SEC. 1001. Short Title.
This division may be cited as the “Water Resources Development Act of 2024”.
Division A — Water Resources Development
DIVISION A Water Resources Development
SEC. 1002. Secretary Defined.
In this division, the term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Army.
TITLE I General Provisions
Subtitle A General Matters
SEC. 1101. Outreach and Access.
In General.— Section 8117(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2281b(b)) is amended—
in paragraph (1)—
in subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking “ and” at the end;
in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting “ ; and”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(C) ensuring that a potential non-Federal interest is aware of the roles, responsibilities, and financial commitments associated with a completed water resources development project prior to initiating a feasibility study (as defined in section 105(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(d))), including operations, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation responsibilities.”
in paragraph (2)—
by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
“(B) designate and make publicly available a community project advisor at each district and division office of the Corps of Engineers for—
“(i) inquiries from potential non-Federal interests relating to the water resources development authorities of the Secretary; and
“(ii) any other responsibilities as determined by the Secretary that are appropriate to carry out this section;”
in subparagraph (D), by striking “ and” at the end;
in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end and inserting “ ; and”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(F) to the maximum extent practicable—
“(i) develop and continue to make publicly available, through a publicly available existing website, information on the projects and studies within the jurisdiction of each district of the Corps of Engineers; and
“(ii) ensure that the information described in clause (i) is consistent and made publicly available in the same manner across all districts of the Corps of Engineers.”
by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively; and
by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
“(3) Guidance.—The Secretary shall develop and issue guidance to ensure that community project advisors designated under paragraph (2)(B) are adequately fulfilling their obligations under that paragraph.”
Briefing.— Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a briefing on the status of the implementation of section 8117 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2281b), including the amendments made to that section by subsection (a), including—
a plan for implementing any requirements under that section; and
any potential barriers to implementing that section.
SEC. 1102. Notice to Congress Regarding Wrda Implementation.
Plan of Implementation.—
In general.— Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a plan for implementing this division and the amendments made by this division.
Requirements.— In developing the plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—
identify each provision of this division (or an amendment made by this division) that will require—
the development and issuance of guidance, including whether that guidance will be significant guidance;
the development and issuance of a rule; or
appropriations;
develop timelines for the issuance of—
any guidance described in subparagraph (A)(i); and
each rule described in subparagraph (A)(ii); and
establish a process to disseminate information about this division and the amendments made by this division to each District and Division Office of the Corps of Engineers.
Transmittal.— On completion of the plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall transmit the plan to—
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate; and
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.
Implementation of Prior Water Resources Development Laws.—
Definition of prior water resources development law.— In this subsection, the term “prior water resources development law” means each of the following (including the amendments made by any of the following):
The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–541).
The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–114).
The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–121).
The Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (Public Law 114–322).
The Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–270).
The Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (Public Law 116–260).
The Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (Public Law 117–263).
Notice.—
In general.— Not later than 60 days 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 a written notice of the status of efforts by the Secretary to implement the prior water resources development laws.
Contents.—
In general.— As part of the notice under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall include a list describing each provision of a prior water resources development law that has not been fully implemented as of the date of submission of the notice.
Additional information.— For each provision included on the list under clause (i), the Secretary shall—
establish a timeline for implementing the provision;
provide a description of the status of the provision in the implementation process; and
provide an explanation for the delay in implementing the provision.
Briefings.—
In general.— Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter until the Chairs of the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives determine that this division, the amendments made by this division, and prior water resources development laws are fully implemented, the Secretary shall provide to relevant congressional committees a briefing on the implementation of this division, the amendments made by this division, and prior water resources development laws.
Inclusions.— A briefing under subparagraph (A) shall include—
updates to the implementation plan under subsection (a); and
updates to the written notice under paragraph (2).
Additional Notice Pending Issuance.— Not later than 30 days before issuing any guidance, rule, notice in the Federal Register, or other documentation required to implement this division, an amendment made by this division, or a prior water resources development law (as defined in subsection (b)(1)), 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 written notice regarding the pending issuance.
Wrda Implementation Team.—
Definitions.— In this subsection:
Prior water resources development law.— The term “prior water resources development law” has the meaning given the term in subsection (b)(1).
Team.— The term “team” means the Water Resources Development Act implementation team established under paragraph (2).
Establishment.— The Secretary shall establish a Water Resources Development Act implementation team that shall consist of current employees of the Federal Government, including—
not fewer than 2 employees in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works;
not fewer than 2 employees at the headquarters of the Corps of Engineers; and
a representative of each district and division of the Corps of Engineers.
Duties.— The team shall be responsible for assisting with the implementation of this division, the amendments made by this division, and prior water resources development laws, including—
performing ongoing outreach to—
Congress; and
employees and servicemembers stationed in districts and divisions of the Corps of Engineers to ensure that all Corps of Engineers employees are aware of and implementing provisions of this division, the amendments made by this division, and prior water resources development laws, in a manner consistent with congressional intent;
identifying any issues with implementation of a provision of this division, the amendments made by this division, and prior water resources development laws at the district, division, or national level;
resolving the issues identified under subparagraph (B), in consultation with Corps of Engineers leadership and the Secretary; and
ensuring that any interpretation developed as a result of the process under subparagraph (C) is consistent with congressional intent for this division, the amendments made by this division, and prior water resources development laws.
SEC. 1103. Vertical Integration and Acceleration of Studies.
In General.— Section 1001(a) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c(a)) is amended—
in paragraph (1), by striking “ 3 years after the date of initiation” and inserting “ 4 years after the date on which the Secretary determines the Federal interest for purposes of the report pursuant to section 905(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(b))”; and
by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
“(2) have a maximum total cost of $5,000,000; and”
Savings Clause.— Nothing in the amendments made by subsection (a) shall be construed to affect a feasibility study that was initiated prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1104. Minimum Real Estate Interest.
Real Estate Plan.— The Secretary shall provide to the non-Federal interest for an authorized water resources development project a real estate plan for the project that includes a description of the real estate interests required for construction, operation and maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of the project, including any specific details and legal requirements necessary for implementation of the project.
Identification of Minimum Interest.—
In general.— For each authorized water resources development project for which an interest in real property is required for any applicable construction, operation and maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or replacement, the Secretary shall identify the minimum interest in the property necessary to carry out the applicable activity.
Determination.— In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall identify an interest that is less than fee simple title in cases where the Secretary determines that—
such an interest is sufficient for construction, operation and maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the applicable project; and
the non-Federal interest cannot legally make available to the Secretary an interest in fee simple title for purposes of the project.
Requirement.— The non-Federal interest for an authorized water resources development project shall provide for the project an interest in the applicable real property that is the minimum interest identified under subsection (b).
Annual Report.— The Secretary shall annually submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report containing—
a summary of all instances in which the Secretary identified under subsection (b) fee simple title as the minimum interest necessary with respect to an activity for which the non-Federal interest requested the use of an interest less than fee simple title; and
with respect to each such instance, a description of the legal requirements that resulted in identifying fee simple title as the minimum interest.
Existing Agreements.— At the request of a non-Federal interest, an agreement entered into under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) between the Secretary and the non-Federal interest before the date of enactment of this Act may be amended to reflect the requirements of this section.
SEC. 1105. Review Process.
Section 14 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 408) is amended by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively, and inserting after subsection (b) the following:
“(c) Review Process.—
“(1) Consistency.—The Secretary shall establish clear, concise, and specific guidance to be used within the Corps of Engineers and by non-Federal entities developing applications for permission standardizing the review process across Districts.
“(2) Preapplication meeting.—At the request of a non-Federal entity that is planning on submitting an application for permission pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary shall meet with the non-Federal entity to—
“(A) provide clear, concise, and specific design standards that the non-Federal entity must use in the development of the application;
“(B) recommend, based on coordination with the non-Federal entity, the appropriate number of design packages for submission for the proposed action, and the stage of development at which such packages should be submitted; and
“(C) identify potential concerns or conflicts with such proposed actions.
“(3) Contributed funds.—The Secretary may use funds accepted from a non-Federal entity under subsection (b)(3) for purposes of conducting a meeting described in paragraph (2).”
SEC. 1106. Processing Timelines.
Not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall ensure that the public website for the “permit finder” of the Corps of Engineers accurately reflects the current status of permits for which funds have been contributed under section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2352).
SEC. 1107. Continuing Authority Programs.
Pilot Program for Alternative Project Delivery for Continuing Authority Program Projects.—
In general.— Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall implement a pilot program, in accordance with this subsection, allowing a non-Federal interest or the Secretary, at the request of the non-Federal interest, to carry out a project under a continuing authority program through the use of an alternative delivery method.
Participation in pilot program.— In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—
solicit project proposals from non-Federal interests by posting program information on a public-facing website and reaching out to non-Federal interests that have previously submitted project requests to the Secretary;
review such proposals and select projects, taking into consideration geographic diversity among the selected projects and the alternative delivery methods used for the selected projects; and
notify the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate of each project selected under subparagraph (B), including—
identification of the project name, type, and location, and the associated non-Federal interest;
a description of the type of alternative delivery method being used to carry out the project; and
a description of how the project meets the authorized purposes and requirements of the applicable continuing authority program.
Cost share.— The Federal and non-Federal shares of the cost of a project carried out pursuant to this subsection shall be consistent with the cost share requirements of the applicable continuing authority program.
Modifications to processes.— With respect to a project selected under paragraph (3), the Secretary, at the request of the non-federal interest, shall to the maximum extent practicable—
allow the non-Federal interest to contribute more than the non-Federal share of the project required under the applicable continuing authority program;
allow the use of return on Federal investment as an alternative to benefit-cost analysis;
allow the use of a real estate acquisition audit process to replace existing crediting, oversight, and review processes and procedures; and
allow the use of a single contract with the non-Federal interest that incorporates the feasibility and construction phases.
Reimbursement.—
In general.— A project selected under paragraph (3) that is carried out by a non-Federal interest pursuant to this subsection shall be eligible for reimbursement for the Federal share of the cost of the project if, before initiation of construction of the project—
the non-Federal interest enters into a written agreement with the Secretary under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) consistent with the applicable continuing authority program; and
the Secretary—
reviews the plans for construction of the project developed by the non-Federal interest;
determines that the project meets the requirements of the applicable continuing authority program;
determines that the project outputs are consistent with the project scope;
determines that the plans comply with applicable Federal laws and regulations; and
verifies that the construction documents, including supporting information, have been signed by an Engineer of Record.
Application of reimbursement.— The Secretary may only provide reimbursement under subparagraph (A) if the Secretary certifies that—
the non-Federal interest has obligated funds for the cost of the project selected under paragraph (3) and has requested reimbursement of the Federal share of the cost of the project; and
the project has been constructed in accordance with—
all applicable permits or approvals; and
the requirements of this subsection.
Monitoring.— The Secretary shall regularly monitor and audit any project being constructed by a non-Federal interest pursuant to this subsection to ensure that the construction is carried out in compliance with the requirements of—
this subsection; and
the relevant continuing authorities program.
Evaluations and reporting.— The Secretary shall annually submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the progress and outcomes of projects carried out pursuant to this subsection, including—
an assessment of whether the use of alternative delivery methods has resulted in cost savings or time efficiencies; and
identification of changes to laws or policies needed in order to implement more projects using alternative delivery methods.
Definitions.— In this subsection:
Alternative delivery method.— The term “alternative delivery method” means a project delivery method that is not the traditional design-bid-build method, including progressive design-build, public-private partnerships, and construction manager at risk.
Continuing authority program.— The term “continuing authority program” has the meaning given that term in the section 7001(c)(1)(D) of Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d).
Return on federal investment.— The term “return on Federal investment” means, with respect to Federal investment in a water resources development project, the economic return on the investment for the Federal Government, taking into consideration qualitative returns for any anticipated life safety, risk reduction, economic growth, environmental, and social benefits accruing as a result of the investment.
Maximum projects.— Not more than 25 projects may be carried out under this subsection.
Sunset.— The authority to commence pursuant to this subsection a project selected under paragraph (3) shall terminate on the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Authorization of appropriations.— There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2032.
Emergency Streambank and Shoreline Protection.— Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r) is amended—
by striking “ $25,000,000” and inserting “ $50,000,000”; and
by striking “ $10,000,000” and inserting “ $15,000,000”.
Storm and Hurricane Restoration and Impact Minimization Program.— Section 3(c) of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g(c)) is amended—
in paragraph (1), by striking “ $37,500,000” and inserting “ $62,500,000”; and
in paragraph (2)(B), by striking “ $10,000,000” and inserting “ $15,000,000”.
Small River and Harbor Improvement Projects.— Section 107(b) of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(b)) is amended by striking “ $10,000,000” and inserting “ $15,000,000”.
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.— Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) is amended—
in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
“(4) Drought resilience.—A project under this section may include measures that enhance drought resilience through the restoration of wetlands or the removal of invasive species.”
in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
“(3) Anadromous fish.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for projects carried out under subsection (a)(3), the non-Federal interest shall provide 15 percent of the cost of construction, including provision of all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and necessary relocations.”
in subsection (d), by striking “ $10,000,000” and inserting “ $15,000,000”; and
in subsection (f), by striking “ $62,500,000” and inserting “ $75,000,000”.
Removal of Obstructions; Clearing Channels.— Section 2 of the Act of August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g) is amended—
by striking “ $7,500,000” and inserting “ $15,000,000”;
by inserting “ for preventing and mitigating flood damages associated with ice jams,” after “ other debris,”; and
by striking “ $500,000” and inserting “ $1,000,000”.
Project Modifications for Improvement of Environment or Drought Resiliency.— Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) is amended—
in the section heading, by inserting “ or Drought Resiliency” after “ Environment”;
in subsection (a)—
by striking “ for the purpose of improving” and inserting the following:
“(1) improving”
in paragraph (1) (as so designated), by striking the period at the end and inserting “ ; or”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(2) providing drought resiliency.”
in subsection (b), by striking “ (2) will improve” and inserting “ (2) will provide for drought resilience or will improve”;
in subsection (d), by striking “ $10,000,000” and inserting “ $15,000,000”;
in subsection (h), by striking “ $50,000,000” and inserting “ $62,000,000”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(j) Drought Resilience.—Drought resilience measures carried out under this section may include—
“(1) water conservation measures to mitigate and address drought conditions;
“(2) removal of sediment captured behind a dam for the purpose of restoring or increasing the authorized storage capacity of the project concerned;
“(3) the planting of native plant species that will reduce the risk of drought and the incidence of nonnative species; and
“(4) other actions that increase drought resilience, water conservation, or water availability.”
Shore Damage Prevention or Mitigation.— Section 111(c) of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i(c)) is amended by striking “ $12,500,000” and inserting “ $15,000,000”.
Regional Sediment Management.— Section 204(c)(1)(C) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326(c)(1)(C)) is amended by striking “ $10,000,000” and inserting “ $15,000,000”.
Small Flood Control Projects.— Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) is amended—
in the first sentence, by striking “ $68,750,000” and inserting “ $90,000,000”; and
in the third sentence, by striking “ $10,000,000” and inserting “ $15,000,000”.
Community Revitalization Program.— Section 165(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note) is amended—
by striking the subsection heading and inserting “ Community Revitalization Program”;
in paragraph (1), by striking “ pilot program” and inserting “ program”;
in paragraph (2)—
in the paragraph heading, by striking “ pilot”;
by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
“(A) solicit project proposals from non-Federal interests by posting program information on a public-facing website and reaching out to non-Federal interests that have previously submitted relevant project proposals to the Secretary; and”
; and
in subparagraph (B), by striking “ a total of 20 projects” and inserting “ projects”;
by striking paragraph (4); and
by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4);
in paragraph (4), as so redesignated, by inserting “ the” before “ Water”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(5) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $150,000,000 for each fiscal year.”
SEC. 1108. Stormwater Management Projects.
In General.— The Secretary shall establish a program to carry out studies and projects to control, retain, and reuse stormwater associated with flood control efforts, in partnership with non-Federal interests.
Requirements.—
Prioritization.— In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall prioritize studies and projects that improve urban flood control efforts, including through the management of stormwater that flows at a rate of less than 800 cubic feet per second for the 10-percent flood.
Use of natural and nature-based features.— In carrying out a project under this section, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, seek to incorporate natural features and nature-based features (as those terms are defined in section 1184(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a))).
Consideration.— In carrying out a project under this section, the Secretary shall, where appropriate, maximize the use of features for the reclamation, recycling, and reuse of flood water and stormwater associated with the project.
Items provided by non-federal interest.—
In general.— The non-Federal interest for a project carried out under this section shall provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations necessary for the project.
Credit.— The value of the land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations provided under subparagraph (A) shall be credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project.
Agreements.— Construction of a project under this section shall be initiated only after a non-Federal interest has entered into a binding agreement with the Secretary to pay—
the non-Federal share of the costs of construction required under this section; and
100 percent of any operation, maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with the project, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
Cost-share.—
Study.— Subject to paragraph (3), the Federal share of the cost of a study carried out under this section shall be 50 percent, except that the first $100,000 of the cost of the study shall be at Federal expense.
Construction.— Subject to paragraph (3), the non-Federal share of the cost of a project carried out under this section shall be 35 percent.
Limitation.— The total Federal amount expended for a study or project under this section shall be not more than $10,000,000.
Authorization of Appropriations.— There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $50,000,000 for each fiscal year.
SEC. 1109. Study of Water Resources Development Projects by Non-Federal Interests.
In General.— Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231) is amended—
in subsection (a)—
in paragraph (1)—
by striking “ may undertake a federally authorized feasibility study of a proposed water resources development project, or,” and inserting the following:
“(A) a federally authorized feasibility study of a proposed water resources development project; or”
by striking “ upon the written approval” and inserting the following:
“(B) upon the determination”
in subparagraph (B) (as so designated)—
by striking “ undertake”; and
by striking “ , and submit the study to the Secretary” and inserting “ or constructed by a non-Federal interest pursuant to section 204”;
in paragraph (2)—
in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)—
by striking “ , as soon as practicable,”; and
by striking “ non-Federal interests to” and inserting “ non-Federal interests that”;
by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
“(A) provide clear, concise, and transparent guidance for the non-Federal interest to use in developing a feasibility study that complies with requirements that would apply to a feasibility study undertaken by the Secretary;”
in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(C) provide guidance to a non-Federal interest on obtaining support from the Secretary to complete elements of a feasibility study that may be considered inherently governmental and required to be done by a Federal agency; and
“(D) provide contacts for employees of the Corps of Engineers that a non-Federal interest may use to initiate coordination with the Secretary and identify at what stages coordination may be beneficial.”
; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(3) Determination.—If a non-Federal interest requests to undertake a feasibility study on a modification to a constructed water resources development project under paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall expeditiously provide to the non-Federal interest the determination required under such paragraph with respect to whether conceptual modifications, as presented by the non-Federal interest, are consistent with the authorized purposes of the project.”
in subsection (b)—
in paragraph (3)—
in subparagraph (B), by striking “ receives a request under this paragraph” and inserting “ receives a study submission under subsection (a) or receives a request under subparagraph (A)”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(C) Additional information required.—The Secretary shall notify a non-Federal interest if, upon initial review of a submission received under subsection (a) or a receipt of a request under subparagraph (A), the Secretary requires additional information to perform the required analyses, reviews, and compliance processes and include in such notification a detailed description of the required information.”
by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
“(4) Notification.—Upon receipt of a study submission under subsection (a) or receipt of a request under paragraph (3)(A), the Secretary shall notify the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate of the submission or request and a timeline for completion of the required analyses, reviews, and compliance processes and shall notify the non-Federal interest of such timeline.”
; and
in paragraph (5), by striking “ receiving a request under paragraph (3)” and inserting “ receiving a study submission under subsection (a) or a request under paragraph (3)(A)”;
in subsection (d)—
by striking “ If a project” and inserting the following:
“(1) In general.—If a project”
by inserting “ or modification to the project” before “ an amount equal to”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(2) Maximum amount.—Any credit provided to a non-Federal interest under this subsection may not exceed the Federal share of the cost for a feasibility study initiated by the Secretary under section 1001(a)(2) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c(a)).”
; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(f) Authorization of Appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $1,000,000 for each fiscal year to carry out this section.”
Guidance.— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall update any guidance as necessary to reflect the amendments made by this section.
Implementation.— Any non-Federal interest that has entered in a written agreement with the Secretary related to carrying out a feasibility study pursuant to section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231) before the date of enactment of this Act may submit to the Secretary a request to amend such agreement to reflect the amendments made by this section.
SEC. 1110. Construction of Water Resources Development Projects by Non-Federal Interests.
In General.— Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232) is amended—
in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
“(1) In general.—When requested by a non-Federal interest carrying out a project or separable element of a project under this section, the Secretary shall undertake all necessary studies, engineering, and technical assistance on construction for any project or separable element of a project under this section, and provide technical assistance in obtaining all necessary permits for the construction, if the non-Federal interest contracts with the Secretary to provide funds to the United States for the studies, engineering, or technical assistance.”
in subsection (d)—
in paragraph (1)(A), by striking “ plans” each place it appears and inserting “ plan”;
in paragraph (3)(B), by inserting “ , discrete segment of the project, or separable element of the project” after “ the project”;
in paragraph (5) by striking “ plans” each place it appears and inserting “ plan”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(6) Exclusions.—The Secretary may not provide credit or reimbursement for—
“(A) activities required by the non-Federal interest to initiate design and construction that would otherwise not be required by the Secretary; or
“(B) delays incurred by the non-Federal interest resulting in project cost increases.”
Guidance.— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall update any guidance as necessary to reflect the amendments made by this section.
Implementation.— Any non-Federal interest that has entered in a written agreement with the Secretary to carry out a water resources development project pursuant to section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232) before the date of enactment of this Act may submit to the Secretary a request to amend such agreement to reflect the amendments made by this section.
SEC. 1111. Annual Report to Congress.
Section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d) is amended—
in subsection (c)(1)(D)(iii)—
in subclause (VIII), by striking “ ; and” and inserting a semicolon;
in subclause (IX), by striking the period at the end and inserting “ ; and”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(X) section 1108 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024.”
by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (i); and
by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
“(g) Non-Federal Interest Notification.—After the publication of the annual report under subsection (f), if the proposal of a non-Federal interest submitted under subsection (b) was included by the Secretary in the appendix under subsection (c)(4), the Secretary shall provide written notification to the non-Federal interest of such inclusion.
“(h) Congressional Notification.—Not later than 30 days after the publication of the annual report under subsection (f), for each proposal included in that annual report or appendix, the Secretary shall notify each Member of Congress that represents the State in which that proposal will be located that the proposal was included the annual report or the appendix.”
SEC. 1112. Services of Volunteers.
In General.— The Secretary may recognize a volunteer providing services under the heading “Department of Defense—Civil—Department of the Army—Corps of Engineers—Civil—General Provisions” in chapter IV of title I of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1983 (33 U.S.C. 569c) through an award or other appropriate means, except that such award may not be in the form of a cash award.
Process.— The Secretary shall establish a process to carry out subsection (a).
SEC. 1113. Nonrecreation Outgrant Policy.
In General.— Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall update the policy guidance of the Corps of Engineers for the evaluation and approval of nonrecreational real estate outgrant requests for the installation, on lands and waters operated and maintained by the Secretary, of infrastructure for the provision of broadband services.
Requirements.— In updating the policy guidance under subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure that the policy guidance—
requires the consideration of benefits to the public in evaluating a request described in subsection (a);
requires the Secretary to consider financial factors when determining whether there is a viable alternative to the installation for which approval is requested as described in subsection (a);
requires that a request described in subsection (a) be expeditiously approved or denied after submission of a completed application for such request; and
requires the Secretary to include in any denial of such a request detailed information on the justification for the denial.
Savings Clause.— Nothing in this section affects or alters the responsibility of the Secretary—
to sustain and protect the natural resources of lands and waters operated and maintained by the Secretary; or
to carry out a water resources development project consistent with the purposes for which such project is authorized.
SEC. 1114. Silver Jackets Program.
The Secretary shall continue the Silver Jackets program established by the Secretary pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a) and section 204 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5134).
SEC. 1115. 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” and inserting a semicolon; 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, hydropower (including siting and risk management for open- and closed-loop pumped hydropower energy storage), and water resource-related recreation (including management of water-related resources for recreation) in the State of West Virginia;
“(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;
“(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;
“(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;
“(8) Western Washington University, Bellingham to conduct academic research on water quality, aquatic ecosystem restoration (including aquaculture), and the resiliency of water resources development projects in the Pacific Northwest to natural disasters;
“(9) the University of North Carolina Wilmington to conduct academic research on flood mitigation, coastal resiliency, water resource ecology, water quality, aquatic ecosystem restoration (including aquaculture), coastal restoration, and resource-related emergency management in North Carolina and Mid-Atlantic region; and
“(10) California State Polytechnic University, Pomona to conduct academic research on integrated design and management of water resources development projects, including for the purposes of flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, water supply, water conservation, and sustainable aquifer management.”
SEC. 1116. Temporary Relocation Assistance Pilot Program.
Section 8154(g)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3735) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(F) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Norfolk Coastal Storm Risk Management, Virginia, authorized by section 401(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2738).”
SEC. 1117. Harbor Deepening.
Construction.— Section 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)(1)) is amended by striking “ 50 feet” each place it appears and inserting “ 55 feet”.
Operation and Maintenance.— Section 101(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(b)(1)) is amended by striking “ 50 feet” and inserting “ 55 feet”.
SEC. 1118. Inland Waterways Regional Dredge Pilot Program.
Section 8133(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3720) is amended to read as follows:
“(c) Projects.—In awarding contracts under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider projects that—
“(1) improve navigation reliability on inland waterways that are accessible year-round;
“(2) increase freight capacity on inland waterways; and
“(3) have the potential to enhance the availability of containerized cargo on inland waterways.”
SEC. 1119. Dredged Material Disposal Facility Partnerships.
In General.— Section 217(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326a(b)) is amended—
by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
“(1) In general.—
“(A) Non-federal use.—The Secretary—
“(i) at the request of a non-Federal entity, may permit the use of any dredged material disposal facility under the jurisdiction of, or managed by, the Secretary by the non-Federal entity if the Secretary determines that such use will not reduce the availability of the facility for the authorized water resources development project on a channel in the vicinity of the disposal facility;
“(ii) at the request of a non-Federal entity, shall permit the non-Federal entity to use a non-Federal disposal facility for the disposal of material dredged by the non-Federal entity, regardless of any connection to a Federal navigation project, if—
“(I) permission for such use has been granted by the owner of the non-Federal disposal facility; and
“(II) the Secretary determines that the dredged material disposal needs required to maintain, perform authorized deepening, or restore the navigability and functionality of authorized navigation channels in the vicinity of the non-Federal disposal facility for the 20-year period following the date of the request, including all planned and routine dredging operations necessary to maintain such channels for the authorized purposes during such period, can be met by the available gross capacity of other dredged material disposal facilities in the vicinity of the non-Federal disposal facility; and
“(iii) shall impose fees to recover capital, operation, and maintenance costs associated with such uses.
“(B) Determinations.—The Secretary shall—
“(i) delegate determinations under clauses (i) and (ii)(II) of subparagraph (A) to the District Commander of the district in which the relevant disposal facility is located; and
“(ii) make such determinations not later than 90 days after receiving the applicable request.”
in paragraph (2)—
in the paragraph heading, by striking “ Use of fees” and inserting “ Fees”;
by striking “ Notwithstanding” and inserting the following:
“(A) Use.—Notwithstanding”
; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(B) Reduction in amount.—In collecting any fee under this subsection, the Secretary shall reduce the amount imposed under paragraph (1)(A)(iii) to account for improvements made to the non-Federal disposal facility by the non-Federal entity to recover the capacity of the non-Federal disposal facility.”
; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(3) Disposition studies.—
“(A) Requirement.—Upon request by the owner of a non-Federal disposal facility, the Secretary shall carry out a disposition study of the non-Federal disposal facility, in accordance with section 1168 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 578b), if—
“(i) the Secretary has not used the non-Federal disposal facility for the disposal of dredged material during the 20-year period preceding the date of the request; and
“(ii) the Secretary determines that the non-Federal disposal facility is not needed for such use by the Secretary during the 20-year period following the date of the request.
“(B) Conclusive presumptions.—For purposes of carrying out a disposition study required under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall—
“(i) consider the non-Federal disposal facility to be a separable element of a project; and
“(ii) consider a Federal interest in the non-Federal disposal facility to no longer exist.
“(4) Definitions.—In this subsection:
“(A) Gross capacity.—The term ‘gross capacity’ means the total quantity of dredged material that may be placed in a dredged material disposal facility, taking into consideration any additional capacity that can be constructed at the facility.
“(B) Non-federal disposal facility.—The term ‘non-Federal disposal facility’ means a dredged material disposal facility under the jurisdiction of, or managed by, the Secretary that is owned by a non-Federal entity.”
Savings Clause.— Nothing in the amendments made by subsection (a) shall affect—
an agreement between the Secretary and a non-Federal interest that is in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, except that, upon request by the non-Federal interest party to such agreement, the Secretary and the non-Federal interest may modify such agreement; or
the inclusion in an agreement between the Secretary and a non-Federal interest entered into after the date of enactment of this Act of a dredged material disposal facility that is included in an agreement between the Secretary and a non-Federal interest in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, unless the non-Federal interest is notified and agrees.
SEC. 1120. Real Estate Administrative Fees.
In General.— Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall initiate the development of guidance to standardize processes for developing, updating, and tracking real estate administrative fees administered by the Corps of Engineers.
Guidance.— In developing guidance under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
outline standard methodologies to estimate costs for purposes of setting real estate administrative fees;
define the types of activities involved in managing real estate instruments that are included for purposes of setting such fees;
establish cost-tracking procedures to capture data relating to the activities described in paragraph (2) for purposes of setting such fees;
outline a schedule for divisions or districts of the Corps of Engineers to review, and update as appropriate, real estate administrative fees, including specifying what such reviews should entail and the frequency of such reviews; and
provide opportunities for stakeholder input on real estate administrative fees.
Publicly Available.— The Secretary shall make publicly available on the website of each Corps of Engineers district—
the guidance developed under this section; and
any other relevant information on real estate administrative fees, including lists of real estate instruments requiring such fees, and methodologies used to set such fees.
SEC. 1121. Databases of Corps Recreational Sites.
The Secretary shall regularly update publicly available databases maintained, or cooperatively maintained, by the Corps of Engineers with information on sites operated or maintained by the Secretary that are used for recreational purposes, including the operational status of, and the recreational opportunities available at, such sites.
SEC. 1122. Project Studies Subject to Independent External Peer Review.
Section 2034 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2343) is amended—
by striking subsection (h); and
by redesignating subsections (i) through (l) as subsections (h) through (k), respectively.
SEC. 1123. National Coastal Mapping Program.
In General.— The Secretary is authorized to carry out a national coastal mapping program to provide recurring national coastal mapping along the coasts of the United States to support Corps of Engineers navigation, flood risk management, environmental restoration, and emergency operations missions.
Scope.— In carrying out the program under subsection (a), the Secretary—
shall disseminate coastal mapping data and new or advanced geospatial information and remote sensing tools for coastal mapping derived from the analysis of such data to the Corps of Engineers, other Federal agencies, States, and other stakeholders;
shall implement coastal surveying based on findings of the national coastal mapping study carried out under section 8110 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3702);
shall conduct research and development on bathymetric liDAR and ancillary technologies necessary to advance coastal mapping capabilities in order to exploit data with increased efficiently and greater accuracy;
with respect to any region affected by a hurricane rated category 3 or higher, shall—
conduct coastal mapping of such region;
determine volume changes at Federal projects in such region;
quantify damage to navigation infrastructure in such region;
assess environmental impacts to such region, measure any coastal impacts; and
make any data gathered under this paragraph publicly available not later than 2 weeks after the acquisition of such data;
at the request of another Federal entity or a State or local government entity, may provide subject matter expertise, mapping services, and technology evolution assistance;
may enter into an agreement with another Federal agency or a State agency to accept funds from such agency to expand the coverage of the program to efficiently meet the needs of such agency;
shall coordinate with representatives of the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Geological Survey, and any other representative of a Federal agency that the Secretary determines necessary, to support any relevant Federal, State, or local agency through participation in working groups, committees, and organizations;
may maintain the panel of senior leaders established under section 8110(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022; and
may convene an annual coastal mapping community of practice meeting to discuss and identify technical topics and challenges to inform such panel in carrying out the duties of such panel.
Authorization of Appropriations.— There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section for each fiscal year $15,000,000, to remain available until expended.
SEC. 1124. Removal of Abandoned Vessels.
by striking “ Sec. 19. (a) That whenever” and inserting the following:
“SEC. 19. VESSEL REMOVAL BY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
“(a) Removal of Obstructive Vessels.—
“(1) In general.—That whenever”
in subsection (b)—
by striking “ described in this section” and inserting “ described in this subsection”; and
by striking “ under subsection (a)” and inserting “ under paragraph (1)”;
by striking “ (b) The owner” and inserting the following:
“(2) Liability of owner, lessee, or operator.—The owner”
; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(b) Removal of Abandoned Vessel.—
“(1) In general.—The Secretary is authorized to remove from the navigable waters of the United States a covered vessel that does not obstruct the navigation of such waters, if—
“(A) such removal is determined to be in the public interest by the Secretary, in consultation with any State in which the vessel is located or any Indian Tribe with jurisdiction over the area in which the vessel is located, as applicable; and
“(B) in the case of a vessel that is not under the control of the United States by reason of seizure or forfeiture, the Commandant of the Coast Guard determines that the vessel is abandoned.
“(2) Interagency agreements.—In removing a covered vessel under this subsection, the Secretary—
“(A) is authorized to enter into an interagency agreement with the head of any Federal department, agency, or instrumentality that has control of such vessel; and
“(B) is authorized to accept funds from such department, agency, or instrumentality for the removal of such vessel.
“(3) Liability.—The owner of a covered vessel shall be liable to the United States for the costs of removal, destruction, and disposal of such vessel under this subsection.
“(4) Covered vessel defined.—
“(A) In general.—In this subsection, the term ‘covered vessel’ means a vessel—
“(i) determined to be abandoned by the Commandant of the Coast Guard; or
“(ii) under the control of the United States by reason of seizure or forfeiture pursuant to any law.
“(B) Exclusion.—The term ‘covered vessel’ does not include—
“(i) any vessel for which the Secretary has removal authority under subsection (a) or section 20;
“(ii) an abandoned barge for which the Commandant of the Coast Guard has the authority to remove under chapter 47 of title 46, United States Code; and
“(iii) a vessel—
“(I) for which the owner is not identified, unless determined to be abandoned by the Commandant of the Coast Guard; or
“(II) for which the owner has not agreed to pay the costs of removal, destruction, or disposal.
“(5) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029.”
Conforming Amendment.— Section 20 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 416) is amended by striking “ the preceding section of this Act” and inserting “ section 19(a)”.
SEC. 1125. Missouri River Existing Features Protection.
In General.— Before carrying out a covered action with respect to a covered in-river feature, the Secretary shall perform an analysis to identify whether such action will—
contribute to adverse effects of increased water levels during flood events adjacent to the covered in-river feature;
increase risk of flooding on commercial and residential structures and critical infrastructure adjacent to the covered in-river feature;
decrease water levels during droughts adjacent to the covered in-river feature;
affect the navigation channel, including crossflows, velocity, channel depth, and channel width, adjacent to the covered in-river feature;
contribute to bank erosion on private lands adjacent to the covered in-river feature;
affect the operation of ports or harbors adjacent to the covered in-river feature; or
affect harvesting of sand adjacent to the covered in-river feature.
Mitigation.— If the Secretary determines that a covered action will result in an outcome described in subsection (a), the Secretary shall mitigate such outcome.
Savings Clause.— Nothing in this section may be construed to affect the requirements of section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283).
Definitions.— In this section:
Covered action.— The term “covered action” means the construction of, modification of, operational changes to, or implementation of a covered in-river feature.
Covered in-river feature.— The term “covered in-river feature” means in-river features on the Missouri River used to create and maintain dike notches, chutes, and complexes for interception or rearing authorized pursuant to section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143; 113 Stat. 306; 121 Stat. 1155) and section 334 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 306; 136 Stat. 3799).
SEC. 1126. Inland Waterway Projects.
In General.— Section 102(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212(a)) is amended—
in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking “ 65 percent of the costs” and inserting “ 75 percent of the costs”; and
in the second sentence, by striking “ 35 percent of such costs” and inserting “ 25 percent of such costs”.
Application.— The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply beginning on October 1, 2024, to any construction of a project for navigation on the inland waterways that is new or ongoing on or after that date.
SEC. 1127. Planning Assistance for States.
Section 22(a)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–16(a)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting “ and title research for abandoned structures” before the period at the end.
SEC. 1128. Expedited Consideration.
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. 1129. Emerging Harbors.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall—
issue guidance for the purpose of carrying out section 210(c)(3)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238(c)(3)(B)); and
develop a mechanism to accept the non-Federal share of funds from a non-Federal interest for maintenance dredging carried out under such section.
SEC. 1130. Maximization of Beneficial Use.
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material.— Section 1122 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note) is amended—
in subsection (a)—
by striking “ Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a pilot program” and inserting “ The Secretary is authorized”; and
by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
“(1) promoting resiliency and reducing the risk to property and infrastructure of flooding and storm damage;”
in subsection (b)—
in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking “ the pilot program” and inserting “ this section”;
by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
“(1) identify and carry out projects for the beneficial use of dredged material;”
in subsection (c)(1)—
by striking “ In carrying out the pilot program, the” and inserting “ The”; and
by striking “ under the pilot program” and inserting “ under this section”;
in subsection (d), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking “ the pilot program” and inserting “ this section”;
in subsection (f)—
in paragraph (1), by striking “ the pilot program” and inserting “ this section”; and
in paragraph (4), by striking “ the pilot program” and inserting “ the implementation of this section”; and
by striking subsection (g) and redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g).
Regional Sediment Management.— Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended—
in subsection (a)(1), by striking “ rehabilitation of projects” and inserting “ rehabilitation of projects, including projects for the beneficial use of dredged materials described in section 1122 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note),”; and
in subsection (f), by adding at the end the following:
“(12) Osceola County, Florida.”
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material.— Section 125(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2326g) is amended—
by striking “ It is the policy” and inserting the following:
“(A) Policy.—It is the policy”
; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(B) National goal.—To the greatest extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that not less than 70 percent by volume (as measured in cubic yards) of suitable dredged material obtained from the construction or operation and maintenance of water resources development projects is used beneficially.”
Maximization of Beneficial Use in Dredged Material Management Plans.— Each dredged material management plan for a federally authorized water resources development project, and each regional sediment plan developed under section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), including any such plan under development on the date of enactment of this Act, shall—
maximize the beneficial use of suitable dredged material; and
to the maximum extent practicable, prioritize the use of such dredged material in water resources development projects in areas vulnerable to coastal land loss or shoreline erosion.
Transfer of Suitable Dredged Material.—
In general.— The Secretary is authorized to make available to a non-Federal interest, at no additional cost, dredged material that the Secretary has determined is in excess of the amounts identified as needed for use by the Secretary.
Responsibility.— The non-Federal interest shall be responsible for all costs to remove and transport such material, and shall certify that the non-Federal interest is responsible for any and all liability related to the removal of such material or the use of such material once it is removed.
SEC. 1131. Economic, Hydraulic, and Hydrologic Modeling.
Model Development.— The Secretary, in collaboration with other Federal and State agencies, National Laboratories, and nonprofit research institutions (including institutions of higher education and centers and laboratories focused on economics or water resources), shall develop, update, and maintain economic, hydraulic, and hydrologic models, including models for compound flooding, for use in the planning, design formulation, modification, and operation of water resources development projects and water resources planning.
Coordination and Use of Models and Data.— In carrying out subsection (a), to the extent practicable, the Secretary shall—
work with the non-Federal interest for a water resources development project to identify existing relevant economic, hydraulic, and hydrologic models and data;
utilize, where appropriate, economic, hydraulic, and hydrologic models and data provided to the Secretary by the agencies, laboratories, and institutions described in subsection (a); and
upon written request by a non-Federal interest for a project, provide to the non-Federal interest draft or working economic, hydraulic, and hydrologic models, and any data generated by such models with respect to the project, not later than 30 days after receiving such request; and
in accordance with section 2017 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2342), make final economic, hydraulic, and hydrologic models, and any data generated by such models, available to the public, as quickly as practicable, but not later than 30 days after receiving a written request for such models or data.
Limitation.— Nothing in this section may be construed to compel or authorize the disclosure of data or other information determined by the Secretary to be confidential information, privileged information, law enforcement information, national security information, infrastructure security information, personal information, or information the disclosure of which is otherwise prohibited by law.
Model Outputs.— To the extent practicable and appropriate, the Secretary shall incorporate data generated by models developed under this section into the formulation of feasibility studies for, and the operation of, water resources development projects.
Funding.— The Secretary is authorized, to the extent and in the amounts provided in advance in appropriations Acts, to transfer to other Federal and State agencies, National Laboratories, and nonprofit research institutions, including institutions of higher education, such funds as may be necessary to carry out subsection (a) from amounts available to the Secretary.
In-kind Contribution Credit.— A partnership agreement entered into under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) may provide, at the request of the non-Federal interest for the applicable project, that the Secretary credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the value of economic, hydraulic, and hydrologic models required for the project that are developed by the non-Federal interest in accordance with any policies and guidelines applicable to the relevant partnership agreement pursuant to such section.
Review.— The Secretary shall review economic, hydraulic, and hydrologic models developed under this section in the same manner as any such models developed under any other authority of the Secretary.
Definitions.— In this section:
Compound flooding.— The term “compound flooding” means a flooding event in which two or more flood drivers, such as coastal storm surge-driven flooding and inland rainfall-driven flooding, occur simultaneously or in close succession and the potential adverse effects of the combined flood drivers may be greater than that of the individual flood driver components.
Economic.— The term “economic”, as used in reference to models, means relating to the evaluation of benefits and cost attributable to a project for an economic justification under section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962–2).
SEC. 1132. Improvements to National Dam Safety Program.
by redesignating paragraph (16) as paragraph (17); and
by inserting after paragraph (15) the following:
“(16) Underserved community.—The term ‘underserved community’ means a community with a population of less than 50,000 that has a median household income of less than 80 percent of the statewide median household income.”
National Inventory of Dams and Low-Head Dams.— Section 6 of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467d) is amended to read as follows:
“SEC. 6. NATIONAL INVENTORY OF DAMS AND LOW-HEAD DAMS.
“(a) In General.—The Secretary of the Army shall maintain and update information on the inventory of dams and low-head dams in the United States.
“(b) Dams.—The inventory maintained under subsection (a) shall include any available information assessing each dam based on inspections completed by a Federal agency, a State dam safety agency, or a Tribal government.
“(c) Low-Head Dams.—The inventory maintained under subsection (a) shall include—
“(1) the location, ownership, description, current use, condition, height, and length of each low-head dam;
“(2) any information on public safety conditions at each low-head dam; and
“(3) any other relevant information concerning low-head dams.
“(d) Data.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall—
“(1) coordinate with Federal and State agencies, Tribal governments, and other relevant entities; and
“(2) use data provided to the Secretary by those agencies and entities.
“(e) Public Availability.—The Secretary shall make the inventory maintained under subsection (a) publicly available (including on a publicly available website), including—
“(1) public safety information on the dangers of low-head dams; and
“(2) a directory of financial and technical assistance resources available to reduce safety hazards and fish passage barriers at low-head dams.
“(f) Clarification.—Nothing in this section provides authority to the Secretary to carry out an activity, with respect to a low-head dam, that is not explicitly authorized under this section.
“(g) Low-Head Dam Defined.—In this section, the term ‘low-head dam’ means a river-wide artificial barrier that generally spans a stream channel, blocking the waterway and creating a backup of water behind the barrier, with a drop off over the wall of not less than 6 inches and not more than 25 feet.”
Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dams.— Section 8A of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f–2) is amended—
in subsection (c)(2), by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following:
“(C) Grant assurance.—As part of a grant agreement under subparagraph (B), the Administrator shall require that each eligible subrecipient to which the State awards a grant under this section provides an assurance from the dam owner, with respect to the dam to be rehabilitated, that the dam owner will carry out a plan for maintenance of the dam during the expected life of the dam.”
in subsection (d)(2)(C), by striking “ commit” and inserting “ for a project not including removal, obtain a commitment from the dam owner”;
by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
“(e) Floodplain Management Plans.—
“(1) In general.—As a condition of receipt of assistance under this section, an eligible subrecipient shall demonstrate that a floodplain management plan to reduce the impacts of future flood events from a controlled or uncontrolled release from the dam or management of water levels in the area impacted by the dam—
“(A) for a removal—
“(i) is in place; and
“(ii) identifies areas that would be impacted by the removal of the dam and includes a communication and outreach plan for the project and the impact of the project on the affected communities; or
“(B) for a project not including removal—
“(i) is in place; or
“(ii) will be—
“(I) developed not later than 2 years after the date of execution of a project agreement for assistance under this section; and
“(II) implemented not later than 2 years after the date of completion of construction of the project.
“(2) Requirement.—In the case of a plan for a removal, the Administrator may not impose any additional requirements or conditions other than the requirements in paragraph (1)(A).
“(3) Inclusions.—A plan under paragraph (1)(B) shall address—
“(A) potential measures, practices, and policies to reduce loss of life, injuries, damage to property and facilities, public expenditures, and other adverse impacts of flooding in the area protected or impacted by the dam;
“(B) plans for flood fighting and evacuation; and
“(C) public education and awareness of flood risks.
“(4) Plan criteria and technical support.—The Administrator, in consultation with the Board, shall provide criteria, and may provide technical support, for the development and implementation of floodplain management plans prepared under this subsection.”
in subsection (g)(1)—
in subparagraph (A), by striking “ Any” and inserting “ Except as provided in subparagraph (C), any”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(C) Underserved communities.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a project carried out by or for the benefit of an underserved community.”
Authorization of Appropriations.— Section 14 of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467j) is amended—
in subsection (a)—
in paragraph (1), by striking “ 2023” and inserting “ 2028”; and
in paragraph (2)—
in subparagraph (A), by inserting “ and low-head dams” after “ inventory of dams” each place it appears; and
by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
“(B) Maximum amount of allocation.—The amount of funds allocated to a State under this paragraph for a fiscal year may not exceed the amount that is equal to 4 times the amount of funds committed by the State to implement dam safety activities for that fiscal year.”
in subsection (b)—
by striking the subsection heading and inserting “ National Inventory of Dams and Low-Head Dams”; and
by striking “ 2023” and inserting “ 2028”;
in subsection (c), by striking “ 2023” and inserting “ 2028”;
in subsection (d), by striking “ 2023” and inserting “ 2028”;
in subsection (e), by striking “ 2023” and inserting “ 2028”; and
in subsection (f), by striking “ 2023” and inserting “ 2028”.
Conforming Amendment.— Section 15 of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467o) is repealed.
SEC. 1133. Funding to Process Permits.
Section 214(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2352(a)) is amended—
in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following:
“(D) Indian tribe.—The term ‘Indian Tribe’ means—
“(i) an Indian Tribe, as such term is defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304); and
“(ii) any entity formed under the authority of one or more Indian Tribes, as so defined.”
in paragraph (2)—
by inserting “ Indian Tribe,” after “ public-utility company,” each place it appears; and
in subparagraph (A), by inserting “ , including an aquatic ecosystem restoration project” before the period at the end; and
by striking paragraph (4).
SEC. 1134. Harmful Algal Bloom Demonstration Program.
Section 128 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 610 note) is amended—
in subsection (a), by inserting “ or affecting water bodies of regional, national, or international importance in the United States or its territories” after “ projects”;
in subsection (b)(1), by striking “ and State agencies” and inserting “ , State, and local agencies, institutions of higher education, and private organizations, including nonprofit organizations”;
in subsection (c)—
in paragraph (6), by inserting “ Watershed” after “ Okeechobee”;
in paragraph (13), by striking “ and” at the end;
in paragraph (14), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(15) Lake Elsinore, California; and
“(16) Willamette River, Oregon.”
in subsection (e), by striking “ $25,000,000” and inserting “ $35,000,000”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(f) Priority.—In carrying out the demonstration program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent possible, prioritize carrying out program activities that—
“(1) reduce nutrient pollution;
“(2) utilize natural and nature-based approaches, including oysters;
“(3) protect, enhance, or restore wetlands or flood plains, including river and streambank stabilization;
“(4) develop technologies for remote sensing, monitoring, or early detection of harmful algal blooms, or other emerging technologies; and
“(5) combine removal of harmful algal blooms with a beneficial use, including conversion of retrieved algae biomass into biofuel, fertilizer, or other products.
“(g) Agreements.—In carrying out the demonstration program under subsection (a), the Secretary may enter into agreements with a non-Federal entity for the use or sale of successful technologies developed under this section.”
SEC. 1135. Corrosion Prevention.
Section 1033(c) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2350(c)) is amended—
in paragraph (2), by striking “ ; and” and inserting a semicolon;
by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
“(3) the carrying out of an activity described in paragraph (1) or (2) through a program in corrosion prevention that is—
“(A) offered or accredited by an organization that sets industry standards for corrosion mitigation and prevention; or
“(B) an industrial coatings applicator program that is—
“(i) an employment and training activity (as defined in section 3 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102)); or
“(ii) registered under the Act of August 16, 1937 (commonly known as the ‘National Apprenticeship Act’; 50 Stat. 664, chapter 663; 29 U.S.C. 50 et seq.); and”
SEC. 1136. Federal Breakwaters and Jetties.
Section 8101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2351b) is amended—
by inserting “ , pile dike,” after “ jetty” each place it appears; and
in subsection (b)(2)—
by striking “ if” and all that follows through “ the Secretary” and inserting “ if the Secretary”;
by striking “ breakwater; and” and inserting “ breakwater and—”
by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (A);
in subparagraph (A) (as so redesignated), by striking the period at the end and inserting “ ; or”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(B) the pile dike has disconnected from an authorized navigation project as a result of a lack of such regular and routine Federal maintenance activity.”
SEC. 1137. Eligibility for Inter-Tribal Consortiums.
Section 221(b)(1) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)(1)) is amended by inserting “ and an inter-tribal consortium (as defined in section 403 of the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3202))” after “ 5304))”.
SEC. 1138. Shoreline and Riverine Protection and Restoration.
Section 212(e)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332(e)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(L) Shoreline of the State of Connecticut.
“(M) Winooski River tributary watershed, Vermont.”
SEC. 1139. Ability to Pay.
In General.— Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) is amended—
by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and inserting the following:
“(2) Criteria.—The Secretary shall determine the ability of a non-Federal interest to pay under this subsection by considering—
“(A) per capita income data for the county or counties in which the project is to be located;
“(B) the per capita non-Federal cost of construction of the project for the county or counties in which the project is to be located;
“(C) the financial capabilities of the non-Federal interest for the project;
“(D) the extent to which the non-Federal interest is an economically disadvantaged community (as defined pursuant to section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)); and
“(E) any additional criteria relating to the non-Federal interest’s financial ability to carry out its cost-sharing responsibilities determined appropriate by the Secretary.
“(3) Procedures.—For purposes of carrying out paragraph (2), the Secretary shall develop procedures—
“(A) to allow a non-Federal interest to identify the amount such non-Federal interest would likely be able to pay; and
“(B) for a non-Federal interest to submit a request to the Secretary to reduce the required non-Federal share.”
; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(5) Exception.—This subsection shall not apply to project costs greater than the national economic development plan.
“(6) Report.—
“(A) In general.—Not less frequently than annually, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report describing all determinations of the Secretary under this subsection regarding the ability of a non-Federal interest to pay.
“(B) Contents.—The Secretary shall include in each report required under subparagraph (A) a description, for the applicable year, of—
“(i) requests by a non-Federal interest to reduce the non-Federal share required in a cost-sharing agreement, including—
“(I) the name of the non-Federal interest that submitted to the Secretary a request for a determination under this subsection; and
“(II) the name and location of the project;
“(ii) the determination of the Secretary with respect to each such request;
“(iii) the basis for each such determination; and
“(iv) the adjusted share of the costs of the project of the non-Federal interest, if applicable.
“(C) Inclusion in chief’s report.—The Secretary may include a determination to reduce the non-Federal share required in a cost-sharing agreement for construction of a project in the report of the Chief of Engineers for the project.”
Update to Guidance.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall update any agency guidance or regulation relating to the ability of a non-Federal interest to pay as necessary to reflect the amendments made by this section.
Priority Projects.— The Secretary shall make a determination under section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended by this section, of the ability to pay of the non-Federal interest for the following projects:
Any authorized water resources development project for which the Secretary waives the cost-sharing requirement under section 1156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2310).
Any authorized watercraft inspection and decontamination station established, operated, or maintained pursuant to section 104(d) of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610(d)).
The Chattahoochee River Program, authorized by section 8144 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3724).
The project for navigation, Craig Harbor, Alaska, authorized by section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1709).
The project for flood risk management, Westminster, East Garden Grove, California Flood Risk Management, authorized by section 401(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2735).
Modifications to the L–29 levee component of the Central and Southern Florida project, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1176), in the vicinity of the Tigertail camp.
Any authorized water resources development projects in Guam.
The project for flood risk management, Ala Wai Canal, Hawaii, authorized by section 1401(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3837).
The project for flood control Kentucky River and its tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by section 6 of the Act of August 11, 1939 (chapter 699, 53 Stat. 1416).
The project for flood risk management on the Kentucky River and its tributaries and watersheds in Breathitt, Clay, Estill, Harlan, Lee, Leslie, Letcher, Owsley, Perry, and Wolfe Counties, Kentucky, authorized by section 8201(a)(31) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3746).
The project for flood control, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1573).
The project for ecosystem restoration, Resacas, in the vicinity of the City of Brownsville, Texas, authorized by section 1401(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3839).
Construction of any critical restoration project in the Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York, authorized by section 542 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2671; 121 Stat. 1150; 134 Stat. 2680; 136 Stat. 3822).
Any authorized flood control and storm damage reduction project in the United States Virgin Islands that was impacted by Hurricanes Irma and Maria.
Construction of dredged material stabilization and retaining structures related to the project for navigation, Lower Willamette and Columbia Rivers, from Portland, Oregon, to the sea, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 18, 1878 (chapter 267, 20 Stat. 157, chapter 264).
Any water-related environmental infrastructure project authorized by section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–580).
SEC. 1140. Tribal Partnership Program.
Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269) is amended—
in subsection (a)—
in the subsection heading, by striking “ Definition of Indian Tribe” and inserting “ Definitions”;
by striking “ In this section, the term” and inserting
“(1) Indian tribe.—The terms ‘Indian tribe’ and ‘Indian Tribe’ have the meanings given the terms”
; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(2) Inter-tribal consortium.—The term ‘inter-tribal consortium’ has the meaning given the term in section 403 of the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3202).
“(3) Tribal organization.—The term ‘Tribal organization’ has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304).”
in subsection (b)—
in paragraph (1)—
in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting “ , inter-tribal consortiums, Tribal organizations,” after “ Indian tribes”; and
in subparagraph (A), by inserting “ , inter-tribal consortiums, or Tribal organizations” after “ Indian tribes”;
by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
“(2) Authorized activities.—An activity conducted under paragraph (1) may address—
“(A) projects for flood or hurricane and storm damage reduction, including erosion control and stormwater management (including management of stormwater that flows at a rate of less than 800 cubic feet per second for the 10-percent flood), environmental restoration and protection, and preservation of cultural and natural resources;
“(B) watershed assessments and planning activities;
“(C) technical assistance to an Indian Tribe, an inter-tribal consortium, or a Tribal organization, including—
“(i) assistance for planning to ameliorate flood hazards, to avoid repetitive flood impacts, to anticipate, prepare, and adapt to changing hydrological and climatic conditions and extreme weather events, and to withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruption due to flood hazards; and
“(ii) the provision of, and integration into planning of, hydrologic, economic, and environmental data and analyses;
“(D) projects that improve emergency response capabilities and provide increased access to infrastructure that may be utilized in the event of a severe weather event or other natural disaster; and
“(E) such other projects as the Secretary, in cooperation with Indian Tribes, inter-tribal consortiums, Tribal organizations, and the heads of other Federal agencies, determines to be appropriate.”
in paragraph (3)(A)—
by inserting “ , an inter-tribal consortium, or a Tribal organization” after “ an Indian tribe”; and
by inserting “ , inter-tribal consortium, or Tribal organization” after “ the Indian tribe”; and
in paragraph (4), by striking “ $26,000,000” each place it appears and inserting “ $28,500,000”;
in subsection (d), by adding at the end the following:
“(7) 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 written notification of determinations made by the Secretary of the ability of non-Federal interests to pay under this subsection.
“(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 (1)(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.”
; and
by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
“(e) Pilot Program.—
“(1) In general.—The Secretary shall establish a pilot program to carry out water-related planning activities or activities relating to the study, design, and construction of water resources development projects that otherwise meet the requirements of this section.
“(2) Project selection.—The Secretary shall carry out not more than 7 activities or projects under the pilot program described in paragraph (1), of which—
“(A) one is located along the Mid-Columbia River, Washington, Tancum Creek, Washington, or Similk Bay, Washington;
“(B) one is located at Big Bend, Lake Oahe, Fort Randall, or Gavins Point reservoirs, South Dakota; and
“(C) notwithstanding the limitations described in subsection (b)(1)(B), 5 are in proximity to a river system or other aquatic habitat within the State of Washington with respect to which an Indian Tribe, an inter-tribal consortium, or a Tribal organization has Tribal treaty rights.
“(3) Report to congress.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that describes activities or projects carried out under the pilot program.
“(4) Savings clause.—Nothing in this subsection authorizes—
“(A) a project for the removal of a dam that otherwise is a project described in paragraph (2);
“(B) the study of the removal of a dam; or
“(C) the study of any Federal dam, including the study of power, flood control, or navigation replacement, or the implementation of any functional alteration to that dam, that is located along a body of water described in paragraph (2).”
SEC. 1141. Tribal Project Implementation Pilot Program.
Definitions.— In this section:
Eligible project.— The term “eligible project” means a project or activity eligible to be carried out under the Tribal partnership program under section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269).
Indian tribe.— The term “Indian Tribe” has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304).
Authorization.— Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish and implement a pilot program under which Indian Tribes may directly carry out eligible projects.
Purposes.— The purposes of the pilot program under this section are—
to authorize Tribal contracting to advance Tribal self-determination and provide economic opportunities for Indian Tribes; and
to evaluate the technical, financial, and organizational efficiencies of Indian Tribes carrying out the design, execution, management, and construction of 1 or more eligible projects.
Administration.—
In general.— In carrying out the pilot program under this section, the Secretary shall—
identify a total of not more than 5 eligible projects that have been authorized for construction;
notify the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives on the identification of each eligible project under the pilot program under this section;
in collaboration with the Indian Tribe, develop a detailed project management plan for each identified eligible project that outlines the scope, budget, design, and construction resource requirements necessary for the Indian Tribe to execute the project or a separable element of the eligible project;
on the request of the Indian Tribe and in accordance with subsection (f)(2), enter into a project partnership agreement with the Indian Tribe for the Indian Tribe to provide full project management control for construction of the eligible project, or a separable element of the eligible project, in accordance with plans approved by the Secretary;
following execution of the project partnership agreement, transfer to the Indian Tribe to carry out construction of the eligible project, or a separable element of the eligible project—
if applicable, the balance of the unobligated amounts appropriated for the eligible project, except that the Secretary shall retain sufficient amounts for the Corps of Engineers to carry out any responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers relating to the eligible project and the pilot program under this section; and
additional amounts, as determined by the Secretary, from amounts made available to carry out this section, except that the total amount transferred to the Indian Tribe shall not exceed the updated estimate of the Federal share of the cost of construction, including any required design; and
regularly monitor and audit each eligible project being constructed by an Indian Tribe under this section to ensure that the construction activities are carried out in compliance with the plans approved by the Secretary and that the construction costs are reasonable.
Detailed project schedule.— Not later than 180 days after entering into an agreement under paragraph (1)(D), each Indian Tribe, to the maximum extent practicable, shall submit to the Secretary a detailed project schedule, based on estimated funding levels, that lists all deadlines for each milestone in the construction of the eligible project.
Technical assistance.— On the request of an Indian Tribe, the Secretary may provide technical assistance to the Indian Tribe, if the Indian Tribe contracts with and compensates the Secretary for the technical assistance relating to—
any study, engineering activity, and design activity for construction carried out by the Indian Tribe under this section; and
expeditiously obtaining any permits necessary for the eligible project.
Cost Share.— Nothing in this section affects the cost-sharing requirement applicable on the day before the date of enactment of this Act to an eligible project carried out under this section.
Implementation Guidance.—
In general.— Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue guidance for the implementation of the pilot program under this section that, to the extent practicable, identifies—
the metrics for measuring the success of the pilot program;
a process for identifying future eligible projects to participate in the pilot program;
measures to address the risks of an Indian Tribe constructing eligible projects under the pilot program, including which entity bears the risk for eligible projects that fail to meet Corps of Engineers standards for design or quality;
the laws and regulations that an Indian Tribe must follow in carrying out an eligible project under the pilot program; and
which entity bears the risk in the event that an eligible project carried out under the pilot program fails to be carried out in accordance with the project authorization or this section.
New project partnership agreements.— The Secretary may not enter into a project partnership agreement under this section until the date on which the Secretary issues the guidance under paragraph (1).
Report.—
In general.— Not later than 3 years 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 a report detailing the results of the pilot program under this section, including—
a description of the progress of Indian Tribes in meeting milestones in detailed project schedules developed pursuant to subsection (d)(2); and
any recommendations of the Secretary concerning whether the pilot program or any component of the pilot program should be implemented on a national basis.
Update.— Not later than 5 years 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 an update to the report under paragraph (1).
Failure to meet deadline.— If the Secretary fails to submit a report by the required deadline under this subsection, 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 detailed explanation of why the deadline was missed and a projected date for submission of the report.
Administration.— All laws and regulations that would apply to the Secretary if the Secretary were carrying out the eligible project shall apply to an Indian Tribe carrying out an eligible project under this section.
Termination of Authority.— The authority to commence an eligible project under this section terminates on December 31, 2029.
Authorization of Appropriations.— In addition to any amounts appropriated for a specific eligible project, there is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section, including the costs of administration of the Secretary, $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2024 through 2029.
SEC. 1142. 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 by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)); 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.—
“(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 this paragraph 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 “ $200,000” and inserting “ $300,000”; and
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 striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
“(4) Treatment.—The cost of a determination under paragraph (1) shall not be included for purposes of the maximum total cost under section 1001(a)(2) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c(a)(2)).”
; and
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. 1143. Watershed and River Basin Assessments.
Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a) is amended—
in subsection (d)—
in paragraph (12), by striking “ ; and” and inserting a semicolon;
in paragraph (13), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(14) the Walla Walla River Basin;
“(15) the San Francisco Bay Basin;
“(16) Connecticut River Watershed, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont;
“(17) Lower Rouge River Watershed, Michigan; and
“(18) Grand River Watershed, Michigan.”
; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(g) Feasibility Report on Project Specific Recommendations From Assessments.—
“(1) In general.—At the request of a non-Federal interest for an assessment completed under this section, the Secretary is authorized to prepare a feasibility report, in accordance with the requirements of section 905, recommending the construction or modification of a water resources development project to address a water resources need of a river basin or watershed of the United States identified in the assessment.
“(2) Priority watersheds.—In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall give priority to—
“(A) the watersheds of the island of Maui, Hawaii, including the Wahikuli, Honoko̅wai, Kahana, Honokahua, and Honolua watersheds, including the coral reef habitat north of Lahaina off the northwestern coast of the island of Maui; and
“(B) the watersheds of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Guam.”
SEC. 1144. Control of Aquatic Plant Growths and Invasive Species.
Section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610) is amended—
in subsection (e)(3), by inserting “ , and monitoring and contingency planning for,” after “ early detection of”; and
in subsection (g)(2)(A), by inserting “ the Connecticut River Basin,” after “ the Ohio River Basin,”.
SEC. 1145. Easements for Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Projects.
In General.— With respect to a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction for which the Secretary is requiring a perpetual easement, the Secretary shall, upon request by the non-Federal interest for the project, certify real estate availability and proceed to construction of such project with a nonperpetual easement if—
such certification and construction are in compliance with the terms of the report of the Chief of Engineers for the project and the applicable project partnership agreement; and
the Secretary provides the non-Federal interest with formal notice that, in the event in which the nonperpetual easement expires and is not extended, the Secretary will be unable to—
fulfill the Federal responsibility with respect to the project or carry out any required nourishment of the project under the existing project authorization;
carry out repair and rehabilitation of the project under section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n); and
provide any other relevant Federal assistance with respect to the project.
Disclosure.— For any project for hurricane storm damage risk reduction, or a proposal to modify such a project, that is authorized after the date of enactment of this Act for which a perpetual easement is required for Federal participation in the project, the Secretary shall include in the report of the Chief of Engineers for the project a disclosure of such requirement.
Management.— To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall, at the request of the non-Federal interest for a project for hurricane storm damage risk reduction, identify and accept the minimum real estate interests necessary to carry out the project, in accordance with section 1104.
Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project Implementation.—
In general.— During the 2-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, notwithstanding any requirement of the Secretary for a covered project to comply with the memorandum of the Corps of Engineers entitled “Standard Estates – Perpetual Beach Nourishment and Perpetual Restrictive Dune Easement” and dated August 4, 1995, the Secretary shall carry out each covered project in a manner consistent with the previously completed initial construction and periodic nourishments of the project, including repair and restoration work on the project under section 5(a) of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(a)).
Covered project defined.— In this subsection, the term “covered project” means an authorized project for hurricane and storm damage reduction in any one of the following locations:
Brevard County, Canaveral Harbor, Florida – Mid Reach.
Brevard County, Canaveral Harbor, Florida – North Reach.
Brevard County, Canaveral Harbor, Florida – South Reach.
Broward County, Florida – Segment II.
Broward County, Florida – Segment III.
Dade County, Florida – Main Segment.
Dade County, Florida – Sunny Isles Segment.
Duval County, Florida.
Fort Pierce Beach, Florida.
Lee County, Florida – Captiva.
Lee County, Florida – Gasparilla.
Manatee County, Florida.
Martin County, Florida.
Nassau County, Florida.
Palm Beach County, Florida – Jupiter/Carlin Segment.
Palm Beach County, Florida – Delray Segment.
Palm Beach County, Florida – Mid Town.
Palm Beach County, Florida – North Boca.
Palm Beach County, Florida – Ocean Ridge.
Panama City Beaches, Florida.
Pinellas County, Florida – Long Key.
Pinellas County, Florida – Sand Key Segment.
Pinellas County, Florida –Treasure Island.
Sarasota, Lido Key, Florida.
Sarasota County, Florida – Venice Beach.
St. Johns County, Florida – St. Augustine Beach.
St. Johns County, Florida – Vilano Segment.
St. Lucie County, Florida – Hutchinson Island.
Sense of congress.— It is the sense of Congress that, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, the minimum estate necessary for easements may not exceed the life of the project nor be less than 50 years.
Savings Clause.— Nothing in this section may be construed to affect the requirements of section 103(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(d)).
SEC. 1146. Systemwide Improvement Framework and Encroachments.
by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
“(2) Systemwide improvement plan.—
“(A) In general.—Notwithstanding the status of compliance of a non-Federal interest with the requirements of a levee owner’s manual described in paragraph (1), or any other eligibility requirement established by the Secretary related to the maintenance and upkeep responsibilities of the non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall consider the non-Federal interest to be eligible for repair and rehabilitation assistance under this section if—
“(i) in coordination with the Secretary, the non-Federal interest develops a systemwide improvement plan, prior to the natural disaster, that—
“(I) identifies any items of deferred or inadequate maintenance and upkeep, including any such items identified by the Secretary or through periodic inspection of the flood control work;
“(II) identifies any additional measures, including repair and rehabilitation work, that the Secretary determines necessary to ensure that the flood control work performs as designed and intended;
“(III) includes specific timelines for addressing such items and measures;
“(IV) requires the non-Federal interest to be responsible for the cost of addressing the items and measures identified under subclauses (I) and (II); and
“(ii) the Secretary—
“(I) determines that the systemwide improvement plan meets the requirements of clause (i) and the Secretary, acting through the District Commander, approves such plan; and
“(II) determines that the non-Federal interest makes satisfactory progress in meeting the timelines described in subclause (III) of that clause.
“(B) Grandfathered encroachments.—At the request of the non-Federal interest, the Secretary—
“(i) shall review documentation developed by the non-Federal interest showing a covered encroachment does not negatively impact the integrity of the flood control work;
“(ii) shall make a written determination with respect to whether removal or modification of such covered encroachment is necessary to ensure the encroachment does not negatively impact the integrity of the flood control work; and
“(iii) may not determine that a covered encroachment is a deficiency requiring corrective action unless such action is necessary to ensure the encroachment does not negatively impact the integrity of the flood control work.”
; and
in paragraph (4)—
by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively; and
by inserting before subparagraph (B) (as so redesignated) the following:
“(A) Covered encroachment.—The term ‘covered encroachment’ means a permanent nonproject structure that—
“(i) is located inside the boundaries of a flood control work;
“(ii) is depicted on construction drawings or operation and maintenance plans for the flood control work that are signed by an engineer of record; and
“(iii) is determined by the Secretary to be an encroachment of such flood control work.”
Conforming Amendment.—
In general.— Section 3011 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 701n note) is repealed.
Clerical amendment.— The table of contents contained in section 1(b) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1194) is amended by striking the item relating to section 3011.
Transition.— The amendments made by this section shall have no effect on any written agreement signed by the Secretary and a non-Federal interest pursuant to paragraph (2) of section 5(c) of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(c)) (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act), if the non-Federal interest otherwise continues to meet the requirements of that paragraph (as so in effect).
Participation in Preparedness Exercises.— The Secretary may not condition the eligibility of a non-Federal interest for rehabilitation assistance under section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941(33 U.S.C. 701n), on the participation of the non-Federal interest in disaster preparedness exercises that are unrelated to necessary repairs, rehabilitation, maintenance, and upkeep of a flood control work.
SEC. 1147. Remote and Subsistence Harbors.
Section 2006 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2242) is amended—
in subsection (a), by striking paragraphs (1) through (3) and inserting the following:
“(1) the project would be located in the State of Hawaii or Alaska, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, or American Samoa; and
“(2)
(A) over 80 percent of the goods transported through the harbor would be consumed within the United States, as determined by the Secretary, including consideration of information provided by the non-Federal interest; or
“(B) the long-term viability of the community in which the project is located, or the long-term viability of a community that is located in the region that is served by the project and that will rely on the project, would be threatened without the harbor and navigation improvement.”
; and
in subsection (b)—
in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking “ benefits of the project to” and inserting “ benefits of the project to any of”; and
in paragraph (4), by striking “ ; and” and inserting “ ; or”.
SEC. 1148. Treatment of Projects in Covered Communities.
In General.— In carrying out feasibility studies for projects that serve a covered community, the Secretary shall select 10 such studies and include in those studies the calculation of an alternative benefit-cost ratio for the project in order to equitably compare such project to projects carried out in the contiguous States of the United States and the District of Columbia.
Evaluation.— In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall—
compute the benefit-cost ratio for the project in accordance with current law and guidance;
if different from the ratio described in paragraph (1), compute an alternative benefit-cost ratio by adjusting the construction costs for the project to reflect what construction costs would be if the project were carried out in a comparable community in the contiguous States that is nearest to the community in which the project will be carried out;
include in the documentation associated with the feasibility study for the project the ratios calculated under paragraph (1) and paragraph (2); and
compare the alternative benefit-cost ratio calculated under paragraph (2) to the standard benefit-cost ratios calculated for each project alternative.
Notification.—
In general.— If the tentatively selected plan for a project yields a benefit-cost ratio less than unity for the project and results in the discontinuation of the project, the Secretary shall provide written notice to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
Inclusion.— In any written notice provided under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include for the project a comparison of the benefit-cost ratios described in subsection (b)(4).
Report.— After carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that summarizes for each project the comparisons of the benefit-cost ratios described in subsection (b)(4).
Covered Community Defined.— In this section, the term “covered community” means a community located in the State of Hawaii, the State of Alaska, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, or American Samoa.
SEC. 1149. Remote Operations at Corps Dams.
During the 6-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, with respect to a water resources development project owned, operated, or managed by the Corps of Engineers, the Secretary is authorized to use remote operation activities at a navigation or hydroelectric power generating facility at such project as a replacement for activities performed, as of the date of enactment of this Act, by personnel under the direction of the Secretary at such project, only after the Secretary provides written notice to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate that—
use of the remote operation activities—
does not affect activities described in section 314 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2321);
will address any cyber and physical security risks to such project in accordance with applicable Federal law and agency guidance; and
is necessary to increase the availability and capacity, as applicable, of such project, including a project on a lower use waterway; and
the remote operation activities were developed under a public process that included engagement with such personnel and other stakeholders who may be affected by the use of such activities.
SEC. 1150. Reporting and Oversight.
Initial Report.—
In general.— Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Environment and Public Works and Appropriations of the Senate a report detailing the status of the reports described in paragraph (2).
Reports described.— The reports described in this paragraph are the following:
The comprehensive backlog and operation and maintenance report required under section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)).
The report on managed aquifer recharge required under section 8108(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2357(d)).
The plan on beneficial use of dredged material required under section 8130(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3717).
The updated report on Corps of Engineers Reservoirs required under section 8153 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3734).
The report on dredge capacity required under section 8205 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3754).
The report on the assessment of the consequences of changing operation and maintenance responsibilities required under section 8206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3756).
The report on the western infrastructure study required under section 8208 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3756).
The report on excess lands for Whittier Narrows Dam, California, required under section 8213 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3758).
The report on recreational boating in the Great Lakes basin required under section 8218 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3761).
The report on the disposition study on hydropower in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, required under section 8220 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat 3762).
The report on corrosion prevention activities required under section 8234 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3767).
The report on mitigation for fish and wildlife and wetlands losses required under section 2036(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1092).
The report on expediting hydropower at Corps of Engineers facilities required under section 1008(c) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2321b).
The report on divestment authority required under section 164(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2668).
The report on antecedent hydrologic conditions required under section 226(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2697).
The report on the terrestrial noxious weed control pilot program required under section 503(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 610 note).
The report on the Asian Carp prevention and control pilot program required under section 509(a)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 610 note).
The report on investments for recreation areas required under section 8227(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3764).
The report on solar energy opportunities required under section 8232(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3766).
Elements.— The Secretary shall include in the report required under paragraph (1) the following information with respect to each report described in paragraph (2):
A summary of the status of each such report, including if the report has been initiated.
The amount of funds that—
have been made available to carry out each such report; and
the Secretary requires to complete each such report.
A detailed assessment of how the Secretary intends to complete each such report, including an anticipated timeline for completion.
Any available information that is relevant to each such report that would inform the committees described in paragraph (1).
Annual Reports.—
In general.— Not later than 10 days after the date on which the budget of the President for each fiscal year is submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Environment and Public Works and Appropriations of the Senate a report on the status of each covered report.
Elements.— The Secretary shall include in the report required under paragraph (1) the following information:
A summary of the status of each covered report, including if each such report has been initiated.
The amount of funds that—
have been made available to carry out each such report; and
the Secretary requires to complete each such report.
A detailed assessment of how the Secretary intends to complete each covered report, including an anticipated timeline for completion.
Publicly available.— The Secretary shall make each report required under paragraph (1) publicly available on the website of the Corps of Engineers.
Notification of committees.— The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Environment and Public Works of the Senate on an annual basis a draft of each covered report.
Definition of covered report.— In this subsection, the term “covered report”—
means any report or study required to be submitted by the Secretary under this Act or any Act providing authorizations for water resources development projects enacted after the date of enactment of this Act to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate that has not been so submitted; and
does not include a feasibility study (as such term is defined in section 105(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(d)).
Prior Guidance.— Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue the guidance required pursuant to each of the following provisions:
Section 1043(b)(9) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note).
Section 8101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2351b).
Section 8107 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b note).
Section 8112 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2281a).
Section 8116 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (10 U.S.C. 7036 note).
Section 8136 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (10 U.S.C. 2667 note).
SEC. 1151. Alternate Seaports.
Sense of Congress.— It is the sense of Congress that meeting the operation and maintenance needs at alternate seaports is important for the national security of the United States.
Report.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that includes an assessment of the operation and maintenance needs and backlog for Corps of Engineers projects at alternate seaports.
SEC. 1152. Columbia River Basin.
Section 8309 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3780) is amended—
by striking subsection (b)(3); and
by adding at the end the following:
“(c) Interim Pre-planned Flood Storage.—
“(1) In general.—The Secretary, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, is authorized to compensate, and make arrangements with, the Government of Canada for reserving and operating 3,600,000 acre-feet of pre-planned flood storage per operating year at Hugh Keenleyside Dam, including operations that the Government of Canada may not be obligated to provide under the Columbia River Treaty, to minimize the flood risk in the Columbia River Basin.
“(2) Authorization of appropriations.—To carry out this subsection, there is authorized to be appropriated $37,600,000 for fiscal year 2025 and $37,600,000, adjusted for inflation beginning on August 1, 2024, for each of fiscal years 2026 and 2027, to remain available until expended.
“(3) Sunset.—The authority to compensate, and make arrangements with, the Government of Canada under this subsection shall expire on August 31, 2027.
“(d) Definitions.—In this section:
“(1) Columbia river basin.—The term ‘Columbia River Basin’ means the entire United States portion of the Columbia River watershed.
“(2) Columbia river treaty.—The term ‘Columbia River Treaty’ means the treaty relating to cooperative development of the water resources of the Columbia River Basin, signed at Washington January 17, 1961, and entered into force September 16, 1964.
“(3) Flood storage.—The term ‘flood storage’ means the usable space in a reservoir that is set aside for impounding and releasing water for flood risk management or otherwise for regulating stream flows to minimize flood risk.
“(4) Government of canada.—The term ‘Government of Canada’ means the Government of Canada, a Canadian Province, or a subdivision or instrumentality thereof.
“(5) Operating year.—The term ‘operating year’ means a 12-month period beginning on August 1 and ending on July 31.
“(6) U.S. entity.—The term ‘U.S. entity’ means the entity designated by the United States under Article XIV of the Columbia River Treaty.”
SEC. 1153. Challenge Cost-Sharing Program for Management of Recreation Facilities.
Section 225 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2328) is amended—
in subsection (b)—
by striking “ To implement” and inserting the following:
“(1) In general.—To implement”
in paragraph (1) (as so designated), by striking “ non-Federal public and private entities” and inserting “ non-Federal public entities and private nonprofit entities”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(2) Requirements.—Before entering into an agreement under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ensure that the non-Federal public entity or private nonprofit entity has the authority and capability—
“(A) to carry out the terms of the agreement; and
“(B) to pay damages, if necessary, in the event of a failure to perform.”
by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
“(c) User Fees.—
“(1) Collection of fees.—
“(A) In general.—The Secretary may allow a non-Federal public entity or private nonprofit entity that has entered into an agreement pursuant to subsection (b) to collect user fees for the use of developed recreation sites and facilities, whether developed or constructed by the non-Federal public entity or private nonprofit entity or the Department of the Army.
“(B) Use of visitor reservation services.—
“(i) In general.—A non-Federal public entity or a private nonprofit entity described in subparagraph (A) may use, to manage fee collections and reservations under this section, any visitor reservation service that the Secretary has provided for by contract or interagency agreement, subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
“(ii) Transfer.—The Secretary may transfer, or cause to be transferred by another Federal agency, to a non-Federal public entity or a private nonprofit entity described in subparagraph (A) user fees received by the Secretary or other Federal agency under a visitor reservation service described in clause (i) for recreation facilities and natural resources managed by the non-Federal public entity or private nonprofit entity pursuant to a cooperative agreement entered into under subsection (b).
“(2) Use of fees.—
“(A) In general.—A non-Federal public entity or private nonprofit entity that collects a user fee under paragraph (1)—
“(i) may retain up to 100 percent of the fees collected, as determined by the Secretary; and
“(ii) notwithstanding section 210(b)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 460d–3(b)(4)), shall use any retained amounts for operation, maintenance, and management activities relating to recreation and natural resources at recreation site at which the fee is collected.
“(B) Requirements.—The use by a non-Federal public entity or private nonprofit entity of user fees collected under paragraph (1)—
“(i) shall remain subject to the direction and oversight of the Secretary; and
“(ii) shall not affect any existing third-party property interest, lease, or agreement with the Secretary.
“(3) Terms and conditions.—The authority of a non-Federal public entity or private nonprofit entity under this subsection shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be necessary to protect the interests of the United States.”
; and
in subsection (d)—
by striking “ For purposes” and inserting the following:
“(1) In general.—For purposes”
; and
by striking “ non-Federal public and private entities. Any funds received by the Secretary under this section” and inserting the following:
“(2) Deposit of funds.—Any funds received by the Secretary under this subsection”
; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(e) Definitions.—In this section:
“(1) Non-federal public entity.—The term ‘non-Federal public entity’ means a non-Federal public entity as defined in the memorandum issued by the Corp of Engineers on April 4, 2018, and titled ‘Implementation Guidance for Section 1155, Management of Recreation Facilities, of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2016, Public Law 114–322’.
“(2) Private nonprofit entity.—The term ‘private nonprofit entity’ means an organization that is described in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of that Code.”
SEC. 1154. Retention of Recreation Fees.
Section 210(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 460d–3(b)) is amended—
in paragraph (1), by striking “ Notwithstanding” and all that follows through “ to establish” and inserting “ Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the Secretary of the Army may establish”;
in paragraph (3), by striking “ vehicle. Such maximum amount” and inserting “ vehicle, which amount”; and
by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
“(4) Use of funds.—The fees collected under this subsection shall be credited to the currently applicable appropriation, account, or fund of the Department of the Army as discretionary offsetting collections, and shall be available only to the extent provided in advance in appropriations Acts, for the operation and maintenance of recreation sites and facilities under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, subject to the condition that not less than 80 percent of fees collected at recreation areas of a specific water resources development project shall be used at such project.”
SEC. 1155. Sense of Congress Related to Water Data.
It is the sense of Congress that, for the purpose of improving water resources management, the Secretary should—
develop and implement a framework for integrating, sharing, and using water data;
identify and prioritize key water data needed to support water resources management and planning, including—
water data sets, types, and associated metadata; and
water data infrastructure, technologies, and tools;
in consultation with other Federal agencies, States, Indian Tribes, local governments, and relevant stakeholders, develop and adopt common national standards for collecting, sharing, and integrating water data, infrastructure, technologies, and tools;
ensure that water data is publicly accessible and interoperable;
integrate water data and tools through nationwide approaches to data infrastructure, platforms, models, and tool development; and
support the adoption of new technologies and the development of tools for water data collection, sharing, and standardization.
SEC. 1156. Sense of Congress Relating to Comprehensive Benefits.
It is the sense of Congress that in carrying out any feasibility study, the Secretary should follow, to the maximum extent practicable—
the guidance described in the memoranda relating to “Comprehensive Documentation of Benefits in Feasibility Studies”, dated April 3, 2020, and April 13, 2020, and signed by the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works and the Director of Civil Works, respectively; and
the policies described in the memorandum relating to “Policy Directive – Comprehensive Documentation of Benefits in Decision Document” dated January 5, 2021, and signed by the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works.
Subtitle B Grace F. Napolitano Priority for Water Supply, Water Conservation, and Drought Resiliency Act of 2024
SEC. 1160. Short Title.
This subtitle may be cited as the “Grace F. Napolitano Priority for Water Supply, Water Conservation, and Drought Resiliency Act of 2024”.
SEC. 1161. Declaration of Policy.
In General.— It is the policy of the United States for the Corps of Engineers, consistent with applicable statutory authorities—
to maximize opportunities for water supply, water conservation measures, and drought resiliency efforts at and in the operation of water resources development projects;
in accordance with section 301(a) of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b), to participate and cooperate with States and local interests in developing water supplies for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other purposes in authorized connection with the construction, maintenance, and operation of water resources development projects; and
in coordination with non-Federal interests, to enable the adoption of water conservation measures and drought resiliency measures that are in alignment with the authorized purposes of water resources development projects.
Full Consideration.— In support of subsection (a), the Secretary shall give full consideration to requests and proposals from non-Federal interests to utilize the authorities of the Corps of Engineers in furtherance of water supply features, water conservation measures, and drought resiliency efforts that are in alignment the authorized purposes of water resources development projects.
Limitation.— Nothing in this section—
affects, modifies, or changes—
the authority of a State to manage, use, or allocate the water resources of that State;
any water right in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
any existing water supply agreements between the Secretary and the non-Federal interest;
the authorized purposes of a water resources development project; or
any existing Corps of Engineers authorities;
preempts or affects any State water law or interstate compact governing water;
diminishes the other priorities and the primary or secondary missions of the Corps of Engineers; or
shall be interpreted to supersede or modify any written agreement between the Federal Government and a non-Federal interest that is in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1162. Forecast-Informed Reservoir Operations.
In General.— In updating a water control manual for any reservoir constructed, owned, or operated by the Secretary, including a reservoir for which the Secretary is authorized to prescribe regulations for the use of storage allocated for flood control or navigation pursuant to section 7 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (33 U.S.C. 709), the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, incorporate the use of forecast-informed reservoir operations, subject to the availability of appropriations.
Guidelines.— The Secretary, in coordination with relevant Federal and State agencies and non-Federal interests, shall issue clear and concise guidelines for incorporating the use of forecast-informed reservoir operations into water control manuals for reservoirs described in subsection (a).
Assessment.—
Requirement.— The Secretary shall carry out an assessment of geographically diverse reservoirs described in subsection (a) to determine the viability of using forecast-informed reservoir operations at such reservoirs.
Priority areas.— In carrying out the assessment described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include an assessment of—
each reservoir located in the South Pacific Division of the Corps of Engineers; and
reservoirs located in each of the Northwestern Division and the South Atlantic Division of the Corps of Engineers.
Consultation.— In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall consult with relevant Federal and State agencies and non-Federal interests.
Savings Provision.— Nothing in this section preempts or affects any State water law or any interstate compact governing water, or otherwise restricts, affects, or amends any other law or the authority of any department, instrumentality, or agency of the United States related to the operation of reservoirs described in subsection (a).
SEC. 1163. Updates to Certain Water Control Manuals.
Section 8109 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3702) is amended by inserting “ or that incorporate the use of forecast-informed reservoir operations into such manuals” before the period at the end.
SEC. 1164. Emergency Drought Operations Pilot Program.
Definition of Covered Project.— In this section, the term “covered project” means a project—
that is located in the State of California, the State of Nevada, or the State of Arizona; and
of the Corps of Engineers for which water supply is an authorized purpose; or
for which the Secretary develops a water control manual under section 7 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (33 U.S.C. 709).
Emergency Operation During Drought.— Consistent with other authorized project purposes and in coordination with the non-Federal interest, in operating a covered project during a drought emergency in the project area, the Secretary may carry out a pilot program to operate the covered project with water supply as the primary project purpose.
Updates.— In carrying out this section, the Secretary may update the water control manual for a covered project to include drought operations and contingency plans.
Requirements.— In carrying out subsection (b), the Secretary shall ensure that—
operations described in that subsection—
are consistent with water management deviations and drought contingency plans in the water control manual for the covered project;
impact only the flood pool managed by the Secretary; and
shall not be carried out in the event of a forecast or anticipated flood or weather event that would require flood risk management to take precedence;
to the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary uses forecast-informed reservoir operations; and
the covered project returns to the operations that were in place prior to the use of the authority provided under that subsection at a time determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the non-Federal interest.
Contributed Funds.— The Secretary may receive and expend funds contributed by a non-Federal interest to carry out activities under this section.
Report.—
In general.— Not later than 2 years 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 a report on the pilot program carried out under this section.
Inclusions.— The Secretary shall include in the report under paragraph (1) a description of the activities of the Secretary that were carried out for each covered project and any lessons learned from carrying out those activities.
Limitations.— Nothing in this section—
affects, modifies, or changes the authorized purposes of a covered project;
affects existing Corps of Engineers authorities, including authorities with respect to navigation, hydropower, flood damage reduction, and environmental protection and restoration;
affects the ability of the Corps of Engineers to provide for temporary deviations;
affects the application of a cost-share requirement under section 101, 102, or 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211, 2212, 2213);
supersedes or modifies any written agreement between the Federal Government and a non-Federal interest that is in effect on the date of enactment of this Act;
supersedes or modifies any amendment to an existing multistate water control plan for the Colorado River Basin, if applicable;
affects any water right in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
preempts or affects any State water law or interstate compact governing water;
affects existing water supply agreements between the Secretary and the non-Federal interest; or
affects any obligation to comply with the provisions of any Federal or State environmental law, including—
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); and
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
SEC. 1165. Leveraging Federal Infrastructure for Increased Water Supply.
Section 1118(i) of Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (43 U.S.C. 390b–2(i)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
“(2) Contributed funds for other federal reservoir projects.—
“(A) In general.—The Secretary is authorized to receive and expend funds from a non-Federal interest or a Federal agency that owns a Federal reservoir project described in subparagraph (B) to formulate, review, or revise operational documents pursuant to a proposal submitted in accordance with subsection (a) for such a Federal reservoir project.
“(B) Federal reservoir projects described.—A Federal reservoir project referred to in subparagraph (A) is a reservoir for which the Secretary is authorized to prescribe regulations for the use of storage allocated for flood control or navigation pursuant to section 7 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (33 U.S.C. 709).”
TITLE II Studies and Reports
SEC. 1201. 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, in the vicinity of the City of Cottonwood, Arizona.
Clear lake, california.— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Clear Lake, Lake County, California.
Cosumnes river watershed, california.— Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, water supply, and related purposes, Cosumnes River watershed, California.
Eastman lake, california.— Project for ecosystem restoration and water supply conservation and recharge, Eastman Lake, California.
Hesperia, california.— Project for flood risk management, city of Hesperia, California.
Pillar point harbor, california.— Project for flood risk management and storm damage risk reduction, Pillar Point Harbor, California.
Pine flat dam, california.— Project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, and recreation, Pine Flat Dam, Fresno County, California.
Rialto channel, california.— Project for flood risk management, Rialto Channel, city of Rialto and vicinity, California.
Salinas river, california.— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Salinas River, California.
San bernardino, california.— Project for flood risk management, city of San Bernardino, California.
San diego and orange counties, california.— Project for flood and coastal storm risk management and ecosystem restoration, San Diego and Orange Counties, California.
San diego bay, california.— Project for flood risk management, including sea level rise, San Diego Bay, California.
San felipe lake and pajaro river, san benito county, california.— Project for flood risk management, San Felipe Lake and Pajaro River, San Benito County, California.
San mateo, california.— Project for flood risk management, including stormwater runoff reduction, City of San Mateo, California.
Santa ana river, anaheim, california.— Project for flood risk management, water supply, and recreation, Santa Ana River, Anaheim, California.
Santa ana river, jurupa valley, california.— Project for ecosystem restoration and recreation, Santa Ana River, Jurupa Valley, California.
Sweetwater reservoir, california.— Project for ecosystem restoration and water supply, Sweetwater Reservoir, California.
Colorado springs, colorado.— Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Fountain Creek, Monument Creek, and Templeton Gap Levee, Colorado Springs and Pueblo, Colorado.
Connecticut shoreline, connecticut.— Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Connecticut shoreline, Connecticut.
Enfield, connecticut.— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including restoring freshwater brook floodplain, Enfield, Connecticut.
Hartford, connecticut.— Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Hartford, Connecticut.
Park river conduit, city of hartford, connecticut.— Project for flood risk management, including stormwater management, City of Hartford, Connecticut and vicinity.
Newington, connecticut.— Project for flood risk management, Newington, Connecticut.
City of norwalk, connecticut.— Project for flood risk management, City of Norwalk, Connecticut, in the vicinity of the Norwalk wastewater treatment plant.
Plymouth, connecticut.— Project for ecosystem restoration, Plymouth, Connecticut.
Fairfield, connecticut.— Project for flood risk management, Rooster River, Fairfield, Connecticut.
Westport beaches, connecticut.— Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and ecosystem restoration, Westport, Connecticut.
Windham, connecticut.— Project for ecosystem restoration and recreation, Windham, Connecticut.
Delaware inland bays watershed, delaware.— Project for flood risk management, hurricane and storm risk reduction, and ecosystem restoration, including shoreline stabilization, Delaware Inland Bays watershed, Delaware.
Town of milton, delaware.— Project for flood risk management, Town of Milton, Delaware.
Wilmington, delaware.— Project for coastal storm risk management, flood risk management, and hurricane and storm risk reduction, City of Wilmington, Delaware.
Anacostia river bank and seawalls, district of columbia and maryland.— Project for navigation, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, including dredging and sediment management, Anacostia River bank and seawalls, Washington, District of Columbia, and Prince George’s County, Maryland.
Fletchers cove, district of columbia.— Project for recreation, including dredging, Fletchers Cove, District of Columbia.
East lake tohopekaliga, florida.— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including sediment and debris management, East Lake Tohopekaliga, Florida.
Florida spaceport system marine intermodal transportation wharf, florida.— Project for navigation in the vicinity of Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Lake conway, florida.— Project for flood risk management, navigation, and ecosystem restoration, including sediment and debris management, Lake Conway, Florida.
Macdill air force base, tampa, florida.— Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and ecosystem restoration in the vicinity of MacDill Air Force Base, City of Tampa, Florida.
Palatka barge port, putnam county, florida.— Project for navigation, Palatka Barge Port, Putnam County, Florida.
Camp creek tributary, georgia.— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including stream restoration, along the Camp Creek Tributary in Fulton County, Georgia.
College park, georgia.— Project for flood risk management, City of College Park, Georgia.
Proctor creek, smyrna, georgia.— Project for flood risk management, Proctor Creek, Smyrna, Georgia, including Jonquil Driver Stormwater Park.
Tybee island, georgia.— Project for ecosystem restoration and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Tybee Island, Georgia, including by incorporating other Federal studies conducted on the effect of the construction of Savannah Harbor Channel on the shoreline of Tybee Island.
Guam.— Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, Guam.
Hawai‘i kai, hawaii.— Project for flood risk management, Hawai‘i Kai, Hawaii.
Kaiaka-waialua watershed, hawaii.— Project for flood risk management, Kaiaka-Waialua watershed, O‘ahu, Hawaii.
Kaua‘i, hawaii.— Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, County of Kaua‘i, Hawaii.
Maui, hawaii.— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, County of Maui, Hawaii.
Berwyn, illinois.— Project for comprehensive flood risk management, City of Berwyn, Illinois.
Butterfield creek, illinois.— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Butterfield Creek, Illinois, including the villages of Flossmoor, Matteson, Park Forest, and Richton Park.
Franklin park, illinois.— Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and water supply, Village of Franklin Park, Illinois.
Rocky ripple, indiana.— Project for flood risk management, Town of Rocky Ripple, Indiana.
Bayou rigaud to caminada pass, louisiana.— Project for navigation, Bayou Rigaud to Caminada Pass, Louisiana.
Lake pontchartrain storm surge reduction project, louisiana.— Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Lake Pontchartrain, Orleans, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Livingston, St. James, St. John, St. Charles, Jefferson, and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana.
Livingston parish flood protection, louisiana.— Project for flood risk management, Livingston Parish, Louisiana.
Natchitoches, louisiana.— Project for flood risk management, City of Natchitoches, Louisiana.
New orleans metro area, louisiana.— Project for ecosystem restoration and water supply, including mitigation of saltwater wedges, for the City of New Orleans and metropolitan area, Louisiana.
Coffeyville, kansas.— Project for flood risk management, Coffeyville, Kansas.
Bullskin creek in shelby county, kentucky.— Project for ecosystem restoration, including bank stabilization, Bullskin Creek in Shelby County, Kentucky.
Cumberland river, crittenden county, livingston county, and lyon county, kentucky.— Project for ecosystem restoration, including bank stabilization, Cumberland River, Crittenden County, Livingston County, and Lyon County, Kentucky.
Fulton county, kentucky.— Project for flood risk management, including bank stabilization, Fulton County, Kentucky.
Scott county, kentucky.— Project for ecosystem restoration, including water supply, Scott County, Kentucky.
Hagaman chute, lake providence, louisiana.— Project for navigation, including widening and sediment management, Hagaman Chute, Lake Providence, Louisiana.
Baltimore inland flooding, maryland.— Project for inland flood risk management, City of Baltimore and Baltimore County, Maryland.
Maryland beaches, maryland.— Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and flood risk management in the vicinity of United States Route 1, Maryland.
Ocean city, maryland.— Project for flood risk management, Ocean City, Maryland.
Beaverdam creek, prince george’s county, maryland.— Project for flood risk management, Beaverdam Creek, Prince George’s County, Maryland, in the vicinity of United States Route 50 and railroads.
Cape cod canal, massachusetts.— Project for recreation, Cape Cod Canal, in the vicinity of Tidal Flats Recreation Area, Massachusetts.
Connecticut river, massachusetts.— Project for flood risk management along the Connecticut River, Massachusetts.
Leominster, massachusetts.— Project for flood risk management, City of Leominster, Massachusetts.
Lower cobb brook, massachusetts.— Project for flood risk management, Lower Cobb Brook, City of Taunton, Massachusetts.
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.
Oak bluffs harbor, massachusetts.— Project for coastal storm risk management and navigation, Oak Bluffs Harbor north and south jetties, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.
Squantum causeway, massachusetts.— Project for flood and coastal storm risk management, Squantum, in the vicinity of East Squantum Street and Dorchester Street Causeway, Quincy, Massachusetts.
Sunset bay, charles river, massachusetts.— Project for navigation, flood risk management, recreation, and ecosystem restoration, including dredging, in the vicinity of Sunset Bay, Charles River, cities of Boston, Watertown, and Newton, Massachusetts.
Tisbury, massachusetts.— Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline stabilization along Beach Road Causeway, Tisbury, Massachusetts.
Town neck beach, sandwich, massachusetts.— Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, Town Neck Beach, town of Sandwich, Massachusetts.
Westport harbor, massachusetts.— Project for flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and navigation, including improvements to the breakwater at Westport Harbor, Town of Westport, Massachusetts.
Ann arbor, michigan.— Project for water supply, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Brighton mill pond, michigan.— Project for ecosystem restoration, Brighton Mill Pond, Michigan.
Cheboygan, michigan.— Project for flood risk management, Little Black River, City of Cheboygan, 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.
Kalamazoo river watershed, michigan.— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Kalamazoo River Watershed and tributaries, Michigan.
Ludington, michigan.— Project for coastal storm risk management, including feasibility of emergency shoreline protection, Ludington, Michigan.
Marysville, michigan.— Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline stabilization, City of Marysville, Michigan.
Mccomb, mississippi.— Project for flood risk management, city of McComb, Mississippi.
Miles city, montana.— Project for flood risk management, Miles City, Montana.
Pahrump, nevada.— Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and flood risk management, Pahrump, Nevada.
Berkeley heights, new providence, and summit, new jersey.— Project for flood risk management, Township of Berkeley Heights, Borough of New Providence, and City of Summit, New Jersey.
Berry’s creek, new jersey.— Project for flood risk management, Berry’s Creek, New Jersey.
Fleischer brook, new jersey.— Project for flood risk management, Fleischer Brook, New Jersey.
Great falls raceway, paterson, new jersey.— Project for flood risk management and hydropower, Paterson, New Jersey.
Guttenberg, new jersey.— Project for flood risk management, Guttenberg, New Jersey, in the vicinity of John F. Kennedy Boulevard East.
Passaic river basin, new jersey.— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, and Passaic Counties, New Jersey.
Passaic river, paterson, new jersey.— Project for navigation and flood risk management, Passaic River, Paterson, New Jersey.
Paulsboro, new jersey.— Project for navigation, Borough of Paulsboro, New Jersey.
Village of ridgewood, new jersey.— Project for flood risk management along the Ho-Ho-Kus Brook and Saddle River, Village of Ridgewood, New Jersey.
Wolf creek, new jersey.— Project for flood risk management, Wolf Creek, Ridgefield, New Jersey.
Doña ana county, new mexico.— Project for water supply, Doña Ana County, New Mexico.
Nambe river watershed, new mexico.— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including sediment and debris management, Nambe River Watershed, New Mexico.
Otero county, new mexico.— Project for flood risk management, Otero County, New Mexico.
Allegheny river, new york.— Project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Allegheny River, New York.
Babylon, new york.— Project for flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, navigation, and ecosystem restoration, Town of Babylon, New York.
Bronx river, new york.— Project for flood risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Bronxville, Tuckahoe, and Yonkers, New York.
Brookhaven, new york.— Project for flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and ecosystem restoration, Town of Brookhaven, New York.
Highlands, new york.— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Highland Brook (also known as “Buttermilk Falls Brook”) and tributaries, Town of Highlands, Orange County, New York.
Inwood hill park, new york.— Project for ecosystem restoration, Inwood Hill Park, Spuyten Duyvil Creek, Manhattan, New York.
Islip, new york.— Project for flood risk management, Town of Islip, New York.
Oyster bay, new york.— Project for coastal storm risk management and flood risk management in the vicinity of Tobay Beach, Town of Oyster Bay, New York.
Pascack brook, rockland county, new york.— Project for flood risk management, Pascack Brook, Rockland County, New York, including the Village of Spring Valley.
Somers, new york.— Project for ecosystem restoration and water supply, Town of Somers, New York.
Sparkill creek, orangetown, new york.— Project for flood risk management and streambank erosion, Sparkill Creek, Orangetown, New York.
Turtle cove, new york.— Project for ecosystem restoration, Pelham Bay Park, Eastchester Bay, in the vicinity of Turtle Cove, Bronx, New York.
Cape fear river and tributaries, north carolina.— Project for flood risk management, in the vicinity of Northeast Cape Fear River and Black River, North Carolina.
Leland, north carolina.— Project for flood risk management, navigation, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, including bank stabilization, for Jackeys Creek in the Town of Leland, North Carolina.
Marion, north carolina.— Project for flood risk management, including riverbank stabilization, along the Catawba River, City of Marion, North Carolina.
Pender county, north carolina.— Project for flood risk management in the vicinity of North Carolina Highway 53, Pender County, North Carolina.
Pigeon river, north carolina.— Project for flood risk management, Pigeon River, in the vicinity of the towns of Clyde and Canton, Haywood County, North Carolina.
Coe creek, ohio.— Project for flood risk management, Coe Creek, City of Fairview Park, Ohio.
Cold creek, ohio.— Project for ecosystem restoration, Cold Creek, Erie County, 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.
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.
Great miami river, ohio.— Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, including incorporation of existing levee systems, for the Great Miami River, Ohio.
Jerusalem township, ohio.— Project for flood and coastal storm risk management and shoreline erosion protection, Jerusalem Township, Ohio.
Little killbuck creek, ohio.— Project for ecosystem restoration, including aquatic invasive species management, Little Killbuck Creek, Ohio.
Niles, ohio.— Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, City of Niles, Ohio.
Nine mile creek, cleveland, ohio.— Project for flood risk management, Nine Mile Creek, Cleveland, Ohio.
Lake texoma, oklahoma and texas.— Project for water supply, including increased needs in southern Oklahoma, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma and Texas.
Sardis lake, oklahoma.— Project for water supply, Sardis Lake, Oklahoma.
Siuslaw river, florence, oregon.— Project for flood risk management and streambank erosion, Siuslaw River, Florence, Oregon.
Willamette river, lane county, oregon.— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Willamette River, Lane County, Oregon.
Allegheny river, pennsylvania.— Project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Allegheny River, Pennsylvania.
Borough of norristown, pennsylvania.— Project for flood risk management, including dredging along the Schuylkill River, in the Borough of Norristown and vicinity, Pennsylvania.
Borough of pottstown, pennsylvania.— Project for alternate water supply, Borough of Pottstown, Pennsylvania.
Philadelphia, pennsylvania.— Project for ecosystem restoration and recreation, including shoreline stabilization, South Wetlands Park, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
West norriton township, pennsylvania.— Project for flood risk management and streambank erosion, Stony Creek, in the vicinity of Whitehall Road, West Norriton Township, Pennsylvania.
Guayama, puerto rico.— Project for flood risk management, Río Guamaní, Guayama, Puerto Rico.
Naranjito, puerto rico.— Project for flood risk management, Río Guadiana, Naranjito, Puerto Rico.
Orocovis, puerto rico.— Project for flood risk management, Río Orocovis, Orocovis, Puerto Rico.
Ponce, puerto rico.— Project for flood risk management, Río Inabón, Ponce, Puerto Rico.
Santa isabel, puerto rico.— Project for flood risk management, Río Descalabrado, Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico.
Yauco, puerto rico.— Project for flood risk management, Río Yauco, Yauco, Puerto Rico.
Union county, south carolina.— Project for flood risk management, water supply, and recreation, Union County, South Carolina.
Davidson county, tennessee.— Project for flood risk management, City of Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee.
Greene county, tennessee.— Project for water supply, including evaluation of Nolichucky River capabilities, Greene County, Tennessee.
Galveston bay, texas.— Project for navigation, Galveston Bay, Texas.
Guadalupe county, texas.— Project for flood risk management, Guadalupe County, including City of Santa Clara, Texas.
Harris county, texas.— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Halls Bayou, Harris County, Texas.
Winooski river basin, vermont.— Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Winooski River basin, Vermont.
Cedarbush creek, gloucester county, virginia.— Project for navigation, Cedarbush Creek, Gloucester County, Virginia.
Chickahominy river, james city county, virginia.— Project for flood and coastal storm risk management, Chickahominy River, James City County, Virginia.
James city county, virginia.— Project for flood risk management and navigation, James City County, Virginia.
Timberneck creek, gloucester county, virginia.— Project for navigation, Timberneck Creek, Gloucester County, Virginia.
York river, york county, virginia.— Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, York River, York County, Virginia.
Grays bay, washington.— Project for navigation, flood risk management, and ecosystem restoration, Grays Bay, Wahkiakum County, Washington.
Wahkiakum county, washington.— Project for flood risk management and sediment management, Grays River, in the vicinity of Rosburg, Wahkiakum County, Washington.
Wind, klickitat, hood, deschutes, rock creek, and john day tributaries, columbia river, washington.— Project for ecosystem restoration, Wind, Klickitat, Hood, Deschutes, Rock Creek, and John Day tributaries, Columbia River, Washington.
Arcadia, wisconsin.— Project for flood risk management, city of Arcadia, Wisconsin.
City of la crosse, wisconsin.— Project for flood risk management, City of La Crosse, Wisconsin.
River falls, wisconsin.— Project for ecosystem restoration, city of River Falls, Wisconsin.
Project Modifications.— The Secretary is authorized to conduct a feasibility study for the following project modifications:
Black warrior and tombigbee rivers, alabama.— Modifications to the project for navigation, Coffeeville Lock and Dam, authorized pursuant to section 4 of the Act of July 5, 1884 (chapter 229, 23 Stat. 148; 35 Stat. 818), and portion of the project for navigation, Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama and Mississippi, consisting of the Demopolis Lock and Dam on the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (chapter 19, 59 Stat. 17), for construction of new locks to maintain navigability.
Luxapalila creek, alabama.— Modifications to the project for flood risk management, Luxapalila Creek, Alabama, authorized pursuant to 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.
Farmington dam, california.— Modifications to the project for flood control and other purposes, the Calaveras River and Littlejohn Creek and tributaries, California, authorized by section 10 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 902), for improved flood risk management and to support water supply recharge and storage.
Humboldt harbor and bay, california.— Modifications to the project for navigation, Humboldt Harbor and Bay, California, authorized by the first section of the Act of July 3, 1930 (chapter 847, 46 Stat. 932; 82 Stat. 732; 110 Stat. 3663), for additional deepening and widening.
Madera county, california.— Modifications to the project for flood risk management, water supply, and ecosystem restoration, Chowchilla River, Ash Slough, and Berenda Slough, Madera County, California, authorized pursuant to section 6 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1595; 52 Stat. 1225).
Sacramento river integrated floodplain management, california.— Modifications to the project for flood control, Sacramento River, California, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 1, 1917 (chapter 144, 39 Stat. 949; 76 Stat. 1197), to enhance flood risk reduction, to incorporate natural and nature-based features, and to incorporate modifications to the portion of such project north of the Freemont Weir for the purposes of integrating management of such system with the adjacent floodplain.
San joaquin river basin, california.— Modifications to the project for flood control, Sacramento-San Joaquin Basin Streams, California, authorized pursuant to the resolution of the Committee on Public Works of the House of Representatives adopted on May 8, 1964 (docket number 1371), for improved flood risk management, including dredging.
Thames river, connecticut.— Modifications to the project for navigation, Thames River, Connecticut, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (chapter 19, 59 Stat. 13), to increase authorized depth.
Waimea river, kaua‘i, hawaii.— Modifications to the project for coastal storm risk management and ecosystem restoration, Waimea River, Kaua‘i, Hawaii, authorized pursuant to section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), to improve protection provided by levees and flood control features.
Chicago sanitary and ship canal dispersal barrier, illinois.— Modifications to the project for Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and Dispersal Barrier, Illinois, initiated under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a; 118 Stat. 1352), for the construction of an emergency access boat ramp in the vicinity of Romeoville, Illinois.
East saint louis and vicinity, illinois.— Modifications to the project for environmental restoration and recreation, authorized by section 1001(18) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1052), to reevaluate levels of flood risk management and integrate the Spring Lake Project, as recommended in the report of the Chief of Engineers issued on December 22, 2004.
Delaware river mainstem and channel deepening, delaware, new jersey, and pennsylvania.— Modifications to the project for navigation, Delaware River Mainstem and Channel Deepening, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802; 113 Stat. 300; 114 Stat. 2602), to increase the authorized depth.
Hanape̅pe̅ river, hawaii.— Modifications to the project for local flood protection, Hanape̅pe̅ River, island of Kaua‘i, Hawaii, authorized by section 10 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 903), for ecosystem restoration and to improve protection provided by levees and flood control features.
Laupa̅hoehoe harbor, hawaii.— Modifications to the project for navigation, Laupa̅hoehoe Harbor, Hawaii, authorized pursuant to section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 486), for seawall repair and mitigation.
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; 121 Stat. 1126), including channel deepening and jetty improvements.
Mississippi river and tributaries, ouachita river, louisiana.— Modifications to the project for flood control of the Mississippi River in it alluvial valley and for its improvement from the Head of Passes to Cape Girardeau, Missouri, authorized by the first section of the Act of May 15, 1928 (chapter 569, 45 Stat. 534), to include bank stabilization on the portion of the project consisting of the Ouachita River from Monroe to Caldwell Parishes, Louisiana.
Mississippi river and tributaries, ouachita river, louisiana.— Modifications to the project for flood control of the Mississippi River in it alluvial valley and for its improvement from the Head of Passes to Cape Girardeau, Missouri, authorized by the first section of the Act of May 15, 1928 (chapter 569, 45 Stat. 534), to study the feasibility of adding 62 miles of the east bank of the Ouachita River Levee System at and below Monroe Parish to Caldwell Parish, Louisiana.
New bedford, fairhaven, and acushnet, massachusetts.— Modifications to the project for hurricane-flood protection at New Bedford, Fairhaven, and Acushnet, Massachusetts, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 305), for navigation improvements and evaluation of the current barrier function.
Hodges village dam, oxford, massachusetts.— Modifications to the project for flood risk management, Hodges Village Dam, Oxford, Massachusetts, authorized pursuant to section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), to add recreation and ecosystem restoration as a project purpose, including in the vicinity of Greenbriar Park.
Holland harbor, michigan.— Modifications to the portion of the project for navigation Holland (Black Lake), Michigan, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 14, 1880 (chapter 211, 21 Stat. 183; 30 Stat. 1130; 46 Stat. 929; 49 Stat. 1036; 68 Stat. 1252), consisting of the Federal Channel of Holland Harbor, for additional deepening.
Monroe harbor, michigan.— Modifications to the project for navigation, Monroe Harbor, Michigan, authorized by the first section of the Act of July 3, 1930 (chapter 847, 46 Stat. 930), for additional deepening.
Port huron, michigan.— Modifications to the project for navigation, Channels in Lake Saint Clair Michigan, authorized by the first section of the Act of August 30, 1935 (chapter 831, 49 Stat. 1036), for additional deepening at the mouth of the Black River, Port Huron, Michigan.
Saint joseph harbor, michigan.— Modifications to the portion of the project for navigation, Saint Joseph, Michigan, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 14, 1880 (chapter 211, 21 Stat. 183; 30 Stat. 1130; 49 Stat. 1036; 72 Stat. 299), consisting of the Federal Channel of Saint Joseph Harbor, for additional deepening.
Saint marys river, michigan.— Modifications to the project for navigation Middle and West Neebish channels, Saint Marys River, Michigan, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 13, 1902 (chapter 1079, 32 Stat. 361; 70 Stat. 54), to bring the channels to a consistent depth.
Bayonne, new jersey.— Modifications to the project for navigation, Jersey Flats and Bayonne, New Jersey, authorized by the first section of the Act of September 22, 1922 (chapter 427, 42 Stat. 1038), for improvements to the navigation channel, including channel extension, widening, and deepening, in the vicinity of Bayonne, New Jersey.
Surry mountain lake dam, new hampshire.— Modifications to the project for flood protection and recreation, Surry Mountain Lake dam, authorized pursuant to section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1572; 52 Stat. 1216; 58 Stat. 892), to add ecosystem restoration as a project purpose, and to install the proper gates and related equipment at Surry Mountain Lake to support stream flow augmentation releases.
Long beach, new york.— Modifications to the project for storm damage reduction, Atlantic Coast of Long Island from Jones Inlet to East Rockaway Inlet, Long Beach Island, New York, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), to include additional replacement of beach groins to offer storm protection, erosion prevention, and reduce the need for future renourishment.
Bald head island, north carolina.— Modifications to the project for hurricane-flood control protection, Cape Fear to the North Carolina-South Carolina State line, North Carolina, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1419), to add coastal storm risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, including shoreline stabilization, as an authorized purpose of the project for the village of Bald Head Island, North Carolina.
Mosquito creek lake, trumbull county, ohio.— Modifications to the project for flood risk management and water supply, Mosquito Creek Lake, Trumbull County, Ohio.
Reno beach-howard farms, ohio.— Modifications to the project for flood control, Reno Beach-Howard Farms, Ohio, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1178), to improve project levees and to provide flood damage risk reduction to the portions of Jerusalem Township, Ohio, not currently benefited by the project.
Delaware river, mantua creek (fort mifflin) and marcus hook, pennsylvania.— Modifications to the project for navigation, Delaware River, Philadelphia to the sea, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 25, 1910 (chapter 382, 36 Stat. 637; 46 Stat. 921; 49 Stat. 1030; 52 Stat. 803; 59 Stat. 14; 68 Stat. 1249; 72 Stat. 297), to deepen the anchorage areas at Mantua Creek (Fort Mifflin) and Marcus Hook.
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.
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.
Addicks and barker reservoirs, texas.— Modifications to the project for flood risk management, Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, Texas, authorized pursuant to the project for Buffalo Bayou and its tributaries, Texas, under section 3a of the Act of August 11, 1939 (chapter 699, 53 Stat. 1414; 68 Stat. 1258).
Galveston bay area, texas.— Modifications to the following projects for deepening and associated dredged material placement, disposal, and environmental mitigation navigation:
The project for navigation, Galveston Bay Area, Texas City Channel, Texas, authorized by section 201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4090).
The project for navigation and environmental restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666).
The project for navigation, Galveston Harbor Channel Extension Project, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3836).
The project for navigation, Houston Ship Channel Expansion Channel Improvement Project, Harris, Chambers, and Galveston Counties, Texas, authorized by section 401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2734).
Galveston harbor channel extension project, houston-galveston navigation channels, texas.— Modifications to the project for navigation, Galveston Harbor Channel Extension Project, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3836), to include further deepening and extension of the Federal channel and Turning Basin 2.
Gathright reservoir and falling spring dam, virginia.— Modifications to the project for navigation and flood control, Gathright Reservoir and Falling Spring dam, Virginia, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 645), to include recreation as an authorized project purpose.
Mount st. helens sediment control, washington.— Modifications to the project for sediment control and navigation, Mount St. Helens, Washington, authorized by chapter IV of title I of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 Stat. 318; 114 Stat. 2612), to include dredging to address flood risk management and navigation for federally authorized channels on the Cowlitz River and at the confluence of the Cowlitz and Columbia Rivers.
Monongahela river, west virginia.— Modifications to the project for recreation, Monongahela River, West Virginia.
Special Rule.— Each study authorized by subsection (b) shall be considered a new phase investigation and afforded the same treatment as a general reevaluation.
Special Rule, St. Marys River, Michigan.— The cost of the study under subsection (b)(25) shall be at Federal expense.
Authorization of Feasibility Studies for Projects From CAP Authorities.—
Cedar point seawall, scituate, massachusetts.—
In general.— The Secretary may conduct a feasibility study for the project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Cedar Point Seawall, Scituate, Massachusetts.
Requirement.— In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use any relevant information from the project described in that paragraph that was carried out under section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g).
Jones levee, pierce county, washington.—
In general.— The Secretary may conduct a feasibility study for the project for flood risk management, Jones Levee, Pierce County, Washington.
Requirement.— In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use any relevant information from the project described in that paragraph that was carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
Hatch, new mexico.—
In general.— The Secretary may conduct a feasibility study for the project for flood risk management, Hatch, New Mexico.
Requirement.— In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use any relevant information from the project described in that paragraph that was carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
Fort george inlet, jacksonville, florida.—
In general.— The Secretary may conduct a feasibility study to modify the project for navigation, Fort George Inlet, Jacksonville, Florida, to include navigation improvements or shoreline erosion prevention or mitigation as a result of the project.
Requirement.— In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use any relevant information from the project described in that paragraph that was carried out under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i).
SEC. 1202. Expedited Modification of Existing Feasibility Studies.
The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the following feasibility studies, as modified by this section, and if the Secretary determines that a project that is the subject of the feasibility study is justified in the completed report, may proceed directly to preconstruction planning, engineering, and design of the project:
Mare island strait, california.— The study for navigation, Mare Island Straight channel, authorized by section 406 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 323; 136 Stat. 3753), is modified to authorize the Secretary to consider the benefits of deepening the channel to support activities of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating.
Savannah harbor, georgia.— Section 8201(b)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3750) is amended by striking “ , without evaluation of additional deepening” and inserting “ , including evaluation of additional deepening”.
Honolulu harbor, hawaii.— The study to modify the project for navigation, Honolulu, Hawaii, authorized by the first section of the Act of March 3, 1905 (chapter 1482, 33 Stat. 1146; 136 Stat. 3750), is modified to authorize the Secretary to consider the benefits of the project modification on disaster resilience and enhanced national security from utilization of the harbor by the Department of Defense.
Alexandria to the gulf of mexico, louisiana.— The study for flood control, navigation, wetland conservation and restoration, wildlife habitat, commercial and recreational fishing, saltwater intrusion, freshwater and sediment diversion, and other purposes, in the area drained by the intercepted drainage system of the West Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levee, from Alexandria, Louisiana to the Gulf of Mexico, being carried out under Committee Resolution 2535 of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, adopted July 23, 1997, is modified to include the parishes of Pointe Coupee, Allen, Calcasieu, Jefferson Davis, Acadia, Iberville, and Cameron within the scope of the study.
Saw mill river, new york.— The study for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration to address areas in the City of Yonkers and the Village of Hastings-on-the-Hudson within the 100-year flood zone, Saw Mill River, New York, authorized by section 8201(a)(70) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3748), is modified to authorize the Secretary to include within the scope of the study areas surrounding the City of Yonkers and the Village of Hastings-on-the-Hudson and the Village of Elmsford and the Village of Ardsley.
SEC. 1203. 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 flood 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 and Trilby Wash, Maricopa County, Arizona.
Project for ecosystem restoration, Rio Salado Oeste, Phoenix, Arizona.
Modifications to the portion of the project for flood control, water conservation, and related purposes, Russian River Basin, California, consisting of the Coyote Valley Dam, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 177; 130 Stat. 1682), to add environmental restoration as a project purpose and to increase water supply and improve reservoir operations.
Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Lower San Joaquin River, Lathrop and Manteca, California, as described in section 1322(b)(2)(F) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1707).
Project for flood risk management, Lower San Joaquin River, San Joaquin Valley, California.
Beneficial use opportunities at the Petaluma River Marsh Restoration project, California.
Modifications to Pine Flat Dam, California, authorized pursuant to a 1964 Congressional Resolution of the House Committee on Public Works, and constructed pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944.
Project for flood risk management, Stratford, Connecticut.
Modifications to the Broward County Water Preserve Areas Project, Broward County, Florida, to address costs that exceed the maximum project cost pursuant to section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4183).
Modifications to Central and Southern Florida, Canal 111 (C-111) South Dade Project, Florida, authorized by section 401(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2741).
Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and coastal storm risk management, Volusia County, Florida, authorized by the resolution of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, dated February 16, 2000.
Project for flood risk management, Waimea River, County of Kaua‘i, 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 ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and recreation, Newport, Kentucky, authorized by section 8201(a)(32) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3746).
Project for navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana, authorized by the resolution of the United States Senate Committee on Public Works on September 29, 1972, and the resolution of the House of Representatives Committee on Public Works on October 12, 1972.
Project for flood risk management, Mississippi River and Tributaries, Morgan City, Lower Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and ecosystem restoration, Southwest Coastal Louisiana, authorized by section 1401(8) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1715).
Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Charles River, Massachusetts, authorized by section 8201(a)(35) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3746).
General reevaluation report for the project for flood risk management, Lower Saddle River Flood Protection, New Jersey, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4119).
Project for flood risk management, Rahway River, Rahway, New Jersey.
Project for flood risk management along the Peckman River Basin in the townships of Verona (and surrounding area), Cedar Grove, and West Caldwell, New Jersey, authorized by section 8201(a)(58) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3747).
Project for flood risk management, Morris County, New Jersey, authorized by section 8201(a)(59) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3747).
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 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1573).
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, District of Columbia, 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 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 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 storm damage reduction, Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana.
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).
Project for ecosystem restoration and recreation, Los Angeles River, California, authorized by section 1407(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1714).
Projects and Activities.— The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expedite completion of the following:
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; 114 Stat. 2612; 121 Stat. 1154).
Project for dam safety modifications, Bluestone Dam, West Virginia, authorized pursuant to section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1586).
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.
Major maintenance on Laupa̅hoehoe Harbor, County of Hawai‘i, Hawaii.
Project for flood risk management, Green Brook, New Jersey.
Water control manual update for water supply and flood control, Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Globe, Arizona.
Repairs to recontour and stabilize the slope at Lake Dardanelle Lock and Dam, Arkansas.
Project for environmental restoration, Hamilton Airfield, California, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279; 121 Stat. 1110).
Water control manual update for Oroville Dam, Butte County, California.
Water control manual update for New Bullards Dam, Yuba County, California.
Project for flood and storm risk management and ecosystem restoration at the San Francisco International Airport, California, authorized by section 142 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2930).
San Francisco Bay Beneficial Use Pilot Project, California, being carried out under section 1122 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1645).
Project for flood risk management in Westminster, East Garden Grove, California, authorized by section 401(2) of Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2735).
Comprehensive plan for the Chattahoochee River Basin Program, authorized by section 8144 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3724).
Repairs to the project for flood risk management, federally authorized levee, Grand Tower and Degognia and Fountain Bluff Levee System, Illinois, in the vicinity of the community of Cora.
Repairs to the project for flood risk management, Covington levee system, Covington, Kentucky.
Project for navigation, Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, Kentucky, authorized by section 101(a)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664).
Project for flood risk management, Morgan City, Louisiana.
Project for hurricane and storm risk reduction, Upper Barataria Basin, Louisiana.
Project for ecosystem restoration, Mid-Chesapeake Bay, Maryland.
Maintenance dredging for the Back River Channel project, Weymouth, Massachusetts.
Project for navigation, Big Bay Harbor of Refuge, Michigan.
Project for George W. Kuhn Headwaters Outfall, Michigan.
Improvements to the Red Run Inter-County Drain Restoration project, Macomb and Oakland Counties, Michigan.
Updated hydrologic analysis for the town of Estancia, Torrance County, New Mexico.
Environmental impact statement to accompany the feasibility study for the project for navigation, Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina, conducted pursuant to section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231), and conditionally authorized by section 403(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2743).
Maintenance dredging at the Rocky River Harbor, Ohio.
The portion of the project for flood control and other purposes, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1573), to bring the Northwest Levee System into compliance with current flood mitigation standards.
Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, San Juan Metropolitan Area Coastal Storm Risk Management, Puerto Rico, authorized by section 8401(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3842).
Sediment management plan along the Missouri River, Lewis and Clark Lake, South Dakota.
Project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River Floodgates and Colorado River Locks, Texas, authorized by section 401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2734).
Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and shoreline erosion protection, Bolongo Bay, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.
Maintenance dredging of the federally authorized navigation channels, Parrotts Creek, Jackson Creek, and Horn Harbor, Virginia.
Project for navigation, Seattle Harbor Navigation Improvement Project, 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.
Project for shoreline stabilization, Clarksville, Indiana.
Continuing Authorities Programs.— The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expedite completion of the following projects:
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.
North, South, and Middle Fork, Kentucky River, Kentucky, including the development of a flood warning emergency evacuation plan.
Swannanoa River watershed, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) for the following areas:
Corazon de los Tres Rios del Norte, Pima County, Arizona.
Lake Elsinore, California.
Project for hurricane and storm damage reduction under section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), Stratford, Connecticut.
Project modifications for improvements to the environment, under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), for the following areas:
Hayward Creek and Eaton Pond watershed, Massachusetts.
Smelt Brook Tributary to the Weymouth-Fore River, Massachusetts.
Surry Mountain Lake, New Hampshire.
Project for emergency streambank erosion and shoreline protection under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r) for Muddy Creek, Otoe County, Nebraska.
Tribal Partnership Program.— The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expedite completion of the following projects and studies in the following locations 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.
Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project, associated with the Gila River Indian Community, Arizona.
Navajo Nation, Bird Springs, Arizona.
Watershed Assessments.—
Great lakes coastal resiliency study.— The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expedite the Great Lakes Coastal Resiliency Study authorized by section 1219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3811; 134 Stat. 2683; 136 Stat. 3752).
Upper mississippi and illinois rivers.— 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 the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1686; 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).
Disposition Study.— The Secretary shall expedite completion of the disposition study for the Lower St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam, Minnesota, pursuant to section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a).
SEC. 1204. Expedited Completion of Other Feasibility Studies.
Cedar Port Navigation and Improvement District Channel Deepening Project, Baytown, Texas.— The Secretary shall expedite the review and coordination of the feasibility study for the project for navigation, Cedar Port Navigation and Improvement District Channel Deepening Project, Baytown, Texas, under section 203(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231(b)).
Sabine–neches Waterway Navigation Improvement Project, Texas.— The Secretary shall expedite the review and coordination of the feasibility study for the project for navigation, Sabine–Neches Waterway, Texas, under section 203(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231(b)).
La Quinta Expansion Project, Texas.— The Secretary shall expedite the review and coordination of the feasibility study for the project for navigation, La Quinta Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas, under section 203(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231(b)).
Raymondville Drain Project, Texas.— The Secretary shall expedite the review and coordination of the feasibility study for the project for flood control, Raymondville Drain Project, Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas, under section 203(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231(b)).
SEC. 1205. Corps of Engineers Reports.
Report on Recreational Access for Individuals With Disabilities.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on access for individuals with disabilities to covered recreational areas.
Requirements.— The Secretary shall include in the report submitted under paragraph (1)—
existing policies or guidance for complying with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) at covered recreational areas;
a complete list of covered recreational areas, and the status of each covered recreational area with respect to compliance with the requirements of such Act;
identification of policy changes, internal guidance changes, or changes to shoreline management plans that may result in increased access for individuals with disabilities to covered recreational areas, including access to fishing-related recreational activities at covered recreational areas;
an analysis of barriers that exist for covered recreational areas to fully comply with the requirements of such Act; and
identification of specific covered recreational areas that could be improved or modified to better accommodate visitors with disabilities, including to increase recreational fishing access for individuals with disabilities.
Covered recreational area defined.— In this subsection, the term “covered recreational area” means all sites constructed, owned, operated, or maintained by the Secretary that are used for recreational purposes.
Report on Turbidity in the Willamette Valley, Oregon.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on instances of high turbidity in a reservoir in the Willamette Valley resulting from a drawdown in the reservoir.
Scope.— In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
collaborate with any relevant Federal, State, and non-Federal entities;
identify and report instances during the 10-year period preceding the date of enactment of this Act in which turbidity concerns have arisen following a drawdown at a reservoir in the Willamette Valley, including Foster Lake and Green Peter Lake;
report on turbidity monitoring that the Secretary performs during drawdowns to identify, and if necessary correct, turbidity issues;
provide a summary of turbidity monitoring records collected during drawdowns with respect to which turbidity concerns have been raised by the public, including a comparison between turbidity prior to a drawdown, during a drawdown, and following refilling;
identify lessons learned associated with turbidity resulting from drawdowns and indicate how changes based on those lessons learned are being implemented; and
identify opportunities to minimize monetary strains on non-Federal entities caused by increased turbidity levels.
Report on Security at Soo Locks, Michigan.—
Report.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a non-classified report that—
highlights any security deficiencies that exist with respect to the Soo Locks;
highlights any supply chain, logistical, and economic effects that would result from a malfunction or failure of the Soo Locks;
highlights any effects on the Great Lakes Navigation System that would result from such a malfunction or failure;
highlights any potential threats to the integrity of the Soo Locks;
details the Corps of Engineers security measures in place to protect the Soo Locks; and
contains recommendations, as necessary, and cost estimates for such recommendations, for—
strengthening security measures for the Soo Locks; and
reducing the effects on the supply chain that would result from a malfunction or failure of the Soo Locks.
Soo locks defined.— In this subsection, the term “Soo Locks” means the locks at Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, authorized by section 1149 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254; 121 Stat. 1131).
Report on Florida Seagrass Rehabilitation.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter for 4 years, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on any planned or ongoing efforts to promote, rehabilitate, and enhance the growth of seagrasses in Florida stormwater treatment areas.
Requirements.— In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall coordinate with relevant Federal, State, and local agencies and other regional stakeholders.
Florida stormwater treatment area defined.— In this subsection, the term “Florida stormwater treatment area” means a stormwater treatment area in the State of Florida authorized by or pursuant to section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680; 121 Stat. 1268; 132 Stat. 3786).
Report on Shoreline Use Permits.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report describing the use of the authority under part 327 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, with respect to the issuance of new, or modifications to existing, shoreline use permits at the Table Rock Lake project of the Corps of Engineers, located in Missouri and Arkansas, authorized as one of the multipurpose reservoir projects in the White River Basin by section 4 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1218).
Contents.— The Secretary shall include in the report required under paragraph (1)—
a review of existing regulatory and administrative requirements related to the lease, rent, sublease, or other usage agreement by a permittee for permitted facilities under a shore19 line use permit, including a floating, non-floating, or fixed-floating structure;
a description of the authority and public-interest rationale for such requirements, including impacts on local businesses, property owners, and prospective lessors, renters, or other contractual users of such facilities; and
a description of the authority for the transfer of shoreline use permits upon transfer of the permitted facility by sale or other means.
Report on Relocation.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the policies of the Corps of Engineers relating to using property buyouts as part of coastal storm risk management projects.
Requirements.— In developing the report under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consider ways in which current policies on mandatory property buyouts may—
diminish the incentives for local communities to work with the Corps of Engineers; and
increase vulnerabilities of communities to flood risk, including communities described in the guidance issued by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note).
Report on Fuel Efficiency.—
In general.— Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on fuel efficiency of each vessel within the fleet of vessels owned by the Corps of Engineers.
Contents.— In the report submitted under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include the following:
A list of vessels that are commercially available and may be used to carry out the missions of the Corps of Engineers that can be incorporated into the fleet of vessels owned by the Corps of Engineers to increase fuel efficiency of such fleet.
A list of modifications that can be made to increase fuel efficiency of such fleet and the associated cost of such modifications.
A life cycle cost analysis of replacing vessels owned by the Corps of Engineers with vessels that are more fuel efficient.
A description of technologies used or available to the Secretary to evaluate fuel efficiency of each vessel owned by the Corps of Engineers.
A description of other opportunities to increase fuel efficiency of each such vessel.
A description of potential cost savings by increasing fuel efficiency of such vessels.
A description of State or local policies or requirements regarding efficiencies or emissions of vessels, or related technology, that the Secretary must comply with at water resources development projects, and any impact such policies and requirements have on project costs.
Report on Boat Ramps.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report detailing—
the number of boat ramps constructed by the Secretary that are located at a site constructed, owned, operated, or maintained by the Secretary;
the number of such boat ramps that are operational; and
the number of such boat ramps that require maintenance in order to be made operational.
Report on Bridge Inventory.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on bridges owned, operated, and maintained by the Corps of Engineers.
Requirements.— The Secretary shall include in the report required under paragraph (1)—
a list of bridges carrying passengers that are—
not located in recreational areas; and
not required to be owned, operated, and maintained by the Corps of Engineers for the proper functioning of water resources development projects;
a description of the location of such bridges and applicable State authority or political subdivision to which has requested such bridges may be transferred or conveyed under section 109 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (33 U.S.C. 534); and
a description of measures taken by the Corps of Engineers to reduce the number of bridges owned, operated, and maintained by the Corps of Engineers.
Report on Minimum Real Estate Interest.—
Sense of congress.— It is the sense of Congress that through this Act, as well as through section 1115 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018, Congress has provided the Secretary all of the authority, and all of the direction, needed to acquire interests in real estate that are less than fee simple title.
Report.— Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report indicating whether the Secretary agrees with the sense of Congress in paragraph (1).
Disagreement.— Should the result of report required by paragraph (2) be that the Secretary disagrees with the sense of Congress in paragraph (1), not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report specifying recommendations and technical drafting assistance for statutory language that would provide the Secretary the intended authority as expressed in paragraph (1).
Report on Ice Jam Prevention and Mitigation.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year 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 a report on efforts by the Secretary to prevent and mitigate flood damages associated with ice jams.
Inclusion.— The Secretary shall include in the report under paragraph (1)—
an assessment of the projects carried out pursuant to section 1150 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 701s note), if applicable; and
a description of—
the challenges associated with preventing and mitigating ice jams;
the potential measures that may prevent or mitigate ice jams, including the extent to which additional research and the development and deployment of technologies are necessary; and
actions taken by the Secretary to provide non-Federal interests with technical assistance, guidance, or other information relating to ice jam events; and
how the Secretary plans to conduct outreach and engagement with non-Federal interests and other relevant State and local agencies to facilitate an understanding of the circumstances in which ice jams could occur and the potential impacts to critical public infrastructure from ice jams.
Assessment.—
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.
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—
describes—
the findings of the assessment under paragraph (1);
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
the extent to which the Secretary partners with other Federal agencies when carrying out such projects; and
includes any recommendations that result from the assessment under paragraph (1).
SEC. 1206. Annual Report on Harbor Maintenance Needs and Trust Fund Expenditures.
In General.— On the date on which the budget of the President is submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, for fiscal year 2026, and for each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report describing—
with respect to the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted, the operation and maintenance costs associated with harbors and inland harbors described in section 210(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238(a)(2)), including a description of the costs required to achieve and maintain the constructed width and depth for such harbors and inland harbors and the costs for expanded uses at eligible harbors and inland harbors (as defined in section 210(d)(2) of such Act), on a project-by-project basis;
as of the date on which the report is submitted, expenditures and deposits into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund established under section 9505 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
an identification of the amount of funding requested in the budget of the President for the operation and maintenance costs associated with such harbors and inland harbors, on a project-by-project basis;
an explanation of how the amount of funding described in paragraph (2) complies with the requirements of section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2238 note);
an identification of the unmet operation and maintenance needs associated with such harbors and inland harbors, on a project-by-project basis, that remains after accounting for the amount identified under paragraph (3); and
a description of deposits made into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund in the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year of the applicable budget submission and the sources of such deposits.
Additional Requirement.— In the first report required to be submitted under subsection (a), the Secretary shall identify, to the maximum extent practicable, transportation cost savings realized by achieving and maintaining the constructed width and depth for the harbors and inland harbors described in section 210(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, on a project-by-project basis.
Public Availability.— The Secretary shall make the report submitted under subsection (a) publicly available, including on a publicly available website.
Conforming Amendments.—
Assessment of harbors and inland harbors.— Section 210(e)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238(e)(3)) is repealed.
Harbor maintenance trust fund deposits and expenditures.— Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (26 U.S.C. 9505 note) and the item related to such section in the table of contents for such Act, are repealed.
SEC. 1207. Craig Harbor, Alaska.
The cost of completing a general reevaluation report for the project for navigation, Craig Harbor, Alaska, authorized by section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1708) shall be at Federal expense.
SEC. 1208. Studies for Modification of Project Purposes in the Colorado River Basin in Arizona.
Study.— The Secretary shall carry out a study of a project of the Corps of Engineers in the Colorado River Basin in the State of Arizona to determine whether to include water supply as a project purpose of that project if a request for such a study to modify the project purpose is made to the Secretary by—
the non-Federal interest for the project; or
in the case of a project for which there is no non-Federal interest, the Governor of the State of Arizona.
Coordination.— The Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, shall coordinate with relevant State and local authorities in carrying out this section.
Recommendations.— If, after carrying out a study under subsection (a) with respect to a project described in that subsection, the Secretary determines that water supply should be included as a project purpose for that project, 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 recommendation for the modification of the project purpose of that project.
SEC. 1209. Beaver Lake, Arkansas, Reallocation Study.
The Secretary shall expedite the completion of a study for the reallocation of water supply storage, carried out in accordance with section 301 of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b), for the Beaver Water District, Beaver Lake, Arkansas.
SEC. 1210. Oceanside, California.
The Secretary—
shall—
expedite the completion of the study of plans for mitigation and beach restoration authorized by section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2636); and
produce a report of the Chief of Engineers with a recommended plan for mitigation and beach restoration based on updated sediment sampling and analysis; and
may, if the Secretary determines that the mitigation and beach restoration plans described in such study are technically feasible and environmentally acceptable, proceed directly to preconstruction planning, engineering, and design of the mitigation and beach restoration work.
SEC. 1211. Delaware Inland Bays Watershed Study.
In General.— The Secretary shall carry out a study on the restoration of aquatic ecosystems in the Delaware Inland Bays watershed.
Requirements.—
In general.— In carrying out the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
conduct a comprehensive analysis of ecosystem restoration needs in the Delaware Inland Bays watershed, including—
saltmarsh restoration;
shoreline stabilization; and
stormwater management;
identify sources for the beneficial use of dredged materials; and
recommend feasibility studies for projects to address the needs identified under this paragraph.
Natural or nature-based features.— To the maximum extent practicable, a feasibility study that is recommended under paragraph (1)(C) shall consider the use of natural features or nature-based features (as those terms are defined in section 1184(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a))).
Consultation and Use of Existing Data.—
Consultation.— In carrying out the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with applicable—
Federal, State, and local agencies;
Indian Tribes;
non-Federal interests; and
other stakeholders, as determined appropriate by the Secretary.
Use of existing data.— To the maximum extent practicable, in carrying out the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall use existing data provided to the Secretary by entities described in paragraph (1).
Feasibility Studies.—
In general.— The Secretary is authorized to conduct feasibility studies recommended under subsection (b)(1)(C).
Congressional authorization.— The Secretary may not begin construction for a project recommended by a feasibility study described in paragraph (1) unless the project has been authorized by Congress.
Report.— Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that includes—
the results of the study carried out under subsection (a); and
a description of actions taken under this section, including any feasibility studies conducted under subsection (b)(1)(C).
SEC. 1212. Sussex County, Delaware.
Sense of Congress.— It is the sense of Congress that consistent nourishments of Lewes Beach, Delaware, are important for the safety and economic prosperity of Sussex County, Delaware.
General Reevaluation Report.—
In general.— The Secretary shall carry out a general reevaluation report for the project for Delaware Bay Coastline, Roosevelt Inlet, and Lewes Beach, Delaware.
Inclusions.— The general reevaluation report under paragraph (1) shall include a determination of—
the area that the project should include; and
how section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i) should be applied with respect to the project.
SEC. 1213. J. Strom Thurmond Lake, Georgia.
Encroachment Resolution Plan.—
In general.— Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary shall prepare, and submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, an encroachment resolution plan for a portion of the project for flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife management, J. Strom Thurmond Lake, Georgia and South Carolina, authorized by section 10 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 894).
Limitation.— The encroachment resolution plan under paragraph (1) shall only apply to encroachments known to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as of the effective date of this provision on the portion of the J. Strom Thurmond Lake project lands that abut the six (6) former Cottage Site properties, situated in Georgia and previously disposed of by the United States, known as Keg Creek, Ridge Road, Rousseau Creek, Soap Creek, Pistol Creek, and Elbert County Subdivisions.
Contents.— Subject to subsection (c), the encroachment resolution plan under subsection (a) shall include—
a description of the nature and number of encroachments;
a description of the circumstances that contributed to the development of the encroachments;
an assessment of the impact of the encroachments on operation and maintenance of the project described in subsection (a) for its authorized purposes;
an analysis of alternatives to the removal of encroachments to mitigate any impacts identified in the assessment under paragraph (3);
a description of any actions necessary or advisable to prevent further encroachments; and
an estimate of the cost and timeline to carry out the plan, including actions described under paragraph (5).
Restriction.— To the maximum extent practicable, the encroachment resolution plan under subsection (a) shall minimize adverse impacts to private landowners while maintaining the functioning of the project described in that subsection for its authorized purposes.
Notice and Public Comment.—
To owners.— In preparing the encroachment resolution plan under subsection (a), not later than 30 days after the Secretary identifies an encroachment, the Secretary shall notify the owner of the encroachment.
To public.— The Secretary shall provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the encroachment resolution plan under subsection (a) before the completion of the plan.
Moratorium.— The Secretary shall not take action to compel removal of an encroachment covered by the encroachment resolution plan under subsection (a) unless Congress specifically authorizes such action.
Savings Provision.— This section does not—
grant any rights to the owner of an encroachment; or
impose any liability on the United States for operation and maintenance of the project described in subsection (a) for its authorized purposes.
SEC. 1214. Algiers Canal Levees, Louisiana.
Section 8340(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3795) is amended—
by striking “ resume operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the” and inserting “ operate, maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate all features of the West Bank and Vicinity, New Orleans, Louisiana Hurricane Protection Project along the”; and
by striking “ Levees, Louisiana”.
SEC. 1215. Upper Barataria Basin and Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico Connection, Louisiana.
In General.— The Secretary shall evaluate constructing a connection between the Upper Barataria Basin Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction project, Louisiana, authorized by section 8401(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 U.S.C. 3839), and the project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana, authorized by section 1001(24) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1053).
Submission to Congress.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete the evaluation described in subsection (a) and submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate any recommendations related to constructing a connection between the projects described in such subsection.
SEC. 1216. Poor Farm Pond Dam, Worcester, Massachusetts.
In General.— The Secretary shall carry out a disposition study under section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a) for the deauthorization and potential removal of the Poor Farm Pond Dam, Worcester, Massachusetts.
Report to Congress.— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the status of the disposition study required under subsection (a).
SEC. 1217. New Jersey Hot Spot Erosion Mitigation.
In General.— The Secretary shall conduct one or more studies on the effects of hot spot erosion on authorized coastal storm risk management projects in the State of New Jersey, which shall include, with respect to each affected project included in a study—
the specific area of the project that is affected by hot spot erosion; and
the impact of hot spot erosion on the effectiveness of the project in meeting the purpose of coastal storm risk management.
Form.— A study conducted under subsection (a) may be in the form of a general reevaluation report, an engineering documentation report, or any other method of assessment that the Secretary determines appropriate.
Recommendations.— Based on the study or studies carried out under subsection (a), the Secretary shall develop recommendations for mitigating the effects of hot spot erosion on authorized coastal storm risk management projects in the State of New Jersey, which may include recommendations relating to—
the design and construction of seawalls, jetties, berms, groins, breakwaters, or other physical structures;
the use of natural features and nature-based features, including living shorelines; and
modifications to authorized project designs or renourishment schedules.
Hot Spot Erosion Defined.— In this section, the term “hot spot erosion” means the loss of sediment in a specific, concentrated area, significantly faster than in immediately surrounding areas, due to natural processes.
SEC. 1218. New Jersey Shore Protection, New Jersey.
In carrying out any study pursuant to the study resolution of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives dated December 10, 1987, the Secretary is authorized to include recommendations for ecosystem restoration.
SEC. 1219. Excess Land Report for Certain Projects in North Dakota.
In General.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and subject to subsection (b), 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 identifies any real property associated with the project of the Corps of Engineers at Lake Oahe, North Dakota, that the Secretary determines—
is not needed to carry out the authorized purposes of the project; and
may be transferred to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to support recreation opportunities for the Tribe, including, at a minimum—
Walker Bottom Marina, Lake Oahe;
Fort Yates Boat Ramp, Lake Oahe;
Cannonball District, Lake Oahe; and
any other real property that may be used for recreation opportunities identified by the Tribe.
Inclusion.— If the Secretary determines that there is not any real property that may be transferred to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe as described in subsection (a), the Secretary shall include in the report required under that subsection—
a list of the real property considered by the Secretary;
an explanation of why the real property identified under paragraph (1) is needed to carry out the authorized purposes of the project described in subsection (a); and
a description of how the Secretary has recently utilized the real property identified under paragraph (1) to carry out the authorized purpose of the project described in subsection (a).
SEC. 1220. Allegheny River, Pennsylvania.
It is the sense of Congress that—
the Allegheny River is an important waterway that can be utilized more to support recreational, environmental, and navigation needs in Pennsylvania;
ongoing efforts to increase utilization of the Allegheny River will require consistent hours of service at key locks and dams; and
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 feasibility study for the project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Allegheny River, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 1201.
SEC. 1221. Buffalo Bayou Tributaries and Resiliency Study, Texas.
In General.— The Secretary shall expedite completion of the Buffalo Bayou Tributaries and Resiliency Study, Texas, carried out pursuant to title IV of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 76).
Reports.— The final report of the Chief of Engineers for the study described in subsection (a) shall contain recommendations for projects that—
align with community objectives;
avoid or minimize adverse effects on the environment and community; and
promote the resiliency of infrastructure.
Deadline.— Not later than December 31, 2025, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate the final report described in subsection (b).
SEC. 1222. Lake O’ the Pines, Texas.
In General.— Not later than 1 year after date on enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that identifies opportunities for potential exchange of land or flowage easements associated with the Lake O’ the Pines, Texas, project in and adjacent to tract LP-E-546-1E that the Secretary determines could be accomplished consistent with the existing project purposes of the Lake O’ the Pines, Texas, project.
Lake O’ the Pines, Texas, Project Defined.— In this section, the term “Lake O’ the Pines, Texas, project” means the portion of the general plan for flood control on Red River, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana, below Denison Dam, Texas and Oklahoma, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 647), at Lake O’ the Pines, Texas.
SEC. 1223. Matagorda Ship Channel Improvement Project, Texas.
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.
Expedite.— The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expedite the completion of the required documentation for the Matagorda Ship Channel Improvement Project, including—
the supplemental environmental impact statement and the associated record of decision;
the dredged material management plan; and
a post-authorization change report, if applicable.
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.
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. 1224. Waco Lake, Texas.
The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expedite the review of, and give due consideration to, the request from the City of Waco, Texas, that the Secretary apply section 147 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 701q–1) to the embankment adjacent to Waco Lake in Waco, Texas.
SEC. 1225. Coastal Washington.
In General.— The Secretary is authorized to carry out comprehensive studies for riverine and coastal flooding of coastal areas in the State of Washington.
Requirements.— In carrying out a study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
conduct a comprehensive analysis of current riverine and coastal flooding and corresponding risk reduction measures with an emphasis on resiliency to maintain or enhance current levels of risk management in response to changing conditions;
establish a method of projecting sea level rise with limited tide gage information and develop applicable tools to address the unique coastal flooding process in the Pacific Northwest region;
conduct research and development to understand the atmospheric, oceanic, geologic, and coastal forcing and response conditions necessary to develop a numerical modeling system that may be used for developing coastal hazard data, and how to best include that information in such a modeling system;
identify coastal vulnerabilities and risks in riverine and coastal areas due to sea level change, extreme weather, and increased coastal storm risk;
identify Tribal and economically disadvantaged communities (as defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)) with riverine and coastal flooding vulnerabilities and risks; and
recommend actions necessary to protect critical public infrastructure, communities, and critical natural or cultural resources.
Data Needs.— In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, use existing data provided to the Secretary by Federal and State agencies, Indian Tribes, and other stakeholders, including data obtained through other Federal programs.
SEC. 1226. Kanawha River Basin.
Section 1207 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1686) is amended—
by striking “ The Secretary shall” and inserting the following:
“(a) In General.—The Secretary shall”
; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(b) Projects and Separable Elements.—For an authorized project or a separable element of an authorized project that is recommended as a result of a study carried out by the Secretary under subsection (a) benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)) in the State of West Virginia, the non-Federal share of the cost of the project or separable element of a project shall be 10 percent.”
SEC. 1227. Upper Mississippi River System Flood Risk and Resiliency Study.
In General.— The Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate and recommend local and systemic measures to improve flood resiliency and reduce flood risk in the floodplain, including the floodway, of the Upper Mississippi River System.
Components.— In carrying out the study required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
develop recommendations to reduce costs and damages associated with flooding and enable people located in areas adjacent to, and economies dependent on, the Upper Mississippi River System to be more resilient to flood events;
identify opportunities to support navigation, environmental sustainability, and environmental restoration goals for the Upper Mississippi River System, including recommending measures that are incidental flood risk measures that may achieve such goals;
describe the existing flood risk conditions of the Upper Mississippi River System;
develop and recommend integrated, comprehensive, and systems-based approaches for flood risk reduction and floodplain management to minimize the threat to life, health, safety, and property resulting from flooding by using structural and nonstructural measures in the Upper Mississippi River System;
investigate and provide recommendations for modifications to authorized water resources development projects in Upper Mississippi River States within the floodplain of the Upper Mississippi River System, including modifications to the authorized purposes of such projects to further flood risk management and resiliency;
perform a systemic analysis of flood resiliency and flood risk to determine the feasibility of protecting authorized water resources development projects for flood control and navigation in the Upper Mississippi River System;
develop management plans and actions, to be carried out by the responsible Federal agency or State government, to reduce flood risk and improve resiliency in the Upper Mississippi River System;
identify and provide recommendations for any necessary changes to Federal or State law to carry out recommendations provided pursuant to this section;
recommend followup studies of problem areas in the Upper Mississippi River System for which data or technology does not allow immediate solutions; and
recommend additional monitoring of, or systemic adaptive management measures for, authorized water resources development projects to respond to changing conditions in the Upper Mississippi River System.
Coordination and Consultation.— In carrying out the study required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
coordinate with the Upper Mississippi River States, including collectively through the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association;
consult with the appropriate Federal agencies, levee and drainage districts, and units of local government, and the Mississippi River Commission; and
seek and consider input from the Upper Mississippi navigation industry, agriculture and conservation organizations, and other interested parties in such States.
Continuation of Study.— The following studies shall be considered a continuation of the study carried out under subsection (a):
Any study recommended to be carried out in a report that the Chief of Engineers prepares for the study conducted under this section.
Any study spun off from the study conducted under this section before completion of such study.
Corps of Engineers District.— The Secretary shall carry out the study required under subsection (a) through the St. Louis District in the Mississippi Valley Division of the Corps of Engineers.
Cost Share.— The Federal share of the cost of the study carried out under subsection (a) and any study carried out pursuant to subsection (d) shall be 75 percent.
Definitions.— In this section:
Upper mississippi river state.— The term “Upper Mississippi River State” means any of the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, or Wisconsin.
Upper mississippi river system.— The term “Upper Mississippi River System” has the meaning given the term in section 1103(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(b)).
SEC. 1228. Briefing on Status of Certain Activities on Missouri River.
In General.— Not later than 30 days after the date on which the consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536) that was reinitiated by the Secretary for the operation of the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System, the operation and maintenance of the Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, the operation of the Kansas River Reservoir System, and the implementation of the Missouri River Recovery Management Plan is completed, the Secretary shall brief on the outcomes of such consultation the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.
Requirements.— The briefing required under subsection (a) shall include a discussion of—
any biological opinions that result from the consultation described under subsection (a), including any actions that the Secretary is required to undertake pursuant to such biological opinions; and
any forthcoming requests from the Secretary to Congress to provide funding in order carry out the actions described in paragraph (1).
SEC. 1229. Ogallala Aquifer.
In General.— The Secretary, in coordination with relevant Federal and state agencies and non-Federal interests, is authorized to conduct a comprehensive study on water supply, availability, drought resilience, aquifer recharge, and causes of aquifer depletion, for those regions overlying the Ogallala Aquifer.
Savings Clause.— Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing a feasibility study or providing construction authority for any project to divert or facilitate the diversion of water outside of the Missouri River Basin.
SEC. 1230. National Academy of Sciences Study on Upper Rio Grande Basin.
In General.— The Secretary shall seek to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to prepare a report containing—
the results of a study on the management and operations by the Corps of Engineers of the dams and reservoirs in the Upper Rio Grande Basin, including the Heron, El Vado, Abiquiu, Cochiti, Jemez Canyon, and Elephant Butte dams and reservoirs; and
recommendations for future management and operation strategies for the Corps of Engineers for such dams and reservoirs with a goal of optimizing currently authorized project purposes and enhancing resiliency, including to drought and weather variations.
Consultation.— In preparing the report under subsection (a), the National Academy of Sciences shall consult with relevant Federal agencies.
Report.— Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate the report prepared under subsection (a).
SEC. 1231. Upper Susquehanna River Basin Comprehensive Flood Damage Reduction Feasibility Study.
In General.— The Secretary shall, at the request of a non-Federal interest, complete a feasibility study for comprehensive flood damage reduction, Upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York.
Requirements.— In carrying out the feasibility study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
use, for purposes of meeting the requirements of a final feasibility study, information from the feasibility study completion report entitled “Upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York, Comprehensive Flood Damage Reduction” and dated January 2020; and
re-evaluate project benefits, as determined using the framework described in the final rule promulgated by the Corps of Engineers under Docket Number COE–2023–0005, including a consideration of economically disadvantaged communities (as defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)).
SEC. 1232. Technical Correction, Walla Walla River.
Section 8201(a)(76) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3744) is amended to read as follows:
“(76) Walla walla river basin, oregon and washington.—
“(A) Nursery reach, walla walla river, oregon.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Nursery Reach, Walla Walla River, Oregon.
“(B) Mill creek, walla walla river basin, washington.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Mill Creek and Mill Creek Flood Control Zone District Channel, Washington.”
SEC. 1233. Dam Safety Assurance Consideration.
The Secretary shall expedite the review of, and give due consideration to, a request from the relevant Federal power marketing administration that the Secretary apply section 1203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 467n) to the projects for dam safety at Garrison Dam, North Dakota and Oahe Dam, South Dakota.
SEC. 1234. Sea Sparrow Accounting.
In General.— The Secretary shall share data and coordinate with relevant Federal, State, and local agencies to obtain an accurate count of Cape Sable Seaside Sparrows in Florida during each year and, to the maximum extent practicable, during the 5-year period preceding each such year.
Submission of Information to Congress.— Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter during the 10-year period beginning on such date of enactment, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate the information obtained under subsection (a).
SEC. 1235. Report on Efforts to Monitor, Control, and Eradicate Invasive Species.
Definition of Invasive Species.— In this section, the term “invasive species” has the meaning given the term in section 1 of Executive Order 13112 (42 U.S.C. 4321 note; relating to invasive species).
Assessment.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct, and 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 results of, an assessment of the efforts by the Secretary to monitor, control, and eradicate invasive species at water resources development projects across the United States.
Requirements.— The report under subsection (b) shall include—
a description of—
the statutory authorities and programs used by the Secretary to monitor, control, and eradicate invasive species at water resources development projects; and
a geographically diverse sample of successful projects and activities carried out by the Secretary to monitor, control, and eradicate invasive species at water resources development projects;
a discussion of—
the impact of invasive species on the ability of the Secretary to carry out the civil works mission of the Corps of Engineers;
the research conducted and techniques and technologies used by the Secretary consistent with the applicable statutory authorities described in paragraph (1)(A) to monitor, control, and eradicate invasive species at water resources development projects; and
the extent to which the Secretary has partnered with States and units of local government to monitor, control, and eradicate invasive species at water resources development projects within the boundaries of those States or units of local government;
an update on the status of the plan developed by the Secretary pursuant to section 1108(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 2263a(c)); and
recommendations, including legislative recommendations, to further the efforts of the Secretary to monitor, control, and eradicate invasive species at water resources development projects.
SEC. 1236. Deadline for Previously Required List of Covered Projects.
Notwithstanding the deadline in paragraph (1) of section 8236(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3769), the Secretary shall provide to the Comptroller General of the United States the list of covered ongoing water resources development projects under that paragraph by not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1237. Examination of Reduction of Microplastics.
In General.— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Engineer Research and Development Center and, where appropriate, in consultation with other Federal agencies, 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 identifies potential measures that may be implemented to reduce the release of microplastics into the environment associated with carrying out the civil works missions of the Corps of Engineers.
Focus Areas.— In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall, at a minimum,—
review and identify measures to reduce the release of microplastics associated with sandblasting or hydro-blasting vessels owned or operated by the Corps of Engineers;
determine the extent to which natural features or nature-based features can be used effectively to reduce the release of microplastics into the environment; and
describe the potential costs and benefits, and the effects on the timeline for carrying out water resources development projects, of implementing measures to reduce the release of microplastics into the environment.
SEC. 1238. Post-Disaster Watershed Assessment for Impacted Areas.
In General.— The Secretary shall carry out a post-disaster watershed assessment under section 3025 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2267b) for the following areas:
Areas of Maui, Hawaii, impacted by the August 2023 wildfires.
Areas near Belen, New Mexico, impacted by the April 2022 wildfires.
Report to Congress.— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representative and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the status of the post-disaster watershed assessments carried out under subsection (a).
SEC. 1239. Study on Land Valuation Procedures for the Tribal Partnership Program.
Definition of Tribal Partnership Program.— In this section, the term “Tribal Partnership Program” means the Tribal Partnership Program established under section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269).
Study Required.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry out, and 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 results of, a study on appropriate procedures for determining the value of real estate and cost-share contributions for projects under the Tribal Partnership Program.
Requirements.— The report required under subsection (b) shall include—
an evaluation of the procedures used for determining the valuation of real estate and contribution of real estate value to cost-share for projects under the Tribal Partnership Program, including consideration of cultural factors that are unique to the Tribal Partnership Program and land valuation;
a description of any existing Federal authorities that the Secretary intends to use to implement policy changes that result from the evaluation under paragraph (1); and
recommendations for any legislation that may be needed to revise land valuation or cost-share procedures for the Tribal Partnership Program pursuant to the evaluation under paragraph (1).
SEC. 1240. Report to Congress on Levee Safety Guidelines.
Definition of Levee Safety Guidelines.— In this section, the term “levee safety guidelines” means the levee safety guidelines established under section 9005(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303a(c)).
Report.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in coordination with other applicable Federal agencies, 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 levee safety guidelines.
Inclusions.— The report under subsection (b) shall include—
a description of—
the levee safety guidelines;
the process utilized to develop the levee safety guidelines; and
the extent to which the levee safety guidelines are being used by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies;
an assessment of the requirement for the levee safety guidelines to be voluntary and a description of actions taken by the Secretary and other applicable Federal agencies to ensure that the guidelines are voluntary; and
any recommendations of the Secretary, including the extent to which the levee safety guidelines should be revised.
SEC. 1241. Public-Private Partnership User’s Guide.
In General.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and make publicly available on an existing website of the Corps of Engineers a guide on the use of public-private partnerships for water resources development projects.
Inclusions.— In developing the guide under subsection (a), the Secretary shall include—
a description of—
applicable authorities and programs of the Secretary that allow for the use of public-private partnerships to carry out water resources development projects; and
opportunities across the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers for the use of public-private partnerships, including at recreational facilities;
a summary of prior public-private partnerships for water resources development projects, including lessons learned and best practices from those partnerships and projects;
a discussion of—
the roles and responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers and non-Federal interests when using a public-private partnership for a water resources development project, including the opportunities for risk-sharing; and
the potential benefits associated with using a public-private partnership for a water resources development project, including the opportunities to accelerate funding as compared to the annual appropriations process; and
a description of the process for executing a project partnership agreement for a water resources development project, including any unique considerations when using a public-private partnership.
Flexibility.— The Secretary may satisfy the requirements of this section by modifying an existing partnership handbook in accordance with this section.
SEC. 1242. Review of Authorities and Programs for Alternative Delivery Methods.
In General.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act and subject to subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary shall carry out a study of the authorities and programs of the Corps of Engineers that facilitate the use of alternative delivery methods for water resources development projects.
Requirements.— In carrying out the study under subsection (a)—
the authorities and programs that are studied shall include—
section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232);
section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b); and
section 5014 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note); and
the Secretary shall—
evaluate the implementation challenges, if any, associated with the authorities and programs described in paragraph (1);
analyze the quantity and types of technical assistance provided to non-Federal interests by the Secretary under the programs and authorities described in paragraph (1); and
assess—
how each authority and program described in paragraph (1) has been used by the Secretary and, if applicable, the non-Federal interest to facilitate an alternative delivery method;
the roles and responsibilities of the Secretary and the non-Federal interest under the authorities and programs described in paragraph (1); and
the benefits to the Civil Works Program of the Corps of Engineers that have accrued from carrying out a water resources development project under 1 or more of the programs and authorities described in paragraph (1).
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—
describes the findings of the study under subsection (a); and
includes—
a list of the water resources development projects that have been carried out pursuant to the authorities and programs described in subsection (b)(1);
a description of the lessons learned and best practices identified by the Secretary with respect to carrying out the authorities and programs described in subsection (b)(1); and
any recommendations to facilitate an increased use of an alternative delivery method for water resources development projects, including legislative recommendations.
Guidance.— Not later than 18 months after the date on which the report required under subsection (c) is submitted, the Secretary shall, as necessary, update any implementation guidance to reflect the findings of the study under subsection (a).
Definition of Alternative Delivery Method.— In this section, the term “alternative delivery method” means a project delivery method that is not the traditional design-bid-build method, including progressive design-build, public-private partnerships, and construction manager at risk.
SEC. 1243. Cooperation Authority.
Section 234 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a) is amended—
in subsection (c), by inserting “ , including the planning and design expertise,” after “ expertise”; and
in subsection (d)(1), by striking “ $1,000,000” and inserting “ $2,500,000”.
SEC. 1244. Gao Studies.
Review of the Accuracy of Project Cost Estimates.—
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 paragraph (1), 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 paragraph (1), 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.—
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 (2) 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 (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 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.
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.
Review of Certain Permits.—
In general.— 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 (1) 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;
make timely decisions on a permit requested under the section 408 program; and
carry out a preapplication meeting with the relevant non-Federal entity requesting a permit under the section 408 program that provides clear, concise, and specific information on the technical requirements of an application for such a permit; 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;
ways to expedite the review of applications for permits under the section 408 program, including the use of categorical permissions or the establishment of a single office within the Corps of Engineers to review applications for such permits.
Report.— On completion of the review 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.
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 (33 U.S.C. 408).
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, including digital infrastructure and 3D modeling 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;
reduce delays and cost overruns of water resources development projects, including through the improvement of environmental review and permitting processes;
provide cost savings over the lifecycle of a project, including through improved design processes or a reduction of operation and maintenance costs;
facilitate information sharing and complex water resources projects, and improve productivity of the Corp of Engineers; and
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—
costs and the acquisition process;
the application of such practices and technologies;
interoperability of such technologies with the other systems and technologies of the Corps of Engineers; and
security concerns associated with such technologies and how such concerns may be addressed;
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.—
In general.— 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 (1), 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 (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, including any recommendations, including legislative recommendations, as a result of the analysis.
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).
Modernization of Environmental Reviews.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall initiate a review of 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 conducting the review under paragraph (1), 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);
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) 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.
Report.— On completion of the review 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, including any legislative recommendations, as a result of the review.
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).
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.—
In general.— 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 (1), 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 (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 describing the findings of the analysis and any recommendations that result from that analysis.
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.
Study on Environmental Justice.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall initiate an analysis of—
the costs and benefits of the environmental justice initiatives of the Secretary with respect to the civil works program; and
the positive and negative effects on the civil works program of those environmental justice initiatives.
Inclusions.— The analysis 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.
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 describing any findings of the analysis.
Study on Donor Ports.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall initiate a review of the treatment of donor ports under section 2106 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2238c) that includes—
a description of the funding available to donor ports under such section, including a description of how eligibility for such donor ports has been modified;
a summary of all funds that have been provided to donor ports under such section;
an assessment of how the Secretary provides funding under such section to donor ports, including—
a complete description of the process and data used to determine eligibility; and
the impact construction and maintenance projects, including maintenance dredging and deep draft navigation construction projects, have on donor port eligibility;
an assessment of other major container ports that are not currently eligible as a donor port under such section and a description of the criteria that exclude such container ports from eligibility; and
recommendations to improve the provision of funds under such section.
Report.— Upon completion of the review required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report containing the results of such review.
Study on Corps of Engineers Disaster Preparedness, Response, and Related Information Collection.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall initiate an analysis of Corps of Engineers disaster preparedness and response activities, including—
an accounting of postdisaster expenditures from the “Corp of Engineers–Civil–Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies” account and from any post-disaster supplemental appropriations Act for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2023, including—
any budget requests made for such account or supplemental appropriations for the civil works program of the Corp of Engineers;
the total combined amount of funding for each fiscal year from such account and such appropriations Act;
the amounts transferred to such account from other accounts of the Corps of Engineers to cover a funding shortfall for postdisaster activities in each fiscal year;
the name and location of the authorized water resources development projects impacted by the transfer of funds described in clause (iii);
a summary of the activities and actions carried out with amounts available in such account or from such supplemental appropriations Acts, including the amount provided for salaries and expenses; and
an assessment and description of—
any contributing factors that resulted in any annual variability in the amounts described in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii); and
budgetary trends in the provision of post-disaster assistance that may impact future spending through such account or from such supplemental appropriations Acts; and
any impact of post-disaster supplemental appropriations on emergency response activities;
an evaluation of—
the publicly available information on disaster response and preparedness related to authorized water resources development projects, such as levees;
the impacts of natural disasters on authorized water resources development projects, including how such disasters affect the performance of such projects and resiliency of such projects to such disasters; and
whether the Corps of Engineers utilizes, or shares with non-Federal interests, information regarding such impacts in assessing whether modifications to such projects would reduce the likelihood of repetitive impacts or be in the public interest; and
recommendations to improve the provision of assistance for response to natural disasters under section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).
Report.— Upon completion of the analysis required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the findings of such analysis.
Study on Homeless Encampments on Corps of Engineers Property.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall initiate an analysis of—
unauthorized homeless encampments on water resources development projects constructed by the Corps of Engineers and lands owned or under the control of the Corps of Engineers;
any actual or potential impacts of such encampments on the construction, operation and maintenance, or management of such projects and lands, including potential impacts on flood risk reduction or ecosystem restoration efforts, water quality, or public safety;
efforts to remove or deter such encampments from such projects and lands, or remove any materials associated with such encampments that are unauthorized to be present and pose a potential threat to public safety, including manmade, flammable materials in urban and arid regions; and
constraints on the ability of the Corps of Engineers to remove or deter such encampments due to Federal, State, or local laws, regulations, or ordinances.
Consultation.— In carrying out the analysis required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall consult with the Secretary, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and other relevant Federal, State, and local government officials and interested parties.
Report.— Upon completion of the analysis required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the findings of such analysis.
Study on Federal-state Data Sharing Efforts.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall initiate an analysis of the coordination of the Secretary with other Federal and State agencies and academic institutions in carrying out the development, update, modernization, and utilization of scientific, peer-reviewed data on the predictability of future resiliency, sea-level rise, and flood impacts.
Scope.— In conducting the analysis required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall—
consult with the Secretary, the heads of other relevant Federal and State agencies, and academic institutions that collect, analyze, synthesize, and utilize scientific, peer-reviewed data on the predictability of future resiliency, sea-level rise, and flooding events;
examine the methodologies and mechanisms for collecting, analyzing, synthesizing, and verifying such data; and
review and report on the opportunities for, and appropriateness of, the Secretary and relevant non-Federal interests to utilize such data in the planning, design, construction, and operation and maintenance of authorized water resources development projects.
Report.— Upon completion of the analysis required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the findings of such analysis.
Study on Institutional Barriers to Nature-based Features.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall initiate an analysis of—
nature-based features that are incorporated into authorized water resources development projects by the Corps of Engineers and the type of such projects;
any limitation on the authority of the Secretary to incorporate nature-based features into authorized water resources development projects;
regulatory processes necessary for the use of nature-based features, including permitting timelines;
the level of efficacy and effectiveness of nature-based features at authorized water resources development projects that have—
utilized such nature-based features; and
undergone extreme weather events, including hurricanes; and
institutional barriers within the Corps of Engineers preventing broader consideration and integration of nature-based features, including—
staff experience with, and expertise on, nature-based features;
official Corps of Engineers guidance on nature-based features;
time constraints or other expediency expectations; or
life cycle costs associated with incorporating nature-based features into water resources development projects.
Report.— Upon completion of the analysis required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the findings of such analysis.
Definitions.— In this subsection, the term “nature-based feature” has the meaning given the terms “natural feature” and “nature-based feature” in section 1184 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (32 U.S.C. 2289a).
Study on Ecosystem Services.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall initiate an analysis of the use of ecosystem restoration by the Corps of Engineers for flood control or flood risk management projects.
Scope.— In conducting the analysis under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall assess—
how the Corps of Engineers complies, integrates, and prioritizes ecosystem restoration in benefit-cost analysis and generation of project alternatives;
the geographic distribution and frequency of ecosystem restoration for flood control or flood risk management projects;
the rationale and benefit-cost analyses that drive decisions to incorporate ecosystem restoration into flood control or flood risk management projects;
the additional long-term comprehensive benefits to local communities related to ecosystem restoration for flood control or flood risk management projects;
recommendations for prioritizing ecosystem restoration as a tool for flood control and flood risk management projects; and
the percentage of the annual construction budget utilized for ecosystem restoration projects over the past 5 years at flood control or flood risk management projects.
Report.— Upon completion of the analysis required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the findings of such analysis.
Study on Tribal Coordination.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall initiate a review of the Corps of Engineers procedures to address the discovery of Tribal historic or cultural resources, including village sites, burial sites, and human remains, at authorized water resources development projects.
Scope.— In conducting the review required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall—
evaluate the implementation of the Tribal Liaison requirements under section 8112 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2281a);
describe the procedures used by the Corps of Engineers when Tribal historic or cultural resources are identified at authorized water resources development projects, including—
coordination with relevant Tribes, Federal, State, and local agencies;
the role and effectiveness of the Tribal Liaison;
recovery and reburial standards;
any differences in procedures used by each Corps of Engineers district; and
as applicable, the implementation of the requirements of section 306108 of title 54, United States Code (formerly known as section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act) or the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq); and
provide recommendations to improve the coordination between the Corps of Engineers and Tribes for the identification and recovery of Tribal historic and cultural resources discovered at authorized water resources development projects.
Prioritization.— In conducting the review required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall prioritize reviewing procedures used by the Sacramento District in the South Pacific Division of the Corps of Engineers.
Report.— Upon completion of the review required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the findings of such review.
Study on the Corps of Engineers Role in Support of FEMA Missions and Related Information Collection.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall complete a review of the Corps of Engineers and its role in support of Federal Emergency Management Agency missions beginning with fiscal year 2014, including—
a description with costs and funding sources of all data, methodological advice, information, models, and analysis that the Corps of Engineers has provided to the Federal Emergency Management Agency together with an assessment of the fitness of such information for policy purposes in relation to—
floodplain mapping;
flood insurance, including the Risk Rating 2.0 flood insurance pricing methodology; and
determination of the flood risk reduction provided by structural and nonstructural flood risk reduction projects, including levee systems, both accredited and non-accredited; and
evaluation of the Corps of Engineers application of and compliance with section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (commonly known as the “Information Quality Act of 2000”) (Public Law 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763A–153) and the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–435, 132 Stat. 5529), including the amendments made by that Act, and associated guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget, in ensuring the fitness of data and information used by the Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency as foundations for agency guidance, rules, and policymaking.
Scope.— In conducting the review required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall examine—
discharge of the Secretary’s duties under section 3014 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (42 U.S.C. 4131); and
administration of activities pursuant to National Levee Safety Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.), section 1123 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 3306), and section 8121 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 3307), in order to establish—
an assessment of Corps of Engineers use of peer review under section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (commonly known as the “Information Quality Act of 2000”) (Public Law 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763A–153);
the degree to which data, methodological advice, information, models, and analysis are freely accessible to the public;
the degree to which data, methodological advice, information, models, and analysis are transparent and reproducible by the public;
the views of the public and affected parties on how the Corps of Engineers should uphold the data quality and evidence-based policymaking objectives of such section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 and the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–435, 132 Stat. 5529), including the amendments made by that Act;
the immediate and long-term impacts of the Corps of Engineers support to Federal Emergency Management Agency for affected communities, units of local government (including levee and drainage districts), and property owners, including the prioritization and justification of flood risk management projects;
the degree to which Federal coordination is occurring with affected communities, units of local government (including levee and drainage districts), and property owners in the formulation of agency guidance, rules, and policymaking, including agency adherence to section 1317 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4024) in the formulation of the Risk Rating 2.0 flood insurance pricing methodology;
recommendations to the Secretary for improving compliance with the provisions of law referred to in clause (iv); and
recommendations to Congress, as appropriate, on legislation improving Corps of Engineers compliance with the provisions of law referred to in clause (iv).
Consultation.— In carrying out the review required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall consult with the Office of the Engineer Inspector General of the Corps of Engineers, the Office of Management and Budget, levee and drainage districts, and units of local government.
Report.— Upon completion of the review required under paragraph (1) and (2), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the findings of such review.
Report on Material Contaminated by a Hazardous Substance and the Civil Works Program.—
In general.— Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General carry out a review of the impact of material contaminated by a hazardous substance on the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers, including relevant policies, regulations, or guidance of the Corps of Engineers.
Requirements.— In developing the review under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
describe—
with respect to water resources development projects—
the applicable statutory authorities that require the removal of material contaminated by a hazardous substance;
the roles and responsibilities of the Secretary and non-Federal interests for identifying and removing material contaminated by a hazardous substance; and
the currently required remediation standards for water resources development projects where material contaminated by hazardous substances are identified, if applicable; and
any regulatory actions or decisions made by another Federal agency that impact—
the removal of material contaminated by a hazardous substance; and
the ability of the Secretary to carry out the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers;
discuss the impact of material contaminated by a hazardous substance on—
the timely completion of construction of water resources development projects;
the operation and maintenance of water resources development projects, including dredging activities of the Corps of Engineers to maintain authorized Federal depths at ports and along the inland waterways; and
costs associated with carrying out the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers; and
include any other information that the Secretary determines to be appropriate to facilitate an understanding of the impact of material contaminated by a hazardous substance on the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers.
Report.— On completion of the review 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 such assessment, including any legislative recommendations that result from such assessment.
TITLE III Deauthorizations and Modifications
SEC. 1301. Deauthorization of Inactive Projects.
Section 301 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 579d–2) is amended by striking subsections (a) through (c) and inserting the following:
“(a) Purposes.—The purposes of this section are—
“(1) to identify water resources development projects, and separable elements of projects, authorized by Congress that are no longer viable for construction due to—
“(A) a lack of local support;
“(B) a lack of available Federal or non-Federal resources; or
“(C) an authorizing purpose that is no longer relevant or feasible;
“(2) to create an expedited and definitive process for Congress to deauthorize water resources development projects and separable elements that are no longer viable for construction; and
“(3) to allow the continued authorization of water resources development projects and separable elements that are viable for construction.
“(b) Proposed Deauthorization List.—
“(1) Preliminary list of projects.—
“(A) In general.—The Secretary shall develop a preliminary list of each water resources development project, or separable element of a project, authorized for construction before June 10, 2014, for which—
“(i) planning, design, or construction was not initiated before the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024; or
“(ii) planning, design, or construction was initiated before the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024, but for which no funds, Federal or non-Federal, were obligated for planning, design, or construction of the project or separable element of the project during the current fiscal year or any of the 10 preceding fiscal years.
“(B) Use of comprehensive construction backlog and operation and maintenance report.—The Secretary may develop the preliminary list from the comprehensive construction backlog and operation and maintenance reports developed pursuant to section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a).
“(2) Preparation of proposed deauthorization list.—
“(A) Proposed list and estimated deauthorization amount.—The Secretary shall—
“(i) prepare a proposed list of projects for deauthorization comprised of a subset of projects and separable elements identified on the preliminary list developed under paragraph (1) that are projects or separable elements described in subsection (a)(1), as determined by the Secretary; and
“(ii) include with such proposed list an estimate, in the aggregate, of the Federal cost to complete such projects.
“(B) Determination of federal cost to complete.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the Federal cost to complete shall take into account any allowances authorized by section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280), as applied to the most recent project schedule and cost estimate.
“(3) Public comment and consultation.—
“(A) In general.—The Secretary shall solicit comments from the public and the Governors of each applicable State on the proposed deauthorization list prepared under paragraph (2)(A).
“(B) Comment period.—The public comment period shall be 90 days.
“(4) Preparation of final deauthorization list.—
“(A) In general.—The Secretary shall prepare a final deauthorization list by—
“(i) considering any comments received under paragraph (3); and
“(ii) revising the proposed deauthorization list prepared under paragraph (2)(A) as the Secretary determines necessary to respond to such comments.
“(B) Appendix.—The Secretary shall include as part of the final deauthorization list an appendix that—
“(i) identifies each project or separable element on the proposed deauthorization list that is not included on the final deauthorization list; and
“(ii) describes the reasons why the project or separable element is not included on the final deauthorization list.
“(c) Submission of Final Deauthorization List to Congress for Congressional Review; Publication.—
“(1) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the close of the comment period under subsection (b)(3), the Secretary shall—
“(A) submit the final deauthorization list and appendix prepared under subsection (b)(4) to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate; and
“(B) publish the final deauthorization list and appendix in the Federal Register.
“(2) Exclusions.—The Secretary shall not include in the final deauthorization list submitted under paragraph (1) any project or separable element with respect to which Federal funds for planning, design, or construction are obligated after the development of the preliminary list under subsection (b)(1)(A) but prior to the submission of the final deauthorization list under paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection.”
SEC. 1302. Specific Deauthorizations.
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.
Deauthorization of Designated Portions of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.—
In general.— The portion of the project for flood risk management, Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1589; 50 Stat. 167; 52 Stat. 1215; 55 Stat. 647; 64 Stat. 177; 104 Stat. 4611; 136 Stat. 3785), consisting of the flood channels described in paragraph (2), are no longer authorized beginning on the date that is 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
Flood channels described.— The flood channels referred to in paragraph (1) are the following flood channels operated and maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, as generally defined in Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance manuals and as may be further described in an agreement entered into under paragraph (3):
Arcadia Wash Channel (Auburn Branch Channel).
Arcadia Wash Channel (Baldwin Ave. Branch Channel).
Arcadia Wash Channel (East Branch Channel).
Arcadia Wash Channel (Lima St. Branch Channel).
Bel Aire Dr./Sunset Canyon Channel.
Big Dalton Wash Channel.
Big Dalton Wash Channel (East Branch Inlet Channel).
Blanchard Canyon Channel.
Blue Gum Canyon Channel.
Brand Canyon Channel.
Childs Canyon Channel.
Dead Horse Canyon Channel.
Dunsmuir Canyon Channel.
Eagle Canyon Channel.
Elmwood Canyon Channel.
Emerald Wash Channel.
Emerald Wash Channel (West Branch).
Hay Canyon Channel.
Higgins and Coldwater Canyon.
Hillcrest Canyon Channel.
La Tuna Canyon Channel.
Little Dalton Diversion Channel.
Little Dalton Wash Channel.
Live Oak Wash Channel.
Mansfield St. Channel.
Marshall Creek Channel.
Marshall Creek Channel (West Branch).
Rexford-Monte Mar Branch.
Royal Boulevard Channel.
Rubio Canyon Diversion Channel.
San Dimas Wash Channel.
Sawtelle Channel.
Shields Canyon Channel.
Sierra Madre Villa Channel.
Sierra Madre Wash.
Sierra Madre Wash Inlet.
Snover Canyon Channel.
Stough Canyon Channel.
Thompson Creek Channel.
Walnut Creek Channel.
Webber Canyon Channel.
Westwood Branch Channel.
Wilson Canyon Channel.
Winery Canyon Channel.
Agreement.— Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall seek to enter into an agreement with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to ensure that the Los Angeles County Flood Control District—
will continue to operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and replace as necessary, the flood channels described in paragraph (2)—
in perpetuity at no cost to the United States; and
in a manner that does not reduce the level of flood protection of the project described in paragraph (1);
will retain public ownership of all real property required for the continued functioning of the flood channels described in paragraph (2), consistent with authorized purposes of the project described in paragraph (1);
will allow the Corps of Engineers to continue to operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and replace any appurtenant structures, such as rain and stream gages, existing as of the date of enactment of this Act and located within the flood channels subject to deauthorization under paragraph (1) as necessary to ensure the continued functioning of the project described in paragraph (1); and
will hold and save the United States harmless from damages due to floods, breach, failure, operation, or maintenance of the flood channels described in paragraph (2).
Administrative costs.— The Secretary may accept and expend funds voluntarily contributed by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to cover the administrative costs incurred by the Secretary to—
enter into an agreement under paragraph (3); and
monitor compliance with such agreement.
Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.—
In general.— The portion of the project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of the Act of July 24, 1946 (chapter 595, 60 Stat. 634; 72 Stat. 297), described in paragraph (2) is no longer authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
Portion described.— The portion of the project referred to in paragraph (1) is generally the northeastern corner of the Federal Turning Basin at Bridgeport Harbor, immediately south of the previous Cilco Terminal and current Dolphins Cove Marina—
beginning at a point N622921.65, E882983.49;
running east approximately 1243 feet to a point N622079.26, E883897.46;
running southwest approximately 754 feet to N622244.84, E883162.02; and
running approximately 700 feet to the point of beginning.
Thames River, Connecticut.—
In general.— Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the 25-foot-deep channel portion of the project for navigation, Thames River, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of the Act of July 3, 1930 (chapter 847, 46 Stat. 918), consisting of the area described in paragraph (2), is no longer authorized.
Area described.— The area referred to in paragraph (1) is the area—
beginning at a point N706550.83, E1179497.53;
running southeasterly about 808.28 feet to a point N705766.32, E1179692.10;
running southeasterly about 2219.17 feet to a point N703725.88, E1180564.64;
running southeasterly about 1594.84 feet to a point N702349.59, E1181370.46;
running southwesterly about 483.01 feet to a point N701866.63, E1181363.54;
running northwesterly about 2023.85 feet to a point N703613.13, E1180340.96;
running northwesterly about 2001.46 feet to a point N705453.40, E1179554.02; and
running northwesterly about 1098.89 feet to the point described in paragraph (1).
Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.—
In general.— Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1090; 113 Stat. 276; 119 Stat. 2260; 128 Stat. 1364), is modified to deauthorize the portion of the project described in paragraph (2).
Portion described.— The portion of the project referred to in paragraph (1) is the area bounded by the following coordinates:
E 458361.31, N 2176371.67.
E 458278.7499, N 2175769.9847.
E 457946.66, N 2175527.99.
Masaryktown Canal, Florida.—
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.
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.
Saint Petersburg Harbor, Florida.—
In general.— Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the portion of the project for navigation, Saint Petersburg Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 165), consisting of the area described in paragraph (2) is no longer authorized.
Area described.— The area referred to in paragraph (1) is the portion of the Federal channel located within Bayboro Harbor, at approximately -82.635353 W and 27.760977 N, south of the Range 300 line and west of the Station 71+00 line.
North Branch, Chicago River, Illinois.—
In general.— Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the portion of the project for navigation North Branch channel, Chicago River, Illinois, authorized by section 22 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (chapter 425, 30 Stat. 1156), consisting of the area described in paragraph (2) is no longer authorized.
Area described.— The area referred to in paragraph (1) is the approximately one-mile long segment of the North Branch Channel on the east side of Goose Island, Chicago River, Illinois.
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.
Papillion Creek Watershed, Nebraska.— Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the project for flood protection and other purposes in the Papillion Creek Basin, Nebraska, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 743) is modified to deauthorize the portions of the project known as Dam Site 7 and Dam Site 12.
Truckee River, Nevada.— Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the project for flood risk management, Truckee Meadows, Nevada, authorized by section 7002(2) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1366), is no longer authorized.
Newtown Creek Federal Navigation Channel, New York.—
In general.— Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the project for navigation, Newtown Creek Federal navigation channel, New York, authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1919 (chapter 95, 40 Stat. 1276; 446 Stat. 920; 50 Stat. 845) is modified to deauthorize a portion of the channel in East Branch, consisting of the area described in paragraph (2).
Area described.— The area referred to in paragraph (1) is the area beginning at a point North 40.718066 and West 73.923931, and extending upstream.
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.
Monroe Bay and Creek Federal Channel, Virginia.—
In general.— Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the project for navigation, Monroe Bay and Creek, Virginia, authorized by the first section of the Act of July 3, 1930 (chapter 847, 46 Stat. 922), is modified to deauthorize a portion of the turning and anchorage basin, consisting of the area described in paragraph (2).
Area described.— The area referred to in paragraph (1) is 500 feet wide by 300 feet long of the turning and anchorage basin starting at the upstream limit (end) of the turning and anchorage basin near Robins Grove Port. This area is further defined by the following coordinates, Easting: 1322718.74, Northing: 209016.31; Easting: 1323145.05, Northing: 208755.00; Easting: 1322988.29, Northing: 208499.27; Easting: 1322561.97, Northing: 208760.59.
Seattle Harbor, Washington.—
In general.— Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the project for navigation, Seattle Harbor, Washington, authorized by the first section of the Act of August 30, 1935 (chapter 831, 49 Stat. 1039), is modified to deauthorize the portion of the project within the East Waterway consisting of the area described in paragraph (2).
Area described.— The area referred to in paragraph (1) is the area—
beginning at the southwest corner of Block 386, Plat of Seattle Tidelands (said corner also being a point on the United States pierhead line);
thence north 90°00’00” west along the projection of the south line of Block 386, 206.58 feet to the centerline of the East Waterway;
thence north 14°30’00” east along the centerline and parallel with the northwesterly line of Block 386, 64.83 feet;
thence north 33°32’59” east, 235.85 feet;
thence north 39°55’22” east, 128.70 feet;
thence north 14°30’00” east parallel with the northwesterly line of Block 386, 280.45 feet;
thence north 90°00’00” east, 70.00 feet to the pierhead line and the northwesterly line of Block 386; and
thence south 14°30’00” west, 650.25 feet along said pierhead line and northwesterly line of Block 386 to the point of beginning.
Study on Additional Deauthorization.— Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate on the impacts of deauthorizing of the portions of the project for flood protection on the Lower San Joaquin River and tributaries, California, authorized by section 10 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 901) consisting of the right bank of the San Joaquin River between levee miles 0.00 on the left bank of the Tuolumne River and levee mile 3.76 on the San Joaquin River, California.
SEC. 1303. General Reauthorizations.
Las Vegas, Nevada.— Section 529(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2658; 119 Stat. 2255; 125 Stat. 865; 136 Stat. 4631) is amended by striking “ $40,000,000” and inserting “ $60,000,000”.
Invasive Species in Alpine Lakes Pilot Program.— Section 507(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (16 U.S.C. 4701 note) is amended by striking “ 2028” and inserting “ 2030”.
Environmental Banks.— Section 309(e) of the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 3957(e)) is amended by striking “ 12” and inserting “ 14”.
Levee Safety Initiative.— Section 9005(g)(2)(E)(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303a(g)(2)(E)(i)) is amended by striking “ 2028” and inserting “ 2030”.
Non-Federal Implementation Pilot Program.— Section 1043(b) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note) is amended by striking “ 2026” each place it appears and inserting “ 2030”.
Asian Carp Prevention and Control Pilot Program.— Section 509(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 610 note) is amended—
in paragraph (2)(C)(ii), by striking “ 2024” and inserting “ 2030”; and
in paragraph (7), by striking “ 2 years thereafter” and inserting “ 2 years after the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024”.
Transfer of Excess Credit.— Section 1020 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2223) is amended by striking “ 2028” and inserting “ 2030” each place it appears.
Pilot Programs on the Formulation of Corps of Engineers Projects in Rural Communities and Economically Disadvantaged Communities.— Section 118 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note) is amended—
in subsection (e), by striking “ 5 years and 10 years” and inserting “ 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years”;
in subsection (g), by striking “ 10 years” and inserting “ 15 years”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(h) Priority Projects.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall prioritize the following projects:
“(1) The project for flood risk management, city of Rialto, California, authorized by section 1201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024.
“(2) The project for ecosystem restoration and recreation, Santa Ana River, Jurupa Valley, California, authorized by section 1201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024.
“(3) The project for flood control and other purposes, Kentucky River and its tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by section 6 of the Act of August 11, 1939 (chapter 699, 53 Stat. 1416).
“(4) The project for flood risk management, Kentucky River, Kentucky, authorized by section 8201(a)(31) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3746).
“(5) The project for navigation, Hagaman Chute, Lake Providence, Louisiana, authorized by section 1201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024.
“(6) The project for flood risk management, Otero County, New Mexico, authorized by section 1201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024.
“(7) The project for flood control and other purposes, Susquehanna River Basin, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1573).
“(8) The project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Winooski River basin, Vermont, authorized by section 1201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024.
“(9) The project for flood risk management and sediment management, Grays River, Wahkiakum County, Washington, authorized by section 1201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024.”
Rehabilitation of Existing Levees.— Section 3017(e) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 3303a note) is amended by striking “ 2028” and inserting “ 2033”.
Extension for Certain Invasive Species Programs.— Section 104(b)(2)(A) of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610(b)(2)(A)) is amended—
in clause (i), by striking “ each of fiscal years 2021 through 2024” and inserting “ each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029”; and
in clause (ii), by striking “ 2028” and inserting “ 2029”.
SEC. 1304. Environmental Infrastructure.
(a) New Projects.—Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1258; 136 Stat. 3808) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(406) Buckeye, arizona.—$12,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of Buckeye, Arizona.
“(407) Flagstaff, arizona.—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for water reclamation, withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Flagstaff, Arizona.
“(408) Glendale, arizona.—$5,200,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Glendale, Arizona.
“(409) Page, arizona.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of Page, Arizona.
“(410) Sahuarita, arizona.—$4,800,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, in the town of Sahuarita, Arizona.
“(411) 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.
“(412) Tucson, arizona.—$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water reclamation and recycled water systems), Tucson, Arizona.
“(413) Winslow, arizona.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of Winslow, Arizona.
“(414) Adelanto, california.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the City of Adelanto, California.
“(415) Aptos, california.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Aptos, California.
“(416) Sacramento and san joaquin rivers, bay-delta, california.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, San Francisco Bay–Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta watershed, California.
“(417) Bishop, california.—$2,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Bishop, California.
“(418) Bloomington, california.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Bloomington, California.
“(419) Butte county, california.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water supply, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection in Butte County, California.
“(420) California city, california.—$1,902,808 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of California City, California.
“(421) Carson, california.—$11,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the City of Carson, California.
“(422) Cedar glen, california.—$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and water storage, in Cedar Glen, California.
“(423) Culver city, california.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in City of Culver City, California.
“(424) Colton, california.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Colton, California.
“(425) East san fernando valley, california.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, drinking water, and water supply, in the City of Los Angeles, California, including Sun Valley.
“(426) Fresno county, california.—$20,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including stormwater management, surface water resource protection, and environmental restoration, in Fresno County, California.
“(427) Georgetown divide public utility district, california.—$20,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and water storage, for communities served by the Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, California.
“(428) Grand terrace, california.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Grand Terrace, California.
“(429) Hayward, california.—$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in the city of Hayward, California.
“(430) Hollister, california.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Hollister, California.
“(431) Kern county, california.—$50,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in Kern County, California.
“(432) Lake county, california.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Lake County, California.
“(433) Lake tahoe basin.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the communities within the Lake Tahoe Basin in Nevada and California.
“(434) La quinta, california.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the City of La Quinta, California.
“(435) Lakewood, california.—$8,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Lakewood, California.
“(436) Lawndale, california.—$6,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, and environmental infrastructure, in the city of Lawndale, California.
“(437) Lone pine, california.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Lone Pine, California.
“(438) Lomita, california.—$5,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in the city of Lomita, California.
“(439) Los banos, california.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Los Banos, California.
“(440) Los olivos, california.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Los Olivos, California.
“(441) Lynwood, california.—$12,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of Lynwood, California.
“(442) Madera county, california.—$27,500,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in Madera County, California.
“(443) Milpitas, california.—$15,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of Milpitas, California.
“(444) Montecito, california.—$18,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in the town of Montecito, California.
“(445) Oakland-alameda estuary, california.—$30,000,000 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.
“(446) Oxnard, california.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, conservation, water reuse and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection, in the city of Oxnard, California.
“(447) Patterson, california.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and environmental restoration, in the city of Patterson, California.
“(448) Pomona, california.—$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in Pomona, California.
“(449) Rohnert park, california.—$10,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of Rohnert Park, California.
“(450) Salinas, california.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Salinas, California.
“(451) San benito county, california.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in San Benito County, California.
“(452) San buenaventura, california.—$18,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of San Buenaventura, California.
“(453) San diego county, california.—$200,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in San Diego County, California.
“(454) South gate, california.—$5,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of South Gate, California.
“(455) San luis obispo county, california.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water supply, in San Luis Obispo County, California.
“(456) Stanislaus county, california.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in Stanislaus County, California.
“(457) Tijuana river valley watershed, california.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Tijuana River Valley Watershed, California.
“(458) Tulare county, california.—$20,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including stormwater management, surface water resource protection, and environmental restoration, in Tulare County, California.
“(459) Watsonville, california.—$28,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Watsonville, California.
“(460) Yolo county, california.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in Yolo County, California.
“(461) Yorba linda water district, california.—$6,500,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in communities served by the Yorba Linda Water District, California.
“(462) El paso county, colorado.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and stormwater management, El Paso County, Colorado.
“(463) Fremont county, colorado.—$50,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, in Fremont County, Colorado.
“(464) East hampton, connecticut.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of East Hampton, Connecticut.
“(465) East lyme, connecticut.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of East Lyme, Connecticut.
“(466) 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.
“(467) Wilmington, delaware.—$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Wilmington, Delaware.
“(468) 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.
“(469) Broward county, florida.—$50,000,000 for water and water-related infrastructure, including stormwater management, water storage and treatment, surface water protection, and environmental restoration, in Broward County, Florida.
“(470) Deltona, florida.—$31,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the City of Deltona, Florida.
“(471) Longboat key, florida.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the Town of Longboat Key, Florida.
“(472) Marion county, florida.—$10,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including water supply, in Marion County, Florida.
“(473) Oviedo, florida.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water storage and treatment, in the city of Oviedo, Florida.
“(474) Osceola county, florida.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, and environmental restoration, in Osceola County, Florida.
“(475) Central florida.—$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Brevard County, Orange County, and Osceola County, Florida.
“(476) Coastal georgia, georgia.—$50,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management and water supply), in Bryan, Camden, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, and McIntosh Counties, Georgia.
“(477) Muscogee, henry, and clayton counties, georgia.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), Muscogee, Henry, and Clayton Counties, Georgia.
“(478) Cobb county, georgia.—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Cobb County, Georgia.
“(479) Dekalb county, georgia.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in DeKalb County, Georgia.
“(480) Porterdale, georgia.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water supply, and environmental restoration in the city of Porterdale, Georgia.
“(481) Burley, idaho.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water treatment, in the city of Burley, Idaho.
“(482) Belvidere, illinois.—$17,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Belvidere, Illinois.
“(483) Calumet city, illinois.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Calumet City, Illinois.
“(484) Dupage county, illinois.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in the village of Clarendon Hills, Illinois.
“(485) Fox river, illinois.—$9,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water storage and treatment, in the villages of Lakemoor, Island Lake, and Volo, and McHenry County, Illinois.
“(486) German valley, illinois.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in the village of German Valley, Illinois.
“(487) Lasalle, illinois.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, drinking water, water treatment, and environmental restoration, in the city of LaSalle, Illinois.
“(488) Rockford, illinois.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in the city of Rockford, Illinois.
“(489) Savanna, illinois.—$2,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including drinking water, in the city of Savanna, Illinois.
“(490) Sherrard, illinois.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in the village of Sherrard, Illinois.
“(491) 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.
“(492) Brownsville, kentucky.—$14,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in the city of Brownsville, Kentucky.
“(493) Monroe, louisiana.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water supply, and drinking water, in the city of Monroe, Louisiana.
“(494) Pointe celeste, louisiana.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including pump stations, in Pointe Celeste, Louisiana.
“(495) Easthampton, massachusetts.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including wastewater treatment plant outfalls), Easthampton, Massachusetts.
“(496) Franklin, massachusetts.—$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Franklin, Massachusetts.
“(497) Northampton, massachusetts.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including pump stations, Hockanum Road, Northampton, Massachusetts.
“(498) Winthrop, massachusetts.—$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Winthrop, Massachusetts.
“(499) Milan, michigan.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in the city of Milan, Michigan.
“(500) Southeast michigan.—$58,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water supply, in Genesee, Macomb, Oakland, Wayne, and Washtenaw Counties, Michigan.
“(501) Elysian, minnesota.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Elysian, Minnesota.
“(502) Le sueur, minnesota.—$3,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Le Sueur, Minnesota.
“(503) Byram, mississippi.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Byram, Mississippi.
“(504) Columbia, mississippi.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water quality enhancement and water supply, in the city of Columbia, Mississippi.
“(505) Diamondhead, mississippi.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and drainage systems, Diamondhead, Mississippi.
“(506) 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.
“(507) Laurel, mississippi.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Laurel, Mississippi.
“(508) Madison, mississippi.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Madison, Mississippi.
“(509) Moss point, mississippi.—$11,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Moss Point, Mississippi.
“(510) Olive branch, mississippi.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water quality enhancement, and water supply, in the city of Olive Branch, Mississippi.
“(511) Pearl, mississippi.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Pearl, Mississippi.
“(512) Picayune, mississippi.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Picayune, Mississippi.
“(513) Starkville, mississippi.—$6,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water, water treatment, water quality enhancement, and water supply, in the city of Starkville, Mississippi.
“(514) Laughlin, nevada.—$29,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of Laughlin, Nevada.
“(515) 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.
“(516) Pahrump, nevada.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Pahrump, Nevada.
“(517) Storey county, nevada.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Storey County, Nevada.
“(518) New hampshire.—$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, New Hampshire.
“(519) Belmar, new jersey.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure and stormwater management in Belmar Township, New Jersey.
“(520) Cape may county, new jersey.—$40,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water supply, desalination, and facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Cape May County, New Jersey.
“(521) Colesville, new jersey.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Colesville, New Jersey.
“(522) Deptford township, new jersey.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Deptford Township, New Jersey.
“(523) Lacey township, new jersey.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure and stormwater management, in Lacey Township, New Jersey.
“(524) Merchantville, new jersey.—$18,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Merchantville, New Jersey.
“(525) Park ridge, new jersey.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Park Ridge, New Jersey.
“(526) Washington township, new jersey.—$3,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Washington Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey.
“(527) Bernalillo, new mexico.—$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the town of Bernalillo, New Mexico.
“(528) Bosque farms, new mexico.—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the village of Bosque Farms, New Mexico.
“(529) Carmel, new york.—$3,450,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Carmel, New York.
“(530) Dutchess county, new york.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Dutchess County, New York.
“(531) Kings county, new york.—$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in Kings County, New York.
“(532) Mohawk river and tributaries, new york.—$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, surface water resource protection, environmental restoration, and related infrastructure, in the vicinity of the Mohawk River and tributaries, including the counties of Albany, Delaware, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Lewis, Madison, Montgomery, Oneida, Otsego, Saratoga, Schoharie, and Schenectady, New York.
“(533) Mount pleasant, new york.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Mount Pleasant, New York.
“(534) New rochelle, new york.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), New Rochelle, New York.
“(535) Newtown creek, new york.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the vicinity of Newtown Creek, New York City, New York.
“(536) New york county, new york.—$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in New York County, New York.
“(537) Orange county, new york.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Orange County, New York.
“(538) Sleepy hollow, new york.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Sleepy Hollow, New York.
“(539) Ulster county, new york.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Ulster County, New York.
“(540) Ramapo, new york.—$4,000,000 for water infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in the town of Ramapo, New York.
“(541) Rikers island, new york.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows) on Rikers Island, New York.
“(542) Yorktown, new york.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Yorktown, New York.
“(543) Canton, north carolina.—$41,025,650 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Canton, North Carolina.
“(544) Fairmont, north carolina.—$7,137,500 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the town of Fairmont, North Carolina.
“(545) Murphy, north carolina.—$1,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of Murphy, North Carolina.
“(546) Robbinsville, north carolina.—$3,474,350 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Robbinsville, North Carolina.
“(547) Weaverville, north carolina.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Weaverville, North Carolina.
“(548) City of akron, ohio.—$5,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including drainage systems), City of Akron, Ohio.
“(549) Apple creek, ohio.—$350,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Apple Creek, Ohio.
“(550) Ashtabula county, ohio.—$1,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water supply and water quality enhancement), Ashtabula County, Ohio.
“(551) Bloomingburg, ohio.—$6,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Bloomingburg, Ohio.
“(552) Brooklyn heights, ohio.—$170,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Brooklyn Heights, Ohio.
“(553) Chagrin falls regional water system, ohio.—$3,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the villages of Bentleyville, Chagrin Falls, Moreland Hills, and South Russell, and the Townships of Bainbridge, Chagrin Falls, and Russell, Ohio.
“(554) Cuyahoga county, ohio.—$11,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including combined sewer overflows), Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
“(555) East cleveland, ohio.—$13,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), East Cleveland, Ohio.
“(556) Erie county, ohio.—$16,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows) in Erie County, Ohio.
“(557) Huron, ohio.—$7,100,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Huron, Ohio.
“(558) Kelleys island, ohio.—$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the village of Kelleys Island, Ohio.
“(559) North olmsted, ohio.—$1,175,165 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of North Olmsted, Ohio.
“(560) Painesville, ohio.—$11,800,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the City of Painesville, Ohio.
“(561) Solon, ohio.—$14,137,341 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Solon, Ohio.
“(562) Summit county, ohio.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in Summit County, Ohio.
“(563) Stark county, ohio.—$24,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in Stark County, Ohio.
“(564) Struthers, ohio.—$500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including wastewater infrastructure, stormwater management, and sewer improvements), Struthers, Ohio.
“(565) Toledo and oregon, ohio.—$10,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the cities of Toledo and Oregon, Ohio.
“(566) Vermilion, ohio.—$15,400,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the city of Vermilion, Ohio.
“(567) Westlake, ohio.—$750,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Westlake, Ohio.
“(568) Stillwater, oklahoma.—$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and water supply infrastructure (including facilities for water storage, withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), in the city of Stillwater, Oklahoma.
“(569) Beaverton, oregon.—$10,000,000 for water supply in the city of Beaverton, Oregon.
“(570) Clackamas county, oregon.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including combined sewer overflows, in Clackamas County, Oregon.
“(571) Washington county, oregon.—$50,000,000 for water infrastructure and water supply in Washington County, Oregon.
“(572) Pennsylvania.—$38,600,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Pennsylvania.
“(573) Berks county, pennsylvania.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, stormwater management, drinking water, and water treatment, in Berks County, Pennsylvania.
“(574) Chester county, pennsylvania.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, stormwater management, drinking water, and water treatment, in Chester County, Pennsylvania.
“(575) Franklin township, pennsylvania.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Franklin Township, Pennsylvania.
“(576) Indian creek, pennsylvania.—$50,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the boroughs of Telford, Franconia, and Lower Safford, Pennsylvania.
“(577) Pen argyl, pennsylvania.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania.
“(578) Chesterfield county, south carolina.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure and other environmental infrastructure (including stormwater management), Chesterfield County, South Carolina.
“(579) Cheraw, south carolina.—$8,800,000 for water, wastewater, and other environmental infrastructure in the town of Cheraw, South Carolina.
“(580) Florence county, south carolina.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Florence County, South Carolina.
“(581) Lake city, south carolina.—$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management in the city of Lake City, South Carolina.
“(582) Tipton county, tennessee.—$35,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure and water supply infrastructure, including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution, Tipton County, Tennessee.
“(583) Tipton, haywood, and fayette counties, tennessee.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure and water supply, in Tipton, Haywood, and Fayette Counties, Tennessee.
“(584) Austin, texas.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Austin, Texas.
“(585) Amarillo, texas.—$38,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water storage and treatment systems, in the City of Amarillo, Texas.
“(586) Brownsville, texas.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the City of Brownsville, Texas.
“(587) Clarendon, texas.—$5,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water storage, in the city of Clarendon, Texas.
“(588) Quinlan, texas.—$1,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Quinlan, Texas.
“(589) Runaway bay, texas.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water storage and treatment systems, in the city of Runaway Bay, Texas.
“(590) Webb county, texas.—$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure and water supply in Webb County, Texas.
“(591) Zapata county, texas.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Zapata County, Texas.
“(592) King william county, virginia.—$1,300,000 for wastewater infrastructure in King William County, Virginia.
“(593) Potomac river, virginia.—$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, environmental infrastructure, and water quality improvements, in the vicinity of the Potomac River, Virginia.
“(594) Chelan, washington.—$9,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, storage, and distribution, in the city of Chelan, Washington.
“(595) College place, washington.—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and storage, in the city of College Place, Washington.
“(596) Ferndale, washington.—$4,000,000 for water, wastewater, and environmental infrastructure, in the city of Ferndale, Washington.
“(597) Lynden, washington.—$4,000,000 for water, wastewater, and environmental infrastructure, in the city of Lynden, Washington.
“(598) Othello, washington.—$14,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water supply, storage, and treatment, and aquifer storage and recovery), in the city of Othello, Washington.”
(b) Project Modifications.— (1) 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 (33 U.S.C. 2282d), titled “Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development”, or have otherwise been reviewed by Congress. (2) Modifications.— (A) 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”. (B) Alameda and contra costa counties, california.—Section 219(f)(80) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1258) is amended by striking “ $25,000,000” and inserting “ $45,000,000”. (C) Calaveras county, california.—Section 219(f)(86) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1259; 136 Stat. 3816) is amended by striking “ $13,280,000” and inserting “ $16,300,000”. (D) Contra costa county, california.—Section 219(f)(87) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1259) is amended— (i) in the paragraph heading, by striking “ water district” and inserting “ county”; (ii) by inserting “ $80,000,000, of which not less than” before “ $23,000,000”; (iii) by inserting “ shall be” after “ $23,000,000”; and (iv) by inserting “ service area, and of which not less than $57,000,000 shall be for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water supply, within the service areas for the Delta Diablo Sanitation District and the Ironhouse Sanitary District, Contra Costa County” after “ Water District”. (E) 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— (i) by striking “ $103,000,000” and inserting “ $128,000,000”; and (ii) by striking “ Santa Clarity Valley” and inserting “ Santa Clarita Valley”. (F) Los angeles county, california environmental assistance program.—Section 8319 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3785) is amended— (i) in subsection (d)(3), by adding at the end the following:
“(E) Exception.—Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(i), the Federal share of the cost of a project under this section benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)) shall be 90 percent.”
; and (ii) in subsection (e)(1), by striking “ $50,000,000” and inserting “ $100,000,000”. (G) Los osos, california.— (i) Project description.—Section 219(c)(27) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 114 Stat. 2763A–219; 121 Stat. 1209) is amended by striking “ Wastewater” and inserting “ Water and wastewater”. (ii) Authorization of appropriations for construction assistance.—Section 219(e)(15) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 121 Stat. 1192) is amended by striking “ $35,000,000” and inserting “ $43,000,000”. (H) San bernardino county, california.—Section 219(f)(101) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1260) is modified by striking “ $9,000,000” and inserting “ $24,000,000”. (I) South perris, california.—Section 219(f)(52) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 134 Stat. 2718) is amended by striking “ $50,000,000” and inserting “ $100,000,000”. (J) 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”. (K) 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”. (L) 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”. (M) Palm beach county, florida.—Section 219(f)(129) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1261) is amended by striking “ $7,500,000” and inserting “ $57,500,000”. (N) Atlanta, georgia.—Section 219(e)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334) is amended by striking “ $75,000,000” and inserting “ $100,000,000”. (O) 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”. (P) Guam.—Section 219(f)(323) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (136 Stat. 3811) is amended by striking “ $10,000,000” and inserting “ $35,000,000”. (Q) Maui, hawaii.—Section 219(f)(328) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3811) is modified by striking “ $20,000,000” and inserting “ $50,000,000”. (R) Cook county and lake county, illinois.—Section 219(f)(54) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–221) is amended by striking “ $100,000,000” and inserting “ $149,000,000”. (S) Forest park, illinois.—Section 219(f)(330) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3811) is amended by striking “ $10,000,000” and inserting “ $50,000,000”. (T) Madison and st. clair counties, illinois.—Section 219(f)(55) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 114 Stat. 2763A–221; 134 Stat. 2718; 136 Stat. 3817) is amended— (i) by inserting “ (including stormwater management)” after “ wastewater assistance”; and (ii) by striking “ $100,000,000” and inserting “ $150,000,000”. (U) South central illinois.—Section 219(f)(333) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended— (i) in the paragraph heading, by striking “ Montgomery and christian counties, illinois” and inserting “ South central illinois”; and (ii) 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”. (V) Will county, illinois.—Section 219(f)(334) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3808) is amended by striking “ $30,000,000” and inserting “ $36,000,000”. (W) Baton rouge, louisiana.—Section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 121 Stat. 1226; 136 Stat. 3817) is amended by striking “ $90,000,000” and inserting “ $100,000,000”. (X) East atchafalaya basin and amite river basin region, louisiana.—Section 5082(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1226) is amended by striking “ $40,000,000” and inserting “ $45,000,000”. (Y) Lafourche parish, louisiana.—Section 219(f)(146) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1262) is amended by striking “ $2,300,000” and inserting “ $7,300,000”. (Z) South central planning and development commission, louisiana.—Section 219(f)(153) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1262; 136 Stat. 3817) is amended by striking “ $12,500,000” and inserting “ $17,500,000”. (AA) Southeast louisiana region, louisiana.—Section 5085(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1228) is amended by striking “ $17,000,000” and inserting “ $22,000,000”. (BB) Fitchburg, massachusetts.—Section 219(f)(336) 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”. (CC) Haverhill, massachusetts.—Section 219(f)(337) 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”. (DD) Lawrence, massachusetts.—Section 219(f)(338) 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”. (EE) 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”. (FF) Methuen, massachusetts.—Section 219(f)(340) 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”. (GG) Macomb county, michigan.—Section 219(f)(345) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended by striking “ $40,000,000” and inserting “ $90,000,000”. (HH) Michigan.—Section 219(f)(157) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4825; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1262; 136 Stat. 3818) is amended— (i) in the paragraph heading, by striking “ Michigan combined sewer overflows” and inserting “ Michigan”; and (ii) in subparagraph (A) by striking “ $85,000,000” and inserting “ $160,000,000”. (II) Biloxi, mississippi.—Section 219(f)(163) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat, 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1263) is amended by striking “ $5,000,000” and inserting “ $10,000,000”. (JJ) Desoto county, mississippi.—Section 219(f)(30) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 119 Stat. 282; 119 Stat. 2257; 122 Stat. 1623; 134 Stat. 2718) is amended by striking “ $130,000,000” and inserting “ $170,000,000”. (KK) 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”. (LL) 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”. (MM) 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 “ $26,000,000”. (NN) 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”. (OO) Northern missouri.—Section 8353(d)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3800) is amended by adding at the end:
“(E) Exception.—Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(i), the Federal share of the cost of a project under this section benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 14 U.S.C. 2201 note)) shall be 90 percent.”
(PP) St. louis, missouri.—Section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 337; 121 Stat. 1233; 134 Stat. 2718) is amended by striking “ $70,000,000” and inserting “ $100,000,000”. (QQ) Camden, new jersey.—Section 219(f)(357) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “ $119,000,000” and inserting “ $143,800,000”. (RR) Central new mexico.—Section 593(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 380; 119 Stat. 2255; 136 Stat. 3820) is amended by striking “ $100,000,000” and inserting “ $150,000,000”. (SS) Kiryas joel, new york.—Section 219(f)(184) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1264) is amended by striking “ $5,000,000” and inserting “ $25,000,000”. (TT) Queens, new york.—Section 219(f)(377) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3814) is amended by striking “ $119,200,000” and inserting “ $190,000,000”. (UU) New york city watershed.—Section 552(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3780; 136 Stat. 3821) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(3) Considerations.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary may consider natural and nature-based infrastructure.”
(VV) North carolina.—Section 5113 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1237) is amended in subsection (f) by striking “ $13,000,000” and inserting “ $50,000,000”. (WW) Cleveland, ohio.—Section 219(f)(207) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1265) is amended by striking “ $2,500,000 for Flats East Bank” and inserting “ $25,500,000”. (XX) 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 “ $31,000,000”. (YY) 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 “ $15,000,000”. (ZZ) Woodward, oklahoma.—Section 219(f)(236) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1266) is amended by striking “ $1,500,000” and inserting “ $3,000,000”. (AAA) Southwestern oregon.—Section 8359 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3802) is amended— (i) in subsection (e)(1), by striking “ $50,000,000” and inserting “ $100,000,000”; and (ii) in subsection (f), by inserting “ Lincoln,” after “ Lane,”. (BBB) Hatfield borough, pennsylvania.—Section 219(f)(239) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1266) is amended by striking “ $310,000” and inserting “ $3,000,000”. (CCC) Northeast pennsylvania.—Section 219(f)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334) is amended by striking “ $20,000,000 for water related infrastructure” and inserting “ $70,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply”. (DDD) 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— (i) by striking “ $1,600,000” and inserting “ $3,000,000”; and (ii) by inserting “ water supply and” before “ wastewater”. (EEE) Phoenixville borough, chester county, pennsylvania.—Section 219(f)(68) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 114 Stat. 2763A–221) is amended by striking “ $2,400,000 for water and sewer infrastructure” and inserting “ $10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater infrastructure and water supply”. (FFF) Lakes marion and moultrie, south carolina.—Section 219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 117 Stat. 1838; 130 Stat. 1677; 132 Stat. 3818; 134 Stat. 2719; 136 Stat. 3818) is amended by striking “ $165,000,000” and inserting “ $235,000,000”. (GGG) Mount pleasant, south carolina.—Section 219(f)(393) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3815) is amended by striking “ $7,822,000” and inserting “ $20,000,000”. (HHH) Smith county, tennessee.—Section 219(f)(395) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3815) is amended by striking “ $19,500,000” and inserting “ $69,500,000”. (III) Dallas county region, texas.—Section 5140 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1251) is amended in subsection (i) by striking “ $40,000,000” and inserting “ $100,000,000”. (JJJ) Texas.—Section 5138 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1250; 136 Stat. 3821) is amended in subsection (i) by striking “ $80,000,000” and inserting “ $200,000,000”. (KKK) Western rural water.—Section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 383; 117 Stat. 139; 117 Stat. 142; 117 Stat. 1836; 118 Stat. 440; 121 Stat. 1219; 123 Stat. 2851; 128 Stat. 1316; 130 Stat. 1681; 134 Stat. 2719; 136 Stat. 3822) is amended— (i) in subsection (a)— (I) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively; and (II) 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.”
(ii) in subsection (c)(1)— (I) by inserting by inserting “ , including natural and nature-based infrastructure” after “ water-related environmental infrastructure”; (II) in subparagraph (C), by striking “ and” at the end; and (III) by adding at the end the following:
“(E) drought resilience measures; and”
; and (iii) in subsection (i)— (I) in paragraph (1), by striking “ $800,000,000” and inserting “ $850,000,000”; and (II) in paragraph (2), by striking “ $200,000,000” and inserting “ $250,000,000”. (LLL) 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 “ $11,000,000”. (3) Effect on authorization.—Notwithstanding the operation of section 6001(e) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016), any project included on a list published by the Secretary pursuant to such section the authorization for which is amended by this subsection remains authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
SEC. 1305. Environmental Infrastructure Pilot Program.
In General.— Notwithstanding subsection (b) of section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) and subject to the availability of appropriations, in carrying out projects under that section benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)), the Secretary may increase the Federal share of the cost of those projects to not more than 90 percent.
Limitation.— The total amount expended for an increased Federal share for all projects under subsection (a) shall not exceed $10,000,000 for each fiscal year.
Termination.— The authority provided by this section expires on the date that is 7 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1306. Conveyances.
Generally Applicable Provisions.—
Survey to obtain legal description.— The exact acreage and the legal description of any real property to be conveyed under this section shall be determined by a survey that is satisfactory to the Secretary.
Applicability of property screening provisions.— Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to any conveyance under this section.
Costs of conveyance.— An entity to which a conveyance is made under this section shall be responsible for all reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate transaction and environmental documentation costs, associated with the conveyance.
Liability.— An entity to which a conveyance is made under this section shall hold the United States harmless from any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after the date of the conveyance, on the real property conveyed. The United States shall remain responsible for any liability with respect to activities carried out, before such date, on the real property conveyed.
Additional terms and conditions.— The Secretary may require that any conveyance under this section be subject to such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary considers necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
City of Los Angeles, California.—
Conveyance authorized.— The Secretary may convey, without consideration to the City of Los Angeles, California, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property described in paragraph (2), for the purpose of housing a fire station, swiftwater rescue facility, and firefighter training facility.
Property.— The property to be conveyed under this subsection is the approximately 11.25 acres of land, including improvements on that land, located at 5101 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, California.
Reversion.— If the Secretary determines at any time that the property conveyed under this subsection is not in accordance with the purpose specified in paragraph (1), all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall revert, at the discretion of the Secretary, to the United States.
Salinas Dam and Reservoir, California.—
Conveyance authorized.— The Secretary may convey, without consideration, to the County of San Luis Obispo, California, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property described in paragraph (2).
Property.— The property to be conveyed under this subsection is Salinas Dam and Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake), California.
Safety requirements.— The Secretary shall, in consultation with appropriate Federal and non-Federal entities, ensure the property described in paragraph (2) meets applicable State and Federal dam safety requirements before conveying such property under this subsection.
Reversion.— If the Secretary determines that the property conveyed under this subsection is not used for a public purpose, all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall revert, at the discretion of the Secretary, to the United States.
Dillard Road, Indiana.—
Conveyance authorized.— The Secretary shall convey to the State of Indiana all right, title, and interest of the United States, together with any improvements on the land, in and to the property described in paragraph (2).
Property.— The property to be conveyed under this subsection is the approximately 11.85 acres of land and road easements associated with Dillard Road, including improvements on that land, located in Patoka Township, Crawford County, Indiana.
Deed.— The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
Reversion.— If the Secretary determines that the property conveyed under this subsection is not used for a public purpose, all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall revert, at the discretion of the Secretary, to the United States.
Port of Skamania County, Washington.—
Conveyance authorized.— Upon receipt from the Port of Skamania County, Washington, of an amount that is not less than fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, the Secretary shall convey to the Port of Skamania County, Washington, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property described in paragraph (2).
Property.— The property to be conveyed under this subsection is the approximately 1.6 acres of land, including improvements on that land, consisting of the following: Lot I–2 in the Fifth Addition to the Plats of Relocated North Bonneville recorded in Volume B of Plat Records, Pages 51 and 52, Skamania County Auditor’s File No. 94016.
Waiver of property screening provision.— Section 401(e) of Public Law 100–581 (102 Stat. 2944) shall not apply to the conveyance under this subsection.
Technical Correction.— Section 8377(e)(3)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3825) is amended by striking “ reserved an retained” and inserting “ reserved and retained”.
SEC. 1307. Selma, Alabama.
The 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. 3838), shall be 100 percent.
SEC. 1308. Barrow, Alaska.
For purposes of implementing the coastal erosion project, Barrow, Alaska, authorized pursuant to section 116 of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (123 Stat. 2851) 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 flood events in the immediate floodplain area of the project, if the plan—
was developed in consultation with the Secretary and the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in accordance with the guidelines developed under section 402(c) of such Act; and
is approved by the Secretary.
SEC. 1309. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Alaska.
Section 5032(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1205; 134 Stat. 2719) is amended by striking “ 20” and inserting “ 25”.
SEC. 1310. San Francisco Bay, California.
Section 142 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2930; 100 Stat. 4158) is amended—
by striking “ The Secretary” and inserting “ (a) The Secretary”;
by inserting “ , Contra Costa,” before “ and Solano”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(b) Additional Purposes.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
“(1) include the ocean shorelines of each county;
“(2) with respect to the bay and ocean shorelines of each county—
“(A) investigate measures to adapt to rising sea levels;
“(B) consider the needs of economically disadvantaged communities within the study area, including identification of areas in which infrastructure for transportation, wastewater, housing, and other economic assets of such communities are most vulnerable to flood or shoreline risks; and
“(C) to the maximum extent practicable, consider the use of natural features or nature-based features and the beneficial use of dredged materials; and
“(3) with respect to the bay and ocean shorelines, and streams running to the bay and ocean shorelines, of each county, investigate the effects of proposed flood or shoreline protection, coastal storm risk reduction, environmental infrastructure, and other measures or improvements on—
“(A) the local economy, including recreation;
“(B) aquatic ecosystem restoration, enhancement, or expansion efforts or opportunities;
“(C) public infrastructure protection and improvement;
“(D) stormwater runoff capacity and control measures, including those that may mitigate flooding;
“(E) erosion of beaches and coasts; and
“(F) any other measures or improvements relevant to adapting to rising sea levels.”
SEC. 1311. Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.
Santa Ana Creek, Including Santiago Creek.—
Modification.— The project for flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem Project, including Santiago Creek, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113; 101 Stat. 1329–111; 104 Stat. 4611; 110 Stat. 3713; 121 Stat. 1115), is modified to require the Secretary to treat construction of the Santiago Creek Channel as a separable element of the project.
Prohibition.— The Secretary may not construct the Santiago Creek Channel unless such construction minimizes the impacts to existing trees in, or adjacent to, the Santiago Creek Channel.
Rule of construction.— Nothing in this subsection shall affect the authorization for other portions of the project described in paragraph (1).
Definitions.— In this subsection:
Santiago creek channel.— The term “Santiago Creek Channel” means the portion of the project for flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem Project, including Santiago Creek, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113; 101 Stat. 1329–111; 104 Stat. 4611; 110 Stat. 3713; 121 Stat. 1115), consisting of Santiago Creek downstream of the I–5 Interstate Highway to the confluence with the Santa Ana River.
Separable element.— The term “separable element” has the meaning given such term in section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
Report.—
In general.— Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate with an update on implementation of the project for flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem, including Santiago Creek, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113; 101 Stat. 1329–111; 104 Stat. 4611; 110 Stat. 3713; 121 Stat. 1115).
Specifications.— In providing the update required under paragraph (1), the Secretary is directed to provide specific information on—
efforts by the Secretary and the non-Federal interest for the project to acquire the lands or interests in lands necessary to implement the project;
the status of potential reimbursement requests by the non-Federal interest for such lands or interests; and
the status of ongoing requests by the non-Federal interest for approval by the Secretary of pending land (or interest in land) appraisals and litigation settlements associated with such lands or interests in lands.
SEC. 1312. Colebrook River Reservoir, Connecticut.
Contract Termination Request.— 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 Colebrook River Reservoir contract, 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.
Relief of Certain Obligations.— On execution of the amendment described in subsection (a), 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 Colebrook River Reservoir contract for the reservoir project to which the contract applies.
Colebrook River Reservoir Contract Defined.— In this section, the term “Colebrook River Reservoir contract” means 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.
SEC. 1313. Faulkner Island, Connecticut.
Section 527 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3767) is amended by striking “ $4,500,000” and inserting “ $8,000,000”.
SEC. 1314. Northern Estuaries Ecosystem Restoration, Florida.
Section 8215(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(6) Federal share.—The Federal share of the cost of carrying out paragraph (1) shall be 90 percent.”
SEC. 1315. New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, Georgia and South Carolina.
Section 1319(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1703; 136 Stat. 3792) is amended—
by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
“(1) In general.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Project is modified to include—
“(A) full repair of the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam structure;
“(B) modification of the structure such that the structure is able to maintain a stable pool with the same daily average elevation as is achieved by the existing structure, as measured at both the United States Geological Survey Gage 02196999, located at the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, and the United States Geological Survey Gage 02196670, located in the vicinity of the Fifth Street Bridge, Augusta, Georgia, which at the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam is between 114.5 and 115 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29);
“(C) construction of a fish passage structure as recommended in the report of the Chief of Engineers for the Project, dated August 17, 2012, or such other Project feature that appropriately mitigates impacts to fish habitat caused by the Project without removing the dam; and
“(D) conveyance by the Secretary to Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, of the park and recreation area adjacent to the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, without consideration.”
in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
“(C) Ceiling.—The costs of construction to be paid by the Georgia Ports Authority as a non-Federal interest for the Project for the modifications authorized under paragraph (1) shall not exceed the costs that would be paid by such non-Federal interest for construction of the fish passage structure recommended in the report of the Chief of Engineers for the Project, dated August 17, 2012.”
; and
in paragraph (3), by striking “ the cost sharing of the Project as provided by law” and inserting “ the cost sharing of the fish passage structure as recommended in the report of the Chief of Engineers for the Project, dated August 17, 2012”.
SEC. 1316. Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Project, Brandon Road, Will County, Illinois.
After completion of construction of the project for ecosystem restoration, Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin project, Brandon Road, Will County, Illinois, authorized by section 401(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2740; 134 Stat. 2742; 136 Stat. 3793), the Federal share of operation and maintenance costs of the project shall be 90 percent for the 10-year period beginning on the date on which Federal funds are first provided for such costs.
SEC. 1317. Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
Scoping of Evaluation.—
Study.— Not later than June 30, 2025, the Secretary shall complete a study of the following relating to the covered project:
Any project modifications undertaken by the non-Federal interest for the covered project since 2005 not constructed in accordance with section 14 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 408).
Current elevations required for the covered project to meet the 100-year level of risk reduction.
Whether project modifications undertaken by the non-Federal interest for the covered project since 2005 were injurious to the covered project or the public.
Any deviations from design guidelines acceptable for the covered project.
Improvements needed for the covered project to address any deficiencies according to current design guidelines of the Corps of Engineers district in which the covered project is located.
A re-evaluation of project economics.
Report.— Not later than 90 days after completing the study under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that includes—
the results of the study;
a recommendation for a pathway into a systemwide improvement plan created pursuant to section 5(c)(2) of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(c)) (as amended by this Act); and
recommendations for improvement to the covered project to address any deficiencies.
Covered Project Defined.— In this section, the term “covered project” means the Larose to Golden Meadow project, Louisiana, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1965 as the Grand Isle and vicinity project.
Authorization of Appropriations.— There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000.
SEC. 1318. Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana.
Section 1001(24) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1053) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(C) Credit.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project described in subparagraph (A) the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for interim flood protection after March 31, 1989, if the Secretary determines that the work—
“(i) is integral to the project;
“(ii) complies with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies that were in place at the time the work was completed; and
“(iii) notwithstanding the date described in this subparagraph, is otherwise in compliance with the requirements of section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b).”
SEC. 1319. Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel, Louisiana.
Study Request.— If the non-Federal interest for the Port Fourchon project requests to undertake a feasibility study for a modification to the project under section 203(a)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (as amended by this Act), the Secretary shall provide to the non-Federal interest, not later than 30 days after the date on which the Secretary receives such request, a determination in accordance with section 203(a)(3) of such Act (as amended by this Act).
Notification of Additional Analyses and Reviews.— Not later than 30 days after receiving a feasibility study for modification to the Port Fourchon project submitted by the non-Federal interest for the project under section 203(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231(a)), the Secretary shall—
review the study and determine, in accordance with section 203(b)(3)(C) such Act (as added by this Act), whether additional information is needed for the Secretary to perform the required analyses, reviews, and compliance processes;
provide the non-Federal interest with a comprehensive list of additional information needs, as applicable; and
if additional information is not needed, inform the non-Federal interest that the study submission is complete.
Analysis, Review, and Compliance.—
In general.— Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), not later than 180 days after the Secretary receives the study for the Port Fourchon project described in subsection (b), the Secretary shall complete the analyses, review, and compliance processes for the project required under section 203(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, issue a finding of no significant impact or a record of decision, and submit such finding or decision to the non-Federal interest.
Exception.— The Secretary may delay the issuance of the finding or record of decision required under paragraph (1) if—
the Secretary has not received necessary information or approvals from another entity, including the non-Federal interest, in a manner that affects the ability of the Secretary to meet any requirements under State, local, or Federal law; or
significant new information or circumstances, including a major modification to an aspect of the Port Fourchon project, requires additional analysis by the Secretary.
Notification of additional time.— If the Secretary determines that more than 180 days will be required to carry out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall notify the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and the non-Federal interest and describe the basis for requiring additional time.
Port Fourchon Project Defined.— In this section, the term “Port Fourchon project” means the project for navigation, Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel, Louisiana, authorized by section 403(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2743).
SEC. 1320. Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Section 356(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2724) is amended—
by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
“(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. 1321. Missouri River Levee System, Missouri.
Section 111 of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 (123 Stat. 607) is amended by striking “ $7,000,000” and inserting “ $65,000,000”.
SEC. 1322. Stockton Lake, Missouri.
In General.— The Secretary shall implement the reallocation of storage at Stockton Lake, Missouri, and enter into a water storage agreement with the Commission consistent with section 301(b) of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b(b)) and Public Law 88–140 (77 Stat. 249), as described in the final Stockton Lake Water Supply Storage Reallocation Feasibility Study with Integrated Environment Assessment and Director’s Memorandum dated September 23, 2024, subject to the following modifications:
The contract between the United States and the Commission shall provide for the reallocation of two storage spaces, Storage Space No. 1 and Storage Space No. 2, in two phases.
The total volume of storage to be reallocated, and the total volume of storage included in each storage space, shall be consistent with the Director’s Memorandum.
The Commission shall have the option to select a commencement date for Storage Space No. 2 at any time between the tenth and fifteenth anniversary of the effective date of the storage contract.
The first cost for Storage Space No. 1 shall be the updated cost of storage as of fiscal year 2010.
The first cost for Storage Space No. 2 shall be the updated cost of storage as of the effective date of the storage contract.
No payment shall be required for Storage Space No. 2 until the date described in paragraph (3), provided that after the tenth anniversary of the effective date of the storage contract, interest shall be charged on the outstanding balance for Storage Space No. 2 at the rate specified in Article 5(a) of the Model Format for Water Storage Agreements of the Corps of Engineers.
The Commission may elect to pay for any portion of Storage Space No. 2 at the same price, on the same schedule, and under the same terms as the payment for Storage Space No. 1, but notwithstanding any such election, Storage Space No. 2 shall not be utilized for municipal and industrial water supply purposes prior to the commencement date described in paragraph (3).
All costs associated with implementing the recommendation described in the Memorandum of the Director of Civil Works to raise the level of the multipurpose pool shall be paid at Federal expense.
Credit to the Hydropower Purpose.—
In general.— In carrying out this section—
losses to the Federal hydropower purpose of the Stockton Lake project shall be offset by a reduction in the costs allocated to the Federal hydropower purpose; and
the reduction described in subparagraph (A) shall be determined by the Administrator of the Southwest Power Administration.
No increased payments.— The Secretary may not increase the amounts of payments from water users under a water supply contract under this section due to the credits and reimbursement required to be paid by this section.
Savings Clause.— Nothing in this section shall affect the Secretary’s authority under the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b).
Definition.— In this section, the term “Commission” refers to the Southwest Missouri Joint Municipal Water Utility Commission.
SEC. 1323. Table Rock Lake, Missouri and Arkansas.
In General.— The Secretary shall permit the ongoing presence of an eligible structure at the Table Rock Lake project until—
the abandonment of such eligible structure by the holder of a license for right-of-way for such eligible structure; or
the failure of such eligible structure.
Application.— This section shall apply only to—
the owner of an eligible structure as of the date of enactment of this Act; and
one subsequent owner of that eligible structure.
Definitions.— In this section:
Abandonment.— The term “abandonment”, with respect to an eligible structure, means the allowance of the structure to come into a state of disrepair without the demonstrated intent by the owner to repair.
Eligible structure.— The term “eligible structure” means a structure for human habitation, including a septic system—
for which a license for right-of-way has been provided by the Secretary and is in effect on the date of enactment of this Act;
that is located on fee land or land subject to a flowage easement; and
that does not impact the reservoir level or pose a failure risk to the dam of the Table Rock Lake project.
Fee land.— The term “fee land” means the land acquired in fee title by the United States for the Table Rock Lake project.
Table rock lake project.— The term “Table Rock Lake project” means the Table Rock Lake project of the Corps of Engineers, located in Missouri and Arkansas, authorized as one of the multipurpose reservoir projects in the White River Basin by section 4 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1218).
SEC. 1324. Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Rivers, New York.
The non-Federal share of the cost of features of the project for flood risk management, Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Rivers, New York, authorized by section 1401(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3837), 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)) shall be 10 percent.
SEC. 1325. Columbia River Channel, Oregon and Washington.
Subject to the availability of appropriations, in carrying out maintenance activities on the project for navigation, Columbia River Channel, Oregon and Washington, authorized by section 101(b)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 280), the Secretary is authorized to include, as part of the full operating costs of the Cutter Suction Dredge provided by the non-Federal interest for the project, any costs of replacing the Cutter Suction Dredge that the Secretary and the non-Federal interest agree are necessary.
SEC. 1326. Willamette Valley, Oregon.
The Secretary may not complete its review of, and consultation with other Federal agencies on, the operation and maintenance of the projects for flood control, navigation, and other purposes, Willamette River Basin, Oregon, authorized by section 4 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1222; 62 Stat. 1178; 64 Stat. 177; 68 Stat. 1264; 74 Stat. 499; 100 Stat. 4144), until the Secretary prepares and formally analyzes an alternative that ceases hydropower operations at the projects, notwithstanding hydropower being an authorized purpose of such projects.
SEC. 1327. Chambers, Galveston, and Harris Counties, Texas.
In General.— On receipt of a written request of the Port of Houston Authority, the Secretary shall—
review the land owned and easements held by the United States for the Federal project for navigation, Houston Ship Channel, Texas, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 298; 74 Stat. 486; 79 Stat. 1091; 100 Stat. 4170; 110 Stat. 3666); and
convey to the Port of Houston Authority, or, in the case of an easement, release to the owner of the fee title to the land subject to such easement, for an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the property, any such land and easements described in paragraph (1) that the Secretary determines are no longer required for project purposes.
Actions.— In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
not consider any land or easements in locations identified by the Secretary or non-Federal interest as required for the preferred plan, or any subsequent modification thereof, for the feasibility study for the project for navigation, Cedar Port Navigation and Improvement District Channel Deepening Project, Baytown, Texas, under section 203(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231(b));
determine the exact acreage and the legal description of any real property to be conveyed under this section based on a survey that is satisfactory to the Secretary;
ensure that the Port of Houston Authority is provided the right of first refusal for any potential release or conveyance of excess easements;
work alongside the Port of Houston Authority in identifying opportunities for land exchanges, where possible; and
ensure that any conveyance or release of excess easements, or exchange of land, does not interfere with any Federal navigation project that has been constructed or is authorized to be constructed.
Deed.— The Secretary shall convey the property under this section by quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
Additional Terms and Conditions.— The Secretary may require that any conveyance or release of an easement under this section be subject to such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary considers necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
Costs of Conveyance or Release of an Easement.— An entity to which a conveyance or release of an easement is made under this section shall be responsible for all reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate transaction and environmental documentation costs, associated with the conveyance or release of the easement.
Waiver of Real Property Screening Requirements.— Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to the conveyance of land or release of an easement under this section.
Liability.— An entity to which a conveyance or release is made under this section shall hold the United States harmless from any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after the date of the conveyance or release, on the real property conveyed or with respect to which an easement is released. The United States shall remain responsible for any liability with respect to activities carried out, before such date, on the real property conveyed or with respect to which an easement is released.
SEC. 1328. Matagorda Ship Channel, Port Lavaca, Texas.
The Federal share of the costs of the planning, design, and construction for the corrective action recommended in the report titled “Matagorda Ship Channel Project Deficiency Report (Entrance to Matagorda Ship Channel)” and published by the Secretary in June 2020 for the project for navigation, Matagorda Ship Channel, Port Lavaca, Texas, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 298), shall be 90 percent.
SEC. 1329. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.
The project for flood control, San Antonio channel improvement, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 as part of the project for flood protection on the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers, Texas (68 Stat. 1259; 90 Stat. 2921; 114 Stat. 2611), is modified to require the Secretary to carry out the project substantially in accordance with Alternative 7, as identified in the final General Re-evaluation Report and Environmental Assessment for the project, dated January 2014.
SEC. 1330. Lake Champlain Watershed, Vermont and New York.
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 as defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)), 10 percent of the total costs of the project” after “ project”.
SEC. 1331. Ediz Hook Beach Erosion Control Project, Port Angeles, Washington.
The cost share for operation and maintenance costs for the project for beach erosion control, Ediz Hook, Port Angeles, Washington, authorized by section 4 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 15), shall be in accordance with the cost share described in section 101(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(b)(1)).
SEC. 1332. Western Washington State, Washington.
Establishment of Program.— The Secretary may establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in Chelan County, Island County, King County, Kittitas County, Pierce County, San Juan County, Snohomish County, Skagit County, and Whatcom County, Washington.
Form of Assistance.— Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in the counties listed in subsection (a), including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and development.
Ownership Requirement.— The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned.
Partnership Agreements.—
In general.— Before providing assistance under this section to a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) with the non-Federal interest with respect to the project to be carried out with such assistance.
Requirements.— Each partnership agreement for a project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:
Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.
Cost sharing.—
In general.— The Federal share of the cost of a project under this section—
shall be 75 percent; and
may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
Credit for interest.— In case of a delay in the funding of the Federal share of a project that is the subject of an agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest accrued on the cost of providing the non-Federal share of the project cost.
Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.— Notwithstanding section 221(a)(4)(G) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(a)(4)(G)), the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share of project cost (including all reasonable costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or controlled land), except that the credit may not exceed 25 percent of total project costs.
Operation and maintenance.— The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
Exception.— Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Federal share of the cost of a project under this section benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)) shall be 90 percent.
Authorization of Appropriations.—
In general.— There is authorized to be appropriated $242,000,000 to carry out this section.
Corps of engineers expenses.— Not more than 10 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this section may be used by the Secretary to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.
Conforming Amendment.— Section 219(f)(404) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 is repealed.
SEC. 1333. Storm Damage Prevention and Reduction, Coastal Erosion, Riverine Erosion, and Ice and Glacial Damage, Alaska.
In General.— Section 8315 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3783) is amended—
in the section heading, by inserting “ riverine erosion,” after “ coastal erosion,”; and
in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting “ riverine erosion,” after “ coastal erosion,”.
Clerical Amendments.—
The table of contents in section 2(b) of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (136 Stat. 2429) is amended by striking the item relating to section 8315 and inserting the following:
“Sec. 8315. Storm damage prevention and reduction, coastal erosion, riverine erosion, and ice and glacial damage, Alaska.”.
The table of contents in section 8001(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3693) is amended by striking the item relating to section 8315 and inserting the following:
“Sec. 8315. Storm damage prevention and reduction, coastal erosion, riverine erosion, and ice and glacial damage, Alaska.”.
SEC. 1334. Chattahoochee River Program.
Section 8144 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3724) is amended—
by striking “ comprehensive plan” each place it appears and inserting “ plans”;
in subsection (b)—
in the subsection heading, by striking “ Comprehensive Plan” and inserting “ Implementation Plans”; and
in paragraph (1)—
by striking “ 2 years” and inserting “ 4 years”; and
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
in subsection (j), by striking “ 3 years” and inserting “ 5 years”.
SEC. 1335. Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery Program.
Section 704(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263 note) is amended, in the second sentence, by striking “ $100,000,000” and inserting “ $120,000,000”.
SEC. 1336. Delaware Coastal System Program.
Purpose.— The purpose of this section is to provide for the collective planning and implementation of coastal storm risk management and hurricane and storm risk reduction projects in Delaware to provide greater efficiency and a more comprehensive approach to life safety and economic growth.
Designation.— The following projects for coastal storm risk management and hurricane and storm risk reduction shall be known and designated as the “Delaware Coastal System Program” (referred to in this section as the “Program”):
The project for navigation mitigation and hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Bay coastline, Roosevelt Inlet-Lewes Beach, Delaware, authorized by section 101(a)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276).
The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach/South Bethany Beach, Delaware, authorized by section 101(a)(15) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276).
The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Delaware, authorized by section 101(b)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577).
The project for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection, Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach, Delaware, authorized by section 101(b)(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667).
Indian River Inlet, Delaware.
The project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Delaware Beneficial Use of Dredged Material for the Delaware River, Delaware, authorized by section 401(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2736; 136 Stat. 3788), as modified by subsection (e) of this section.
Management.— The Secretary shall manage the projects described in subsection (b) as components of a single, comprehensive system, recognizing the interdependence of the projects.
Cost-share.— Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal share of the cost of each of the projects described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (b) shall be 80 percent.
Broadkill Beach, Delaware.— The project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Delaware Beneficial Use of Dredged Material for the Delaware River, Delaware, authorized by section 401(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2736; 136 Stat. 3788), is modified to include the project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey–Broadkill Beach, Delaware, authorized by section 101(a)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275).
Technical Amendment.— Section 101(a)(15) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276) is amended—
in the paragraph heading, by striking “ Henelopen” and inserting “ Henlopen”; and
by striking “ Henelopen” and inserting “ Henlopen”.
SEC. 1337. Delaware Inland Bays and Delaware Bay Coast Coastal Storm Risk Management Study.
Definitions.— In this section:
Economically disadvantaged community.—
In general.— The term “economically disadvantaged community” has the meaning given the term pursuant to section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note).
Inclusion.— The term “economically disadvantaged community” includes unincorporated communities within the study area.
Study.— The term “study” means the Delaware Inland Bays and Delaware Bay Coast Coastal Storm Risk Management Study, authorized by the resolution of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives dated October 1, 1986, and the resolution of the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate dated June 23, 1988.
Study, Projects, and Separable Elements.— Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in order to assist the economically disadvantaged communities in the area of the study, the non-Federal share of the costs of carrying out the study, or project construction or a separable element of a project authorized based on the study, shall be 10 percent.
Cost Sharing Agreement.— The Secretary shall seek to expedite any amendments to any existing cost-share agreement for the study in accordance with this section.
Limitation.— Amounts made available to carry out the study, or project construction or a separable element of a project authorized based on the study, shall not be used for coastal storm risk management projects that provide for ongoing construction beachfill projects along the Atlantic Coast.
SEC. 1338. Hawaii Environmental Restoration.
SEC. 1339. Illinois River Basin Restoration.
Section 519(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2654; 121 Stat. 1221) is amended by striking “ 2010” and inserting “ 2029”.
SEC. 1340. Kentucky and West Virginia Environmental Infrastructure.
Establishment of Program.— The Secretary shall establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in Kentucky and West Virginia.
Form of Assistance.— Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in Kentucky and West Virginia, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and development.
Ownership Requirement.— The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned.
Local Cooperation Agreements.—
In general.— Before providing assistance under this section, the Secretary shall enter into a local cooperation agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with such assistance.
Requirements.— Each local cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:
Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.
Cost sharing.—
In general.— The Federal share of the cost of a project carried out under this section—
shall be 75 percent; and
may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
Credit for interest.— In case of a delay in the funding of the Federal share of a project that is the subject of a local cooperation agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share of the project cost.
Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.— The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or controlled land), but such credit may not exceed 25 percent of total project costs.
Operation and maintenance.— The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
Authorization of Appropriations.—
In general.— There is authorized to be appropriated $75,000,000 to carry out this section, to be divided between the States described in subsection (a).
Corps of engineers expenses.— Not more than 10 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers to administer projects under this section.
SEC. 1341. Missouri River Mitigation, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska.
Acquisition of Lands.— In acquiring any land, or interests in land, to satisfy the total number of acres required for the covered project, the Secretary—
may only acquire land, or an interest in land, that—
is on the riverward side of levees; or
will contribute to future flood risk resiliency projects;
may only acquire land, or an interest in land, with the approval of the Governor of the State in which the land is located; and
may not acquire land, or an interest in land, by eminent domain.
Application of Lands.— The Secretary shall apply all covered land toward the number of acres required for the covered project in accordance with section 334 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 306; 136 Stat. 3799).
Definitions.— In this section:
Covered land.— The term “covered land” means any land or interests in land that—
is acquired by a Federal agency other than the Corps of Engineers;
is located within the meander belt of the lower Missouri River; and
the Secretary, in consultation with the head of any Federal agency that has acquired the land or interest in land, determines meets the purposes of the covered project.
Covered project.— The term “covered project” means the project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143; 113 Stat. 306; 121 Stat. 1155; 136 Stat. 2395).
SEC. 1342. New York Emergency Shore Restoration.
In General.— The Secretary is authorized to repair or restore a federally authorized hurricane and storm damage reduction structure or project or a public beach located in the covered geographic area pursuant to section 5(a) of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(a)), if—
the structure, project, or public beach is damaged by wind, wave, or water action associated with a Nor’easter; and
the Secretary determines that the damage prevents—
in the case of a structure or project, the adequate functioning of the structure or project for the authorized purposes of the structure or project; or
in the case of a public beach, the adequate functioning of the beach as a natural barrier to inundation, wave attack, or erosion coinciding with hurricanes, coastal storms, or Nor’easters.
Justification.— The Secretary may carry out a repair or restoration activity under subsection (a) without the need to demonstrate that the activity is justified solely by national economic development benefits if—
the Secretary determines that—
such activity is necessary to restore the adequate functioning of the structure, project, or public beach for the purposes described in subsection (a)(2), as applicable; and
such activity is warranted to protect against loss to life or property of the community protected by the structure, project, or public beach; and
in the case of a public beach, the non-Federal interest agrees to participate in, and comply with, applicable Federal floodplain management and flood insurance programs.
Prioritization.— Repair or restoration activities carried out by the Secretary under subsection (b) shall be given equal budgetary consideration and priority as activities justified solely by national economic development benefits.
Limitations.— An activity carried out under subsection (a) for a public beach shall not—
repair or restore the beach beyond its natural profile; or
be considered initial construction of the hurricane and storm damage reduction project.
Savings Provision.— The authority provided by this section shall be in addition to any authority provided by section 5(a) of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(a)), to repair or restore federally authorized hurricane or shore protective structure or project located in the covered geographic area damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or water action of other than an ordinary nature.
Sunset.— The authority of the Secretary to carry out an activity under subsection (a) for a public beach shall expire on the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Definitions.— In this subsection:
Covered geographic area.— The term “covered geographic area” means—
Fire Island National Seashore, New York; and
the hamlets of Massapequa Park, Massapequa, Amityville, Copiague, Lindenhurst, West Babylon, Babylon, West Islip, West Bay Shore, Brightwaters, Bay Shore, Islip, East Islip, Great River, Oakdale, West Sayville, Saville, Bayport, Blue Point, Patchogue, East Patchogue, Bellport, Brookhaven, Shirley, Mastic Beach, Mastic, Moriches, Center Moriches, East Moriches, and Eastport, New York.
Nor’easter.— The term “Nor’easter” means a synoptic-scale, extratropical cyclone in the western North Atlantic Ocean.
Public beach.— The term “public beach” means a beach within the geographic boundary of an unconstructed federally authorized hurricane and storm damage reduction project that is—
a publicly owned beach; or
a privately owned beach that is available for public use, including the availability of reasonable public access, in accordance with Engineer Regulation 1165–2–130, published by the Corps of Engineers, dated June 15, 1989.
SEC. 1343. New York and New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries, New York and New Jersey.
In General.— The study for flood and storm damage reduction for the New York and New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries project, authorized by the Act of June 15, 1955 (chapter 140, 69 Stat. 132, 134 Stat. 2676) and being carried out pursuant to the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113–2), is modified to require the Secretary, upon the request of the non-Federal interest for the project, to include within the scope of such study an investigation of, and recommendations relating to, projects and activities to maximize the net public benefits, including ecological benefits and societal benefits, from the reduction of the comprehensive flood risk within the geographic scope of the project from the isolated and compound effects of factors described in section 8106(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2282g).
Associated Projects.— The Secretary is authorized to carry out projects and activities recommended pursuant to subsection (a) if such projects and activities otherwise meet the criteria for projects carried out under a continuing authority program (as defined in section 7001(c)) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d(c)).
Continuation.— Any study recommended to be carried out in a report that the Chief of Engineers prepares for such study shall be considered a continuation of the study described in subsection (a).
Consideration; Consultation.— In developing recommendations pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
consider the use of natural and nature-based features;
consult with applicable Federal and State agencies and other stakeholders within the geographic scope of the project; and
solicit public comments.
Interim Progress; Report to Congress.— Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report detailing—
any recommendations made pursuant to subsection (a);
any projects or activities carried out under subsection (b);
any additional, site-specific areas within the geographic scope of the project for which additional study is recommended by the Secretary; and
any interim actions related to reduction of comprehensive flood risk within the geographic scope of the project undertaken by the Secretary during the study period.
Expedited Consideration.— The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the study described in subsection (a) and any further study, project, or activity recommended pursuant to this section.
Savings Clause.— Any additional action authorized by this section shall not delay any existing study, engineering, or planning work underway as of the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1344. Southeastern North Carolina Environmental Infrastructure.
Establishment of Program.— The Secretary shall establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in Southeastern North Carolina.
Form of Assistance.— Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development in Southeastern North Carolina, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and development.
Ownership Requirement.— The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned.
Cost Sharing.—
In general.— The Federal share of the cost of a project carried out under this section—
shall be 75 percent; and
may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
Exception.— Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Federal share of the cost of a project under this section benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)) shall be 90 percent.
Partnership Agreements.—
In general.— Before providing assistance under this section to a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) with the non-Federal interest with respect to the project to be carried out with such assistance.
Requirements.— Each partnership agreement for a project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:
Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.
Credit for Interest.— In case of a delay in the funding of the Federal share of a project under this section, the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share of the project cost.
Land, Easements, and Rights-of-way Credit.— The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or controlled land), but such credit may not exceed 25 percent of total project costs.
Operation and Maintenance.— The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
Authorization of Appropriations.—
There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section; and
Not more than 10 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers to administer projects under this section.
Southeastern North Carolina Defined.— Southeastern North Carolina includes the North Carolina counties of Duplin, Sampson, Robeson, Bladen, Columbus, Scotland, Hoke, Brunswick, New Hanover, Pender, and Cumberland.
SEC. 1345. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
Definitions.— In this section:
Abandoned mine drainage.—
In general.— The term “abandoned mine drainage” means discharge from land subject to title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1231 et seq.).
Inclusions.— The term “abandoned mine drainage” includes discharges from an area where reclamation bonds have been forfeited under section 509 of the Surface Mining Control Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1259), for which funds are applied to complete the reclamation obligations initially required of the mining operator.
Treatment technologies.— The term “treatment technologies” means technologies that either change the composition of the abandoned mine drainage to form other compounds that are less dangerous to human health or the environment, or limit contaminant mobility by physical or chemical means.
Treatment works for abandoned mine drainage.— The term “treatment works for abandoned mine drainage” means a facility or system designed to collect, aggregate, and treat abandoned mine drainage from sources or sites within a designated watershed or area using treatment technologies.
Establishment of Program.— The Secretary may establish a pilot program to provide financial assistance to non-Federal interests for the establishment of treatment works for abandoned mine drainage in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Such assistance shall be in the form of the reimbursement of costs for the design and construction of the treatment works for abandoned mine drainage.
Goal.— The goal of this pilot program is to initiate the cleanup process by implementing activities to reduce or treat acid mine drainage from abandoned and forfeited mine drainage and bond forfeiture sites, as defined under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. This cleanup supports water treatment and infrastructure improvements aimed at practical uses, including but not limited to agricultural, industrial or recreational applications.
Public Ownership Requirement.— The Secretary may provide assistance under this section only if the treatment works for abandoned mine drainage is publicly owned.
Prioritization.— The Secretary shall prioritize assistance under this section to efforts that—
reduce abandoned mine drainage from multiple sources; or
include a centralized water treatment system to reduce the abandoned mine drainage from multiple sources or sites within a designated watershed area over the greatest number of stream miles.
Agreements.—
In general.— Before providing financial assistance under this section, the Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the non-Federal interest.
Requirements.— Each agreement entered under this subsection shall provide for the following:
Plan.— The non-Federal interest shall develop the design and construction of the treatments works for abandoned mine drainage, in consultation with the appropriate regulatory agencies addressing restoration of the impaired waters, which shall include the total cost of the restoration work to be funded under the agreement.
Permits.— The non-Federal interest shall be responsible for obtaining all permits and licenses necessary for the design and construction of the treatment works for abandoned mine drainage and for ensuring compliance with all requirements of such permits and licenses. The Secretary to the maximum extent possible shall expedite processing of any permits, variances, or approvals necessary to facilitate the completion of projects receiving assistance under this section.
Costs.— The non-Federal interest shall be responsible for all costs in excess of the total cost of design and construction, as determined under subparagraph (A), including any and all costs associated with any liability that might arise in connection with the treatment works for abandoned mine drainage.
Operation and maintenance.— Operation and maintenance costs are a non-Federal responsibility. Such costs shall not be included in the total cost of the treatment works for abandoned mine drainage in subsection (A).
Federal assistance.— Federal assistance shall be 75 percent of the total cost of the treatment works for abandoned mine drainage as determined in the agreement under subsection 2(A).
Provision of Federal Assistance.— Providing of Federal assistance under this section shall in no way establish any liability for the Secretary associated with any treatment technologies associated with the treatment works for abandoned mine drainage. This includes the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law.
Exclusions.— None of the funds authorized by this section shall be used in relation to abandoned mine drainage associated with a facility for which a party identified is responsible for response, removal or remediation activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901et seq.), or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
Authorization of Appropriations.— There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000, to remain available until expended.
SEC. 1346. Western Lake Erie Basin, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan.
Section 441 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 328) is amended—
in subsection (a), by striking “ flood control,” and inserting “ flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction,”;
in subsection (b), by striking “ the study” and inserting “ any study under this section”; and
by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
“(c) Treatment of Studies.—Any study carried out by the Secretary under this section after the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 shall be treated as a continuation of the initial study carried out under this section.
“(d) Projects.—A project resulting from a study carried out under this section may be implemented pursuant to section 212.”
SEC. 1347. Ohio and North Dakota.
In General.— Section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 382; 119 Stat. 2261; 121 Stat. 1140; 121 Stat. 1944; 136 Stat. 3821) is amended—
in subsection (d)(3)(A)—
by striking “ In general” and inserting “ Project costs”;
by striking “ The Federal share of” and inserting the following:
“(i) In general.—Except as provided in clause (iii), the Federal share of”
by striking “ The Federal share may” and inserting the following:
“(ii) Form.—The Federal share may”
; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(iii) Exception.—The non-Federal share of the cost of a project under this section benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)) shall be 10 percent.”
; and
in subsection (h) by striking “ $250,000,000” and inserting “ $300,000,000”.
SEC. 1348. Oregon Environmental Infrastructure.
Establishment of Program.— The Secretary may establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in the State of Oregon.
Form of Assistance.— Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in the State of Oregon, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and development.
Ownership Requirement.— The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned.
Partnership Agreements.—
In general.— Before providing assistance under this section to a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) with the non-Federal interest with respect to the project to be carried out with such assistance.
Requirements.— Each partnership agreement for a project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:
Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.
Cost sharing.—
In general.— The Federal share of the cost of a project carried out under this section—
shall be 75 percent; and
may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
Credit for interest.— In case of a delay in the funding of the Federal share of a project that is the subject of a partnership agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share of the project cost.
Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.— Notwithstanding section 221(a)(4)(G) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4)(G)), the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share of project cost (including all reasonable costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or controlled land), but such credit may not exceed 25 percent of total project costs.
Operation and maintenance.— The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
Authorization of Appropriations.—
In general.— There is authorized to be appropriated $40,000,000 to carry out this section.
Corps of engineers expense.— Not more than 10 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.
SEC. 1349. Pennsylvania Environmental Infrastructure.
Establishment of Program.— The Secretary may establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in the State of Pennsylvania.
Form of Assistance.— Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in the State of Pennsylvania, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and development.
Ownership Requirement.— The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned.
Partnership Agreements.—
In general.— Before providing assistance under this section to a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) with the non-Federal interest with respect to the project to be carried out with such assistance.
Requirements.— Each partnership agreement for a project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:
Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.
Cost sharing.—
In general.— The Federal share of the cost of a project carried out under this section—
shall be 75 percent; and
may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
Credit for interest.— In case of a delay in the funding of the Federal share of a project that is the subject of a partnership agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share of the project cost.
Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.— Notwithstanding section 221(a)(4)(G) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4)(G)), the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share of project cost (including all reasonable costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or controlled land), but such credit may not exceed 25 percent of total project costs.
Operation and maintenance.— The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
Authorization of Appropriations.—
In general.— There is authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this section.
Corps of engineers expense.— Not more than 10 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.
SEC. 1350. Washington Aqueduct.
Section 8146(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (40 U.S.C. 9501 note; 136 Stat. 3729) is amended—
in paragraph (1), by inserting “ Water and Sewer Authority” after “ District of Columbia”; and
in paragraph (3), by striking “ Fairfax County” and inserting “ the Fairfax County Water Authority”.
SEC. 1351. Washington Metropolitan Area, Washington, District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia.
In General.— The Federal share of the cost of the feasibility study for the project for water supply, Washington, District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, authorized by section 8201(a)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3745) shall be 90 percent.
Rule of Construction.— Nothing in this section may be construed to affect any agreement in effect on the date of enactment of this Act between the Secretary and the non-Federal interest for the project described in subsection (a) with respect to the feasibility study described in such subsection, until such time as an agreement between the Secretary and the non-Federal interest for such project with respect to such feasibility study is entered into pursuant to this section.
SEC. 1352. Northern West Virginia.
Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 371; 121 Stat. 1257; 136 Stat. 3807) is amended—
in subsection (e)(3)—
in subparagraph (A), in the first sentence, by striking “ The Federal share” and inserting “ Except as provided in subparagraph (F), the Federal share”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(F) Exception.—In the case of a project benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)), the Federal share of the project costs under the applicable local cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall be 90 percent.”
by striking subsection (g);
by redesignating subsections (h), (i), and (j) as sections (g), (h), and (i), respectively; and
in subsection (g) (as so redesignated), by striking “ $120,000,000” and inserting “ $150,000,000”.
SEC. 1353. Southern West Virginia.
Section 340 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856; 136 Stat. 3807) is amended—
in subsection (c)(3)—
in the first sentence, by striking “ Total project costs” and inserting the following:
“(A) In general.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), total project costs”
; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(B) Exception.—In the case of a project benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)), the Federal share of the total project costs under the applicable local cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall be 90 percent.
“(C) Federal share.—The Federal share of the total project costs under this paragraph may be provided in the same form as described in section 571(e)(3)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 371).”
by striking subsection (e);
by redesignating subsections (f), (g), (h), and (i) as subsections (e), (f), (g), and (h), respectively; and
in subsection (f) (as so redesignated), in the first sentence, by striking “ $140,000,000” and inserting “ $170,000,000”.
SEC. 1354. Upper Mississippi River Restoration Program.
Section 1103(e)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(4)) is amended by striking “ fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter” and inserting “ each of fiscal years 1999 through 2024, and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2025 and each fiscal year thereafter”.
SEC. 1355. Acequias Irrigation Systems.
Section 1113 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4232; 110 Stat. 3719, 136 Stat. 3781) is amended—
in subsection (d)—
by striking “ The non-Federal” and inserting the following:
“(1) In general.—The non-Federal”
; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(2) Pre-design planning costs.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Federal share of pre-design planning costs under this section shall be 100 percent.”
; and
in subsection (e), by striking “ $80,000,000” and inserting “ $90,000,000”.
SEC. 1356. Additional Projects for Underserved Community Harbors.
Section 8132 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2238e) is amended—
in subsection (a), by inserting “ and for purposes of contributing to ecosystem restoration” before the period at the end;
in subsection (g)(2), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting “ , a harbor where passenger or freight service is provided to island communities dependent on that service, or a marina or berthing area that is located adjacent to, or is accessible by, a Federal navigation project,” before “ for which”;
in subsection (h)(1), by striking “ 2026” and inserting “ 2029”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(i) Projects for Marina or Berthing Areas.—The Secretary may carry out not more than 10 projects under this section that are projects for an underserved community harbor that is a marina or berthing area described in subsection (g)(2).”
SEC. 1357. Bosque Wildlife Restoration Project.
In General.— The Secretary shall establish a program to carry out appropriate planning, design, and construction measures for wildfire prevention and restoration in the Middle Rio Grande Bosque, including the removal of jetty jacks.
Cost Share.—
In general.— Except as provided in paragraph (2), the non-Federal share of the cost of a project carried out under this section shall be in accordance with sections 103 and 105 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213, 2215).
Exception.— The non-Federal share of the cost of a project carried out under this section benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)) shall be 10 percent.
Repeal.— Section 116 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (117 Stat. 1836), is repealed.
Treatment.— The program authorized under subsection (a) shall be considered a continuation of the program authorized by section 116 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (117 Stat. 1836) (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act).
SEC. 1358. Coastal Community Flood Control and Other Purposes.
Section 103(k)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(k)(4)) is amended—
in subparagraph (A)—
in clause (i), by striking “ makes” and inserting “ made”; and
in clause (ii), by striking “ repays an amount equal to ⅔ of the remaining principal by” and inserting “ made a payment of an additional $200,000,000 for that eligible deferred payment agreement on or before”;
in subparagraph (B) by inserting “ interest’s” after “ non-Federal”; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(C) Refund of credit.—Any agreement made that applied credits to satisfy the terms of a pre-payment made under subsection (k)(4)(A) that resulted in total payment in excess of the amount now required under subsection (k)(4)(A) shall be modified to indicate that the excess credits continue to apply toward any remaining principal of the respective project, or at the request of the non-Federal interest, the agreement shall be modified to retroactively transfer back those excess credits to the non-Federal interest such that those credits may be applied by the non-Federal interest to any cost-shared project identified by the non-Federal interest.”
SEC. 1359. Congressional Notification of Deferred Payment Agreement Request.
Section 103(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(k)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(5) Congressional notification.—
“(A) In general.—Upon receipt of a request for a renegotiation of terms by a non-Federal interest under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report 30 days after enactment and quarterly thereafter regarding the status of the request.
“(B) Sense of congress.—It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary should respond to any request for a renegotiation of terms submitted under paragraph (2) in a timely manner.”
SEC. 1360. Contracts for Water Supply.
Copan Lake, Oklahoma.— Section 8358(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3802) is amended by striking “ 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), 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. 1361. Expenses for Control of Aquatic Plant Growths and Invasive Species.
Section 104(d)(2)(A) of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610(d)(2)(A)) is amended by striking “ 50 percent” and inserting “ 35 percent”.
SEC. 1362. Hopper Dredge Mcfarland Replacement.
If the Secretary replaces the Federal hopper dredge McFarland referred to in section 563 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3784; 121 Stat. 1105) with another Federal hopper dredge, the Secretary shall—
place the replacement Federal hopper dredge in a ready reserve status;
periodically perform routine underway dredging tests of the equipment (not to exceed 70 days per year) of the replacement Federal hopper dredge in a ready reserve status to ensure the ability of the replacement Federal hopper dredge to perform urgent and emergency work; and
in consultation with affected stakeholders, place the replacement Federal hopper dredge in active status in order to perform dredging work if the Secretary determines that private industry has failed—
to submit a responsive and responsible bid for work advertised by the Secretary; or
to carry out a project as required pursuant to a contract between the industry and the Secretary.
SEC. 1363. Lakes Program.
Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 104 Stat. 4646; 110 Stat. 3758; 118 Stat. 295; 121 Stat. 1076; 134 Stat. 2703; 136 Stat. 3778) is amended—
in paragraph (33), by striking “ and” at the end;
in paragraph (34) by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(35) East Lake Tohopekaliga, Florida;
“(36) Dillon Lake, Ohio;
“(37) Hillcrest Pond, Pennsylvania;
“(38) Falcon Lake, Zapata County, Texas; and
“(39) Lake Casa Blanca, Webb County, Texas.”
SEC. 1364. Maintenance of Navigation Channels.
Section 509(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759; 113 Stat. 339; 114 Stat. 2679; 136 Stat. 3779) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(23) West Dundalk Branch Channel and Dundalk-Seagirt Connecting Channel, Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels, Maryland.
“(24) Crown Bay Marina Channel, United States Virgin Islands.
“(25) Pidgeon Industrial Area Harbor, Memphis, Tennessee.
“(26) McGriff Pass Channel, Florida.
“(27) Oak Harbor Channel and Breakwater, Washington.”
SEC. 1365. Maintenance of Pile Dike System.
The Secretary shall continue to maintain the pile dike system constructed by the Corps of Engineers for the purpose of navigation along the Lower Columbia River and Willamette River, Washington, at Federal expense.
SEC. 1366. Navigation Along the Tennessee–tombigbee Waterway.
The Secretary shall, consistent with applicable statutory authorities—
coordinate with the relevant stakeholders and communities in the State of Alabama and the State of Mississippi to address the dredging needs of the Tennessee–Tombigbee Waterway in those States; and
ensure continued navigation at the locks and dams owned and operated by the Corps of Engineers located along the Tennessee–Tombigbee Waterway.
SEC. 1367. Rehabilitation of Corps of Engineers Constructed Dams.
Section 1177 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 467f–2 note) is amended—
by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
“(c) Cost Sharing.—The non-Federal share of the cost of a project for rehabilitation of a dam under this section, including the cost of any required study, shall be the same share assigned to the non-Federal interest for the cost of initial construction of that dam, including provision of all land, easements, rights-of-way, and necessary relocations.”
in subsection (e)—
by striking “ The Secretary” and inserting the following:
“(1) In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary”
; and
by adding at the end the following:
“(2) Exception.—For a project under this section for which the Federal share of the costs is expected to exceed $60,000,000, the Secretary may expend more than such amount only if—
“(A) the Secretary submits to Congress the determination made under subsection (a) with respect to the project; and
“(B) construction of the project substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions described in such determination, is specifically authorized by Congress.”
in subsection (f), by striking “ fiscal years 2017 through 2026” and inserting “ fiscal years 2026 through 2030”; and
by striking subsection (g).
SEC. 1368. Soil Moisture and Snowpack Monitoring.
Section 511(a)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2753) is amended by striking “ 2025” and inserting “ 2029”.
SEC. 1369. Waiver of Non-Federal Share of Damages Related to Certain Contract Claims.
Section 349 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2716) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking “ 2022” and inserting “ 2027”.
SEC. 1370. Wilson Lock Floating Guide Wall.
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.
SEC. 1371. Sense of Congress Relating to Mobile Harbor, Alabama.
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary should, consistent with applicable statutory authorities, coordinate with relevant stakeholders in the State of Alabama to address the dredging and dredging material placement needs associated with the project for navigation, Theodore Ship Channel, Mobile Harbor, Alabama, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5) and modified by section 309 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2704).
SEC. 1372. Sense of Congress Relating to Shallow Draft Dredging in the Chesapeake Bay.
It is the sense of Congress that—
shallow draft dredging in the Chesapeake Bay is critical for tourism, recreation, and the fishing industry and that additional dredging is needed; and
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. 1373. Sense of Congress Relating to Missouri River Priorities.
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary should make publicly available, where appropriate, any data used and any decisions made by the Corps of Engineers relating to the operations of civil works projects within the Missouri River Basin in order to ensure transparency for the communities in that Basin.
TITLE IV Water Resources Infrastructure
SEC. 1401. Project Authorizations.
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, are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the respective reports or decision documents designated in this section:
Navigation.—
| A. State | B.Name | C.Date ofReport ofChief of Engineers | D.EstimatedCosts | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. AK | Akutan Harbor Navigational Improvements, Akutan | July 17, 2024 | Federal: $70,898,000 | Non-Federal: $1,749,000 | Total: $72,647,000 |
| 2. CA | Oakland Harbor Turning Basins Widening, Oakland | May 30, 2024 | Federal: $432,232,000 | Non-Federal: $210,298,000 | Total: $642,530,000 |
| 3. FL | Tampa Harbor, Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, Deep Draft Navigation | August 14, 2024 | Federal: $520,420,000 | Non-Federal: $627,840,000 | Total: $1,148,260,000 |
| 4. MD | Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Modification of Seagirt Loop Channel, City of Baltimore, Deep Draft Navigation | June 22, 2023 | Federal: $53,765,250 | Non-Federal: $17,921,750 | Total: $71,687,000 |
Hurricane and storm damage risk reduction.—
| A. State | B.Name | C.Date ofReport ofChief ofEngineers | D.EstimatedCosts | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. DC, VA | Metropolitan Washington, District of Columbia, Coastal Storm Risk Management | June 17, 2024 | Federal: $10,160,800 | Non-Federal: $5,471,200 | Total: $15,632,000 |
| 2. FL | St. Johns County, Ponte Vedra Beach Coastal Storm Risk Management | April 18, 2024 | Federal: $50,449,000 | Non-Federal: $91,317,000 | Total: $141,766,000 |
| 3. FL | Miami-Dade Back Bay, Miami-Dade County, Coastal Storm Risk Management | August 26, 2024 | Federal: $1,756,000,000 | Non-Federal: $945,000,000 | Total: $2,701,000,000 |
| 4. MD | Baltimore Metropolitan, Baltimore City, Coastal Storm Risk Management | August 5, 2024 | Federal: $51,439,700 | Non-Federal: $27,698,300 | Total: $79,138,000 |
| 5. NY | South Shore Staten Island, Fort Wadsworth to Oakwood Beach, Richmond County, Coastal Storm Risk Management | February 6, 2024 | Federal: $1,775,600,000 | Non-Federal: $368,200,000 | Total: $2,143,800,000 |
| 6. PR | Puerto Rico, Coastal Storm Risk Management | July 30, 2024 | Federal: $99,570,000 | Non-Federal: $159,010,000 | Total: $258,580,000 |
| 7. RI | Rhode Island Coastline, Coastal Storm Risk Management | September 28, 2023 | Federal: $216,690,500 | Non-Federal: $116,679,500 | Total: $333,370,000 |
Flood risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction.—
| A. State | B. Name | C.Date ofReport ofChief of Engineers | D.EstimatedCosts | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. LA | St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana Coastal Storm and Flood Risk Management | May 28, 2024 | Federal: $3,706,814,000 | Non-Federal: $2,273,679,000 | Total: $5,980,493,000 |
Navigation and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction.—
| A. State | B.Name | C.Date ofReport ofChief of Engineers | D.EstimatedCosts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. TX | Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Coastal Resilience Study, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties | June 2, 2023 | Total: $322,761,000 |
Flood risk management and ecosystem restoration.—
| A. State | B.Name | C.Date ofReport ofChief of Engineers | D.EstimatedCosts | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. MS | Memphis Metropolitan Stormwater - North DeSoto County Feasibility Study, DeSoto County | December 18, 2023 | Federal: $17,380,000 | Non-Federal: $9,358,000 | Total: $26,738,000 |
Ecosystem restoration.—
| A. State | B.Name | C.Date ofReport ofChief of Engineers | D.EstimatedCosts | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. FL | Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Western Everglades Restoration Plan | September 11, 2024 | Federal: $1,057,630,000 | Non-Federal: $1,057,630,000 | Total: $2,115,260,000 |
| 2. TN, AR | Mississippi River, Hatchie-Loosahatchie, Mississippi River Mile 775-736 | August 12, 2024 | Federal: $41,306,000 | Non-Federal: $22,353,000 | Total: $63,659,000 |
Flood risk management.—
| A. State | B.Name | C.Date ofReport ofChief of Engineers | D.EstimatedCosts | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. NC | Tar Pamlico River Basin | September 11, 2024 | Federal: $65,142,350 | Non-Federal: $35,076,650 | Total: $100,219,000 |
Modifications and other projects.—
| A. State | B. Name | C.Date ofDecisionDocument | D.EstimatedCosts | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. AZ | Tres Rios, Arizona Ecosystem Restoration Project | May 28, 2024 | Federal: $215,574,000 | Non-Federal: $119,835,000 | Total: $335,409,000 |
| 2. FL | Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase I Project, Miami-Dade County | December 2, 2024 | Federal: $171,215,000 | Non-Federal: $171,215,000 | Total: $342,430,000 |
| 3. KS | Manhattan, Kansas Federal Levee System | May 6, 2024 | Federal: $29,725,000 | Non-Federal: $16,006,000 | Total: $45,731,000 |
| 4. MO | University City Branch, River Des Peres, University City, St. Louis County, Flood Risk Management | February 9, 2024 | Federal: $9,299,000 | Non-Federal: $5,007,000 | Total: $14,306,000 |
SEC. 1402. Special Rule.
The Secretary is authorized to provide up to $320,000,000 in financial assistance to the State of Florida for design and construction of the North Feeder Stormwater Treatment Area, as recommended in the Report of the Chief of Engineers for the project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Western Everglades Restoration Plan, Florida, authorized by this Act, and subject to the availability of appropriations.
SEC. 1403. Additional Project Authorization Pursuant to Study by Non-Federal Interest.
The North of Lake Okeechobee Storage Reservoir (Component A) of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Project is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary in accordance with the review assessment of the feasibility study for such project, dated August 2024 and submitted by the Secretary under section 203(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231(c)), and subject to such modifications or conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate.
SEC. 1404. Facility Investment.
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) that are not otherwise obligated, the Secretary may—
design and construct an Operations and Maintenance Building in Galveston, Texas, described in the prospectus submitted to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate on May 22, 2024, pursuant to subsection (c) of such section (33 U.S.C. 576(c)), substantially in accordance with such prospectus;
design and construct the new warehouse facility at the Longview Lake Project near Lee’s Summit, Missouri, described in the prospectus submitted to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate on May 22, 2024, pursuant to subsection (c) of such section (33 U.S.C. 576(c)), substantially in accordance with such prospectus;
design and construct the joint facility for the resident office for the Corpus Christi Resident Office (Construction) and the Corpus Christi Regulatory Field Office on existing federally owned property at the Naval Air Station, in Corpus Christi, Texas, described in the prospectus submitted to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate on June 6, 2023, pursuant to subsection (c) of such section (33 U.S.C. 576(c)), substantially in accordance with such prospectus; and
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 existing infrastructure.
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.