S. 4367 — what changed
Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024
From Reported in Senate to Engrossed in Senate. 15 sections amended, 16 added, and 1 removed between Reported in Senate and Engrossed in Senate.
Section 1 Short title; table of contents
changed
Short title— This Act may be cited as the “Water “Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024”.
Table of contents— The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 3 Effective date
removed
removed
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the day that is 1 day after the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 104 Federal interest determinations
Section 905(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(b)) is amended—
by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
“(1) In general
“(A) Identification—As part of the submission of a work plan to Congress pursuant to the joint explanatory statement for an annual appropriations Act or as part of the submission of a spend plan to Congress for a supplemental appropriations Act under which the Corps of Engineers receives funding, the Secretary shall identify the studies in the plan—
“(i) for which the Secretary plans to prepare a feasibility report under subsection (a) that will benefit—
“(I) an economically disadvantaged community (as defined pursuant to section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; Public Law 116–260)); or
“(II) a community other than a community described in subclause (I); and
“(ii) that are designated as a new start under the work plan.
“(B) Determination
“(i) In general—After identifying the studies under subparagraph (A) and subject to subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall, with the consent of the applicable non-Federal interest for the study, first determine the Federal interest in carrying out the study and the projects that may be proposed in the study.
“(ii) Feasibility cost share agreement—The Secretary may make a determination under clause (i) prior to the execution of a feasibility cost share agreement between the Secretary and the non-Federal interest.
“(C) Limitation—For each fiscal year, the Secretary may not make a determination under subparagraph (B) for more than 20 studies identified under subparagraph (A)(i)(II).
“(D) Application
changed “(i) In general—Subject to clause (ii) and with the consent of the non-Federal interest, the Secretary may use the authority provided under this subsection for a study in a work plan submitted to Congress prior to the date of enactment of the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024 if the study otherwise meets the requirements described in subparagraph (A).
“(ii) Limitation—Subparagraph (C) shall apply to the use of authority under clause (i).”
in paragraph (2)—
in subparagraph (A), by striking “and” at the end;
in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting “; and”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(C) shall be paid from the funding provided for the study in the applicable work plan described in that paragraph.”
by adding at the end the following:
“(6) Post-determination work—A study under this section shall continue after a determination under paragraph (1)(B)(i) without a new investment decision.”
Sec. 108 Support of Army civil works missions
Section 8159 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3740) is amended—
in paragraph (3), by striking “and” at the end; and
by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
“(4) West Virginia University to conduct academic research on flood resilience planning and risk management, water resource-related emergency management, aquatic ecosystem restoration, water quality, siting and risk management for open- and closed-loop pumped hydropower energy storage, hydropower, and water resource-related recreation and management of resources for recreation in the State of West Virginia;
changed
“(5) Delaware State University to conduct academic research on water resource ecology, water quality, aquatic ecosystem restoration, coastal restoration, and water resource-related emergency management in the State of Delaware, the Delaware River Basin, and the Chesapeake Bay watershed; andwatershed;
changed
“(6) the University of Notre Dame to conduct academic research on hazard mitigation policies and practices in coastal communities, including through the incorporation of data analysis and the use of risk-based analytical frameworks for reviewing flood mitigation and hardening plans and for evaluating the design of new infrastructure.”infrastructure; and
added “(7) Mississippi State University to conduct academic research on technology to be used in water resources development infrastructure, analyses of the environment before and after a natural disaster, and geospatial data collection.”
Sec. 120 Expedited consideration
addedadded Section 7004(b)(4) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1374; 132 Stat. 3784) is amended by striking “December 31, 2024” and inserting “December 31, 2026”.
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:
Yavapai County, Arizona— Project for flood risk management, Yavapai County, Arizona.
Eastman Lake, California— Project for ecosystem restoration and water supply, including for conservation and recharge, Eastman Lake, Merced and Madera Counties, California.
Pine Flat Dam, California— Project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, and recreation, Pine Flat Dam, Fresno County, California.
San Diego, California— Project for flood risk management, including sea level rise, San Diego, California.
Sacramento, California— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including levee improvement, Sacramento River, Sacramento, California.
San Mateo, California— Project for flood risk management, City of San Mateo, California.
Sacramento County, California— Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and water supply, Lower Cosumnes River, Sacramento County, California.
Colorado Springs, Colorado— Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Fountain Creek, Monument Creek, and T–Gap Levee, Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Plymouth, Connecticut— Project for ecosystem restoration, Plymouth, Connecticut.
Windham, Connecticut— Project for ecosystem restoration and recreation, Windham, Connecticut.
Enfield, Connecticut— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including restoring freshwater brook floodplain, Enfield, Connecticut.
Newington, Connecticut— Project for flood risk management, Newington, Connecticut.
Hartford, Connecticut— Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Hartford, Connecticut.
Fairfield, Connecticut— Project for flood risk management, Rooster River, Fairfield, Connecticut.
Milton, Delaware— Project for flood risk management, Milton, Delaware.
Wilmington, Delaware— Project for coastal storm risk management, City of Wilmington, Delaware.
Tybee Island, Georgia— Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, including the potential for beneficial use of dredged material, Tybee Island, Georgia.
Hanapepe Levee, Hawaii— Project for ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, including Hanapepe Levee, Kauai County, Hawaii.
Kauai County, Hawaii— Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, Kauai County, Hawaii.
Hawai‘i Kai, Hawaii— Project for flood risk management, Hawai‘i Kai, Hawaii.
Maui, Hawaii— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Maui County, Hawaii.
Butterfield Creek, Illinois— Project for flood risk management, Butterfield Creek, Illinois, including the villages of Flossmoor, Matteson, Park Forest, and Richton Park.
Rocky Ripple, Indiana— Project for flood risk management, Rocky Ripple, Indiana.
Coffeyville, Kansas— Project for flood risk management, Coffeyville, Kansas.
Fulton County, Kentucky— Project for flood risk management, including bank stabilization, Fulton County, Kentucky.
Cumberland River, Crittenden County, Lyon County, and Livingston County, Kentucky— Project for ecosystem restoration, including bank stabilization, Cumberland River, Crittenden County, Lyon County, and Livingston County, Kentucky.
Scott County, Kentucky— Project for ecosystem restoration, including water supply, Scott County, Kentucky.
Bullskin Creek and Shelby County, Kentucky— Project for ecosystem restoration, including bank stabilization, Bullskin Creek and Shelby County, Kentucky.
Lake Pontchartrain Barrier, Louisiana— Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Orleans Parish, St. Tammany Parish, and St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
Ocean City, Maryland— Project for flood risk management, Ocean City, Maryland.
Beaverdam Creek, Maryland— Project for flood risk management, Beaverdam Creek, Prince George's County, Maryland.
Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts— Project for flood risk management, coastal storm risk management, recreation, and ecosystem restoration, including shoreline stabilization along East Chop Drive, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.
Tisbury, Massachusetts— Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline stabilization along Beach Road Causeway, Tisbury, Massachusetts.
Oak Bluffs Harbor, Massachusetts— Project for coastal storm risk management and navigation, Oak Bluffs Harbor north and south jetties, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.
Connecticut River, Massachusetts— Project for flood risk management along the Connecticut River, Massachusetts.
Marysville, Michigan— Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline stabilization, City of Marysville, Michigan.
Cheboygan, Michigan— Project for flood risk management, Little Black River, City of Cheboygan, Michigan.
Kalamazoo, Michigan— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Kalamazoo River Watershed and tributaries, City of Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Dearborn and Dearborn Heights, Michigan— Project for flood risk management, Dearborn and Dearborn Heights, Michigan.
Grand Traverse Bay, Michigan— Project for navigation, Grand Traverse Bay, Michigan.
Grand Traverse County, Michigan— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Grand Traverse County, Michigan.
Brighton Mill Pond, Michigan— Project for ecosystem restoration, Brighton Mill Pond, Michigan.
Ludington, Michigan— Project for coastal storm risk management, including feasibility of emergency shoreline protection, Ludington, Michigan.
Pahrump, Nevada— Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and flood risk management, Pahrump, Nevada.
Allegheny River, New York— Project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Allegheny River, New York.
Turtle Cove, New York— Project for ecosystem restoration, Turtle Cove, Pelham Bay Park, Bronx, New York.
Niles, Ohio— Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, City of Niles, Ohio.
Geneva-on-the-Lake, Ohio— Project for flood and coastal storm risk management, ecosystem restoration, recreation, and shoreline erosion protection, Geneva-on-the-Lake, Ohio.
Little Killbuck Creek, Ohio— Project for ecosystem restoration, including aquatic invasive species management, Little Killbuck Creek, Ohio.
Defiance, Ohio— Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, recreation, and bank stabilization, Maumee, Auglaize, and Tiffin Rivers, Defiance, Ohio.
Dillon Lake, Muskingum County, Ohio— Project for ecosystem restoration, recreation, and shoreline erosion protection, Dillon Lake, Muskingum and Licking Counties, Ohio.
Jerusalem Township, Ohio— Project for flood and coastal storm risk management and shoreline erosion protection, Jerusalem Township, Ohio.
Nine Mile Creek, Cleveland, Ohio— Project for flood risk management, Nine Mile Creek, Cleveland, Ohio.
Cold Creek, Ohio— Project for ecosystem restoration, Cold Creek, Erie County, Ohio.
Allegheny River, Pennsylvania— Project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Allegheny River, Pennsylvania.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania— Project for ecosystem restoration and recreation, including shoreline stabilization, South Philadelphia Wetlands Park, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Galveston Bay, Texas— Project for navigation, Galveston Bay, Texas.
Winooski, Vermont— Project for flood risk management, Winooski River and tributaries, Winooski, Vermont.
Mt. St. Helens, Washington— Project for navigation, Mt. St. Helens, Washington.
Grays Bay, Washington— Project for navigation, flood risk management, and ecosystem restoration, Grays Bay, Wahkiakum County, Washington.
Wind, Klickitat, Hood, Deschutes, Rock Creek, and John Day tributaries, Washington— Project for ecosystem restoration, Wind, Klickitat, Hood, Deschutes, Rock Creek, and John Day tributaries, Washington.
La Crosse, Wisconsin— Project for flood risk management, City of La Crosse, Wisconsin.
Project modifications— The Secretary is authorized to conduct a feasibility study for the following project modifications:
Luxapalila Creek, Alabama— Modifications to the project for flood risk management, Luxapalila Creek, Alabama, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 307).
Osceola Harbor, Arkansas— Modifications to the project for navigation, Osceola Harbor, Arkansas, authorized under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), to evaluate the expansion of the harbor.
Savannah, Georgia— Modifications to the project for navigation, Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, Georgia, authorized by section 7002(1) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1364) and modified by section 1401(6) of the America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3839).
Hagaman Chute, Louisiana— Modifications to the project for navigation, including sediment management, Hagaman Chute, Louisiana.
added
Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana— Modifications to the project for navigation, Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 481) and modified by section 3079 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1126), including channel deepening and jetty improvements.
renumbered
was (3)(7)
Mississippi River and tributaries, Ouachita River, Louisiana— Modifications to the project for flood risk management, including bank stabilization, Ouachita River, Monroe to Caldwell Parish, Louisiana, authorized by the first section of the Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534, chapter 569).
renumbered
was (3)(8)
St. Marys River, Michigan— Modifications to the project for navigation, St. Marys River and tributaries, Michigan, for channel improvements.
renumbered
was (3)(9)
Mosquito Creek Lake, Trumbull County, Ohio— Modifications to the project for flood risk management and water supply, Mosquito Creek Lake, Trumbull County, Ohio.
renumbered
was (3)(10)
Little Conemaugh, Stonycreek, and Conemaugh Rivers, Pennsylvania— Modifications to the project for ecosystem restoration, recreation, and flood risk management, Little Conemaugh, Stonycreek, and Conemaugh rivers, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (commonly known as the “Flood Control Act of 1936”) (49 Stat. 1586, chapter 688; 50 Stat. 879; chapter 877).
renumbered
was (3)(11)
Charleston, South Carolina— Modifications to the project for navigation, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, authorized by section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1709), including improvements to address potential or actual changed conditions on that portion of the project that serves the North Charleston Terminal.
renumbered
was (3)(12)
Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, Texas— Modifications to the project for flood risk management, Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, Texas.
added
Westside Creek, San Antonio Channel, Texas— Modifications to the project for ecosystem restoration, Westside Creek, San Antonio Channel, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259) as part of the comprehensive plan for flood protection on the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers, Texas, and modified by section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921), section 335 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), and section 3154 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1148).
renumbered
was (3)(13)
Monongahela River, West Virginia— Modifications to the project for recreation, Monongahela River, West Virginia.
changed
Special rule, St. Marys River, Michigan— The cost of the study under subsection (b)(6) (b)(7) shall be shared in accordance with the cost share applicable to construction of the project for navigation, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, authorized by section 1149 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254; 121 Stat. 1131).
Sec. 202 Vertical integration and acceleration of studies
In general— Section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c) is amended—
by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively;
by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
“(d) Delegation
“(1) In general—The Secretary shall delegate the determination to grant an extension under subsection (c) to the Commander of the relevant Division if—
“(A) the final feasibility report for the study can be completed with an extension of not more than 1 year beyond the time period described in subsection (a)(1); or
“(B) the feasibility study requires an additional cost of not more than $1,000,000 above the amount described in subsection (a)(2).
changed “(2) Guidance—If the Secretary determines that implementation guidance is necessary to implement this subsection, the Secretary shall issue such implementation guidance not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024.”
by adding at the end the following:
“(h) Definition of Division—In this section, the term Division means each of the following Divisions of the Corps of Engineers:
“(1) The Great Lakes and Ohio River Division.
“(2) The Mississippi Valley Division.
“(3) The North Atlantic Division.
“(4) The Northwestern Division.
“(5) The Pacific Ocean Division.
“(6) The South Atlantic Division.
“(7) The South Pacific Division.
“(8) The Southwestern Division.”
Deadline—
In general— Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and issue implementation guidance that improves the implementation of section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c).
Standardized form— In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall develop and provide to each Division (as defined in subsection (h) of section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c)) a standardized form to assist the Divisions in preparing a written request for an exception under subsection (c) of that section.
Notification— The Secretary shall submit a written copy of the implementation guidance developed under paragraph (1) to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives not less than 30 days before the date on which the Secretary makes that guidance publicly available.
Sec. 203 Expedited completion
Feasibility studies— The Secretary shall expedite the completion of a feasibility study or general reevaluation report (as applicable) 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 food risk management, Upper Guyandotte River Basin, West Virginia.
Project for flood risk management, Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina.
Project for flood risk management, Cave Buttes Dam, Phoenix, Arizona.
Project for flood risk management, McMicken Dam, Maricopa County, Arizona.
Project for ecosystem restoration, Rio Salado, Phoenix, Arizona.
Project for flood risk management, Lower San Joaquin River, San Joaquin Valley, California.
Project for flood risk management, Stratford, Connecticut.
Project for flood risk management, Waimea River, Kauai County, Hawaii.
Modifications to the project for flood risk management, Cedar River, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, authorized by section 8201(b)(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3750).
Project for flood risk management, Rahway River, Rahway, New Jersey.
Northeast Levee System portion of the project for flood control and other purposes, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (commonly known as the “Flood Control Act of 1936”) (49 Stat. 1573, chapter 688).
Project for navigation, Menominee River, Menominee, Wisconsin.
General reevaluation report for the project for flood risk management and other purposes, East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois.
General reevaluation report for project for flood risk management, Green Brook, New Jersey.
Project for ecosystem restoration, Imperial Streams Salton Sea, California.
Modification of the project for navigation, Honolulu Deep Draft Harbor, Hawaii.
Project for shoreline damage mitigation, Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana.
Project for hurricane and coastal storm risk management, Dare County Beaches, North Carolina.
Modification of the project for flood protection and recreation, Surry Mountain Lake, New Hampshire, including for consideration of low flow augmentation.
Project for coastal storm risk management, Virginia Beach and vicinity, Virginia.
Project for secondary water source identification, Washington Metropolitan Area, Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia.
Study reports— The Secretary shall expedite the completion of a Chief’s Report or Director’s Report (as applicable) for each of the following projects for the project to be considered for authorization:
Modification of the project for navigation, Norfolk Harbors and Channels, Anchorage F segment, Norfolk, Virginia.
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands, Florida.
Project for ecosystem restoration, Claiborne and Millers Ferry Locks and Dam Fish Passage, Lower Alabama River, Alabama.
Project for flood and storm damage reduction, Surf City, North Carolina.
Project for flood and storm damage reduction, Nassau County Back Bays, New York.
Project for flood risk management, Tar Pamlico, North Carolina.
Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and South Florida Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program, Western Everglades Restoration Project, Florida.
Project for flood and storm damage reduction, Ala Wai, Hawaii.
Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and South Florida Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program, Lake Okeechobee Watershed Restoration, Florida.
Project for flood and coastal storm damage reduction, Miami-Dade County Back Bay, Florida.
Project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida.
removed
Project for flood and storm damage reduction, Akutan Harbor Navigational Improvements, Alaska.
renumbered
was (3)(15)
Project for flood and storm damage reduction, Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana.
renumbered
was (3)(16)
Project for flood and coastal storm risk management, Puerto Rico Coastal Study, Puerto Rico.
renumbered
was (3)(17)
Project for coastal storm risk management, Baltimore, Maryland.
removed
Project for flood and storm damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
removed
Project for flood and storm damage reduction, Washington, DC.
removed
Project for ecosystem restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona.
removed
Project for navigation, Oakland Harbor, Oakland, California.
renumbered
was (3)(22)
Project for water supply reallocation, Stockton Lake Reallocation Study, Missouri.
added
Project for ecosystem restoration, Hatchie–Loosahatchie Mississippi River, Tennessee and Arkansas.
removed
Project for ecosystem restoration, Hatchie–Loosahatchie Mississippi River, Tennessee and Alabama.
renumbered
was (3)(24)
Project for ecosystem restoration, Biscayne Bay and Southern Everglades, Florida, authorized by section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680).
Projects— The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expedite completion of the following projects:
Project for flood control, Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia, authorized by section 580 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790) and modified by section 340 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2612) and section 3170 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1154).
Project for dam safety modifications, Bluestone Dam, West Virginia, authorized pursuant to section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (commonly known as the “Flood Control Act of 1936”) (49 Stat. 1586, chapter 688).
Project for flood risk management, Tulsa and West–Tulsa Levee System, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, authorized by section 401(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2735).
Project for flood risk management, Little Colorado River, Navajo County, Arizona.
Project for flood risk management, Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Project for ecosystem restoration, Va Shly'AY Akimel, Maricopa Indian Reservation, Arizona.
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Quincy Bay, Illinois, Upper Mississippi River Restoration Program.
removed
Project for navigation, Matagorda Ship Channel Improvement Project, Port Lavaca, Texas, authorized by section 401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2734).
renumbered
was (4)(11)
Major maintenance on Laupahoehoe Harbor, Hawaii County, Hawaii.
renumbered
was (4)(12)
Project for flood risk management, Green Brook, New Jersey.
renumbered
was (4)(13)
Water control manual update for water supply and flood control, Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Globe, Arizona.
renumbered
was (4)(14)
Water control manual update for Oroville Dam, Butte County, California.
renumbered
was (4)(15)
Water control manual update for New Bullards Dam, Yuba County, California.
renumbered
was (4)(16)
Project for flood risk management, Morgan City, Louisiana.
renumbered
was (4)(17)
Project for hurricane and storm risk reduction, Upper Barataria Basin, Louisiana.
renumbered
was (4)(18)
Project for ecosystem restoration, Mid-Chesapeake Bay, Maryland.
renumbered
was (4)(19)
Project for navigation, Big Bay Harbor of Refuge, Michigan.
renumbered
was (4)(20)
Project for George W. Kuhn Headwaters Outfall, Michigan.
renumbered
was (4)(21)
The portion of the project for flood control and other purposes, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (commonly known as the “Flood Control Act of 1936”) (49 Stat. 1573, chapter 688), to bring the Northwest Levee System into compliance with current flood mitigation standards.
renumbered
was (4)(22)
Project for navigation, Seattle Harbor, Washington, authorized by section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3836), deepening the East Waterway at the Port of Seattle.
renumbered
was (4)(23)
Project for shoreline stabilization, Clarksville, Indiana.
Continuing authorities programs— The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expedite completion of the following projects and studies:
Projects for flood control under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) for the following areas:
Ak Chin Levee, Pinal County, Arizona.
McCormick Wash, Globe, Arizona.
Rose and Palm Garden Washes, Douglas, Arizona.
Lower Santa Cruz River, Arizona.
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), Corazon de los Tres Rios del Norte, Pima County, Arizona.
Project for hurricane and storm damage reduction under section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1056, chapter 960; 33 U.S.C. 426g), Stratford, Connecticut.
Project modification for improvements to the environment, Surry Mountain Lake, New Hampshire, under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a).
Tribal partnership program— The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expedite completion of the following projects and studies under the Tribal partnership program under section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269):
Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona.
Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona.
Navajo Nation, Bird Springs, Arizona.
Watershed assessments— The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expedite completion of the watershed assessment for flood risk management, Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, authorized by section 1206 of Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1686) and section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2687).
Expedited prospectus— The Secretary shall prioritize the completion of the prospectus for the United States Moorings Facility, Portland, Oregon, required for authorization of funding from the revolving fund established by the first section of the Civil Functions Appropriations Act, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 576).
Sec. 233 GAO studies
Review of the accuracy of project cost estimates—
Review—
In general— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States (referred to in this section as the “Comptroller General”) shall initiate a review of the accuracy of the project cost estimates developed by the Corps of Engineers for completed and ongoing water resources development projects carried out by the Secretary.
Requirements— In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Comptroller General shall determine the factors, if any, that impact the accuracy of the estimates described in that subparagraph, including—
applicable statutory requirements, including—
section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c); and
section 905(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(b))]; and
applicable guidance, regulations, and policies of the Corps of Engineers.
Incorporation of previous report— In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Comptroller General may incorporate applicable information from the report carried out by the Comptroller General under section 8236(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3769).
Report— On completion of the review conducted under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on the findings of the review and any recommendations that result from the review.
Report on project lifespan and indemnification clause in project partnership agreements—
Definitions— In this subsection:
Indemnification clause— The term indemnification clause means the indemnification clause required in project partnership agreements for water resources development projects under sections 101(e)(2) and 103(j)(1)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(e)(2), 2213(j)(1)(A)).
OMRR&R— The term OMRR&R, with respect to a water resources development project, means operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation.
Sense of Congress— It is the sense of Congress that—
there are significant concerns about whether—
the indemnification clause, which was first applied in 1910 to flood control projects, should still be included in project partnership agreements prepared by the Corps of Engineers for water resources development projects; and
non-Federal interests for water resources development projects should be required to assume full responsibility for OMRR&R of water resources development projects in perpetuity;
non-Federal interests have reported that the indemnification clause and OMRR&R requirements are a barrier to entering into project partnership agreements with the Corps of Engineers;
critical water resources development projects are being delayed by years, or not pursued at all, due to the barriers described in subparagraph (B); and
legal structures have changed since the indemnification clause was first applied and there may be more suitable tools available to address risk and liability issues.
Analysis— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall conduct an analysis of the implications of—
the indemnification clause; and
the assumption of OMRR&R responsibilities by non-Federal interests in perpetuity for water resources development projects.
Inclusions— The analysis under paragraph (3) shall include—
a review of risk for the Federal Government and non-Federal interests with respect to removing requirements for the indemnification clause;
an assessment of whether the indemnification clause is still necessary given the changes in engineering, legal structures, and water resources development projects since 1910, with a focus on the quantity and types of claims and takings over time;
an identification of States with State laws that prohibit those States from entering into agreements that include an indemnification clause;
a comparison to other Federal agencies with respect to how those agencies approach indemnification and OMRR&R requirements in projects, if applicable;
a review of indemnification and OMRR&R requirements for projects that States require with respect to agreements with cities and localities, if applicable;
an analysis of the useful lifespan of water resources development projects, including any variations in that lifespan for different types of water resources development projects and how changing weather patterns and increased extreme weather events impact that lifespan;
a review of situations in which non-Federal interests have been unable to meet OMRR&R requirements; and
a review of policy alternatives to OMRR&R requirements, such as allowing extension, reevaluation, or deauthorization of water resources development projects.
Report— On completion of the analysis under paragraph (3), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report that includes—
the results of the analysis; and
any recommendations for changes needed to existing law or policy of the Corps of Engineers to address those results.
Review of certain permits—
Definition of section 408 program— In this subsection, the term section 408 program means the program administered by the Secretary pursuant to section 14 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (commonly known as the “Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899”) (30 Stat. 1152, chapter 425; 33 U.S.C. 408).
Review— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall initiate a review of the section 408 program.
Requirements— The review by the Comptroller General under paragraph (2) shall include, at a minimum—
an identification of trends related to the number and types of permits applied for each year under the section 408 program;
an evaluation of—
the materials developed by the Secretary to educate potential applicants about—
the section 408 program; and
the process for applying for a permit under the section 408 program;
the public website of the Corps of Engineers that tracks the status of permits issued under the section 408 program, including whether the information provided by the website is updated in a timely manner;
the ability of the districts and divisions of the Corps of Engineers to consistently administer the section 408 program; and
the extent to which the Secretary carries out the process for issuing a permit under the section 408 program concurrently with the review required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), if applicable;
a determination of the factors, if any, that impact the ability of the Secretary to adhere to the timelines required for reviewing and making a decision on an application for a permit under the section 408 program; and
ways to expedite the review of applications for permits under the section 408 program, including the use of categorical permissions.
Report— On completion of the review under paragraph (2), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on the findings of the review and any recommendations that result from the review.
Corps of Engineers modernization study—
In general— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall initiate an analysis of opportunities for the Corps of Engineers to modernize the civil works program through the use of technology, where appropriate, and the best available engineering practices.
Inclusions— In conducting the analysis under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General of the United States shall include an assessment of the extent to which—
existing engineering practices and technologies could be better utilized by the Corps of Engineers—
to improve study, planning, and design efforts of the Corps of Engineers to further the benefits of water resources development projects of the Corps of Engineers;
to reduce delays of water resources development projects, including through the improvement of environmental review and permitting processes;
to provide cost savings over the lifecycle of a project, including through improved design processes or a reduction of operation and maintenance costs; and
to improve data collection and data sharing capabilities; and
the Corps of Engineers—
currently utilizes the engineering practices and technologies identified under subparagraph (A), including any challenges associated with acquisition and application;
has effective processes to share best practices associated with the engineering practices and technologies identified under subparagraph (A) among the districts, divisions, and headquarters of the Corps of Engineers; and
partners with National Laboratories, academic institutions, and other Federal agencies.
Report— On completion of the analysis under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on the findings of the analysis and any recommendations that result from the analysis.
Study on easements related to water resources development projects—
Definition of covered easement— In this subsection, the term covered easement has the meaning given the term in section 8235(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3768).
Study on easements related to water resources development projects— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall initiate an analysis of the use of covered easements that may be provided to the Secretary by non-Federal interests in relation to the construction, operation, or maintenance of a project for flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, or ecosystem restoration.
Scope— In carrying out the analysis under paragraph (2), the Comptroller General of the United States shall—
review—
the report submitted by the Secretary under section 8235(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3768); and
the existing statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements and procedures relating to the use of covered easements; and
assess—
the minimum rights in property that are necessary to construct, operate, or maintain projects for flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, or ecosystem restoration;
whether increased use of covered easements in relation to projects described in clause (i) could promote greater participation from cooperating landowners in addressing local flooding or ecosystem restoration challenges;
whether such increased use could result in cost savings in the implementation of the projects described in clause (i), without any reduction in project benefits; and
the extent to which the Secretary should expand what is considered by the Secretary to be part of a series of estates deemed standard for construction, operation, or maintenance of a project for flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, or ecosystem restoration.
Report— On completion of the analysis under paragraph (2), the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on the findings of the analysis, including any recommendations, including legislative recommendations, as a result of the analysis.
Modernization of environmental reviews—
Definition of project study— In this subsection, the term project study means a feasibility study for a project carried out pursuant to section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282).
Report— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report that describes the efforts of the Secretary to facilitate improved environmental review processes for project studies, including through the consideration of expanded use of categorical exclusions, environmental assessments, or programmatic environmental impact statements.
Requirements— In completing the report under paragraph (2), the Comptroller General of the United States shall—
describe the actions the Secretary is taking or plans to take to implement the amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) made by section 321 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Public Law 118–5; 137 Stat. 38);
describe the existing categorical exclusions most frequently used by the Secretary to streamline the environmental review of project studies;
consider—
whether the adoption of additional categorical exclusions, including those used by other Federal agencies, would facilitate the environmental review of project studies;
whether the adoption of new programmatic environmental impact statements would facilitate the environmental review of project studies; and
whether agreements with other Federal agencies would facilitate a more efficient process for the environmental review of project studies; and
identify—
any discrepancies or conflicts, as applicable, between the amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) made by section 321 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Public Law 118–5; 137 Stat. 38) and—
section 2045 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2348); and
section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c); and
other issues, as applicable, relating to section 2045 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2348) that are impeding the implementation of that section consistent with congressional intent.
Study on dredged material disposal site construction—
In general— The Comptroller General shall conduct a study that—
assesses the costs and limitations of the construction of various types of dredged material disposal sites, with a particular focus on aquatic confined placement structures in the Lower Columbia River; and
includes a comparison of—
the operation and maintenance needs and costs associated with the availability of aquatic confined placement structures; and
the operation and maintenance needs and costs associated with the lack of availability of aquatic confined placement structures.
Report— On completion of the study under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on the findings of the study, and any recommendations that result from that study.
GAO study on distribution of funding from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund—
Definition of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund— In this subsection, the term Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund means the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund established by section 9505(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Analysis— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall initiate an analysis of the distribution of funding from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Requirements— In conducting the analysis under paragraph (2), the Comptroller General shall assess—
the implementation of provisions related to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund in the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2615) and the amendments made by that Act by the Corps of Engineers, including—
changes to the budgetary treatment of funding from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; and
amendments to the definitions of the terms “donor ports”, “medium-sized donor parts”, and “energy transfer ports” under section 2106(a) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2238c(a)), including—
the reliability of metrics, data for those metrics, and sources for that data used by the Corps of Engineers to determine if a port satisfies the requirements of 1 or more of those definitions; and
the extent of the impact of cyclical dredging cycles for operations and maintenance activities and deep draft navigation construction projects on the ability of ports to meet the requirements of 1 or more of those definitions; and
the amount of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund funding in the annual appropriations Acts enacted after the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2615), including an analysis of—
the allocation of funding to donor ports and energy transfer ports (as those terms are defined in section 2106(a) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2238c(a))) and the use of that funding by those ports;
activities funded pursuant to section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238); and
challenges associated with expending the remaining balance of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Report— On completion of the analysis under paragraph (2), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report describing the findings of the analysis and any recommendations that result from that analysis.
added
Study on environmental justice—
added
In general— Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on—
added
the costs and benefits of the environmental justice initiatives of the Secretary with respect to the civil works program; and
added
the positive and negative effects on the civil works program of those environmental justice initiatives.
added
Inclusions— The report under paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum, a review of projects carried out by the Secretary during fiscal year 2023 and fiscal year 2024 pursuant to the environmental justice initiatives of the Secretary with respect to the civil works program.
Sec. 236 Virginia Peninsula coastal storm risk management, Virginia
added
added
In general— In carrying out the feasibility study 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 use funds made available to the Secretary for water resources development investigations to analyze, at full Federal expense, a measure benefitting Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of another Federal agency.
added
Savings provisions— Nothing in this section—
added
precludes—
added
a Federal agency with administrative jurisdiction over Federal land in the study area from contributing funds for any portion of the cost of analyzing a measure as part of the study described in subsection (a) that benefits that land; or
added
the Secretary, at the request of the non-Federal interest for the study described in subsection (a), from using funds made available to the Secretary for water resources development investigations to formulate measures to reduce risk to a military installation, if the non-Federal interest shares in the cost to formulate those measures to the same extent that the non-Federal interest is required to share in the cost of the study; or
added
waives the cost-sharing requirements of a Federal agency for the construction of an authorized water resources development project or a separable element of that project that results from the study described in subsection (a).
Sec. 237 Allegheny River, Pennsylvania
addedadded It is the sense of Congress that—
added
the Allegheny River is an important waterway that can be utilized more to support recreational, environmental, and navigation needs in Pennsylvania;
added
ongoing efforts to increase utilization of the Allegheny River will require consistent hours of service at key locks and dams; and
added
to the maximum extent practicable, the lockage levels of service at locks and dams along the Allegheny River should be preserved until after the completion of the study authorized by section 201(a)(55).
Sec. 238 New York and New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries Focus Area Feasibility Study
addedadded The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the feasibility study for coastal storm risk management, New York and New Jersey, including evaluation of comprehensive flood risk in accordance with section 8106 of the Water Resources and Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2282g), as applicable.
Sec. 239 Matagorda Ship Channel, Texas
addedadded The Federal share of the costs of the planning, design, and construction of the Recommended Corrective Action identified by the Corps of Engineers in the Project Deficiency Report completed in 2020 for the project for navigation, Matagorda Ship Channel, Texas, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 298), shall be 90 percent.
Sec. 240 Matagorda Ship Channel Improvement Project, Texas
added
added
Sense of Congress— It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary should provide the necessary resources to expedite the completion of the required documentation for the Matagorda Ship Channel Improvement Project in order to ensure that the project is not further delayed.
added
Expedite— The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expedite the completion of the required documentation for the Matagorda Ship Channel Improvement Project, including—
added
the supplemental environmental impact statement and the associated record of decision;
added
the dredged material management plan; and
added
a post authorization change report, if applicable.
added
Preconstruction planning, engineering, and design— If the Secretary determines that the Matagorda Ship Channel Improvement Project is justified in a completed report and if the project requires an additional authorization from Congress pursuant to that report, the Secretary shall proceed directly to preconstruction planning, engineering, and design on the project.
added
Definition of Matagorda Ship Channel Improvement Project— In this section, the term Matagorda Ship Channel Improvement Project means the project for navigation, Matagorda Ship Channel Improvement Project, Port Lavaca, Texas, authorized by section 401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2734).
Sec. 241 Assessment of impacts from changing construction responsibilities
added
added
In general— The Secretary shall carry out an assessment of the impacts of amending section 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)(1)) to authorize the construction of navigation projects for harbors or inland harbors , or any separable element thereof, constructed by the Secretary at 75 percent Federal cost to a depth of 55 feet.
added
Contents— In carrying out the assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
added
describe all existing Federal navigation projects that are authorized or constructed to a depth of 50 feet or greater;
added
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 Act;
added
assess the potential effect of authorizing construction of a navigation project to a depth of 55 feet at 75 percent Federal cost on other Federal navigation construction activities, including estimates of port by port impacts over the next 5, 10, and 20 years;
added
estimate the potential increase in Federal costs that would result from authorizing the construction of the projects described in paragraph (2), including estimates of port by port impacts over the next 5, 10, and 20 years; and
added
subject to subsection (c), describe the potential budgetary impact to the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers from authorizing the construction of a navigation project to a depth of 55 feet at 75 percent Federal cost and authorizing operation and maintenance of a navigation project to a depth of 55 feet at Federal expense, including estimates of port by port impacts over the next 5, 10, and 20 years.
added
Prior report— The Secretary may use information from the assessment and the report of the Secretary under section 8206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3756) in carrying out subsection (b)(5).
added
Report— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and make publicly available (including on an existing publicly available website), a report that describes the results of the assessment carried out under subsection (a).
Sec. 242 Deadline for previously required list of covered projects
addedadded Notwithstanding the deadline in paragraph (1) of section 8236(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3769), the Secretary shall submit the list of covered projects under that paragraph by not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 243 Cooperation authority
added
added
Assessment—
added
In general— The Secretary shall carry out an assessment of the extent to which the existing authorities and programs of the Secretary allow the Corps of Engineers to construct water resources development projects abroad.
added
Report— The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report that—
added
describes—
added
the findings of the assessment under paragraph (1);
added
how each authority and program assessed under paragraph (1) has been used by the Secretary to construct water resources development projects abroad, if applicable; and
added
the extent to which the Secretary partners with other Federal agencies when carrying out such projects; and
added
includes any recommendations that result from the assessment under paragraph (1).
added
Interagency and international support authority— Section 234 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a) is amended—
added
in subsection (c), by inserting “, including the planning and design expertise,” after “expertise”; and
added
in subsection (d)(1), by striking “$1,000,000” and inserting “$2,500,000”.
Sec. 301 Deauthorizations
Truckee Meadows, Nevada— The project for flood control, Truckee Meadows, Nevada, authorized by section 3(a)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014) and section 7002(2) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1366) is no longer authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
Seattle Harbor, Washington—
In general— Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the portion of the project for navigation, Seattle Harbor, Washington, described in paragraph (2) is no longer authorized.
Portion described— The portion of the project referred to in paragraph (1) is the approximately 74,490 square foot area of the Federal channel within the East Waterway—
starting at a point on the United States pierhead line in the southwest corner of block 386 of plat of Seattle Tidelands, T. 24 N., R. 4. E, sec.18, Willamette Meridian;
thence running N90°00’00”W along the projection of the south line of block 386, 206.58 feet to the centerline of the East Waterway;
thence running N14°30’00”E along the centerline and parallel with the northwesterly line of block 386, 64.83 feet;
thence running N33°32’59”E, 235.85 feet;
thence running N39°55’22”E, 128.70 feet;
thence running N14°30’00”E, parallel with the northwesterly line of block 386, 280.45 feet;
thence running N90°00’00”E, 70.00 feet to the pierhead line and the northwesterly line of block 386; and
thence running S14°30’00”W, 650.25 feet along the pierhead line and northwesterly line of block 386 to the point of beginning.
Cherryfield Dam, Maine— The project for flood control, Narraguagus River, Cherryfield Dam, Maine, authorized by, and constructed pursuant to, section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) is no longer authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
removed
Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam— Section 2010 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1270; 136 Stat. 3796) is amended by adding at the end the following:
removed
“(h) Navigation—Beginning on the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024, the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam is no longer authorized for navigation purposes.”
renumbered
was (6)
East San Pedro Bay, California— The study for the project for ecosystem restoration, East San Pedro Bay, California, authorized by the resolution of the Committee on Public Works of the Senate, dated June 25, 1969, relating to the report of the Chief of Engineers for Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, Ballona Creek, is no longer authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
renumbered
was (7)
Souris River Basin, North Dakota— The Talbott's Nursery portion, consisting of approximately 2,600 linear feet of levee, of stage 4 of the project for flood control, Souris River Basin, North Dakota, authorized by section 1124 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4243; 101 Stat. 1329–111), is no longer authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
added
Masaryktown Canal, Florida—
removed
Masaryktown Canal, Florida—
renumbered
was (8)(2)
In general— The portion of the project for the Four River Basins, Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1183) described in paragraph (2) is no longer authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
renumbered
was (8)(3)
Portion described— The portion of the project referred to in paragraph (1) is the Masaryktown Canal C–534, which spans approximately 5.5 miles from Hernando County, between Ayers Road and County Line Road east of United States Route 41, and continues south to Pasco County, discharging into Crews Lake.
Sec. 302 Environmental infrastructure
New projects— Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3808) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(406) Glendale, Arizona—$5,200,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Glendale, Arizona.
“(407) Tohono O’odham Nation, Arizona—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Tohono O’odham Nation, Arizona.
“(408) Flagstaff, Arizona—$4,800,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Flagstaff, Arizona.
“(409) Tucson, Arizona—$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including recycled water systems), Tucson, Arizona.
“(410) Bay-delta, California—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, San Francisco Bay–Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, California.
“(411) Indian Wells Valley, California—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Indian Wells Valley, Kern County, California.
“(412) Oakland–Alameda Estuary, California—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Oakland–Alameda Estuary, Oakland and Alameda Counties, California.
“(413) Tijuana River Valley Watershed, California—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Tijuana River Valley Watershed, San Diego County, California.
“(414) El Paso County, Colorado—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and stormwater management, El Paso County, Colorado.
“(415) Rehoboth Beach, Lewes, Dewey, Bethany, South Bethany, Fenwick Island, Delaware—$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Rehoboth Beach, Lewes, Dewey, Bethany, South Bethany, and Fenwick Island, Delaware.
“(416) Wilmington, Delaware—$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Wilmington, Delaware.
“(417) Pickering Beach, Kitts Hummock, Bowers Beach, South Bowers Beach, Slaughter Beach, Prime Hook Beach, Milton, Milford, Delaware—$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Pickering Beach, Kitts Hummock, Bowers Beach, South Bowers Beach, Slaughter Beach, Prime Hook Beach, Milton, and Milford, Delaware.
“(418) Coastal Georgia—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), Glynn County, Chatham County, Bryan County, Effingham County, McIntosh County, and Camden County, Georgia.
“(419) Columbus, Henry, and Clayton Counties, Georgia—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), Columbus, Henry, and Clayton Counties, Georgia.
“(420) Cobb County, Georgia—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Cobb County, Georgia.
“(421) Calumet City, Illinois—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Calumet City, Illinois.
“(422) Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas—$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas.
“(423) Easthampton, Massachusetts—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including wastewater treatment plant outfalls), Easthampton, Massachusetts.
“(424) Byram, Mississippi—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Byram, Mississippi.
“(425) Diamondhead, Mississippi—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and drainage systems, Diamondhead, Mississippi.
“(426) Hancock County, Mississippi—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Hancock County, Mississippi.
“(427) Madison, Mississippi—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Madison, Mississippi.
“(428) Pearl, Mississippi—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Pearl, Mississippi.
“(429) New Hampshire—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, New Hampshire.
“(430) Cape May County, New Jersey—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Cape May County, New Jersey.
“(431) Nye County, Nevada—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water wellfield and pipeline in the Pahrump Valley), Nye County, Nevada.
“(432) Storey County, Nevada—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Storey County, Nevada.
“(433) New Rochelle, New York—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), New Rochelle, New York.
“(434) Cuyahoga County, Ohio—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including combined sewer overflows), Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
“(435) Bloomingburg, Ohio—$6,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Bloomingburg, Ohio.
“(436) City of Akron, Ohio—$5,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including drainage systems), City of Akron, Ohio.
“(437) East Cleveland, Ohio—$13,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), East Cleveland, Ohio.
“(438) Ashtabula County, Ohio—$1,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water supply and water quality enhancement), Ashtabula County, Ohio.
“(439) Struthers, Ohio—$500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including wastewater infrastructure, stormwater management, and sewer improvements), Struthers, Ohio.
“(440) Stillwater, Oklahoma—$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and water supply infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Stillwater, Oklahoma.
“(441) Pennsylvania—$38,600,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Pennsylvania.
“(442) Chesterfield County, South Carolina—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure and other environmental infrastructure (including stormwater management), Chesterfield County, South Carolina.
“(443) Tipton County, Tennessee—$35,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure and water supply infrastructure, including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution, Tipton County, Tennessee.
“(444) Othello, Washington—$14,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water supply and storage treatment, Othello, Washington.
“(445) College Place, Washington—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, College Place, Washington.”
Project modifications—
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.
Modifications—
Alabama— Section 219(f)(274) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3808) is amended by striking “$50,000,000” and inserting “$85,000,000”.
Los Angeles County, California— Section 219(f)(93) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1259; 136 Stat. 3816) is amended by striking “Santa Clarity Valley” and inserting “Santa Clarita Valley”.
Kent, Delaware— Section 219(f)(313) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3810) is amended by striking “$35,000,000” and inserting “$40,000,000”.
New Castle, Delaware— Section 219(f)(314) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3810) is amended by striking “$35,000,000” and inserting “$40,000,000”.
Sussex, Delaware— Section 219(f)(315) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3810) is amended by striking “$35,000,000” and inserting “$40,000,000”.
East Point, Georgia— Section 219(f)(136) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1261; 136 Stat. 3817) is amended by striking “$15,000,000” and inserting “$20,000,000”.
Madison County and St. Clair County, Illinois— Section 219(f)(55) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 114 Stat. 2763A–221; 136 Stat. 3817) is amended—
by striking “$100,000,000” and inserting “$110,000,000”; and
by inserting “(including stormwater management)” after “wastewater assistance”.
Montgomery County and Christian County, Illinois— Section 219(f)(333) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended—
in the paragraph heading, by striking “Montgomery and Christian Counties” and inserting “Montgomery, Christian, Fayette, Shelby, Jasper, Richland, Crawford, and Lawrence Counties”; and
by striking “Montgomery County and Christian County” and inserting “Montgomery County, Christian County, Fayette County, Shelby County, Jasper County, Richland County, Crawford County, and Lawrence County”.
removed
Will County, Illinois— Section 219(f)(334) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended—
removed
in the paragraph heading, by striking “Will County” and inserting “Will and Grundy Counties”; and
removed
by striking “Will County” and inserting “Will County and Grundy County”.
renumbered
was (3)(3)(11)
Lowell, Massachusetts— Section 219(f)(339) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “$30,000,000”.
added
Michigan— Section 219(f)(157) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1262) is amended, in the paragraph heading, by striking “combined sewer overflows”.
removed
Michigan— Sec 219(f)(157) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1262) is amended, in the paragraph heading, by striking “combined sewer overflows”.
renumbered
was (3)(3)(13)
Desoto County, Mississippi— Section 219(f)(30) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 134 Stat. 2718) is amended by striking “$130,000,000” and inserting “$144,000,000”.
renumbered
was (3)(3)(14)
Jackson, Mississippi— Section 219(f)(167) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1263; 136 Stat. 3818) is amended by striking “$125,000,000” and inserting “$139,000,000”.
renumbered
was (3)(3)(15)
Madison County, Mississippi— Section 219(f)(351) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$24,000,000”.
renumbered
was (3)(3)(16)
Meridian, Mississippi— Section 219(f)(352) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$24,000,000”.
renumbered
was (3)(3)(17)
Rankin County, Mississippi— Section 219(f)(354) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$24,000,000”.
added
Cincinnati, Ohio— Section 219(f)(206) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1265) is amended by striking “$1,000,000” and inserting “$9,000,000”.
removed
Cincinnati, Ohio— Sec 219(f)(206) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1265) is amended by striking “$1,000,000” and inserting “$9,000,000”.
renumbered
was (3)(3)(19)
Midwest City, Oklahoma— Section 219(f)(231) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1266; 134 Stat. 2719) is amended by striking “$5,000,000” and inserting “$10,000,000”.
renumbered
was (3)(3)(20)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania— Section 219(f)(243) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1266) is amended—
renumbered
was (3)(3)(20)(3)
by striking “$1,600,000” and inserting “$3,000,000”; and
renumbered
was (3)(3)(20)(4)
by inserting “water supply and” before “wastewater”.
renumbered
was (3)(3)(21)
Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina— Section 219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 136 Stat. 3818) is amended by striking “$165,000,000” and inserting “$232,000,000”.
renumbered
was (3)(3)(22)
Milwaukee, Wisconsin— Section 219(f)(405) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3816) is amended by striking “$4,500,000” and inserting “$10,500,000”.
Non-Federal share— Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
“(b) Non-Federal share
“(1) In general—Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the non-Federal share of the cost of a project for which assistance is provided under this section shall be not less than 25 percent.
“(2) Economically disadvantaged communities—The non-Federal share of the cost of a project for which assistance is provided under this section benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined pursuant to section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; Public Law 116–260)) shall be 10 percent.
“(3) Ability to pay
“(A) In general—The non-Federal share of the cost of a project for which assistance is provided under this section shall be subject to the ability of the non-Federal interest to pay.
“(B) Determination—The ability of a non-Federal interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary.
changed “(C) Deadline—Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024, the Secretary shall issue guidance on the procedures described in subparagraph (B).
“(4) Congressional notification
“(A) In general—The Secretary shall annually submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a written notification of determinations made by the Secretary of the ability of non-Federal interests to pay under this section.
“(B) Contents—In preparing the written notification under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall include, for each determination made by the Secretary—
“(i) the name of the non-Federal interest that submitted to the Secretary a request for a determination under paragraph (3)(B);
“(ii) the name and location of the project; and
“(iii) the determination made by the Secretary and the reasons for the determination, including the adjusted share of the costs of the project of the non-Federal interest, if applicable.”
Sec. 307 Lake Champlain Watershed, Vermont and New York
changed
Section 542(e)(1)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2672) is amended by inserting “, or in the case of a critical restoration project benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined pursuant to section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; Public Law 116–260)), 10 percent of the total costs of the project” after “project”.
Sec. 312 Western rural water
changed
Section 595(a) 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 383; 117 Stat. 1836) is amended—
added
in subsection (a)—
renumbered
was (3)
by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively; and
renumbered
was (4)
by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) the following:
“(1) Non-Federal interest—The term non-Federal interest includes an entity declared to be a political subdivision of the State of New Mexico.”
added
in subsection (e)(3)(A)—
added
in the second sentence, by striking “The Federal share may” and inserting the following:
added “(iii) Form—The Federal share may”
added
by striking the subparagraph designation and heading and all that follows through “The Federal share of” in the first sentence and inserting the following:
added “(A) Project costs
added “(i) In general—Except as provided in clause (ii), the Federal share of”
added
by inserting after clause (i) (as so designated) the following:
added “(ii) Exception—The non-Federal share of the cost of a project under this section benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined pursuant to section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; Public Law 116–260)) shall be 10 percent.”
Sec. 318 Selma flood risk management and bank stabilization
added
Repayment—
added
In general— The Secretary shall expedite the review of, and give due consideration to, the request from the City of Selma, Alabama, that the Secretary apply section 103(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(k)) to the project for flood risk management, Selma Flood Risk Management and Bank Stabilization, Alabama, authorized by section 8401(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3839).
added
Duration— If the Secretary determines that the application of section 103(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(k)) to the project described in paragraph (1) is justified, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with that section, permit the City of Selma, Alabama, to repay the full non-Federal contribution with interest for that project during a period of 30 years that shall begin after the date of completion of that project.
removed
Expedited review— The Secretary shall expedite the review of, and give due consideration to, the request from the City of Selma, Alabama, that the Secretary apply section 103(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(k)) to the project for flood risk management, Selma Flood Risk Management and Bank Stabilization, Alabama, authorized by section 8401(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3839).
Cost-share— The non-Federal share of the cost of the project for flood risk management, Selma Flood Risk Management and Bank Stabilization, Alabama, authorized by section 8401(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3839), shall be 10 percent.
Sec. 332 Wilson Lock floating guide wall
added On the request of the relevant Federal entity, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, use all relevant authorities to expeditiously provide technical assistance, including engineering and design assistance, and cost estimation assistance to the relevant Federal entity in order to address the impacts to navigation along the Tennessee River at the Wilson Lock and Dam, Alabama.
removed
In general— On the request of the relevant Federal entity, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, use all relevant authorities to expeditiously provide technical assistance, including engineering and design assistance, and cost estimation assistance to the relevant Federal entity in order to address the impacts to navigation along the Tennessee River at the Wilson Lock and Dam, Alabama.
removed
Savings clause— Nothing in this section authorizes the Secretary to expend funding on the repair, replacement, or removal of a capital asset owned by the relevant Federal entity, including the Wilson Lock and Dam.
Sec. 340 Contracts for water supply
changed
Copan Lake, Oklahoma— Section 8358(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3802) is amended by striking “more “shall not pay more than 110 percent of the initial project investment cost per acre-foot of storage for the acre-feet of storage space sought under an agreement under paragraph (1)” and inserting “, for the acre-feet of storage space being sought under an agreement under paragraph (1), more than shall pay 110 percent of the contractual rate per acre-foot of storage in the most recent agreement of the City for water supply storage space at the project”.
State of Kansas—
In general— The Secretary shall amend the contracts described in paragraph (2) between the United States and the State of Kansas, relating to storage space for water supply, to change the method of calculation of the interest charges that began accruing on February 1, 1977, on the investment costs for the 198,350 acre-feet of future use storage space and on April 1, 1979, on 125,000 acre-feet of future use storage from compounding interest annually to charging simple interest annually on the principal amount, until—
the State of Kansas informs the Secretary of the desire to convert the future use storage space to present use; and
the principal amount plus the accumulated interest becomes payable pursuant to the terms of the contracts.
Contracts described— The contracts referred to in paragraph (1) are the following contracts between the United States and the State of Kansas:
Contract DACW41–74–C–0081, entered into on March 8, 1974, for the use by the State of Kansas of storage space for water supply in Milford Lake, Kansas.
Contract DACW41–77–C–0003, entered into on December 10, 1976, for the use by the State of Kansas for water supply in Perry Lake, Kansas.
Sec. 351 Chattahoochee River Program
Section 8144 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3724) is amended—
changed
in subsection (b)(1), by striking “2 years” “comprehensive plan” each place it appears and inserting “4 years”; and“plans”;
added
in subsection (b)—
added
in the subsection heading, by striking “Comprehensive plan” and inserting “Implementation plans”; and
added
in paragraph (1)—
added
by striking “2 years” and inserting “4 years”; and
added
by striking “a comprehensive Chattahoochee River Basin restoration plan to guide the implementation of projects” and inserting “plans to guide implementation of Chattahoochee River Basin restoration projects”; and
renumbered
was (4)
in subsection (j), by striking “3 years” and inserting “5 years”.
Sec. 356 Coastal erosion project, Barrow, Alaska
addedadded For purposes of implementing the coastal erosion project, Barrow, Alaska, the Secretary may consider the North Slope Borough to be in compliance with section 402(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b–12(a)) on adoption by the North Slope Borough Assembly of a floodplain management plan to reduce the impacts of future flood events in the immediate floodplain area of the project if that plan—
added
is approved by the relevant Federal agency; and
added
was developed in consultation with the relevant Federal agency and the Secretary.
Sec. 357 Colebrook River Reservoir, Connecticut
added
added
Contract termination request—
added
In general— Not later than 90 days after the date on which the Secretary receives a request from the Metropolitan District of Hartford County, Connecticut, to terminate the contract described in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall offer to amend the contract to release to the United States all rights of the Metropolitan District of Hartford, Connecticut, to utilize water storage space in the reservoir project to which the contract applies.
added
Contract described— The contract referred to in paragraph (1) and subsection (b) is the contract between the United States and the Metropolitan District of Hartford County, Connecticut, numbered DA–19–016–CIVENG–65–203, with respect to the Colebrook River Reservoir in Connecticut.
added
Relief of certain obligations— On execution of the amendment described in subsection (a)(1), the Metropolitan District of Hartford County, Connecticut, shall be relieved of the obligation to pay the percentage of the annual operation and maintenance expense, the percentage of major replacement cost, and the percentage of major rehabilitation cost allocated to the water supply storage specified in the contract described in subsection (a)(2) for the reservoir project to which the contract applies.
Sec. 358 Sense of Congress relating to shallow draft dredging in the Chesapeake Bay
addedadded It is the sense of Congress that—
added
shallow draft dredging in the Chesapeake Bay is critical for tourism, recreation, and the fishing industry and that additional dredging is needed; and
added
the Secretary should, to the maximum extent practicable, use existing statutory authorities to address the dredging needs at small harbors and channels in the Chesapeake Bay.
Sec. 359 Replacement of Cape Cod Canal bridges
added
added
Authority— The Secretary is authorized to allow the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to construct the replacement of the Bourne Bridge and the Sagamore Bridge, Massachusetts.
added
Requirements—
added
In general— The authority provided under subsection (a) shall be—
added
carried out in accordance with a memorandum of understanding entered into by the Secretary and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts;
added
subject to the same legal and technical requirements as if the construction of the replacement of the bridges were carried about by the Secretary, and any other conditions that the Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
added
on the condition that the bridges shall be conveyed to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on completion of the replacement of the bridges pursuant to section 109 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (33 U.S.C. 534).
added
Conditions— Before carrying out the construction of the replacement of the Bourne Bridge and the Sagamore Bridge, Massachusetts, under this section, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts shall—
added
obtain any permit or approval required in connection with that replacement under Federal or State law; and
added
ensure that the environmental impact statement or environmental assessment, as appropriate, for that replacement is complete.
added
Reimbursement—
added
In general— Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) and subsection (e), the Secretary is authorized to reimburse the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the Corps of Engineers contribution of the construction costs for the replacement of the Bourne Bridge and the Sagamore Bridge, Massachusetts, or a portion of the replacement of the bridges, except that the total reimbursement for the replacement of the bridges shall not exceed $250,000,000.
added
Availability of appropriations— The total amount of reimbursement described in paragraph (1)—
added
shall be subject to the availability of appropriations; and
added
shall not be derived from the previous funding provided to the Secretary under title I of division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118–42), for the Corps of Engineers for the purpose of replacing the Bourne Bridge and Sagamore Bridge, Massachusetts.
added
Certification— Prior to providing a reimbursement under this subsection, the Secretary shall certify that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has carried out the construction of the replacement of the Bourne Bridge and the Sagamore Bridge, Massachusetts, or a portion of the replacement of the bridges in accordance with—
added
all applicable permits and approvals; and
added
this section.
added
Total funding— The total amount of funding expended by the Secretary for the construction of the replacement of the Bourne Bridge and the Sagamore Bridge, Massachusetts, shall not exceed $600,000,000.
Sec. 360 Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam, Minneapolis, Minnesota
addedadded Section 356(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2724) is amended—
added
by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
added
by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
added “(4) Considerations—In carrying out paragraph (1), as expeditiously as possible and to the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall take all possible measures to reduce the physical footprint required for easements described in subparagraph (A) of that paragraph, including an examination of the use of crane barges on the Mississippi River.”
Sec. 361 Flexibilities for certain hurricane and storm damage risk reduction projects
added
added
Findings— Congress finds that—
added
the Corps of Engineers incorrectly applied the nationwide statutory requirements and the policies of the agency related to easements for communities within the boundaries of the Jacksonville District;
added
this incorrect application created inconsistencies, confusion, and challenges with carrying out 18 critical hurricane and storm damage risk reduction projects in Florida, and in order to remedy the situation, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works issued a memorandum that provided flexibilities for the easements of those projects; and
added
those projects need additional assistance going forward, and as such, this section provides additional flexibilities and allows the projects to transition, on the date of their expiration, to the nationwide policies and statutory requirements for easements of the Corps of Engineers.
added
Flexibilities provided— Notwithstanding any other provision of law, but maintaining any existing easement agreement or executed project partnership agreement for a project described in subsection (c), the Secretary may proceed to construction of a project described in that subsection with an easement of not less than 25 years, in lieu of the perpetual beach storm damage reduction easement standard estate if—
added
the project complies with all other applicable laws and Corps of Engineers policies during the term of the easement, including the guarantee of a public beach, public access, public use, and access for any work necessary and incident to the construction of the project, periodic nourishment, and operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project; and
added
the non-Federal interest agrees to pay the costs of acquiring easements for periodic nourishment of the project after the expiration of the initial easements, for which the non-Federal interest may not receive credit toward the non-Federal share of the costs of the project.
added
Projects described— A project referred to in subsection (b) is any of the following projects for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction:
added
Brevard County, Canaveral Harbor, Florida – North Reach.
added
Brevard County, Canaveral Harbor, Florida – South Reach.
added
Broward County, Florida – Segment II.
added
Lee County, Florida – Captiva.
added
Lee County, Florida – Gasparilla.
added
Manatee County, Florida.
added
Martin County, Florida.
added
Nassau County, Florida.
added
Palm Beach County, Florida – Jupiter/Carlin Segment.
added
Palm Beach County, Florida – Mid Town.
added
Palm Beach County, Florida – Ocean Ridge.
added
Pinellas County, Florida – Long Key.
added
Pinellas County, Florida – Sand Key Segment.
added
Pinellas County, Florida – Treasure Island.
added
Sarasota County, Florida – Venice Beach.
added
St. Johns County, Florida – St. Augustine Beach.
added
St. Johns County, Florida – Vilano Segment.
added
St. Lucie County, Florida – Hutchinson Island.
added
Prohibition— The Secretary shall not carry out an additional economic justification for a project described in subsection (c) on the basis that the project has easements for a period of less than 50 years pursuant to this section.
added
Written notice— Not less than 5 years before the date of expiration of an easement for a project described in subsection (c), the Secretary shall provide to the non-Federal interest for the project written notice that if the easement expires and is not extended under subsection (f)—
added
the Secretary will not be able—
added
to renourish the project under the existing project authorization; or
added
to restore the project to pre-storm conditions under section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (commonly known as the “Flood Control Act of 1941”) (55 Stat. 650, chapter 377; 33 U.S.C. 701n); and
added
the non-Federal interest or the applicable State will have the responsibility to renourish or restore the project.
added
Extension— With respect to a project described in subsection (c), before the expiration of an easement that has a term of less than 50 years and is subject to subsection (b), the Secretary may allow the non-Federal interest for the project to extend the easement, subject to the condition that the easement and any extensions do not exceed 50 years in total.
added
Temporary easements— In the case of a project described in subsection (c) that received funding under section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (commonly known as the “Flood Control Act of 1941”) (55 Stat. 650, chapter 377; 33 U.S.C. 701n), made available by a supplemental appropriations Act, or is eligible to receive such funding as a result of storm damage incurred during fiscal year 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, or 2026, the project may use 1 or more temporary easements, subject to the conditions that—
added
the easement lasts for the duration of the applicable renourishment agreement; and
added
the work shall be carried out by not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
added
Termination— The authority provided under this section shall terminate, with respect to a project described in subsection (c), on the date on which the operations and maintenance activities for that project expire.
Sec. 402 Facility investment
added
added
In general— Subject to subsection (b), using amounts available in the revolving fund established by the first section of the Civil Functions Appropriations Act, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 576), and not otherwise obligated, the Secretary may—
added
design and construct an Operations and Maintenance Building in Galveston, Texas, described in the prospectus submitted to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives on May 22, 2024, pursuant to subsection (c) of that section of that Act (33 U.S.C. 576(c)), substantially in accordance with the prospectus;
added
design and construct a warehouse facility at the Longview Lake Project, Lee's Summit, Missouri, described in the prospectus submitted to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives on May 22, 2024, pursuant to subsection (c) of that section of that Act (33 U.S.C. 576(c)), substantially in accordance with the prospectus;
added
design and construct facilities, including a joint administration building, a maintenance building, and a covered boat house, at the Corpus Christi Resident Office (Construction) and the Corpus Christi Regulatory Field Office, Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas, described in the prospectus submitted to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives on June 6, 2024, pursuant to subsection (c) of that section of that Act (33 U.S.C. 576(c)), substantially in accordance with the prospectus; and
added
carry out such construction and infrastructure improvements as are required to support the facilities described in paragraphs (1) through (3), including any necessary demolition of the existing infrastructure.
added
Requirement— In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure that the revolving fund established by the first section of the Civil Functions Appropriations Act, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 576), is appropriately reimbursed from funds appropriated for Corps of Engineers programs that benefit from the facilities constructed under this section.