natural features and nature-based features for protection and recreation, Tampa Back Bay, Florida.
Port tampa bay and mckay bay, Florida— Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Port Tampa Bay, Florida, including McKay Bay.
Lake tohopekaliga, Florida— Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Lake Tohopekaliga, Florida.
City of albany, Georgia— Project for flood risk management, City of Albany, Georgia.
City of east point, Georgia— Project for flood risk management, City of East Point, Georgia.
Flint river basin headwaters, clayton county, Georgia— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Flint River Basin Headwaters, Clayton County, Georgia.
Tybee island, Georgia— Project for periodic beach nourishment for the project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Tybee Island, Georgia, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5), for an additional period of 50 years, Tybee Island, Georgia.
Waikīkī, Hawaii— Project for ecosystem restoration and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Waikīkī, Hawaii.
added
Kentucky River and North Fork Kentucky River, Kentucky— Project for flood risk management on the Kentucky River and North Fork Kentucky River near Beattyville and Jackson, Kentucky.
renumbered
was (2)(27)
Assawompset pond complex, Massachusetts— Project for ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and water supply, Assawompset Pond Complex, Massachusetts.
renumbered
was (2)(28)
Charles river, Massachusetts— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Charles River, Massachusetts.
renumbered
was (2)(29)
Chelsea creek and mill creek, Massachusetts— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including bank stabilization, City of Chelsea, Massachusetts.
renumbered
was (2)(30)
Connecticut river streambank erosion, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire— Project for streambank erosion, Connecticut River, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire.
renumbered
was (2)(31)
Deerfield river, Massachusetts— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Deerfield River, Massachusetts.
renumbered
was (2)(32)
Town of north attleborough, Massachusetts— Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management between Whiting’s and Falls ponds, North Attleborough, Massachusetts.
renumbered
was (2)(33)
Town of hull, Massachusetts— Project for flood risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Hull, Massachusetts.
renumbered
was (2)(34)
City of revere, Massachusetts— Project for flood risk management and marsh ecosystem restoration, City of Revere, Massachusetts.
renumbered
was (2)(35)
Lower east side, detroit, Michigan— Project for flood risk management, Lower East Side Detroit, Michigan.
renumbered
was (2)(36)
Elijah root dam, Michigan— Project for dam removal, by carrying out a disposition study under section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a), Elijah Root Dam, Michigan.
renumbered
was (2)(37)
Grosse pointe shores and grosse pointe farms, Michigan— Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Grosse Pointe Shores and Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan.
added
Southeast michigan, Michigan— Project for flood risk management, Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties, Michigan.
removed
Southeast michigan, Michigan— Project for flood risk management, Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties, Michigan.
renumbered
was (2)(39)
Tittabawassee river watershed, Michigan— Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and related conservation benefits, Tittabawassee River, Chippewa River, Pine River, and Tobacco River, Midland County, Michigan.
removed
Southwest mississippi, Mississippi— Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Wilkinson, Adams, Warren, Claiborne, and Jefferson counties, Mississippi.
changed
Camden and gloucester counties, New Jersey—Southwest mississippi, Mississippi— Project for tidal ecosystem restoration and riverine flood risk management, Camden Wilkinson, Adams, Warren, Claiborne, Franklin, Amite, and Gloucester counties, New Jersey.Jefferson Counties, Mississippi.
added
Camden and gloucester county, New Jersey— Project for tidal and riverine flood risk management, Camden and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey.
renumbered
was (2)(42)
Edgewater, New Jersey— Project for flood risk management, Edgewater, New Jersey.
renumbered
was (2)(43)
Maurice river, New Jersey— Project for navigation and for beneficial use of dredged materials for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and ecosystem restoration, Maurice River, New Jersey.
removed
Northern new jersey inland flooding, New Jersey— Project for inland flood risk management in Hudson, Essex, Union, Bergen, Hunterdon, Morris, Somerset, Warren, Passaic, and Sussex counties, New Jersey.
changed
Riser ditch, Northern new jersey inland flooding, New Jersey— Project for inland flood risk management, including channel improvements, and other related water resource needs related to Riser Ditch management in the communities of South Hackensack, Hasbrouck Heights, Little Ferry, Teterboro Hudson, Essex, Union, Bergen, Hunterdon, Morris, Somerset, Warren, Passaic, and Moonachie, Sussex Counties, New Jersey.
added
Riser ditch, New Jersey— Project for flood risk management, including channel improvements, and other related water resource needs related to Riser Ditch in the communities of South Hackensack, Hasbrouck Heights, Little Ferry, Teterboro, and Moonachie, New Jersey.
renumbered
was (2)(46)
Rockaway river, New Jersey— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including bank stabilization, Rockaway River, New Jersey.
renumbered
was (2)(47)
Tenakill brook, New Jersey— Project for flood risk management, Tenakill Brook, New Jersey.
renumbered
was (2)(48)
Verona, cedar grove, and west caldwell, New Jersey— Project for flood risk management along the Peckman River Basin in the townships of Verona (and surrounding area), Cedar Grove, and West Caldwell, New Jersey.
renumbered
was (2)(49)
Whippany river watershed, New Jersey— Project for flood risk management, Morris County, New Jersey.
renumbered
was (2)(50)
Lake farmington dam, New Mexico— Project for water supply, Lake Farmington Dam, New Mexico.
renumbered
was (2)(51)
Mcclure dam, New Mexico— Project for dam safety improvements and flood risk management, McClure Dam, City of Santa Fe, New Mexico.
renumbered
was (2)(52)
Brooklyn navy yard, New York— Project for flood risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Brooklyn Navy Yard, New York.
renumbered
was (2)(53)
Upper east river and flushing bay, New York— Project for ecosystem restoration, Upper East River and Flushing Bay, New York.
renumbered
was (2)(54)
Hutchinson river, New York— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Hutchinson River, New York.
renumbered
was (2)(55)
Mohawk river basin, New York— Project for flood risk management, navigation, and environmental restoration, Mohawk River Basin, New York.
renumbered
was (2)(56)
Newtown creek, New York— Project for ecosystem restoration, Newtown Creek, New York.
renumbered
was (2)(57)
Saw mill river, New York— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration to address areas in the City of Yonkers and the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson within the 100-year flood zone, Saw Mill River, New York.
renumbered
was (2)(58)
Mineral ridge dam, Ohio— Project for dam safety improvements and rehabilitation, Mineral Ridge Dam, Ohio.
renumbered
was (2)(59)
Brodhead creek watershed, Pennsylvania— Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Brodhead Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania.
renumbered
was (2)(60)
Chartiers creek watershed, Pennsylvania— Project for flood risk management, Chartiers Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania.
renumbered
was (2)(61)
Coplay creek, Pennsylvania— Project for flood risk management, Coplay Creek, Pennsylvania.
renumbered
was (2)(62)
Berkeley county, South Carolina— Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Berkeley County, South Carolina.
renumbered
was (2)(63)
Big sioux river, South Dakota— Project for flood risk management, City of Watertown and vicinity, South Dakota.
renumbered
was (2)(64)
Tennessee-tombigbee river basins, Tennessee— Project to deter, impede, or restrict the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species in the Tennessee-Tombigbee River Basins, Tennessee.
renumbered
was (2)(65)
El paso county, Texas— Project for flood risk management for economically disadvantaged communities, as defined by the Secretary pursuant to section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note), along the United States-Mexico border, El Paso County, Texas.
renumbered
was (2)(66)
Gulf intracoastal waterway-channel to palacios, Texas— Project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway-Channel to Palacios, Texas.
renumbered
was (2)(67)
Sikes lake, Texas— Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Sikes Lake, Texas.
added
Southwest border region, Texas— Project for flood risk management for economically disadvantaged communities, as defined by the Secretary pursuant to section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note), along the United States-Mexico border in Webb, Zapata, and Starr Counties, Texas.
removed
Southwest border region, Texas— Project for flood risk management for economically disadvantaged communities, as defined by the Secretary pursuant to section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note), along the United States-Mexico border in Webb, Zapata, and Starr counties, Texas.
renumbered
was (2)(69)
Lower clear creek and dickinson bayou, Texas— Project for flood risk management, Lower Clear Creek and Dickinson Bayou, Texas.
renumbered
was (2)(70)
Cedar island, Virginia— Project for ecosystem restoration, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and navigation, Cedar Island, Virginia.
renumbered
was (2)(71)
Ballinger creek, Washington— Project for ecosystem restoration, City of Shoreline, Washington.
renumbered
was (2)(72)
City of north bend, Washington— Project for water supply, City of North Bend, Washington.
renumbered
was (2)(73)
Taneum creek, Washington— Project for ecosystem restoration, Taneum Creek, Washington.
renumbered
was (2)(74)
City of huntington, West Virginia— Project for flood risk management, Huntington, West Virginia.
Project modifications— The Secretary is authorized to conduct a feasibility study for the following project modifications:
Shingle creek and kissimmee river, Florida— Modifications to the project for ecosystem restoration and water storage, Shingle Creek and Kissimmee River, Florida, authorized by section 201(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2670), for flood risk management.
Jacksonville harbor, Florida— Modifications to the project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 7002 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1364), for outer channel improvements.
Cedar river, cedar rapids, Iowa— Modifications to the project for flood risk management, Cedar River, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, authorized by section 7002(2) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1366), consistent with the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Cedar River Flood Control System Master Plan.
Yabucoa harbor, Puerto Rico— Modification to the project for navigation, Yabucoa Harbor, Puerto Rico, authorized by section 3 of the Act of August 30, 1935 (chapter 831, 49 Stat. 1048), for assumption of operations and maintenance.
Salem river, salem county, New Jersey— Modifications to the project for navigation, Salem River, Salem County, New Jersey, authorized by section 1 of the Act of March 2, 1907 (chapter 2509, 34 Stat. 1080), to increase the authorized depth.
Everett harbor and snohomish river, Washington— Modifications to the project for navigation, Everett Harbor and Snohomish River, Washington, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 732), for the Boat Launch Connector Channel.
Hiram m. chittenden locks, lake washington ship canal, Washington— Modifications to the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks (also known as Ballard Locks), Lake Washington Ship Canal, Washington, authorized by the Act of June 25, 1910 (chapter 382, 36 Stat. 666), for the construction of fish ladder improvements, including efforts to address elevated temperature and low dissolved oxygen levels in the Canal.
Port townsend, Washington— Modifications to the project for navigation, Port Townsend, Washington, authorized by section 110 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 169), for the Boat Haven Marina Breakwater.
Sec. 202 Expedited completion
Feasibility Studies— The Secretary shall expedite the completion of a feasibility study for each of the following projects, and if the Secretary determines that the project is justified in a completed report, may proceed directly to preconstruction planning, engineering, and design of the project:
Project for navigation, Branford Harbor and Stony Creek Channel, Connecticut.
Project for navigation, Guilford Harbor and Sluice Channel, Connecticut.
Project for ecosystem restoration, Western Everglades, Florida.
Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Miami, Dade County, Florida.
Project for ecosystem restoration, recreation, and other purposes, Illinois River, Chicago River, Calumet River, Grand Calumet River, Little Calumet River, and other waterways in the vicinity of Chicago, Illinois, authorized by section 201(a)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2670).
Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Chicago Shoreline, Illinois, authorized by section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664; 128 Stat. 1372).
Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, South Central Coastal Louisiana, Louisiana.
Modifications to the project for navigation, Baltimore Harbor and Channels–Seagirt Loop Deepening, Maryland, including to a depth of 50 feet.
Project for New York and New Jersey Harbor Channel Deepening Improvements, New York and New Jersey.
Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, South Shore of Staten Island, New York.
Project for flood risk management, Rio Grande de Loiza, Puerto Rico.
Project for flood risk management, Rio Guanajibo, Puerto Rico.
Project for flood risk management, Rio Nigua, Salinas, Puerto Rico.
Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Charleston Peninsula, South Carolina.
Project for navigation, Tacoma Harbor, Washington.
Post-Authorization Change Reports— The Secretary shall expedite completion of a post-authorization change report for the following projects:
added
Project for ecosystem restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona, authorized by section 101(b)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577).
renumbered
was (3)(3)
Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and Southern Florida, Indian River Lagoon, Florida, authorized by section 1001(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1051).
renumbered
was (3)(4)
Project for water supply and ecosystem restoration, Howard A. Hanson Dam, Washington, authorized by section 101(b)(15) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 281).
Great Lakes coastal resiliency study— The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the comprehensive assessment of water resources needs for the Great Lakes System under section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a), as required by section 1219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3811; 134 Stat. 2683).
Maintenance of navigation channels— The Secretary shall expedite the completion of a determination of the feasibility of improvements proposed by a non-Federal interest under section 204(f)(1)(A)(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232(f)(1)(A)(i)), for the following:
Deepening and widening of the navigation project for Coos Bay, Oregon, authorized by the Act of March 3, 1879 (chapter 181, 20 Stat. 370).
Improvements to segment 1B of the navigation project for Houston Ship Channel Expansion Channel Improvement Project, Harris, Chambers, and Galveston Counties, Texas, authorized by section 401(1)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2734).
Sec. 203 Expedited modifications of existing feasibility studies
The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the following feasibility studies, as modified by this section, and if the Secretary determines that a project that is the subject of the feasibility study is justified in the completed report, may proceed directly to preconstruction planning, engineering, and design of the project:
Mare Island Strait, California— The study for navigation, Mare Island Strait channel, authorized by section 406 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 323), is modified to authorize the Secretary to consider the economic and national security benefits from recent proposals for utilization of the channel for Department of Defense shipbuilding and vessel repair.
changed
Lake pontchartrain & and vicinity, Louisiana— The study for flood risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Lake Pontchartrain & and Vicinity, Louisiana, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077), is modified to authorize the Secretary to investigate increasing the scope of the project to provide protection against a 200-year storm event.
Blackstone river valley, Rhode Island and Massachusetts—
In general— The study for ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River Valley, Rhode Island and Massachusetts, authorized by section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3788), is modified to authorize the Secretary to conduct a study for water supply, water flow, and wetland restoration and protection within the scope of the study.
Incorporation of existing data— In carrying out the study described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use, to the extent practicable, any existing data for the project prepared under the authority of section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
Lower saddle river, New Jersey— The study for flood control, Lower Saddle River, New Jersey, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4119), is modified to authorize the Secretary to review the previously authorized study and take into consideration changes in hydraulic and hydrologic circumstances and local economic development since the study was initially authorized.
Sec. 204 Corps of Engineers reservoir sedimentation assessment
In general— The Secretary, at Federal expense, shall conduct an assessment of sediment in reservoirs owned and operated by the Secretary.
Contents— For each reservoir for which the Secretary carries out an assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall include in the assessment—
an estimation of the volume of sediment in the reservoir;
an evaluation of the effects of such sediment on reservoir storage capacity, including a quantification of lost reservoir storage capacity due to the sediment and an evaluation of how such lost reservoir storage capacity affects the allocated storage space for authorized purposes within the reservoir (including, where applicable, allocations for dead storage, inactive storage, active conservation, joint use, and flood surcharge);
the identification of any additional effects of sediment on the operations of the reservoir or the ability of the reservoir to meet its authorized purposes;
changed
the identification of any potential effects of the sediment over the ten-year 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act on the areas immediately upstream and downstream of the reservoir;
the identification of any existing sediment monitoring and management plans associated with the reservoir;
for any reservoir that does not have a sediment monitoring and management plan—
an identification of whether a sediment management plan for the reservoir is under development; or
an assessment of whether a sediment management plan for the reservoir would be useful in the long-term operation and maintenance of the reservoir for its authorized purposes; and
any opportunities for beneficial use of the sediment in the vicinity of the reservoir.
Report to congress; public availability— Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website), a report describing the results of the assessment carried out under subsection (a).
Authorization of appropriations— There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Sec. 205 Assessment of impacts from changing operation and maintenance responsibilities
changed
In general— The Secretary shall carry out an assessment of the consequences of amending section 101(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(b)) to authorize the operation and maintenance of navigation projects for a harbor or inland harbor constructed by the Secretary at 100 percent 100-percent Federal cost to a depth of 55 feet.
Contents— In carrying out the assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
describe all existing Federal navigation projects that are authorized or constructed to a depth of 55 feet or greater;
describe any Federal navigation project that is likely to seek authorization or modification to a depth of 55 feet or greater during the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this section;
estimate—
the potential annual increase in Federal costs that would result from authorizing operation and maintenance of a navigation project to a depth of 55 feet at Federal expense; and
the potential cumulative increase in such Federal costs during the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this section; and
assess the potential effect of authorizing operation and maintenance of a navigation project to a depth of 55 feet at Federal expense on other Federal navigation operation and maintenance activities, including the potential impact on activities at donor ports, energy transfer ports, emerging harbor projects, and projects carried out in the Great Lakes Navigation System, as such terms are defined in section 102(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2238 note).
Report— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website), a report describing the results of the assessment carried out under subsection (a).
Sec. 206 Report and recommendations on dredge capacity
In general— Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website), a report that includes—
a quantification of the expected hopper and pipeline dredging needs of authorized water resources development projects for the 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act, including—
the dredging needs to—
construct deepenings or widenings at authorized but not constructed projects and the associated operations and maintenance needs of such projects; and
operate and maintain existing Federal navigation channels;
the amount of dredging to be carried out by the Corps of Engineers for other Federal agencies;
the dredging needs associated with authorized hurricane and storm damage risk reduction projects (including periodic renourishment); and
the dredging needs associated with projects for the beneficial use of dredged material authorized by section 1122 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note);
an identification of the Federal appropriations for dredging projects and expenditures from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for fiscal year 2015 and each fiscal year thereafter;
an identification of the dredging capacity of the domestic hopper and pipeline dredge fleet, including publicly owned and privately owned vessels, in each of the 10 years preceding the date of enactment of this Act;
an analysis of the ability of the domestic hopper and pipeline dredge fleet to meet the expected dredging needs identified under paragraph (1), including an analysis of such ability in each of the following regions—
the east coast region;
the west coast region, including the States of Alaska and Hawaii;
the gulf coast region; and
the Great Lakes region;
an identification of the dredging capacity of domestic hopper and pipeline dredge vessels that are under contract for construction and intended to be used at water resources development projects;
an identification of any hopper or pipeline dredge vessel expected to be retired or become unavailable during the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this section;
an identification of the potential costs of using either public or private dredging to carry out authorized water resources development projects; and
any recommendations of the Secretary for adding additional domestic hopper and pipeline dredging capacity, including adding public and private dredging vessels to the domestic hopper and pipeline dredge fleet to efficiently service water resources development projects.
added
Opportunity for participation— In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide interested stakeholders, including representatives from the commercial dredging industry, with an opportunity to submit comments to the Secretary.
renumbered
was (3)
Sense of Congress— It is the sense of Congress that the Corps of Engineers should add additional dredging capacity if the addition of such capacity would—
renumbered
was (3)(3)
enable the Corps of Engineers to carry out water resources development projects in an efficient and cost-effective manner; and
renumbered
was (3)(4)
be in the best interests of the United States.
Sec. 209 Ouachita River watershed, Arkansas and Louisiana
changed
In carrying out the disposition study for The Secretary shall conduct a review of projects in the project for Salinas Dam (Santa Margarita Lake), California, pursuant to Ouachita River watershed, Arkansas and Louisiana, under section 202(d) 216 of the Water Resources Development Flood Control Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2675), the Secretary shall—1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a).
removed
ensure that the County of San Luis Obispo is provided right of first refusal for any potential conveyance of the project; and
removed
ensure that the study addresses any potential repairs or modifications to the project necessary to meet Federal dam safety requirements prior to transferring the project.
Sec. 210 Report on Santa Barbara streams, Lower Mission Creek, California
added Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website), a report that provides an updated economic review of the remaining portions of the project for flood damage reduction, Santa Barbara streams, Lower Mission Creek, California, authorized by section 101(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577), taking into consideration work already completed by the non-Federal interest.
removed
In general— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that identifies any real property associated with the Whittier Narrows Dam element of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area project that the Secretary determines—
removed
is not needed to carry out the authorized purposes of the Whittier Narrows Dam element of such project; and
removed
could be transferred to the City of Pico Rivera, California, for the replacement of recreational facilities located in such city that were adversely impacted by dam safety construction activities associated with the Whittier Narrows Dam element of such project.
removed
Los Angeles County Drainage Area project defined— In this section, the term Los Angeles County Drainage Area project means the project for flood control, Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California, authorized by section 101(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4611; 130 Stat. 1690).
Sec. 211 Disposition study on Salinas Dam and Reservoir, California
added In carrying out the disposition study for the project for Salinas Dam (Santa Margarita Lake), California, pursuant to section 202(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2675), the Secretary shall—
removed
In general— Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that summarizes the benefits, costs, and other effects of terminating the contract described in subsection (b) between the United States and the Metropolitan District, Hartford, Connecticut, relating to reservoir water storage space, including—
removed
a description of entities that currently use (or have expressed an interest in using) the water provided pursuant to the contract;
removed
an accounting of the current annual costs, including annual operations and maintenance costs, owed by the Metropolitan District to use the water provided pursuant to the contract;
removed
an accounting of any unrecovered capital or operation and maintenance costs incurred by the Federal Government in constructing or maintaining the reservoir to accommodate water supply storage as an authorized purpose of the reservoir;
removed
an accounting of any potential transfer or increase in costs to the Federal Government, to the Metropolitan District, or to any water users that could result from the termination of the contract; and
removed
any additional information that the Secretary determines appropriate for consideration of termination of the contract.
changed
Contract— The contract referred to in subsection (a) is the contract between the United States and ensure that the Metropolitan District, Hartford, Connecticut, County of San Luis Obispo is provided right of first refusal for the use any potential conveyance of water supply storage space in the Colebrook River Reservoir, entered into on February 11, 1965, and modified on October 28, 1975, and titled Contract DA–19–016–CIVENG–65–203.project; and
added
ensure that the study addresses any potential repairs or modifications to the project necessary to meet Federal and State dam safety requirements prior to transferring the project.
Sec. 212 Excess lands report for Whittier Narrows Dam, California
changed
In general— The Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary is authorized to carry out a feasibility study for resiliency and comprehensive improvements or modifications shall submit to existing water resources development projects in the central Committee on Transportation and southern Florida area, for Infrastructure of the purposes House of flood risk management, water supply, ecosystem restoration (including preventing saltwater intrusion), recreation, Representatives and related purposes.the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that identifies any real property associated with the Whittier Narrows Dam element of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area project that the Secretary determines—
added
is not needed to carry out the authorized purposes of the Whittier Narrows Dam element of such project; and
added
could be transferred to the City of Pico Rivera, California, for the replacement of recreational facilities located in such city that were adversely impacted by dam safety construction activities associated with the Whittier Narrows Dam element of such project.
changed
Requirements—Los Angeles County Drainage Area project defined— In carrying out this section, the feasibility study under subsection (a), term Los Angeles County Drainage Area project means the Secretary—project for flood control, Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California, authorized by section 101(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4611; 130 Stat. 1690).
removed
is authorized to—
removed
review the report of the Chief of Engineers on central and southern Florida, published as House Document 643, 80th Congress, 2nd Session, and other related reports of the Secretary; and
removed
recommend cost-effective structural and nonstructural projects for implementation that provide a systemwide approach for the purposes described in subsection (a); and
removed
shall ensure the study and any projects recommended under paragraph (2) will not interfere with the efforts undertaken to carry out the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan pursuant to section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680; 132 Stat. 3786).
Sec. 213 Colebrook River Reservoir, Connecticut
changed
Report—In general— Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, section, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that summarizes the Committee on Transportation benefits, costs, and Infrastructure other effects of terminating the House of Representatives and contract described in subsection (b) between the Committee on Environment United States and Public Works of the Senate a report that provides an update on—Metropolitan District, Hartford, Connecticut, relating to reservoir water storage space, including—
changed
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan projects, as authorized by or a description of entities that currently use (or have expressed an interest in using) the water provided pursuant to section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680; 121 U.S.C. 1269; 132 U.S.C. 3786);contract;
changed
the review an accounting of the Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule pursuant current annual costs, including annual operations and maintenance costs, owed by the Metropolitan District to section 1106 of use the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3773) and section 210 of water provided pursuant to the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 U.S.C. 2682); andcontract;
changed
an accounting of any additional water resources development projects unrecovered capital or operation and studies included in maintenance costs incurred by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Plan Integrated Delivery Schedule prepared Federal Government in accordance with part 385 of title 33, Code constructing or maintaining the reservoir to accommodate water supply storage as an authorized purpose of Federal Regulations.the reservoir;
added
an accounting of any potential transfer or increase in costs to the Federal Government, to the Metropolitan District, or to any water users that could result from the termination of the contract; and
added
any additional information that the Secretary determines appropriate for consideration of termination of the contract.
changed
Contents—Contract— The Secretary shall include contract referred to in the report submitted under subsection (a) is the status contract between the United States and the Metropolitan District, Hartford, Connecticut, for the use of each authorized water resources development project or study described supply storage space in such subsection, including—the Colebrook River Reservoir, entered into on February 11, 1965, and modified on October 28, 1975, and titled Contract DA–19–016–CIVENG–65–203.
removed
an estimated implementation or completion date of the project or study; and
removed
the estimated costs to complete implementation or construction, as applicable, of the project or study.
Sec. 214 Comprehensive central and southern Florida study
added
In general— The Secretary is authorized to carry out a feasibility study for resiliency and comprehensive improvements or modifications to existing water resources development projects in the central and southern Florida area, for the purposes of flood risk management, water supply, ecosystem restoration (including preventing saltwater intrusion), recreation, and related purposes.
removed
The Secretary shall—
changed
Requirements— carry In carrying out a review of potential threats to human life and safety from use of designated recreational areas at the Buford Dam, Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia, authorized by section 1 of feasibility study under subsection (a), the Act of July 24, 1946 (chapter 595, 60 Stat. 635); andSecretary—
added
is authorized to—
added
review the report of the Chief of Engineers on central and southern Florida, published as House Document 643, 80th Congress, 2d Session, and other related reports of the Secretary; and
added
recommend cost-effective structural and nonstructural projects for implementation that provide a systemwide approach for the purposes described in subsection (a); and
added
shall ensure the study and any projects recommended under paragraph (2) will not interfere with the efforts undertaken to carry out the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan pursuant to section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680; 132 Stat. 3786).
removed
install such technologies and other measures, including sirens, strobe lights, and signage, that the Secretary, based on the review carried out under paragraph (1), determines necessary for alerting the public of hazardous water conditions or to otherwise minimize or eliminate any identified threats to human life and safety.
Sec. 215 Study on shellfish habitat and seagrass, Florida Central Gulf Coast
added
In general— Not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry out a study, and submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report, on projects and activities carried out through the Engineer Research and Development Center to restore shellfish habitat and seagrass in coastal estuaries in the Florida Central Gulf Coast.
removed
With respect to the project for navigation, Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel, Louisiana, authorized by section 403(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2743), the Secretary is authorized to—
changed
Requirements— undertake a feasibility study to modify the project to include the dredged material disposal plan recommended in In conducting the document published by study under subsection (a), the Secretary in April 2020, titled “Review Assessment of Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project Section 203 Feasibility Study (January 2019, revised January 2020)”; orshall—
added
consult with independent expert scientists and other regional stakeholders with relevant expertise and experience; and
added
coordinate with Federal, State, and local agencies providing oversight for both short- and long-term monitoring of the projects and activities described in subsection (a).
changed
Authorization of appropriations— review under section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231) any further feasibility study undertaken by the non-Federal interest There is authorized to modify the project be appropriated to include a dredged material disposal plan.carry out this section $2,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Sec. 216 Northern estuaries ecosystem restoration, Florida
changed
Study—Definitions— The Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, shall, at Federal expense, periodically carry out a study to—In this section:
changed
Central and Southern Florida project— evaluate The term Central and Southern Florida Project has the flow frequency probabilities meaning given that term in section 601 of the Upper Mississippi River and the Illinois River; andWater Resources Development Act of 2000.
changed
Northern estuaries— develop updated water surface profiles for such rivers.The term northern estuaries means the Caloosahatchee Estuary, Charlotte Harbor, Indian River Lagoon, Lake Worth Lagoon, and St. Lucie River Estuary.
added
South Florida ecosystem—
added
In general— The term South Florida ecosystem means the area consisting of the land and water within the boundary of the South Florida Water Management District in effect on July 1, 1999.
added
Inclusions— The term South Florida ecosystem includes—
added
the Everglades;
added
the Florida Keys;
added
the contiguous near-shore coastal water of South Florida; and
added
Florida’s Coral Reef.
added
Study area— The term study area means all lands and waters within—
added
the northern estuaries;
added
the South Florida ecosystem; and
added
the study area boundaries of the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program and the Coastal and Heartland Estuary Partnership, authorized pursuant to section 320 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
added
Proposed comprehensive plan—
added
Development— The Secretary shall develop, in cooperation with the non-Federal sponsors of the Central and Southern Florida project and any relevant Federal, State, and Tribal agencies, a proposed comprehensive plan for the purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the northern estuaries.
added
Inclusions— In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall develop a proposed comprehensive plan that provides for ecosystem restoration within the northern estuaries, including the elimination of harmful discharges from Lake Okeechobee.
added
Submission— Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress for approval—
added
the proposed comprehensive plan developed under this subsection; and
added
recommendations for future feasibility studies within the study area for the ecosystem restoration of the northern estuaries.
added
Interim reports— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter until the submission of the proposed comprehensive plan under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall submit to Congress an interim report on the development of the proposed comprehensive plan.
added
Additional studies and analyses— Notwithstanding the submission of the proposed comprehensive plan under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall continue to conduct such studies and analyses after the date of such submission as are necessary for the purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the northern estuaries.
removed
Area of evaluation— In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall conduct analysis along the mainstem of the Mississippi River from upstream of the Minnesota River confluence near Anoka, Minnesota, to just upstream of the Ohio River confluence near Cairo, Illinois, and along the Illinois River from Dresden Island Lock and Dam to the confluence with the Mississippi River, near Grafton, Illinois.
changed
Reports—Limitation— Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of Nothing in this Act, and not less frequently than every 20 years thereafter, the Secretary section shall submit be construed to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of require the House alteration or amendment of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works schedule for completion of the Senate a report containing the results of a study carried out under subsection (a).Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
removed
Public availability— Any information developed under subsection (a) shall be made publicly available, including on a publicly available website.
Sec. 217 Report on South Florida ecosystem restoration plan implementation
changed
In general—Report— Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that summarizes the benefits, costs, Committee on Transportation and other effects Infrastructure of terminating the contracts described in subsection (b) between the United States House of Representatives and the State Committee on Environment and Public Works of Illinois, relating to reservoir water storage space, including—the Senate a report that provides an update on—
changed
a description of entities that currently use (or have expressed an interest in using) the water provided Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan projects, as authorized by or pursuant to section 601 of the contracts;Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680; 121 U.S.C. 1269; 132 U.S.C. 3786);
changed
an accounting of the current annual costs, including annual operations and maintenance costs, owed by the State review of Illinois to use the water provided Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule pursuant to section 1106 of the contracts;Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3773) and section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 U.S.C. 2682); and
changed
an accounting of any unrecovered capital or operation additional water resources development projects and maintenance costs incurred by the Federal Government studies included in constructing or maintaining the reservoirs to accommodate water supply storage as an authorized purpose South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Plan Integrated Delivery Schedule prepared in accordance with part 385 of the reservoirs;title 33, Code of Federal Regulations.
removed
an accounting of any potential transfer or increase in costs to the Federal Government, to the State of Illinois, or to any water users that could result from the termination of the contracts; and
removed
any additional information that the Secretary determines appropriate for consideration of termination of the contracts.
changed
Contracts—Contents— The contracts referred to Secretary shall include in the report submitted under subsection (a) are the following contracts between the United States and the State status of Illinois:each authorized water resources development project or study described in such subsection, including—
changed
Contract DACW43–88–C–0088, entered into on September 23, 1988, for utilization an estimated implementation or completion date of storage space for water supply in Rend Lake, Illinois.the project or study; and
changed
Contract DA–23–065–CIVENG–65–493, entered into on April 28, 1965, for utilization the estimated costs to complete implementation or construction, as applicable, of storage space for water supply in Rend Lake, Illinois.the project or study.
removed
Contract DACW43–83–C–0008, entered into on July 6, 1983, for utilization of storage space in Carlyle Lake, Illinois.
removed
Contract DACW43–83–C–0009, entered into on July 6, 1983, for utilization of storage space in Lake Shelbyville, Illinois.
Sec. 218 Review of recreational hazards at Buford Dam, Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia
added The Secretary shall—
removed
Disposition study—
removed
In general— The Secretary shall carry out a disposition study to determine the Federal interest in, and identify the effects of, deauthorizing hydropower as an authorized purpose, in whole or in part, of the Willamette Valley hydropower project.
removed
Contents— In carrying out the disposition study under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall review the effects of deauthorizing hydropower on—
removed
Willamette Valley hydropower project operations;
removed
other authorized purposes of such project;
removed
cost apportionments;
removed
dam safety;
removed
compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
removed
the operations of the remaining dams within the Willamette Valley hydropower project.
removed
Recommendations— If the Secretary, through the disposition study authorized by paragraph (1), determines that hydropower should be removed as an authorized purpose of any part of the Willamette Valley hydropower project, the Secretary shall also investigate and recommend any necessary structural or operational changes at such project that are necessary to achieve an appropriate balance among the remaining authorized purposes of such project or changes to such purposes.
changed
Definition— In this section, the term Willamette Valley hydropower project means the system carry out a review of dams and reservoir projects authorized potential threats to generate hydropower and the power features that operate in conjunction with the main regulating dam facilities, including the Big Cliff, Dexter, human life and Foster re-regulating dams in safety from use of designated recreational areas at the Willamette River Basin, Oregon, as Buford Dam, Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia, authorized by section 4 1 of the Flood Control Act of 1938 July 24, 1946 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1222; 62 Stat. 1178; 64 Stat. 177; 68 Stat. 1264; 74 Stat. 499; 100 595, 60 Stat. 4144).635); and
changed
Report— Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a report to the Committee on Transportation install such technologies and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives other measures, including sirens, strobe lights, and signage, that the Committee Secretary, based on Environment and Public Works of the Senate that describes—review carried out under paragraph (1), determines necessary for alerting the public of hazardous water conditions or to otherwise minimize or eliminate any identified threats to human life and safety.
removed
the results of the disposition study on deauthorizing hydropower as a purpose of the Willamette Valley hydropower project; and
removed
any recommendations required under subsection (a)(3).
Sec. 219 Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel, Louisiana
changed
The Secretary shall expedite the completion of a feasibility study for modifications of With respect to the project for navigation, Houston Ship Channel Expansion Channel Improvement Project, Harris, Chambers, and Galveston counties, Texas, Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel, Louisiana, authorized by section 401 403(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2734), to incorporate into the project the construction of barge lanes immediately adjacent to either side of 2743), the Houston Ship Channel from Bolivar Roads to Morgan’s Point to a depth of 12 feet.Secretary is authorized to—
added
undertake a feasibility study to modify the project to include the dredged material disposal plan recommended in the document published by the Secretary in April 2020, titled “Review Assessment of Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel Deepening Project Section 203 Feasibility Study (January 2019, revised January 2020)”; or
added
review under section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231) any further feasibility study undertaken by the non-Federal interest to modify the project to include a dredged material disposal plan.
Sec. 220 Review of recreational hazards at the banks of the Mississippi River, Louisiana
changed
The Secretary shall expedite the review and coordination of the feasibility study for the project for navigation, Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas, under section 203(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231(b)).shall—
added
carry out a review of potential threats to human life and safety from use of designated recreational areas at the banks of the Mississippi River, Louisiana; and
added
install such technologies and other measures, including sirens, strobe lights, and signage at such recreational areas that the Secretary, based on the review carried out under paragraph (1), determines necessary for alerting the public of hazardous water conditions or to otherwise minimize or eliminate any identified threats to human life and safety.
Sec. 221 Hydraulic evaluation of Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River
added
Study— The Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, shall, at Federal expense, periodically carry out a study to—
added
evaluate the flow frequency probabilities of the Upper Mississippi River and the Illinois River; and
added
develop updated water surface profiles for such rivers.
added
Area of evaluation— In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall conduct analysis along the mainstem of the Mississippi River from upstream of the Minnesota River confluence near Anoka, Minnesota, to just upstream of the Ohio River confluence near Cairo, Illinois, and along the Illinois River from Dresden Island Lock and Dam to the confluence with the Mississippi River, near Grafton, Illinois.
added
Reports— Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and not less frequently than every 20 years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report containing the results of a study carried out under subsection (a).
added
Public availability— Any information developed under subsection (a) shall be made publicly available, including on a publicly available website.
removed
The Secretary shall expedite the completion of a feasibility study for the modification of the project for navigation, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, authorized by section 201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4090; 132 Stat. 3840) to incorporate Anchorage F into the project.
Sec. 222 Disposition study on hydropower in the Willamette Valley, Oregon
added
Disposition study—
added
In general— The Secretary shall carry out a disposition study to determine the Federal interest in, and identify the effects of, deauthorizing hydropower as an authorized purpose, in whole or in part, of the Willamette Valley hydropower project.
added
Contents— In carrying out the disposition study under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall review the effects of deauthorizing hydropower on—
added
Willamette Valley hydropower project operations;
added
other authorized purposes of such project;
added
cost apportionments;
added
dam safety;
added
compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
added
the operations of the remaining dams within the Willamette Valley hydropower project.
added
Recommendations— If the Secretary, through the disposition study authorized by paragraph (1), determines that hydropower should be removed as an authorized purpose of any part of the Willamette Valley hydropower project, the Secretary shall also investigate and recommend any necessary structural or operational changes at such project that are necessary to achieve an appropriate balance among the remaining authorized purposes of such project or changes to such purposes.
removed
In general— In carrying out the feasibility study for the project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and navigation, Coastal Virginia, authorized by section 1201(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3802), the Secretary is authorized to enter into a written agreement with any Federal agency that owns or operates property in the area of the project to accept and expend funds from such Federal agency to include in the study an analysis with respect to property owned or operated by such Federal agency.
changed
Information—Definition— The Secretary shall use any relevant information obtained from a Federal agency described in subsection (a) In this section, the term Willamette Valley hydropower project means the system of dams and reservoir projects authorized to carry out generate hydropower and the feasibility study described power features that operate in such subsection.conjunction with the main regulating dam facilities, including the Big Cliff, Dexter, and Foster re-regulating dams in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon, as authorized by section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1222; 62 Stat. 1178; 64 Stat. 177; 68 Stat. 1264; 74 Stat. 499; 100 Stat. 4144).
added
Report— Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate that describes—
added
the results of the disposition study on deauthorizing hydropower as a purpose of the Willamette Valley hydropower project; and
added
any recommendations required under subsection (a)(3).
Sec. 223 Houston Ship Channel Expansion Channel Improvement Project, Texas
added The Secretary shall expedite the completion of a feasibility study for modifications of the project for navigation, Houston Ship Channel Expansion Channel Improvement Project, Harris, Chambers, and Galveston Counties, Texas, authorized by section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2734), to incorporate into the project the construction of barge lanes immediately adjacent to either side of the Houston Ship Channel from Bolivar Roads to Morgan’s Point to a depth of 12 feet.
removed
Comprehensive study— The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study to evaluate the effectiveness of carrying out additional measures, including measures that use natural features or nature-based features, at or upstream of covered reservoirs, for the purposes of—
removed
sustaining operations in response to changing hydrological and climatic conditions;
removed
mitigating the risk of drought or floods, including the loss of storage capacity due to sediment accumulation;
removed
increasing water supply; or
removed
aquatic ecosystem restoration.
removed
Study focus— In conducting the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall include all covered reservoirs located in the South Pacific Division of the Corps of Engineers.
removed
Consultation and use of existing data—
removed
Consultation— In conducting the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with applicable—
removed
Federal, State, and local agencies;
removed
Indian Tribes;
removed
non-Federal interests; and
removed
stakeholders, as determined appropriate by the Secretary.
removed
Use of existing data and prior studies— In conducting the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate—
removed
use existing data provided to the Secretary by entities described in paragraph (1); and
removed
incorporate—
removed
relevant information from prior studies and projects carried out by the Secretary; and
removed
the relevant technical data and scientific approaches with respect to changing hydrological and climatic conditions.
removed
Report— Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that describes—
removed
the results of the study; and
removed
any recommendations for additional study in specific geographic areas.
removed
Savings provision— Nothing in this section provides authority to the Secretary to change the authorized purposes of any covered reservoir.
removed
Definitions— In this section:
removed
Covered reservoir— The term covered reservoir means a reservoir owned and operated by the Secretary or for which the Secretary has flood control responsibilities under section 7 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (33 U.S.C. 709).
removed
Natural feature and nature-based feature— The terms natural feature and nature-based feature have the meanings given such terms in section 1184(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a)).
Sec. 224 Sabine–neches waterway navigation improvement project, Texas
added The Secretary shall expedite the review and coordination of the feasibility study for the project for navigation, Sabine–Neches Waterway, Texas, under section 203(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231(b)).
removed
In general— Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website), a report that describes and documents the use of contracts and subcontracts with Small Disadvantaged Businesses in carrying out the water resources development authorities of the Secretary.
removed
Information— The Secretary shall include in the report under subsection (a) information on the distribution of funds to Small Disadvantaged Businesses on a disaggregated basis.
removed
Definition— In this section, the term Small Disadvantaged Business has the meaning given that term in section 124.1001 of title 13, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations).
Sec. 225 Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia
added The Secretary shall expedite the completion of a feasibility study for the modification of the project for navigation, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, authorized by section 201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4090; 132 Stat. 3840) to incorporate the widening and deepening of Anchorage F into the project.
removed
Assessment—
removed
In general— The Secretary, at Federal expense, shall conduct an assessment, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, of opportunities to install and maintain photovoltaic solar panels (including floating solar panels) at covered projects.
removed
Contents— The assessment conducted under paragraph (1) shall—
removed
include a description of the economic, environmental, and technical viability of installing and maintaining, or contracting with third parties to install and maintain, photovoltaic solar panels at covered projects;
removed
identify covered projects with a high potential for the installation and maintenance of photovoltaic solar panels and whether such installation and maintenance would require additional authorization;
removed
account for potential impacts of photovoltaic solar panels at covered projects and the authorized purposes of such projects, including potential impacts on flood risk reduction, recreation, water supply, and fish and wildlife; and
removed
account for the availability of electric grid infrastructure close to covered projects, including underutilized transmission infrastructure.
removed
Report to congress— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website), a report containing the results of the assessment conducted under subsection (a).
removed
Authorization of Appropriations— There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $10,000,000 to carry out this section.
removed
Definition— In this section, the term covered project means—
removed
any property under the control of the Corps of Engineers; and
removed
any water resources development project constructed by the Secretary or over which the Secretary has financial or operational responsibility.
Sec. 226 Coastal Virginia, Virginia
changed
In general— The Secretary, acting through In carrying out the Director of feasibility study for the Engineer Research project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and Development Center, shall carry out an assessment navigation, Coastal Virginia, authorized by section 1201(9) of the current capacity Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3802), the Corps of Engineers Secretary is authorized to model coastal flood mitigation systems and test enter into a written agreement with any Federal agency that owns or operates property in the effectiveness area of the project to accept and expend funds from such systems Federal agency to include in preventing flood damage resulting from coastal storm surges.the study an analysis with respect to property owned or operated by such Federal agency.
changed
Considerations—Information— In carrying out the assessment under The Secretary shall use any relevant information obtained from a Federal agency described in subsection (a), (a) to carry out the Secretary shall—feasibility study described in such subsection.
removed
identify the capacity of the Corps of Engineers to—
removed
carry out the testing of the performance and reliability of coastal flood mitigation systems; or
removed
collaborate with private industries to carry out such testing;
removed
identify any limitations or deficiencies at Corps of Engineers facilities that are capable of testing the performance and reliability of coastal flood mitigation systems;
removed
assess any benefits that would result from addressing the limitations or deficiencies identified under paragraph (2); and
removed
provide recommendations for addressing such limitations or deficiencies.
removed
Report to congress— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website), a report describing the results of the assessment carried out under subsection (a).
Sec. 227 Western infrastructure study
changed
In general—Comprehensive study— The Secretary shall conduct a review of the existing statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements and procedures related to the use, in relation comprehensive study to evaluate the construction effectiveness of a project for flood risk management, hurricane and storm risk reduction, carrying out additional measures, including measures that use natural features or environmental restoration, nature-based features, at or upstream of covered easements that may be provided to reservoirs, for the Secretary by non-Federal interests.purposes of—
added
sustaining operations in response to changing hydrological and climatic conditions;
added
mitigating the risk of drought or floods, including the loss of storage capacity due to sediment accumulation;
added
increasing water supply; or
added
aquatic ecosystem restoration.
changed
Report to congress—Study focus— Not later than 1 year after In conducting the date of enactment of this Act, study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and include all covered reservoirs located in the Committee on Environment and Public Works South Pacific Division of the Senate a report containing the results Corps of the review conducted under subsection (a), including—Engineers.
added
Consultation and use of existing data—
added
Consultation— In conducting the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with applicable—
added
Federal, State, and local agencies;
added
Indian Tribes;
added
non-Federal interests; and
added
stakeholders, as determined appropriate by the Secretary.
removed
the findings of the Secretary relating to—
removed
the minimum rights in property that are necessary to construct, operate, or maintain projects for flood risk management, hurricane and storm risk reduction, or environmental restoration;
removed
whether increased use of covered easements in relation to such projects could promote greater participation from cooperating landowners in addressing local flooding or environmental restoration challenges;
removed
whether such increased use could result in cost savings in the implementation of the projects, without any reduction in project benefits; and
removed
whether such increased use is in the best interest of the United States; and
removed
any recommendations of the Secretary relating to whether existing requirements or procedures related to such use of covered easements should be revised to reflect the results of the review.
removed
Definition— In this section, the term covered easement means an easement or other similar interest in real property that—
changed
Use of existing data and prior studies— reserves for In conducting the Secretary rights in study under subsection (a), the property that are necessary Secretary shall, to construct, operate, or maintain a water resources development project;the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate—
added
use existing data provided to the Secretary by entities described in paragraph (1); and
added
incorporate—
added
relevant information from prior studies and projects carried out by the Secretary; and
added
the relevant technical data and scientific approaches with respect to changing hydrological and climatic conditions.
added
Report— Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that describes—
added
the results of the study; and
added
any recommendations for additional study in specific geographic areas.
added
Savings provision— Nothing in this section provides authority to the Secretary to change the authorized purposes of any covered reservoir.
added
Definitions— In this section:
added
Covered reservoir— The term covered reservoir means a reservoir owned and operated by the Secretary or for which the Secretary has flood control responsibilities under section 7 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (33 U.S.C. 709).
added
Natural feature and nature-based feature— The terms natural feature and nature-based feature have the meanings given such terms in section 1184(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a)).
removed
provides for appropriate public use of the property, and retains the right of continued use of the property by the owner of the property, to the extent such uses are consistent with purposes of the covered easement;
removed
provides access to the property for oversight and inspection by the Secretary;
removed
is permanently recorded; and
removed
is enforceable under Federal and State law.
Sec. 228 Report on socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns
changed
In general— The Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry out an assessment of forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services on lands owned by submit to the Corps Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of Engineers, including an assessment the House of whether Representatives and the provision Committee on Environment and Public Works of such services the Senate, and make publicly available (including on such lands by non-Federal interests through good neighbor agreements would be a publicly available website), a report that describes and documents the use of contracts and subcontracts with Small Disadvantaged Businesses in carrying out the best interests water resources development authorities of the United States.Secretary.
changed
Considerations—Information— In carrying out The Secretary shall include in the assessment report under subsection (a), (a) information on the Secretary shall—distribution of funds to Small Disadvantaged Businesses on a disaggregated basis.
removed
describe the forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services provided by the Secretary on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers;
removed
assess whether such services, including efforts to reduce hazardous fuels and to restore and improve forest, rangeland, and watershed health (including the health of fish and wildlife habitats) would be enhanced by authorizing the Secretary to enter into a good neighbor agreement with a non-Federal interest;
removed
describe the process for ensuring that Federal requirements for land management plans for forests on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers remain in effect under good neighbor agreements;
removed
assess whether Congress should authorize the Secretary to enter into a good neighbor agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers, including by assessing any interest expressed by a non-Federal interest to enter into such an agreement;
removed
consider whether implementation of a good neighbor agreement on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers would benefit State and local governments and Indian Tribes that are located in the same geographic area as such lands; and
removed
consult with the heads of other Federal agencies authorized to enter into good neighbor agreements with non-Federal interests.
changed
Report to congress—Definition— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of In this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and term Small Disadvantaged Business has the Committee on Environment and Public Works meaning given that term in section 124.1001 of the Senate, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website), a report describing the results title 13, Code of the assessment carried out under subsection (a).Federal Regulations (or successor regulations).
removed
Definitions— In this section:
removed
Forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services— The term forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services has the meaning given such term in section 8206 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a).
removed
Good neighbor agreement— The term good neighbor agreement means a cooperative agreement or contract (including a sole source contract) entered into between the Secretary and a non-Federal interest to carry out forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services.
removed
Lands owned by the corps of engineers— The term lands owned by the Corps of Engineers means any land owned by the Corps of Engineers, but does not include—
removed
a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System;
removed
land on which the removal of vegetation is prohibited or restricted by law or Presidential proclamation;
removed
a wilderness study area; or
removed
any other land with respect to which the Secretary determines that forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services should remain the responsibility of the Secretary.
Sec. 229 Report on solar energy opportunities
added
Assessment—
added
In general— The Secretary, at Federal expense, shall conduct an assessment, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, of opportunities to install and maintain photovoltaic solar panels (including floating solar panels) at covered projects.
added
Contents— The assessment conducted under paragraph (1) shall—
added
include a description of the economic, environmental, and technical viability of installing and maintaining, or contracting with third parties to install and maintain, photovoltaic solar panels at covered projects;
added
identify covered projects with a high potential for the installation and maintenance of photovoltaic solar panels and whether such installation and maintenance would require additional authorization;
added
account for potential impacts of photovoltaic solar panels at covered projects and the authorized purposes of such projects, including potential impacts on flood risk reduction, recreation, water supply, and fish and wildlife; and
added
account for the availability of electric grid infrastructure close to covered projects, including underutilized transmission infrastructure.
added
Report to congress— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website), a report containing the results of the assessment conducted under subsection (a).
added
Authorization of Appropriations— There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $10,000,000 to carry out this section.
added
Definition— In this section, the term covered project means—
added
any property under the control of the Corps of Engineers; and
added
any water resources development project constructed by the Secretary or over which the Secretary has financial or operational responsibility.
removed
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the status of the implementation of section 2040 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2345).
Sec. 230 Assessment of coastal flooding mitigation modeling and testing capacity
added
In general— The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Engineer Research and Development Center, shall carry out an assessment of the current capacity of the Corps of Engineers to model coastal flood mitigation systems and test the effectiveness of such systems in preventing flood damage resulting from coastal storm surges.
added
Considerations— In carrying out the assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
removed
Study on mitigation for water resources development projects—
removed
In general— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct, and submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, a report on the results of a study on projects and activities to mitigate fish and wildlife losses resulting from the construction, or operation and maintenance, of an authorized water resources development project.
removed
Requirements— In conducting the study under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall—
removed
investigate the extent to which—
removed
mitigation projects and activities (including the acquisition of lands or interests in lands) restore the natural hydrologic conditions, restore native vegetation, and otherwise support native fish and wildlife species, as required under section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283);
removed
mitigation projects or activities (including the acquisition of lands or interests in lands) are undertaken before, or concurrent with, the construction of the project;
removed
mitigation projects or activities (including the acquisition of lands or interests in lands) are completed;
removed
ongoing mitigation projects or activities are undertaken to mitigate for fish and wildlife losses from the operation and maintenance of a project (including periodic review and updating of such projects or activities);
removed
the Secretary includes mitigation plans (as required under subsection (d) of such section 906) in any project study, as such term is defined in section 2034(l) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2343);
removed
processing and approval of mitigation projects and activities (including the acquisition of lands or interests in lands) affects the timeline of completion of projects; and
removed
mitigation projects and activities (including the acquisition of lands or interests in lands) affect the total cost of projects;
removed
review any reports submitted to Congress in accordance with section 2036(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1094) on the status of construction of projects that require mitigation; and
removed
consult with independent scientists, economists, and other stakeholders with expertise and experience.
removed
Study on the Compensatory Mitigation—
removed
In general— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct, and submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, a report on the results of a study on performance metrics for, compliance with, and adequacy in addressing project impacts of, potential mechanisms for fulfilling compensatory mitigation obligations pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
changed
Requirements— The Comptroller General shall include in identify the study under paragraph (1) an analysis of—capacity of the Corps of Engineers to—
added
carry out the testing of the performance and reliability of coastal flood mitigation systems; or
changed
the primary mechanisms for fulfilling compensatory mitigation obligations, including—collaborate with private industries to carry out such testing;
removed
mitigation banks;
removed
in-lieu fee programs; and
removed
direct mitigation by permittees;
removed
the timeliness of initiation and successful completion of compensatory mitigation activities in relation to when the permitted activity occurs;
removed
the timeliness of processing and approval of compensatory mitigation activities;
removed
the costs of carrying out compensatory mitigation activities borne by the Federal government, permittee, or any other involved entity;
removed
Federal and State agency oversight and short and long-term monitoring of the compensatory mitigation activities;
removed
whether the compensatory mitigation activity successfully replaces any lost or adversely affected habitat with habitat having similar functions of equal or greater ecological value; and
removed
the continued, long-term success of the compensatory mitigation activities over a 5-, 10-, 20-, and 50-year period.
changed
Update— In conjunction with the study under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall review and update the findings and recommendations, including a review identify any limitations or deficiencies at Corps of Federal agency compliance with such recommendations, in the report Engineers facilities that are capable of testing the Comptroller General entitled, “Corps of Engineers Does Not Have an Effective Oversight Approach to Ensure That Compensatory Mitigation Is Occurring” performance and dated September 2005 (GAO–05–898).reliability of coastal flood mitigation systems;
added
assess any benefits that would result from addressing the limitations or deficiencies identified under paragraph (2); and
added
provide recommendations for addressing such limitations or deficiencies.
added
Report to congress— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website), a report describing the results of the assessment carried out under subsection (a).
Sec. 231 Report to Congress on easements related to water resources development projects
changed
In general— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States The Secretary shall carry out conduct a review of the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center of existing statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements and procedures related to the Corps use, in relation to the construction of Engineers a project for flood risk management, hurricane and storm risk reduction, or environmental restoration, of covered easements that includes—may be provided to the Secretary by non-Federal interests.
removed
an assessment of ways in which the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center can improve the collection of information relating to all commercial maritime activity within the jurisdiction of a port, including the collection and reporting of records of fish landings; and
removed
recommendations to improve the collection of such information from non-Federal entities, taking into consideration—
removed
the cost, efficiency, and accuracy of collecting such information; and
removed
the protection of proprietary information.
changed
Report—Report to congress— Upon completion of Not later than 1 year after the review carried out under subsection (a), date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report containing the results of such review.the review conducted under subsection (a), including—
added
the findings of the Secretary relating to—
added
the minimum rights in property that are necessary to construct, operate, or maintain projects for flood risk management, hurricane and storm risk reduction, or environmental restoration;
added
whether increased use of covered easements in relation to such projects could promote greater participation from cooperating landowners in addressing local flooding or environmental restoration challenges;
added
whether such increased use could result in cost savings in the implementation of the projects, without any reduction in project benefits; and
added
whether such increased use is in the best interest of the United States; and
added
any recommendations of the Secretary relating to whether existing requirements or procedures related to such use of covered easements should be revised to reflect the results of the review.
added
Definition— In this section, the term covered easement means an easement or other similar interest in real property that—
added
reserves for the Secretary rights in the property that are necessary to construct, operate, or maintain a water resources development project;
added
provides for appropriate public use of the property, and retains the right of continued use of the property by the owner of the property, to the extent such uses are consistent with purposes of the covered easement;
added
provides access to the property for oversight and inspection by the Secretary;
added
is permanently recorded; and
added
is enforceable under Federal and State law.
Sec. 232 Assessment of forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers
added
added
In general— The Secretary shall carry out an assessment of forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers, including an assessment of whether the provision of such services on such lands by non-Federal interests through good neighbor agreements would be in the best interests of the United States.
added
Considerations— In carrying out the assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
added
describe the forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services provided by the Secretary on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers;
added
assess whether such services, including efforts to reduce hazardous fuels and to restore and improve forest, rangeland, and watershed health (including the health of fish and wildlife habitats) would be enhanced by authorizing the Secretary to enter into a good neighbor agreement with a non-Federal interest;
added
describe the process for ensuring that Federal requirements for land management plans for forests on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers remain in effect under good neighbor agreements;
added
assess whether Congress should authorize the Secretary to enter into a good neighbor agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers, including by assessing any interest expressed by a non-Federal interest to enter into such an agreement;
added
consider whether implementation of a good neighbor agreement on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers would benefit State and local governments and Indian Tribes that are located in the same geographic area as such lands; and
added
consult with the heads of other Federal agencies authorized to enter into good neighbor agreements with non-Federal interests.
added
Report to congress— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website), a report describing the results of the assessment carried out under subsection (a).
added
Definitions— In this section:
added
Forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services— The term forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services has the meaning given such term in section 8206 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a).
added
Good neighbor agreement— The term good neighbor agreement means a cooperative agreement or contract (including a sole source contract) entered into between the Secretary and a non-Federal interest to carry out forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services.
added
Lands owned by the corps of engineers— The term lands owned by the Corps of Engineers means any land owned by the Corps of Engineers, but does not include—
added
a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System;
added
land on which the removal of vegetation is prohibited or restricted by law or Presidential proclamation;
added
a wilderness study area; or
added
any other land with respect to which the Secretary determines that forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services should remain the responsibility of the Secretary.
Sec. 233 Electronic preparation and submission of applications
addedadded Section 2040(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2345(f)) is amended—
added
in paragraph (1), by striking “Water Resources Development Act of 2016” and inserting “Water Resources Development Act of 2022”; and
added
by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
added “(2) Report on electronic system implementation—The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a quarterly report describing the status of the implementation of this section.”
Sec. 234 Report on corrosion prevention activities
addedadded Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available, a report that describes—
added
the extent to which the Secretary has carried out section 1033 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2350);
added
the extent to which the Secretary has incorporated corrosion prevention activities (as defined in such section) at water resources development projects constructed or maintained by the Secretary since the date of enactment of such section; and
added
in instances where the Secretary has not incorporated corrosion prevention activities at such water resources development projects since such date, an explanation as to why such corrosion prevention activities have not been incorporated.
Sec. 235 GAO Studies on mitigation
added
added
Study on mitigation for water resources development projects—
added
In general— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct, and submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, a report on the results of a study on projects and activities to mitigate fish and wildlife losses resulting from the construction, or operation and maintenance, of an authorized water resources development project.
added
Requirements— In conducting the study under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall—
added
investigate the extent to which—
added
mitigation projects and activities (including the acquisition of lands or interests in lands) restore the natural hydrologic conditions, restore native vegetation, and otherwise support native fish and wildlife species, as required under section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283);
added
mitigation projects or activities (including the acquisition of lands or interests in lands) are undertaken before, or concurrent with, the construction of the project;
added
mitigation projects or activities (including the acquisition of lands or interests in lands) are completed;
added
ongoing mitigation projects or activities are undertaken to mitigate for fish and wildlife losses from the operation and maintenance of a project (including periodic review and updating of such projects or activities);
added
the Secretary includes mitigation plans (as required under subsection (d) of such section 906) in any project study, as such term is defined in section 2034(l) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2343);
added
processing and approval of mitigation projects and activities (including the acquisition of lands or interests in lands) affects the timeline of completion of projects; and
added
mitigation projects and activities (including the acquisition of lands or interests in lands) affect the total cost of projects;
added
review any reports submitted to Congress in accordance with section 2036(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1094) on the status of construction of projects that require mitigation; and
added
consult with independent scientists, economists, and other stakeholders with expertise and experience.
added
Study on the Compensatory Mitigation—
added
In general— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct, and submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, a report on the results of a study on performance metrics for, compliance with, and adequacy in addressing project impacts of, potential mechanisms for fulfilling compensatory mitigation obligations pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
added
Requirements— The Comptroller General shall include in the study under paragraph (1) an analysis of—
added
the primary mechanisms for fulfilling compensatory mitigation obligations, including—
added
mitigation banks;
added
in-lieu fee programs; and
added
direct mitigation by permittees;
added
the timeliness of initiation and successful completion of compensatory mitigation activities in relation to when the permitted activity occurs;
added
the timeliness of processing and approval of compensatory mitigation activities;
added
the costs of carrying out compensatory mitigation activities borne by the Federal Government, permittee, or any other involved entity;
added
Federal and State agency oversight and short- and long-term monitoring of the compensatory mitigation activities;
added
whether the compensatory mitigation activity successfully replaces any lost or adversely affected habitat with habitat having similar functions of equal or greater ecological value; and
added
the continued, long-term success of the compensatory mitigation activities over a 5-, 10-, 20-, and 50-year period.
added
Update— In conjunction with the study under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall review and update the findings and recommendations, including a review of Federal agency compliance with such recommendations, in the report of the Comptroller General entitled, “Corps of Engineers Does Not Have an Effective Oversight Approach to Ensure That Compensatory Mitigation Is Occurring” and dated September 2005 (GAO–05–898).
Sec. 236 GAO Study on waterborne statistics
added
added
In general— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall carry out a review of the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center of the Corps of Engineers that includes—
added
an assessment of ways in which the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center can improve the collection of information relating to all commercial maritime activity within the jurisdiction of a port, including the collection and reporting of records of fishery landings and aquaculture harvest; and
added
recommendations to improve the collection of such information from non-Federal entities, taking into consideration—
added
the cost, efficiency, and accuracy of collecting such information; and
added
the protection of proprietary information.
added
Report— Upon completion of the review carried out under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report containing the results of such review.
Sec. 237 GAO study on the integration of information into the national levee database
added
added
In general— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of a study on the sharing of levee information and the integration of information into the National Levee Database by the Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency in accordance with section 9004 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303).
added
Requirements— In conducting the study under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall—
added
investigate the information sharing protocols and procedures between the Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency regarding the construction of new Federal flood protection projects;
added
analyze the timeliness of the integration of information relating to newly constructed flood protection projects into the National Levee Database;
added
identify any delays between the construction of a new Federal flood protection project and when a policyholder of the National Flood Insurance Program would realize a premium discount due to the construction of a new Federal flood protection project; and
added
determine whether current information sharing protocols are adversely impacting the ability of the Secretary to perform accurate benefit-cost analysis for future flood risk management activities.
Sec. 301 Deauthorization of inactive projects
Purposes; proposed deauthorization list; submission of final list— Section 301 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 579–2) is amended by striking subsections (a) through (c) and inserting the following:
“(a) Purposes—The purposes of this section are—
“(1) to identify water resources development projects, and separable elements of projects, authorized by Congress that are no longer viable for construction due to—
“(A) a lack of local support;
“(B) a lack of available Federal or non-Federal resources; or
“(C) an authorizing purpose that is no longer relevant or feasible;
“(2) to create an expedited and definitive process for Congress to deauthorize water resources development projects and separable elements that are no longer viable for construction; and
“(3) to allow the continued authorization of water resources development projects and separable elements that are viable for construction.
“(b) Proposed deauthorization list
“(1) Preliminary list of projects
“(A) In general—The Secretary shall develop a preliminary list of each water resources development project, or separable element of a project, authorized for construction before November 8, 2007, for which—
“(i) planning, design, or construction was not initiated before the date of enactment of this Act; or
“(ii) planning, design, or construction was initiated before the date of enactment of this Act, but for which no funds, Federal or non-Federal, were obligated for planning, design, or construction of the project or separable element of the project during the current fiscal year or any of the 10 preceding fiscal years.
“(B) Use of comprehensive construction backlog and operation and maintenance report—The Secretary may develop the preliminary list from the comprehensive construction backlog and operation and maintenance reports developed pursuant to section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a).
“(2) Preparation of proposed deauthorization list
“(A) Proposed list and estimated deauthorization amount—The Secretary shall—
“(i) prepare a proposed list of projects for deauthorization comprised of a subset of projects and separable elements identified on the preliminary list developed under paragraph (1) that are projects or separable elements described in subsection (a)(1), as determined by the Secretary; and
“(ii) include with such proposed list an estimate, in the aggregate, of the Federal cost to complete such projects.
“(B) Determination of federal cost to complete—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the Federal cost to complete shall take into account any allowances authorized by section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280), as applied to the most recent project schedule and cost estimate.
“(3) Public comment and consultation
“(A) In general—The Secretary shall solicit comments from the public and the Governors of each applicable State on the proposed deauthorization list prepared under paragraph (2)(A).
“(B) Comment period—The public comment period shall be 90 days.
“(4) Preparation of final deauthorization list
“(A) In general—The Secretary shall prepare a final deauthorization list by—
“(i) considering any comments received under paragraph (3); and
“(ii) revising the proposed deauthorization list prepared under paragraph (2)(A) as the Secretary determines necessary to respond to such comments.
“(B) Appendix—The Secretary shall include as part of the final deauthorization list an appendix that—
“(i) identifies each project or separable element on the proposed deauthorization list that is not included on the final deauthorization list; and
“(ii) describes the reasons why the project or separable element is not included on the final deauthorization list.
“(c) Submission of final deauthorization list to congress for congressional review; publication
“(1) In general—Not later than 90 days after the date of the close of the comment period under subsection (b)(3), the Secretary shall—
“(A) submit the final deauthorization list and appendix prepared under subsection (b)(4) to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate; and
“(B) publish the final deauthorization list and appendix in the Federal Register.
“(2) Exclusions—The Secretary shall not include in the final deauthorization list submitted under paragraph (1) any project or separable element with respect to which Federal funds for planning, design, or construction are obligated after the development of the preliminary list under subsection (b)(1)(A) but prior to the submission of the final deauthorization list under paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection.”
changed
Repeal— Section 301(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 579–2(b)) 579–2(d)) is repealed.
Sec. 305 Invasive species
Aquatic Invasive Species Research— Section 1108(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 2263a(a)) is amended by inserting “, hydrilla” after “elodea”.
Harmful algal bloom demonstration program— Section 128(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 610 note) is amended to read as follows:
“(c) Focus Areas—In carrying out the demonstration program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall undertake program activities related to harmful algal blooms in—
“(1) the Great Lakes;
“(2) the tidal and inland waters of the State of New Jersey, including Lake Hopatcong, New Jersey;
“(3) the coastal and tidal waters of the State of Louisiana;
“(4) the waterways of the counties that comprise the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California;
“(5) the Allegheny Reservoir Watershed, New York;
“(6) Lake Okeechobee, Florida;
changed
“(7) Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia;the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Rivers, Florida;
changed
“(8) Rio Grande River Basin, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas;Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia;
changed
“(9) Detroit Lake, Oregon; andRio Grande River Basin, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas;
changed
“(10) Ten Mile Lake, Oregon.”lakes and reservoirs in the State of Ohio;
added “(11) Detroit Lake, Oregon; and
added “(12) Ten Mile Lake, Oregon.”
Update on Invasive Species Policy Guidance— Section 501(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 610 note) is amended—
in paragraph (1), by striking “and” at the end;
in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(3) the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.”
Sec. 307 St. Francis Lake Control Structure
changed
Establishment of program—In general— The Secretary may establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in Los Angeles County, California.shall set the ordinary high water mark for water impounded behind the St. Francis Lake Control Structure, authorized by the Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 538; 79 Stat. 1077), at 208 feet mean sea level.
changed
Form of assistance—Operation by project manager— Assistance provided In setting the ordinary high water mark under this section subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure that the project manager for the St. Francis Lake Control Structure may be continue operating such structure in accordance with the form of design and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects instructions set forth in Los Angeles County, California, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection the document titled “St. Francis Lake Control Structure Standing Instructions to the Project Manager” and development.published in January 1982 by the Corps of Engineers, Memphis District.
removed
Ownership requirement— The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned.
removed
Partnership agreements—
removed
In general— Before providing assistance under this section to a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) with the non-Federal interest with respect to the project to be carried out with such assistance.
removed
Requirements— Each partnership agreement for a project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:
removed
Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
removed
Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.
removed
Cost sharing—
removed
In general— The Federal share of the cost of a project under this section—
removed
shall be 75 percent; and
removed
may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
removed
Credit for interest— In case of a delay in the funding of the Federal share of a project that is the subject of an agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share of the project cost.
removed
Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way— Notwithstanding section 221(a)(4)(G) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(a)(4)(G)), the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share of project cost (including all reasonable costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may not exceed 25 percent of total project costs.
removed
Operation and maintenance— The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
removed
Authorization of appropriations—
removed
In general— There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section.
removed
Corps of engineers expenses— Not more than 10 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.
Sec. 308 Los Angeles County, California
changed
In general—Establishment of program— The portion of the project for flood risk management, Secretary may establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1936 (49 Stat. 1589; 50 Stat. 167; 52 Stat. 1215; 55 Stat. 647; 64 Stat. 177), consisting of the debris basins described in subsection (b), is no longer authorized beginning on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.County, California.
changed
Debris basins described—Form of assistance— The debris basins referred to Assistance provided under this section may be in subsection (a) are the following debris basins operated form of design and maintained by the construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in Los Angeles County Flood Control District: Auburn Debris Basin, Bailey Debris Basin, Big Dalton Debris Basin, Blanchard Canyon Debris Basin, Blue Gum Canyon Debris Basin, Brand Canyon Debris Basin, Carter Debris Basin, Childs Canyon Debris Basin, Dunsmuir Canyon Debris Basin, Eagle Canyon Debris Basin, Eaton Walsh Debris Basin, Elmwood Canyon Debris Basin, Emerald East Debris Basin, Emerald West Debris Retention Inlet, Hay Debris Basin, Hillcrest Debris Basin, La Tuna Canyon Debris Basin, Little Dalton Debris Basin, Live Oak Debris Retention Inlet, Lopez Debris Retention Inlet, Lower Sunset Canyon Debris Basin, Marshall Canyon Debris Retention Inlet, Santa Anita Debris Basin, Sawpit Debris Basin, Schoolhouse Canyon Debris Basin, Shields Canyon Debris Basin, Sierra Madre Villa Debris Basin, Snover Canyon Debris Basin, Stough Canyon Debris Basin, Wilson Canyon Debris Basin, County, California, including projects for wastewater treatment and Winery Canyon Debris Basin.related facilities, water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and development.
added
Ownership requirement— The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned.
added
Partnership agreements—
added
In general— Before providing assistance under this section to a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) with the non-Federal interest with respect to the project to be carried out with such assistance.
added
Requirements— Each partnership agreement for a project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:
added
Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
added
Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.
added
Cost sharing—
added
In general— The Federal share of the cost of a project under this section—
added
shall be 75 percent; and
added
may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
added
Credit for interest— In case of a delay in the funding of the Federal share of a project that is the subject of an agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share of the project cost.
added
Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way— Notwithstanding section 221(a)(4)(G) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(a)(4)(G)), the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share of project cost (including all reasonable costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may not exceed 25 percent of total project costs.
added
Operation and maintenance— The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
added
Authorization of appropriations—
added
In general— There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section.
added
Corps of engineers expenses— Not more than 10 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.
Sec. 309 Deauthorization of designated portions of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California
changed
Technical amendment—In general— Section 203(a)(1)(A) The portion of the Water Resources Development project for flood risk management, Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 2020 (134 1936 (49 Stat. 2675) 1589; 50 Stat. 167; 52 Stat. 1215; 55 Stat. 647; 64 Stat. 177), consisting of the debris basins described in subsection (b), is amended by striking “ocean shoreline” and inserting “bay and ocean shorelines”.no longer authorized beginning on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
changed
Implementation—Debris basins described— In carrying out a study under section 142 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2930; 100 Stat. 4158), pursuant The debris basins referred to section 203(a)(1)(A) of in subsection (a) are the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (as amended following debris basins operated and maintained by this section), the Secretary shall not differentiate between damages related to high tide flooding Los Angeles County Flood Control District: Auburn Debris Basin, Bailey Debris Basin, Big Dalton Debris Basin, Blanchard Canyon Debris Basin, Blue Gum Canyon Debris Basin, Brand Canyon Debris Basin, Carter Debris Basin, Childs Canyon Debris Basin, Dunsmuir Canyon Debris Basin, Eagle Canyon Debris Basin, Eaton Walsh Debris Basin, Elmwood Canyon Debris Basin, Emerald East Debris Basin, Emerald West Debris Retention Inlet, Hay Debris Basin, Hillcrest Debris Basin, La Tuna Canyon Debris Basin, Little Dalton Debris Basin, Live Oak Debris Retention Inlet, Lopez Debris Retention Inlet, Lower Sunset Canyon Debris Basin, Marshall Canyon Debris Retention Inlet, Santa Anita Debris Basin, Sawpit Debris Basin, Schoolhouse Canyon Debris Basin, Shields Canyon Debris Basin, Sierra Madre Villa Debris Basin, Snover Canyon Debris Basin, Stough Canyon Debris Basin, Wilson Canyon Debris Basin, and coastal storm flooding for the purposes of determining the Federal interest or cost share.Winery Canyon Debris Basin.
Sec. 310 Murrieta Creek, California
added Section 103 of title I of appendix B of Public Law 106–377 (114 Stat. 1441A–65) (relating to the project for flood control, environmental restoration, and recreation, Murrieta Creek, California), is amended—
added
by striking “$89,850,000” and inserting “$252,438,000”;
added
by striking “$57,735,000” and inserting “$162,511,500”; and
added
by striking “$32,115,000” and inserting “$89,926,500”.
removed
Study of flood risk management activities—
removed
In general— Using funds made available to carry out this section, the Secretary is authorized, at Federal expense, to carry out a study to determine the feasibility of a project for flood risk management and related purposes in the Columbia River basin and to report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate with recommendations thereon, including recommendations for a project to potentially reduce the reliance on Canada for flood risk management in the basin.
removed
Coordination— The Secretary shall carry out the activities described in this subsection in coordination with other Federal and State agencies and Indian Tribes.
removed
Funds for Columbia River Treaty obligations—
removed
In general— The Secretary is authorized to expend funds appropriated for the purpose of satisfying United States obligations under the Columbia River Treaty to compensate Canada for operating Canadian storage on behalf of the United States under such Treaty.
removed
Notification— If the U.S. entity calls upon Canada to operate Canadian reservoir storage for flood risk management on behalf of the United States, which operation may incur an obligation to compensate Canada under the Columbia River Treaty—
removed
the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Environment and Public Works and Appropriations of the Senate, by not later than 30 days after the initiation of the call, a written notice of the action and a justification, including a description of the circumstances necessitating the call;
removed
upon a determination by the United States of the amount of compensation that shall be paid to Canada, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Environment and Public Works and Appropriations of the Senate a written notice specifying such amount and an explanation of how such amount was derived, which notification shall not delay or impede the flood risk management mission of the U.S. entity; and
removed
the Secretary shall make no payment to Canada for the call under the Columbia River Treaty until such time as funds appropriated for the purpose of compensating Canada under such Treaty are available.
removed
Definitions— In this section:
removed
Columbia river basin— The term Columbia River basin means the entire United States portion of the Columbia River watershed.
removed
Columbia river treaty— The term Columbia River Treaty means the Treaty relating to cooperative development of the water resources of the Columbia River Basin, signed at Washington January 17, 1961, and entered into force September 16, 1964.
removed
U.S. entity— The term U.S. entity means the entity designated by the United States under Article XIV of the Columbia River Treaty.
Sec. 311 San Francisco Bay, California
added
Technical amendment— Section 203(a)(1)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2675) is amended by striking “ocean shoreline” and inserting “bay and ocean shorelines”.
removed
Section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1709) is amended, in row 4 (relating to the project for navigation, Port Everglades, Florida)—
changed
Implementation— In carrying out a study under section 142 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2930; 100 Stat. 4158), pursuant to section 203(a)(1)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (as amended by striking “$229,770,000” this section), the Secretary shall not differentiate between damages related to high tide flooding and inserting “$561,455,000”;coastal storm flooding for the purposes of determining the Federal interest or cost share.
removed
by striking “$107,233,000” and inserting “$361,302,000”; and
removed
by striking “$337,003,000” and inserting “$922,757,000”.
Sec. 312 Columbia River Basin
added
Study of flood risk management activities—
added
In general— Using funds made available to carry out this section, the Secretary is authorized, at Federal expense, to carry out a study to determine the feasibility of a project for flood risk management and related purposes in the Columbia River Basin and to report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate with recommendations thereon, including recommendations for a project to potentially reduce the reliance on Canada for flood risk management in the basin.
added
Coordination— The Secretary shall carry out the activities described in this subsection in coordination with other Federal and State agencies and Indian Tribes.
added
Funds for Columbia River Treaty obligations—
added
In general— The Secretary is authorized to expend funds appropriated for the purpose of satisfying United States obligations under the Columbia River Treaty to compensate Canada for operating Canadian storage on behalf of the United States under such treaty.
added
Notification— If the U.S. entity calls upon Canada to operate Canadian reservoir storage for flood risk management on behalf of the United States, which operation may incur an obligation to compensate Canada under the Columbia River Treaty—
added
the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Environment and Public Works and Appropriations of the Senate, by not later than 30 days after the initiation of the call, a written notice of the action and a justification, including a description of the circumstances necessitating the call;
added
upon a determination by the United States of the amount of compensation that shall be paid to Canada, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Environment and Public Works and Appropriations of the Senate a written notice specifying such amount and an explanation of how such amount was derived, which notification shall not delay or impede the flood risk management mission of the U.S. entity; and
added
the Secretary shall make no payment to Canada for the call under the Columbia River Treaty until such time as funds appropriated for the purpose of compensating Canada under such treaty are available.
added
Definitions— In this section:
added
Columbia river basin— The term Columbia River Basin means the entire United States portion of the Columbia River watershed.
added
Columbia river treaty— The term Columbia River Treaty means the treaty relating to cooperative development of the water resources of the Columbia River Basin, signed at Washington January 17, 1961, and entered into force September 16, 1964.
added
U.S. entity— The term U.S. entity means the entity designated by the United States under Article XIV of the Columbia River Treaty.
removed
Section 528(f)(1)(J) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3771) is amended by striking “2 representatives of the State of Florida,” and inserting “3 representatives of the State of Florida, including at least 1 representative of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and 1 representative of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,”.
Sec. 313 Port Everglades, Florida
changed
The project for storm damage reduction and shoreline erosion protection, Lake Michigan, Illinois, from Wilmette, Illinois, to the Illinois–Indiana State line, authorized by section 101(a)(12) Section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 2016 (130 Stat. 3664), 1709) is modified to authorize the Secretary to provide 65 percent of the cost of the locally preferred plan, as described amended, in the Report of row 4 (relating to the Chief of Engineers dated April 14, 1994, project for the construction of the following segments of the project:navigation, Port Everglades, Florida)—
changed
Shoreline revetment at Morgan Shoal.by striking “$229,770,000” and inserting “$561,455,000”;
changed
Shoreline revetment at Promontory Point.by striking “$107,233,000” and inserting “$361,302,000”; and
added
by striking “$337,003,000” and inserting “$922,757,000”.
Sec. 314 South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
changed
Section 402(a)(1) 528(f)(1)(J) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 1996 (110 Stat. 2742) 3771) is amended by striking “80 percent” “2 representatives of the State of Florida,” and inserting “90 percent”.“3 representatives of the State of Florida, including at least 1 representative of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and 1 representative of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,”.
Sec. 315 Chicago shoreline protection
added The project for storm damage reduction and shoreline erosion protection, Lake Michigan, Illinois, from Wilmette, Illinois, to the Illinois-Indiana State line, authorized by section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664), is modified to authorize the Secretary to provide 65 percent of the cost of the locally preferred plan, as described in the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 14, 1994, for the construction of the following segments of the project:
removed
Definitions— In this section:
removed
City— The term City means the city of Des Moines, Iowa.
removed
Flood Protection Project— The term Flood Protection Project means the project on the Des Moines River for local flood protection of Des Moines, Iowa, authorized by the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 896).
removed
Red Rock Dam Project— The term Red Rock Dam Project means the project for the Red Rock Dam on the Des Moines River for flood control and other purposes, authorized by the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 896).
changed
Project modifications— The Red Rock Dam Project and the Flood Protection Project shall be modified as follows, subject to a new or amended agreement between the Secretary and the City, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b):Shoreline revetment at Morgan Shoal.
added
Shoreline revetment at Promontory Point.
removed
That portion of the Red Rock Dam Project consisting of the segment of levee from Station 15+88.8W to Station 77+43.7W shall be transferred to the Flood Protection Project.
removed
The relocated levee improvement constructed by the City, from Station 77+43.7W to approximately Station 20+00, shall be included in the Flood Protection Project.
removed
Federal easement conveyances—
removed
Flood protection easements— The Secretary is authorized to convey, without consideration, to the City the following easements to become part of the Flood Protection Project in accordance with subsection (b):
removed
Easements identified as Tracts 3215E–1, 3235E, and 3227E.
removed
Easements identified as Partial Tracts 3216E–2, 3216E–3, 3217E–1, and 3217E–2.
removed
Additional easements— The Secretary is authorized to convey, without consideration, to the City or to the Des Moines Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation Authority the following easements:
removed
Easements identified as Tracts 3200E, 3202E–1, 3202E–2, 3202E–4, 3203E–2, 3215E–3, 3216E–1, and 3216E–5.
removed
Easements identified as Partial Tracts 3216E–2, 3216E–3, 3217E–1, and 3217E–2.
removed
Costs— An entity to which a conveyance is made under this subsection shall be responsible for all administrative costs associated with the conveyance.
Sec. 316 Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin project, Brandon Road, Will County, Illinois
changed
Section 213 402(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2684) 2742) is amended by adding at the end the following:striking “80 percent” and inserting “90 percent”.
removed
“(j) Cost-Share—The Federal share of the cost of the comprehensive study carried out under subsection (a), and any feasibility study carried out under subsection (e), shall be 100 percent.”
Sec. 317 Southeast Des Moines levee system, Iowa
changed
In general—Definitions— The Secretary is authorized to carry out streambank erosion control evaluation and demonstration projects in the Lower Missouri River through contracts with non-Federal interests, including projects for streambank protection and stabilization.In this section:
added
City— The term City means the city of Des Moines, Iowa.
added
Flood Protection Project— The term Flood Protection Project means the project on the Des Moines River for local flood protection of Des Moines, Iowa, authorized by the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 896).
added
Red Rock Dam Project— The term Red Rock Dam Project means the project for the Red Rock Dam on the Des Moines River for flood control and other purposes, authorized by the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 896).
changed
Area—Project modifications— The Secretary shall carry out demonstration projects under this section on the reach of Red Rock Dam Project and the Missouri River Flood Protection Project shall be modified as follows, subject to a new or amended agreement between Sioux City, Iowa, the Secretary and the confluence City, in accordance with section 221 of the Missouri River and the Mississippi River.Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b):
added
That portion of the Red Rock Dam Project consisting of the segment of levee from Station 15+88.8W to Station 77+43.7W shall be transferred to the Flood Protection Project.
added
The relocated levee improvement constructed by the City, from Station 77+43.7W to approximately Station 20+00, shall be included in the Flood Protection Project.
added
Federal easement conveyances—
added
Flood protection easements— The Secretary is authorized to convey, without consideration, to the City the following easements to become part of the Flood Protection Project in accordance with subsection (b):
added
Easements identified as Tracts 3215E–1, 3235E, and 3227E.
added
Easements identified as Partial Tracts 3216E–2, 3216E–3, 3217E–1, and 3217E–2.
removed
Requirements— In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
changed
Additional easements— conduct an evaluation of The Secretary is authorized to convey, without consideration, to the extent of streambank erosion on City or to the Lower Missouri River; andDes Moines Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation Authority the following easements:
added
Easements identified as Tracts 3200E, 3202E–1, 3202E–2, 3202E–4, 3203E–2, 3215E–3, 3216E–1, and 3216E–5.
added
Easements identified as Partial Tracts 3216E–2, 3216E–3, 3217E–1, and 3217E–2.
changed
Costs— develop new methods and techniques An entity to which a conveyance is made under this subsection shall be responsible for streambank protection, research soil stability, and identify all administrative costs associated with the causes of erosion.conveyance.
removed
Report— Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment of the Senate a report describing the results of the demonstration projects carried out under this section, including any recommendations for methods to prevent and correct streambank erosion.
removed
Authorization of appropriations— There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000, to remain available until expended.
removed
Sunset— The authority of the Secretary to enter into contracts under subsection (a) shall expire on the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 318 Lower Mississippi River comprehensive management study
added Section 213 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the following:
added “(j) Cost share—The Federal share of the cost of the comprehensive study carried out under subsection (a), and any feasibility study carried out under subsection (e), shall be 100 percent.”
removed
In general— Notwithstanding section 129 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2643), and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary is authorized to carry out the construction of an interception-rearing complex at each of Plowboy Bend A (River Mile: 174.5 to 173.2) and Pelican Bend B (River Mile: 15.8 to 13.4) on the Missouri River.
removed
Analysis and mitigation of risk—
removed
Analysis— Prior to construction of the interception-rearing complexes under subsection (a), the Secretary shall perform an analysis to identify whether the interception-rearing complexes will—
removed
contribute to an increased risk of flooding to adjacent lands and properties, including local levees;
removed
affect the navigation channel, including crossflows, velocity, channel depth, and channel width;
removed
affect the harvesting of sand;
removed
affect ports and harbors; or
removed
contribute to bank erosion on adjacent private lands.
removed
Mitigation— The Secretary may not construct an interception-rearing complex under subsection (a) until the Secretary successfully mitigates any effects described in paragraph (1) with respect to such interception-rearing complex.
removed
Study— Not later than 1 year after completion of the construction of the interception-rearing complexes under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report describing the extent to which the construction of such interception-rearing complexes affected the population recovery of pallid sturgeon in the Missouri River.
Sec. 319 Lower Missouri River streambank erosion control evaluation and demonstration projects
added
In general— The Secretary is authorized to carry out streambank erosion control evaluation and demonstration projects in the Lower Missouri River through contracts with non-Federal interests, including projects for streambank protection and stabilization.
added
Area— The Secretary shall carry out demonstration projects under this section on the reach of the Missouri River between Sioux City, Iowa, and the confluence of the Missouri River and the Mississippi River.
added
Requirements— In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
added
conduct an evaluation of the extent of streambank erosion on the Lower Missouri River; and
added
develop new methods and techniques for streambank protection, research soil stability, and identify the causes of erosion.
added
Report— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report describing the results of the demonstration projects carried out under this section, including any recommendations for methods to prevent and correct streambank erosion.
added
Authorization of appropriations— There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000, to remain available until expended.
added
Sunset— The authority of the Secretary to enter into contracts under subsection (a) shall expire on the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
removed
Section 334 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 306) is amended by adding at the end the following:
removed
“(c) Use of other funds—Any acres acquired using Federal funds for purposes described in subsection (a) shall be considered toward the total number of acres required under such subsection, regardless of the source of the Federal funds.”
Sec. 320 Missouri River interception-rearing complexes
changed
Northern Missouri defined—In general— In this section, Notwithstanding section 129 of the term Northern Missouri means Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2643), and subject to subsection (b), the counties Secretary is authorized to carry out the construction of Buchanan, Marion, Platte, an interception-rearing complex at each of Plowboy Bend A (River Mile: 174.5 to 173.2) and Clay, Missouri.Pelican Bend B (River Mile: 15.8 to 13.4) on the Missouri River.
added
Analysis and mitigation of risk—
added
Analysis— Prior to construction of the interception-rearing complexes under subsection (a), the Secretary shall perform an analysis to identify whether the interception-rearing complexes will—
added
contribute to an increased risk of flooding to adjacent lands and properties, including local levees;
added
affect the navigation channel, including crossflows, velocity, channel depth, and channel width;
added
affect the harvesting of sand;
added
affect ports and harbors; or
added
contribute to bank erosion on adjacent private lands.
added
Mitigation— The Secretary may not construct an interception-rearing complex under subsection (a) until the Secretary successfully mitigates any effects described in paragraph (1) with respect to such interception-rearing complex.
removed
Establishment of program— The Secretary may establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in Northern Missouri.
changed
Form of assistance—Report— Assistance provided under this section may be in Not later than 1 year after completion of the form construction of design the interception-rearing complexes under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and resource protection the Committee on Environment and development projects Public Works of the Senate a report describing the extent to which the construction of such interception-rearing complexes affected the population recovery of pallid sturgeon in Northern Missouri, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and development.the Missouri River.
changed
Ownership requirement—Conforming amendment— The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if Section 129(b) of the project Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2643) is publicly owned.amended by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively, and inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
added “(2) submits the report required by section 318(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022;”
removed
Partnership agreements—
removed
In general— Before providing assistance under this section to a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) with the non-Federal interest with respect to the project to be carried out with such assistance.
removed
Requirements— Each partnership agreement for a project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:
removed
Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
removed
Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.
removed
Cost sharing—
removed
In general— The Federal share of the cost of a project carried out under this section—
removed
shall be 75 percent; and
removed
may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
removed
Credit for interest— In case of a delay in the funding of the Federal share of a project that is the subject of a partnership agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share of the project cost.
removed
Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way— Notwithstanding section 221(a)(4)(G) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(a)(4)(G)), the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share of project cost (including all reasonable costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or controlled land), but such credit may not exceed 25 percent of total project costs.
removed
Operation and maintenance— The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
removed
Authorization of appropriations—
removed
In general— There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section.
removed
Corps of Engineers expenses— Not more than 10 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.
Sec. 321 Argentine, East Bottoms, Fairfax-Jersey Creek, and North Kansas Levees units, Missouri River and tributaries at Kansas Cities, Missouri and Kansas
changed
The project for flood control, Israel River, Lancaster, New Hampshire, carried out under Notwithstanding section 205 103 of the Flood Control Water Resources Development Act of 1948 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is no longer authorized beginning on 2213), the date Federal share of enactment the cost of this Act.the portion of the project for flood damage reduction, Argentine, East Bottoms, Fairfax-Jersey Creek, and North Kansas Levees units, Missouri River and tributaries at Kansas Cities, Missouri and Kansas, authorized by section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1054), relating to the Fairfax-Jersey Creek Levee unit, shall be 80 percent.
Sec. 322 Missouri River mitigation project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska
changed
The non-Federal share of the cost of the project for flood risk management, Middle Rio Grande, Bernalillo to Belen, New Mexico, authorized by section 401(2) Section 334 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 1999 (113 Stat. 2735), shall be 25 percent.306) is amended by adding at the end the following:
added “(c) Use of other funds—Any acres acquired using Federal funds for purposes described in subsection (a) shall be considered toward the total number of acres required under such subsection, regardless of the source of the Federal funds.”
Sec. 323 Northern Missouri
changed
Southwestern Oregon Northern Missouri defined— In this section, the term Southwestern Oregon Northern Missouri means the counties of Benton, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane, Linn, Buchanan, Marion, Platte, and Josephine, Oregon.Clay, Missouri.
changed
Establishment of program— The Secretary may establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in Southwestern Oregon.Northern Missouri.
changed
Form of assistance— Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in Southwestern Oregon, Northern Missouri, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and development.
Ownership requirement— The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned.
Partnership agreements—
In general— Before providing assistance under this section to a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) with the non-Federal interest with respect to the project to be carried out with such assistance.
Requirements— Each partnership agreement for a project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:
Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.
Cost sharing—
In general— The Federal share of the cost of a project carried out under this section—
shall be 75 percent; and
may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
Credit for interest— In case of a delay in the funding of the Federal share of a project that is the subject of a partnership agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share of the project cost.
changed
Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way— Notwithstanding section 221(a)(4)(G) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(a)(4)(G)), the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, rights-of way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share of project cost (including all reasonable costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or controlled land), but such credit may not exceed 25 percent of total project costs.
Operation and maintenance— The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
Authorization of appropriations—
In general— There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section.
changed
Corps of engineers expense—Engineers expenses— Not more than 10 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.
Sec. 324 Israel River, Lancaster, New Hampshire
changed
Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the The project for navigation, Wolf River Harbor, Tennessee, authorized by flood control, Israel River, Lancaster, New Hampshire, carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of August 30, 1935 (chapter 831, 49 Stat. 1034), 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to reduce, in part, the no longer authorized dimensions of the project, such that beginning on the remaining authorized dimensions are as follows:date of enactment of this Act.
removed
A 250-foot-wide, 9-foot-depth channel with a center line beginning at an approximate point of 35.139634, -90.062343 and extending approximately 1,300 feet to an approximate point of 35.142077, -90.059107.
removed
A 200-foot-wide, 9-foot-depth channel with a center line beginning at an approximate point of 35.142077, -90.059107 and extending approximately 1,800 feet to an approximate point of 35.1467861, -90.057003.
removed
A 250-foot-wide, 9-foot-depth channel with a center line beginning at an approximate point of 35.148791, -90.05642 and extending approximately 5,550 feet to an approximate point of 35.160848, -90.050566.
Sec. 325 Middle Rio Grande flood protection, Bernalillo to Belen, New Mexico
changed
The Secretary is authorized to provide, pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a), information and advice to non-Federal interests on the removal share of sediment obstructing inflow channels to the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, authorized pursuant to cost of the project for Buffalo Bayou and its tributaries, Texas, under flood risk management, Middle Rio Grande, Bernalillo to Belen, New Mexico, authorized by section 3a 401(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of August 11, 1939 (chapter 699, 53 Stat. 1414; 68 2020 (134 Stat. 1258).2735), shall be 25 percent.
Sec. 326 Southwestern Oregon
changed
In general—Southwestern Oregon defined— The Secretary shall carry out a pilot project on water level management, as part of the operations and maintenance of the 9-foot channel projects of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System, to help redress In this section, the degrading influences of prolonged inundation or sedimentation on such projects, and to improve term Southwestern Oregon means the quality and quantity counties of habitat available for fish Benton, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane, Linn, and wildlife.Josephine, Oregon.
changed
Conditions on drawdowns—Establishment of program— In carrying out the pilot project under subsection (a), the The Secretary shall carry out routine and systemic water level drawdowns of the pools created by the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System locks and dams, including drawdowns during the growing season, when—may establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in Southwestern Oregon.
added
Form of assistance— Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in Southwestern Oregon, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and development.
removed
hydrologic conditions allow the Secretary to carry out a drawdown within applicable dam operating plans; or
removed
hydrologic conditions allow the Secretary to carry out a drawdown and sufficient funds are available to the Secretary to carry out any additional activities that may be required to ensure that the drawdown does not adversely affect navigation.
removed
Coordination and notification—
removed
Coordination— The Secretary shall use existing coordination and consultation processes to regularly consult with other relevant Federal agencies and States regarding the planning and assessment of water level management actions implemented under this section.
removed
Notification— Prior to carrying out any water level management plan pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall provide notice to the public and to navigation interests and other interested stakeholders.
changed
Definition—Ownership requirement— In The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section, the term Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System has the meaning given that term in section 8001 of only if the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 652 note).project is publicly owned.
added
Partnership agreements—
added
In general— Before providing assistance under this section to a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) with the non-Federal interest with respect to the project to be carried out with such assistance.
added
Requirements— Each partnership agreement for a project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:
added
Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
added
Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.
added
Cost sharing—
added
In general— The Federal share of the cost of a project carried out under this section—
added
shall be 75 percent; and
added
may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
added
Credit for interest— In case of a delay in the funding of the Federal share of a project that is the subject of a partnership agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share of the project cost.
added
Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way— Notwithstanding section 221(a)(4)(G) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(a)(4)(G)), the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share of project cost (including all reasonable costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or controlled land), but such credit may not exceed 25 percent of total project costs.
added
Operation and maintenance— The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
added
Authorization of appropriations—
added
In general— There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section.
added
Corps of engineers expense— Not more than 10 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.
Sec. 327 Wolf River Harbor, Tennessee
changed
Section 2010 Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act project for navigation, Wolf River Harbor, Tennessee, authorized by section 202 of 2014 (128 the National Industrial Recovery Act (48 Stat. 1270; 132 201; 49 Stat. 3812) 1034; 72 Stat. 308), is amended by adding at modified to reduce, in part, the end authorized dimensions of the following:project, such that the remaining authorized dimensions are as follows:
added
A 250-foot-wide, 9-foot-depth channel with a center line beginning at an approximate point of 35.139634, -90.062343 and extending approximately 1,300 feet to an approximate point of 35.142077, -90.059107.
added
A 200-foot-wide, 9-foot-depth channel with a center line beginning at an approximate point of 35.142077, -90.059107 and extending approximately 1,800 feet to an approximate point of 35.1467861, -90.057003.
added
A 250-foot-wide, 9-foot-depth channel with a center line beginning at an approximate point of 35.1467861, -90.057003 and extending approximately 5,550 feet to an approximate point of 35.160848, -90.050566.
removed
“(f) Limitation—The Secretary shall not recommend deauthorization of the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam pursuant to the disposition study carried out under subsection (d) unless the Secretary identifies a willing and capable non-Federal public entity to assume ownership of the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam.
removed
“(g) Modification—The Secretary is authorized to investigate the feasibility of modifying, prior to deauthorizing, the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam to add ecosystem restoration, including the prevention and control of invasive species, water supply, and recreation as authorized purposes.”
Sec. 328 Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, Texas
changed
Section 152(a) The Secretary is authorized to provide, pursuant to section 206 of the Water Resources Development Flood Control Act of 2020 1960 (33 U.S.C. 2213a(a)) is amended by striking “a flood risk management project that incidentally generates seismic safety benefits in regions” 709a), information and inserting “a flood risk management or coastal storm risk management advice to non-Federal interests on the removal of sediment obstructing inflow channels to the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, authorized pursuant to the project in a region”.for Buffalo Bayou and its tributaries, Texas, under section 3a of the Act of August 11, 1939 (chapter 699, 53 Stat. 1414; 68 Stat. 1258).
Sec. 329 Central West Virginia
changed
Section 3 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a), 1999 (113 Stat. 371) is amended by striking “or recreation” subsection (a) and inserting “ecosystem restoration, or recreation”.the following:
added “(a) Definition of central West Virginia—In this section, the term “central West Virginia” means the counties of Lewis, Upshur, Randolph, Hardy, Hampshire, Morgan, Berkeley, Jefferson, Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, Monongalia, Marion, Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston, Tucker, Mineral, Grant, Brooke, and Ritchie, West Virginia.”
Sec. 330 Puget Sound, Washington
added In carrying out the project for ecosystem restoration, Puget Sound, Washington, authorized by section 1401(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1713), the Secretary shall consider the removal and replacement of the Highway 101 causeway and bridges at the Duckabush River Estuary site to be a project feature, and not a relocation, and the Federal share of the costs of such removal and replacement shall be 65 percent.
removed
Levee safety initiative— Section 9005(g)(2)(E)(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303a(g)(2)(E)(i)) is amended by striking “2023” and inserting “2026”.
removed
Transfer of excess credit— Section 1020 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2223) is amended—
removed
in subsection (d), by striking “10 years after the date of enactment of this Act” and inserting “on December 31, 2026”; and
removed
in subsection (e), by striking “10 years after the date of enactment of this Act” and inserting “on December 31, 2026”.
removed
Rehabilitation of existing levees— Section 3017(e) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 3303a note) is amended by striking “the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act” and inserting “December 31, 2026”.
removed
Invasive species in alpine lakes pilot project— Section 507(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (16 U.S.C. 4701 note) is amended by striking “2024” and inserting “2026”.
removed
Environmental banks— Section 309(e) of the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 3957(e)) is amended by striking “10” and inserting “12”.
Sec. 331 Water level management pilot project on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System
added
In general— The Secretary shall carry out a pilot project on water level management, as part of the operations and maintenance of the 9-foot channel projects of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System, to help redress the degrading influences of prolonged inundation or sedimentation on such projects, and to improve the quality and quantity of habitat available for fish and wildlife.
added
Conditions on drawdowns— In carrying out the pilot project under subsection (a), the Secretary shall carry out routine and systemic water level drawdowns of the pools created by the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System locks and dams, including drawdowns during the growing season, when—
removed
Generally applicable provisions—
removed
Survey to obtain legal description— The exact acreage and the legal description of any real property or easement to be conveyed under this section shall be determined by a survey that is satisfactory to the Secretary.
removed
Applicability of property screening provisions— Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to any conveyance under this section.
removed
Costs of conveyance— An entity to which a conveyance is made under this section shall be responsible for all reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate transaction and environmental documentation costs, associated with the conveyance.
removed
Liability— An entity to which a conveyance is made under this section shall hold the United States harmless from any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after the date of the conveyance, on the real property conveyed. The United States shall remain responsible for any liability with respect to activities carried out, before such date, on the real property conveyed.
removed
Additional terms and conditions— The Secretary may require that any conveyance under this section be subject to such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary considers necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
removed
Rogers County, Oklahoma—
removed
Conveyance authorized— The Secretary is authorized to convey to the City of Tulsa-Rogers County Port Authority, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property described in paragraph (2).
changed
Property— The property to be conveyed under this subsection is the approximately 19 acres of Federal land located on hydrologic conditions allow the following 3 parcels in Rogers County, Oklahoma:Secretary to carry out a drawdown within applicable dam operating plans; or
removed
Parcel 1 consists of U.S. tract 119 (partial), U.S. tract 123, U.S. tract 120, U.S. tract 125, and U.S. tract 118 (partial).
removed
Parcel 2 consists of U.S. tract 124 (partial) and U.S. tract 128 (partial).
removed
Parcel 3 consists of U.S. tract 128 (partial).
changed
Reservation of rights— The hydrologic conditions allow the Secretary shall reserve and retain from any conveyance under this subsection such easements, rights-of-way, to carry out a drawdown and other interests that sufficient funds are available to the Secretary determines to carry out any additional activities that may be necessary and appropriate required to ensure the continued operation of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation project (including Newt Graham Lock and Dam 18) authorized under the comprehensive plan for the Arkansas River Basin by that the Act of June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1218; 60 Stat. 634; 60 Stat. 647; 101 Stat. 1329–112; 117 Stat. 1842).drawdown does not adversely affect navigation.
removed
Deed— The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
removed
Consideration— The City of Tulsa-Rogers County Port Authority shall pay to the Secretary an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the property conveyed under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.
changed
Regional Corps of Engineers office, Corpus Christi, Texas—Coordination and notification—
changed
Conveyance authorized—Coordination— At such time as new facilities are available to be used as the office for the Galveston District of the Corps of Engineers, the The Secretary shall convey use existing coordination and consultation processes to the Port of Corpus Christi, all right, title, regularly consult with other relevant Federal agencies and interest of the United States in and to regarding the property described in paragraph (2).planning and assessment of water level management actions implemented under this section.
changed
Description of property—Notification— The property referred Prior to in paragraph (1) is carrying out any water level management plan pursuant to this section, the land known as “Tract 100” Secretary shall provide notice to the public and “Tract 101”, including improvements on that land, in Corpus Christi, Texas, to navigation interests and described as follows:other interested stakeholders.
added
Definition— In this section, the term Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System has the meaning given that term in section 8001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 652 note).
removed
Tract 100— The 1.89 acres, more or less, as conveyed by the Nueces County Navigation District No. 1 of Nueces County, Texas, to the United States by instrument dated October 16, 1928, and recorded at Volume 193, pages 1 and 2, in the Deed Records of Nueces County, Texas.
removed
Tract 101— The 0.53 acres as conveyed by the City of Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas, to the United States by instrument dated September 24, 1971, and recorded at Volume 318, pages 523 and 524, in the Deed Records of Nueces County, Texas.
removed
Improvements—
removed
Main Building (RPUID AO–C–3516), constructed January 9, 1974.
removed
Garage, vehicle with 5 bays (RPUID AO–C–3517), constructed January 9, 1985.
removed
Bulkhead, Upper (RPUID AO–C–2658), constructed January 1, 1941.
removed
Bulkhead, Lower (RPUID AO–C–3520), constructed January 1, 1933.
removed
Bulkhead Fence (RPUID AO–C–3521), constructed January 9, 1985.
removed
Bulkhead Fence (RPUID AO–C–3522), constructed January 9, 1985.
removed
Deed— The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
removed
Consideration— The Port of Corpus Christi shall pay to the Secretary an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the property (including improvements) conveyed under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.
Sec. 332 Upper Mississippi River protection
added Section 2010 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1270; 132 Stat. 3812) is amended by adding at the end the following:
added “(f) Limitation—The Secretary shall not recommend deauthorization of the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam pursuant to the disposition study carried out under subsection (d) unless the Secretary identifies a willing and capable non-Federal public entity to assume ownership of the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam.
added “(g) Modification—The Secretary is authorized to investigate the feasibility of modifying, prior to deauthorizing, the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam to add ecosystem restoration, including the prevention and control of invasive species, water supply, and recreation as authorized purposes.”
removed
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:
removed
“(274) Chandler, Arizona—$18,750,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Chandler, Arizona.
removed
“(275) Pinal county, Arizona—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Pinal County, Arizona.
removed
“(276) Tempe, Arizona—$37,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation and groundwater recharge, for the City of Tempe, Arizona.
removed
“(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.
removed
“(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.
removed
“(279) Compton creek, California—$6,165,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in the vicinity of Compton Creek, city of Compton, California.
removed
“(280) Downey, California—$100,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Downey, California.
removed
“(281) Lomita, California—$4,716,600 for stormwater management infrastructure in the city of Lomita, California.
removed
“(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.
removed
“(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.
removed
“(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.
removed
“(285) Fontana, California—$16,000,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in the city of Fontana, California.
removed
“(286) Healdsburg, California—$23,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, in the city of Healdsburg, California.
removed
“(287) Inland empire, California—$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Riverside County and San Bernardino County, California.
removed
“(288) Marin county, California—$28,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Marin County, California.
removed
“(289) Maywood, California—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the city of Maywood, California.
removed
“(290) Monterey peninsula, California—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure and water supply, on the Monterey Peninsula, California.
removed
“(291) North Richmond, California—$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including coastal flooding resilience measures for such infrastructure, in North Richmond, California.
removed
“(292) Ontario, California—$40,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, in the city of Ontario, California.
removed
“(293) Paramount, California—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Paramount, California.
removed
“(294) Petaluma, California—$13,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling, in the city of Petaluma, California.
removed
“(295) Rialto, California—$27,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the city of Rialto, California.
removed
“(296) Rincon Reservation, California—$38,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure on the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians reservation, California.
removed
“(297) Sacramento-san joaquin delta, California—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, and water supply, in Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County, Solano County, Sacramento County, and Yolo County, California.
removed
“(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.
removed
“(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.
removed
“(300) Santa rosa, California—$19,400,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the city of Santa Rosa, California.
removed
“(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.
removed
“(302) Smith River, California—$25,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Howonquet Village and Resort and Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation, Smith River, California.
removed
“(303) Torrance, California—$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including groundwater recharge and water supply, in the city of Torrance, California.
removed
“(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.
removed
“(305) Hebron, Connecticut—$3,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Hebron, Connecticut.
removed
“(306) New london, Connecticut—$16,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the town of Bozrah and the City of Norwich, Connecticut.
removed
“(307) Windham, Connecticut—$18,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Windham, Connecticut.
removed
“(308) New castle, Delaware—$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in New Castle County, Delaware.
removed
“(309) Washington, District of Columbia—$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Washington, District of Columbia.
removed
“(310) Longboat key, Florida—$12,750,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Longboat Key, Florida.
removed
“(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.
removed
“(312) Polk county, Florida—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Polk County, Florida.
removed
“(313) Okeechobee county, Florida—$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Okeechobee County, Florida.
removed
“(314) Orange county, Florida—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation and water supply, in Orange County, Florida.
removed
“(315) Guam—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in Guam.
removed
“(316) County of Hawai‘i, Hawaii—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the County of Hawai‘i, Hawaii.
removed
“(317) Honolulu, Hawaii—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii.
removed
“(318) Kaua‘i, Hawaii—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the County of Kaua‘i, Hawaii.
removed
“(319) Maui, Hawaii—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the County of Maui, Hawaii.
removed
“(320) Dixmoor, Illinois—$15,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the village of Dixmoor, Illinois.
removed
“(321) Forest park, Illinois—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Forest Park, Illinois.
removed
“(322) Lake County, Illinois—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Lake County, Illinois.
removed
“(323) Lemont, Illinois—$3,135,000 for water infrastructure in the village of Lemont, Illinois.
removed
“(324) Lockport, Illinois—$6,550,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Lockport, Illinois.
removed
“(325) Montgomery and christian counties, Illinois—$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Montgomery County and Christian County, Illinois.
removed
“(326) Will county, Illinois—$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Will County, Illinois.
removed
“(327) Orleans parish, Louisiana—$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Orleans Parish, Louisiana.
removed
“(328) Fitchburg, Massachusetts—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Fitchburg, Massachusetts.
removed
“(329) Haverhill, Massachusetts—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Haverhill, Massachusetts.
removed
“(330) Lawrence, Massachusetts—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Lawrence, Massachusetts.
removed
“(331) Lowell, Massachusetts—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Lowell, Massachusetts.
removed
“(332) Methuen, Massachusetts—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Methuen, Massachusetts.
removed
“(333) Boonsboro, Maryland—$5,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of Boonsboro, Maryland.
removed
“(334) Brunswick, Maryland—$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Brunswick, Maryland.
removed
“(335) Cascade charter township, Michigan—$7,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Cascade Charter Township, Michigan.
removed
“(336) Macomb County, Michigan—$40,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, Macomb County, Michigan.
removed
“(337) Northfield, Minnesota—$33,450,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Northfield, Minnesota.
removed
“(338) Centertown, Missouri—$15,900,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the village of Centertown, Missouri.
removed
“(339) St. louis, Missouri—$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of St. Louis, Missouri.
removed
“(340) St. louis county, Missouri—$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in St. Louis County, Missouri.
removed
“(341) Meridian, Mississippi—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Meridian, Mississippi.
removed
“(342) Oxford, Mississippi—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the City of Oxford, Mississippi.
removed
“(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.
removed
“(344) Bayonne, New Jersey—$825,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Bayonne, New Jersey.
removed
“(345) Camden, New Jersey—$119,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, city of Camden, New Jersey.
removed
“(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.
removed
“(347) Flemington, New Jersey—$4,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the Borough of Flemington, New Jersey.
removed
“(348) Jefferson, New Jersey—$90,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Jefferson Township, New Jersey.
removed
“(349) Kearny, New Jersey—$69,900,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the town of Kearny, New Jersey.
removed
“(350) Long hill, New Jersey—$7,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Long Hill Township, New Jersey.
removed
“(351) Morris county, New Jersey—$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Morris County, New Jersey.
removed
“(352) Passaic, New Jersey—$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the Passaic County, New Jersey.
removed
“(353) Phillipsburg, New Jersey—$2,600,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
removed
“(354) Rahway, New Jersey—$3,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Rahway, New Jersey.
removed
“(355) Roselle, New Jersey—$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the Borough of Roselle, New Jersey.
removed
“(356) South orange village, New Jersey—$7,500,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the Township of South Orange Village, New Jersey.
removed
“(357) Summit, New Jersey—$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Summit, New Jersey.
removed
“(358) Warren, New Jersey—$4,550,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Warren Township, New Jersey.
removed
“(359) Española, New Mexico—$21,995,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Española, New Mexico.
removed
“(360) Farmington, New Mexico—$15,500,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Farmington, New Mexico.
removed
“(361) Mora county, New Mexico—$2,874,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Mora County, New Mexico.
removed
“(362) Santa Fe, New Mexico—$20,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, in the city of Santa Fe, New Mexico.
removed
“(363) Clarkstown, New York—$14,600,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, town of Clarkstown, New York.
removed
“(364) Genesee, New York—$85,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water supply, in Genesee County, New York.
removed
“(365) Queens, New York—$119,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in Queens, New York.
removed
“(366) Yorktown, New York—$40,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Yorktown, New York.
removed
“(367) Brunswick, Ohio—$4,510,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Brunswick, Ohio.
removed
“(368) Brookings, Oregon—$2,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the City and Port of Brookings, Oregon.
removed
“(369) Monroe, Oregon—$6,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Monroe, Oregon.
removed
“(370) Newport, Oregon—$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Newport, Oregon.
removed
“(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.
removed
“(372) Palmyra, Pennsylvania—$36,300,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Palmyra Township, Pennsylvania.
removed
“(373) Pike county, Pennsylvania—$10,000,000 for water and stormwater management infrastructure, including water supply, in Pike County, Pennsylvania.
removed
“(374) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania—$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
removed
“(375) Pocono, Pennsylvania—$22,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Pocono Township, Pennsylvania.
removed
“(376) Westfall, Pennsylvania—$16,880,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Westfall Township, Pennsylvania.
removed
“(377) Whitehall, Pennsylvania—$6,000,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in Whitehall Township and South Whitehall Township, Pennsylvania.
removed
“(378) Beaufort, South Carolina—$7,462,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in Beaufort County, South Carolina.
removed
“(379) Charleston, South Carolina—$25,583,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Charleston, South Carolina.
removed
“(380) Mount pleasant, South Carolina—$7,822,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.
removed
“(381) Portland, Tennessee—$1,850,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Portland, Tennessee.
removed
“(382) Smith county, Tennessee—$19,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Smith County, Tennessee.
removed
“(383) Trousdale, macon, and sumner counties, Tennessee—$178,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Trousdale County, Macon County, and Sumner County, Tennessee.
removed
“(384) Virgin islands—$1,584,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the United States Virgin Islands.
removed
“(385) Bonney lake, Washington—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Bonney Lake, Washington.
removed
“(386) Burien, Washington—$5,000,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in the city of Burien, Washington.
removed
“(387) Ellensburg, Washington—$3,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Ellensburg, Washington.
removed
“(388) North bend, Washington—$30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of North Bend, Washington.
removed
“(389) Port angeles, Washington—$7,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the City and Port of Port Angeles, Washington.
removed
“(390) Snohomish, Washington—$56,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Snohomish County, Washington.
removed
“(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.
removed
“(392) Milwaukee, Wisconsin—$4,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.”
removed
Project modifications—
removed
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.
removed
Modifications—
removed
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”.
removed
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—
removed
by striking “$3,000,000” and inserting “$103,000,000”;
removed
by striking “wastewater and water related infrastructure,” and inserting “water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,”; and
removed
by inserting “Dominguez Channel, Santa Clarita Valley,” after “La Habra Heights,”.
removed
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”.
removed
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”.
removed
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”.
removed
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),”.
removed
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”.
removed
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”.
removed
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”.
removed
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) is amended by striking “$100,000,000” and inserting “$125,000,000”.
removed
Baton rouge, Louisiana— Section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336) is amended by striking “$35,000,000” and inserting “$90,000,000”.
removed
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”.
removed
St. charles, st. bernard, plaquemines, St. john the baptist, st. james, and assumption parishes, Louisiana—
removed
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”.
removed
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—
removed
in the paragraph heading, by striking “Baptist and St. James” and inserting “Baptist, St. James, and Assumption”; and
removed
by striking “Baptist and St. James” and inserting “Baptist, St. James, and Assumption”.
removed
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—
removed
by striking the “and” at the end of paragraph (16);
removed
by striking the period at the end of paragraph (17) and inserting a semicolon; and
removed
by adding at the end the following:
removed
“(18) $70,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(33); and
removed
“(19) $36,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(34).”
removed
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)”.
removed
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) is amended by striking “$20,000,000 for” and inserting “$30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, and other”.
removed
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”.
removed
Eastern shore and southwest Virginia— Section 219(f)(10)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat 4835; 113 Stat. 336) is amended by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “$52,000,000”.
removed
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.
Sec. 333 Treatment of certain benefits and costs
added Section 152(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2213a(a)) is amended by striking “a flood risk management project that incidentally generates seismic safety benefits in regions” and inserting “a flood risk management or coastal storm risk management project in a region”.
removed
Consistency with reports— Congress finds that the project modifications described in this section 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.
removed
Projects—
removed
Chesapeake Bay— Section 510(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759; 121 Stat. 1202; 128 Stat. 1317) is amended—
removed
by inserting “infrastructure and” before “resource protection”;
removed
by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as subparagraphs (G) and (H), respectively; and
removed
by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
removed
“(E) wastewater treatment and related facilities;
removed
“(F) water supply and related facilities;”
removed
New York City Watershed— Section 552(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3780) is amended—
removed
by striking “design and construction assistance” and inserting “design, repair, replacement, and construction assistance”; and
removed
by striking “treatment, and distribution facilities” and inserting “treatment, stormwater management, and water distribution facilities”.
removed
Southeastern Pennsylvania— Section 566 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3786; 113 Stat. 352) is amended—
removed
by striking the section heading and inserting “Southeastern Pennsylvania and Lower Delaware River Basin.”;
removed
in subsection (a), by inserting “and the Lower Delaware River Basin” after “southeastern Pennsylvania”;
removed
in subsection (b), by striking “southeastern Pennsylvania, including projects for waste water treatment and related facilities,” and inserting “southeastern Pennsylvania and the Lower Delaware River Basin, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities (including sewer overflow infrastructure improvements and other stormwater management),”;
removed
by amending subsection (g) to read as follows:
removed
“(g) Areas defined—In this section:
removed
“(1) Southeastern Pennsylvania—The term southeastern Pennsylvania means Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania.
removed
“(2) Lower Delaware river basin—The term Lower Delaware River Basin means the Schuylkill Valley, Upper Estuary, Lower Estuary, and Delaware Bay sub-watersheds of the Delaware River Basin in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of New Jersey and Delaware.”
removed
in subsection (h), by striking “to carry out this section $25,000,000” and inserting “$50,000,000 to provide assistance under this section to non-Federal interests in southeastern Pennsylvania, and $20,000,000 to provide assistance under this section to non-Federal interests in the Lower Delaware River Basin”.
removed
Florida keys water quality improvements, Florida— Section 109 of division B of appendix D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763A–222; 121 Stat. 1217) is amended in subsection (f) by striking “$100,000,000” and inserting “$200,000,000”.
removed
Northeastern Minnesota— Section 569(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368; 121 Stat. 1232) is amended by striking “$54,000,000” and inserting “$80,000,000”.
removed
Mississippi— Section 592 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 379; 117 Stat. 1837; 121 Stat. 1233; 123 Stat. 2851) is amended—
removed
in subsection (b), by striking “and surface water resource protection and development” and inserting “surface water resource protection and development, stormwater management, and drainage systems”; and
removed
in subsection (g), by striking “$200,000,000” and inserting “$300,000,000”.
removed
Lake tahoe basin restoration, Nevada and California— Section 108(g) of division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–447; 118 Stat. 2942) is amended by striking “$25,000,000” and inserting “$50,000,000”.
removed
Central New Mexico— Section 593 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 380) is amended—
removed
in subsection (c), by inserting “water reuse,” after “conservation,”; and
removed
in subsection (h), by striking “$50,000,000” and inserting “$100,000,000”.
removed
South Central Pennsylvania— Section 313(g)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4845; 109 Stat. 407; 110 Stat. 3723; 113 Stat. 310; 117 Stat. 142; 121 Stat. 1146; 134 Stat. 2719) is amended by striking “$400,000,000” and inserting “$410,000,000”.
removed
Ohio and North Dakota— Section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 381; 119 Stat. 2261; 121 Stat. 1140; 121 Stat. 1944) is amended in subsection (h), by striking “$240,000,000” and inserting “$250,000,000”.
removed
Texas— Section 5138 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1250) is amended in subsection (g) by striking “$40,000,000” and inserting “$80,000,000”.
removed
Lake champlain, Vermont and New York— Section 542 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2671; 121 Stat. 1150; 134 Stat. 2652) is amended—
removed
in subsection (b)(2)(C), by striking “planning” and inserting “clean water infrastructure planning, design, and construction”; and
removed
in subsection (g), by striking “$32,000,000” and inserting “$50,000,000”.
removed
Western rural water— Section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 383; 117 Stat. 139; 117 Stat. 142; 117 Stat. 1836; 118 Stat. 440; 121 Stat. 1219; 123 Stat. 2851; 128 Stat. 1316; 130 Stat. 1681; 134 Stat. 2719) is amended—
removed
in subsection (i)(1), by striking “$435,000,000” and inserting “$800,000,000”; and
removed
in subsection (i)(2), by striking “$150,000,000” and inserting “$200,000,000”.
removed
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 section remains authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
Sec. 334 Debris removal
addedadded Section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a), is amended by striking “or recreation” and inserting “ecosystem restoration, or recreation”.
Sec. 335 General reauthorizations
added
added
Levee safety initiative— Section 9005(g)(2)(E)(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303a(g)(2)(E)(i)) is amended by striking “2023” and inserting “2026”.
added
Transfer of excess credit— Section 1020 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2223) is amended—
added
in subsection (d), by striking “10 years after the date of enactment of this Act” and inserting “on December 31, 2026”; and
added
in subsection (e)(1)(B), by striking “10 years after the date of enactment of this Act” and inserting “December 31, 2026”.
added
Rehabilitation of existing levees— Section 3017(e) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 3303a note) is amended by striking “the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act” and inserting “December 31, 2026”.
added
Invasive species in alpine lakes pilot project— Section 507(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (16 U.S.C. 4701 note) is amended by striking “2024” and inserting “2026”.
added
Environmental banks— Section 309(e) of the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 3957(e)) is amended by striking “10” and inserting “12”.
Sec. 336 Conveyances
added
added
Generally applicable provisions—
added
Survey to obtain legal description— The exact acreage and the legal description of any real property or easement to be conveyed under this section shall be determined by a survey that is satisfactory to the Secretary.
added
Applicability of property screening provisions— Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to any conveyance under this section.
added
Costs of conveyance— An entity to which a conveyance is made under this section shall be responsible for all reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate transaction and environmental documentation costs, associated with the conveyance.
added
Liability— An entity to which a conveyance is made under this section shall hold the United States harmless from any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after the date of the conveyance, on the real property conveyed. The United States shall remain responsible for any liability with respect to activities carried out, before such date, on the real property conveyed.
added
Additional terms and conditions— The Secretary may require that any conveyance under this section be subject to such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary considers necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
added
Rogers County, Oklahoma—
added
Conveyance authorized— The Secretary is authorized to convey to the City of Tulsa-Rogers County Port Authority, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property described in paragraph (2).
added
Property— The property to be conveyed under this subsection is the approximately 176 acres of Federal land located on the following 3 parcels in Rogers County, Oklahoma:
added
Parcel 1 consists of U.S. tract 119 (partial), U.S. tract 123, U.S. tract 120, U.S. tract 125, and U.S. tract 118 (partial).
added
Parcel 2 consists of U.S. tract 124 (partial) and U.S. tract 128 (partial).
added
Parcel 3 consists of U.S. tract 128 (partial).
added
Reservation of rights— The Secretary shall reserve and retain from any conveyance under this subsection such easements, rights-of-way, and other interests that the Secretary determines to be necessary and appropriate to ensure the continued operation of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation project (including Newt Graham Lock and Dam 18) authorized under the comprehensive plan for the Arkansas River Basin by the Act of June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1218; 60 Stat. 634; 60 Stat. 647; 101 Stat. 1329–112; 117 Stat. 1842).
added
Deed— The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
added
Consideration— The City of Tulsa-Rogers County Port Authority shall pay to the Secretary an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the property conveyed under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.
added
Regional Corps of Engineers office, Corpus Christi, Texas—
added
Conveyance authorized— At such time as new facilities are available to be used as the office for the Galveston District of the Corps of Engineers, the Secretary shall convey to the Port of Corpus Christi, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the property described in paragraph (2).
added
Description of property— The property referred to in paragraph (1) is the land known as Tract 100 and Tract 101, including improvements on that land, in Corpus Christi, Texas, and described as follows:
added
Tract 100— The 1.89 acres, more or less, as conveyed by the Nueces County Navigation District No. 1 of Nueces County, Texas, to the United States by instrument dated October 16, 1928, and recorded at Volume 193, pages 1 and 2, in the Deed Records of Nueces County, Texas.
added
Tract 101— The 0.53 acres as conveyed by the City of Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas, to the United States by instrument dated September 24, 1971, and recorded at Volume 318, pages 523 and 524, in the Deed Records of Nueces County, Texas.
added
Improvements—
added
Main Building (RPUID AO–C–3516), constructed January 9, 1974.
added
Garage, vehicle with 5 bays (RPUID AO–C–3517), constructed January 9, 1985.
added
Bulkhead, Upper (RPUID AO–C–2658), constructed January 1, 1941.
added
Bulkhead, Lower (RPUID AO–C–3520), constructed January 1, 1933.
added
Bulkhead Fence (RPUID AO–C–3521), constructed January 9, 1985.
added
Bulkhead Fence (RPUID AO–C–3522), constructed January 9, 1985.
added
Deed— The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
added
Consideration— The Port of Corpus Christi shall pay to the Secretary an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the property (including improvements) conveyed under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.
Sec. 337 Environmental infrastructure
added
added
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:
added “(274) Chandler, Arizona—$18,750,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Chandler, Arizona.
added “(275) Pinal county, Arizona—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Pinal County, Arizona.
added “(276) Tempe, Arizona—$37,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation and groundwater recharge, for the City of Tempe, Arizona.
added “(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.
added “(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.
added “(279) Compton creek, California—$6,165,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in the vicinity of Compton Creek, city of Compton, California.
added “(280) Downey, California—$100,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Downey, California.
added “(281) Lomita, California—$4,716,600 for stormwater management infrastructure in the city of Lomita, California.
added “(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.
added “(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.
added “(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.
added “(285) Fontana, California—$16,000,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in the city of Fontana, California.
added “(286) Healdsburg, California—$23,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, in the city of Healdsburg, California.
added “(287) Inland empire, California—$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Riverside County and San Bernardino County, California.
added “(288) Marin county, California—$28,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Marin County, California.
added “(289) Maywood, California—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the city of Maywood, California.
added “(290) Monterey peninsula, California—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, and water supply, on the Monterey Peninsula, California.
added “(291) North Richmond, California—$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including coastal flooding resilience measures for such infrastructure, in North Richmond, California.
added “(292) Ontario, California—$40,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, in the city of Ontario, California.
added “(293) Paramount, California—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Paramount, California.
added “(294) Petaluma, California—$13,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling, in the city of Petaluma, California.
added “(295) Rialto, California—$27,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the city of Rialto, California.
added “(296) Rincon Reservation, California—$38,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure on the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians reservation, California.
added “(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.
added “(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.
added “(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.
added “(300) Santa rosa, California—$19,400,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the city of Santa Rosa California.
added “(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.
added “(302) Smith River, California—$25,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Howonquet Village and Resort and Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation, Smith River, California.
added “(303) Torrance, California—$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including groundwater recharge and water supply, in the city of Torrance, California.
added “(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.
added “(305) Hebron, Connecticut—$3,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Hebron, Connecticut.
added “(306) New london, Connecticut—$16,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the town of Bozrah and the City of Norwich, Connecticut.
added “(307) Windham, Connecticut—$18,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Windham, Connecticut.
added “(308) New castle, Delaware—$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in New Castle County, Delaware.
added “(309) Washington, District of Columbia—$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Washington, District of Columbia.
added “(310) Longboat key, Florida—$12,750,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Longboat Key, Florida.
added “(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.
added “(312) Polk county, Florida—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Polk County, Florida.
added “(313) Okeechobee county, Florida—$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Okeechobee County, Florida.
added “(314) Orange county, Florida—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation and water supply, in Orange County, Florida.
added “(315) Guam—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Guam.
added “(316) County of Hawai‘i, Hawaii—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the County of Hawai‘i, Hawaii.
added “(317) Honolulu, Hawaii—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii.
added “(318) Kaua‘i, Hawaii—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the County of Kaua‘i, Hawaii.
added “(319) Maui, Hawaii—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the County of Maui, Hawaii.
added “(320) Dixmoor, Illinois—$15,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the village of Dixmoor, Illinois.
added “(321) Forest park, Illinois—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Forest Park, Illinois.
added “(322) Lake County, Illinois—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Lake County, Illinois.
added “(323) Lemont, Illinois—$3,135,000 for water infrastructure in the village of Lemont, Illinois.
added “(324) Lockport, Illinois—$6,550,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Lockport, Illinois.
added “(325) Montgomery and christian counties, Illinois—$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Montgomery County and Christian County, Illinois.
added “(326) Will county, Illinois—$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Will County, Illinois.
added “(327) Orleans parish, Louisiana—$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Orleans Parish, Louisiana.
added “(328) Fitchburg, Massachusetts—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Fitchburg, Massachusetts.
added “(329) Haverhill, Massachusetts—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Haverhill, Massachusetts.
added “(330) Lawrence, Massachusetts—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Lawrence, Massachusetts.
added “(331) Lowell, Massachusetts—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Lowell, Massachusetts.
added “(332) Methuen, Massachusetts—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Methuen, Massachusetts.
added “(333) Boonsboro, Maryland—$5,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of Boonsboro, Maryland.
added “(334) Brunswick, Maryland—$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Brunswick, Maryland.
added “(335) Cascade charter township, Michigan—$7,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Cascade Charter Township, Michigan.
added “(336) Macomb County, Michigan—$40,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Macomb County, Michigan.
added “(337) Northfield, Minnesota—$33,450,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Northfield, Minnesota.
added “(338) Centertown, Missouri—$15,900,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the village of Centertown, Missouri.
added “(339) St. louis, Missouri—$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of St. Louis, Missouri.
added “(340) St. louis county, Missouri—$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in St. Louis County, Missouri.
added “(341) Meridian, Mississippi—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Meridian, Mississippi.
added “(342) Oxford, Mississippi—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the City of Oxford, Mississippi.
added “(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.
added “(344) Bayonne, New Jersey—$825,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Bayonne, New Jersey.
added “(345) Camden, New Jersey—$119,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Camden, New Jersey.
added “(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.
added “(347) Flemington, New Jersey—$4,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the Borough of Flemington, New Jersey.
added “(348) Jefferson, New Jersey—$90,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Jefferson Township, New Jersey.
added “(349) Kearny, New Jersey—$69,900,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the town of Kearny, New Jersey.
added “(350) Long hill, New Jersey—$7,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Long Hill Township, New Jersey.
added “(351) Morris county, New Jersey—$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Morris County, New Jersey.
added “(352) Passaic, New Jersey—$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Passaic County, New Jersey.
added “(353) Phillipsburg, New Jersey—$2,600,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
added “(354) Rahway, New Jersey—$3,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Rahway, New Jersey.
added “(355) Roselle, New Jersey—$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the Borough of Roselle, New Jersey.
added “(356) South orange village, New Jersey—$7,500,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the Township of South Orange Village, New Jersey.
added “(357) Summit, New Jersey—$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Summit, New Jersey.
added “(358) Warren, New Jersey—$4,550,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Warren Township, New Jersey.
added “(359) Española, New Mexico—$21,995,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Española, New Mexico.
added “(360) Farmington, New Mexico—$15,500,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Farmington, New Mexico.
added “(361) Mora county, New Mexico—$2,874,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Mora County, New Mexico.
added “(362) Santa Fe, New Mexico—$20,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, in the city of Santa Fe, New Mexico.
added “(363) Clarkstown, New York—$14,600,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Clarkstown, New York.
added “(364) Genesee, New York—$85,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water supply, in Genesee County, New York.
added “(365) Queens, New York—$119,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in Queens, New York.
added “(366) Yorktown, New York—$40,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Yorktown, New York.
added “(367) Brunswick, Ohio—$4,510,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Brunswick, Ohio.
added “(368) Brookings, Oregon—$2,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the City of Brookings and the Port of Brookings Harbor, Oregon.
added “(369) Monroe, Oregon—$6,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Monroe, Oregon.
added “(370) Newport, Oregon—$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Newport, Oregon.
added “(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.
added “(372) Palmyra, Pennsylvania—$36,300,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Palmyra Township, Pennsylvania.
added “(373) Pike county, Pennsylvania—$10,000,000 for water and stormwater management infrastructure, including water supply, in Pike County, Pennsylvania.
added “(374) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania—$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
added “(375) Pocono, Pennsylvania—$22,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Pocono Township, Pennsylvania.
added “(376) Westfall, Pennsylvania—$16,880,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Westfall Township, Pennsylvania.
added “(377) Whitehall, Pennsylvania—$6,000,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in Whitehall Township and South Whitehall Township, Pennsylvania.
added “(378) Beaufort, South Carolina—$7,462,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in Beaufort County, South Carolina.
added “(379) Charleston, South Carolina—$25,583,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Charleston, South Carolina.
added “(380) Mount pleasant, South Carolina—$7,822,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.
added “(381) Portland, Tennessee—$1,850,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Portland, Tennessee.
added “(382) Smith county, Tennessee—$19,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Smith County, Tennessee.
added “(383) Trousdale, macon, and sumner counties, Tennessee—$178,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Trousdale County, Macon County, and Sumner County, Tennessee.
added “(384) Virgin islands—$1,584,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the United States Virgin Islands.
added “(385) Bonney lake, Washington—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Bonney Lake, Washington.
added “(386) Burien, Washington—$5,000,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in the city of Burien, Washington.
added “(387) Ellensburg, Washington—$3,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Ellensburg, Washington.
added “(388) North bend, Washington—$30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of North Bend, Washington.
added “(389) Port angeles, Washington—$7,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the City and Port of Port Angeles, Washington.
added “(390) Snohomish County, Washington—$56,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Snohomish County, Washington.
added “(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.
added “(392) Milwaukee, Wisconsin—$4,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.”
added
Project modifications—
added
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—
added
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”.
added
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—
added
by striking “$3,000,000” and inserting “$103,000,000”;
added
by striking “wastewater and water related infrastructure,” and inserting “water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,”; and
added
by inserting “Dominguez Channel, Santa Clarita Valley,” after “La Habra Heights,”.
added
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”.
added
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”.
added
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”.
added
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),”.
added
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”.
added
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”.
added
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”.
added
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”.
added
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”.
added
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—
added
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”.
added
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—
added
in the paragraph heading, by striking “Baptist and St. James” and inserting “Baptist, St. James, and Assumption”; and
added
by striking “Baptist and St. James” and inserting “Baptist, St. James, and Assumption”.
added
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—
added
by striking the “and” at the end of paragraph (16);
added
by striking the period at the end of paragraph (17) and inserting a semicolon; and
added
by adding at the end the following:
added “(18) $70,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(33); and
added “(19) $36,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(34).”
added
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)”.
added
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”.
added
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”.
added
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”.
added
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.
Sec. 338 Additional assistance for critical projects
added
added
Consistency with reports— Congress finds that the project modifications described in this section 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
Projects—
added
Chesapeake Bay— Section 510(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759; 121 Stat. 1202; 128 Stat. 1317) is amended—
added
by inserting “infrastructure and” before “resource protection”;
added
by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as subparagraphs (G) and (H), respectively; and
added
by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
added “(E) wastewater treatment and related facilities;
added “(F) water supply and related facilities;”
added
New York City Watershed— Section 552(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3780) is amended—
added
by striking “design and construction assistance” and inserting “design, repair, replacement, and construction assistance”; and
added
by striking “treatment, and distribution facilities” and inserting “treatment, stormwater management, and water distribution facilities”.
added
Southeastern Pennsylvania— Section 566 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3786; 113 Stat. 352) is amended—
added
by striking the section heading and inserting “Southeastern Pennsylvania and Lower Delaware River Basin.”;
added
in subsection (a), by inserting “and the Lower Delaware River Basin” after “southeastern Pennsylvania”;
added
in subsection (b), by striking “southeastern Pennsylvania, including projects for waste water treatment and related facilities,” and inserting “southeastern Pennsylvania and the Lower Delaware River Basin, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities (including sewer overflow infrastructure improvements and other stormwater management),”;
added
by amending subsection (g) to read as follows:
added “(g) Areas defined—In this section:
added “(1) Lower Delaware river basin—The term Lower Delaware River Basin means the Schuylkill Valley, Upper Estuary, Lower Estuary, and Delaware Bay subwatersheds of the Delaware River Basin in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of New Jersey and Delaware.
added “(2) Southeastern Pennsylvania—The term southeastern Pennsylvania means Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania.”
added
in subsection (h), by striking “to carry out this section $25,000,000” and inserting “$50,000,000 to provide assistance under this section to non-Federal interests in southeastern Pennsylvania, and $20,000,000 to provide assistance under this section to non-Federal interests in the Lower Delaware River Basin”.
added
Florida keys water quality improvements, Florida— Section 109 of division B of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106–554, appendix D, 114 Stat. 2763A–222; 121 Stat. 1217) is amended, in subsection (f), by striking “$100,000,000” and inserting “$200,000,000”.
added
Northeastern Minnesota— Section 569(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368; 121 Stat. 1232) is amended by striking “$54,000,000” and inserting “$80,000,000”.
added
Mississippi— Section 592 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 379; 117 Stat. 1837; 121 Stat. 1233; 123 Stat. 2851) is amended—
added
in subsection (b), by striking “and surface water resource protection and development” and inserting “surface water resource protection and development, stormwater management, and drainage systems”; and
added
in subsection (g), by striking “$200,000,000” and inserting “$300,000,000”.
added
Lake tahoe basin restoration, Nevada and California— Section 108(g) of division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–447; 118 Stat. 2942) is amended by striking “$25,000,000” and inserting “$50,000,000”.
added
Central New Mexico— Section 593 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 380; 119 Stat. 2255) is amended—
added
in subsection (c), by inserting “water reuse,” after “conservation,”; and
added
in subsection (h), by striking “$50,000,000” and inserting “$100,000,000”.
added
South Central Pennsylvania— Section 313(g)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4845; 109 Stat. 407; 110 Stat. 3723; 113 Stat. 310; 117 Stat. 142; 121 Stat. 1146; 134 Stat. 2719) is amended by striking “$400,000,000” and inserting “$410,000,000”.
added
Ohio and North Dakota— Section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 381; 119 Stat. 2261; 121 Stat. 1140; 121 Stat. 1944) is amended in subsection (h), by striking “$240,000,000” and inserting “$250,000,000”.
added
Texas— Section 5138 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1250) is amended, in subsection (g), by striking “$40,000,000” and inserting “$80,000,000”.
added
Lake champlain, Vermont and New York— Section 542 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2671; 121 Stat. 1150; 134 Stat. 2652) is amended—
added
in subsection (b)(2)(C), by striking “planning” and inserting “clean water infrastructure planning, design, and construction”; and
added
in subsection (g), by striking “$32,000,000” and inserting “$50,000,000”.
added
Western rural water— Section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 383; 117 Stat. 139; 117 Stat. 142; 117 Stat. 1836; 118 Stat. 440; 121 Stat. 1219; 123 Stat. 2851; 128 Stat. 1316; 130 Stat. 1681; 134 Stat. 2719) is amended—
added
in subsection (i)(1), by striking “$435,000,000” and inserting “$800,000,000”; and
added
in subsection (i)(2), by striking “$150,000,000” and inserting “$200,000,000”.
added
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 section remains authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
Sec. 339 Sense of Congress on lease agreement
addedadded It is the sense of Congress that the lease agreement for land and water areas within the Prado Flood Control Basin Project Area entered into between the Secretary and the City of Corona, California, for operations of the Corona Municipal Airport (Recreation Lease No. DACW09–1–67–60), is a valid lease of land at a water resources development project under section 4 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 460d).