119th CONGRESS 2d Session

H. R. 9497

To provide for improvements to the rivers and harbors of the United States, to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 29, 2026

Mr. Graves (for himself, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Collins, and Ms. Wilson of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To provide for improvements to the rivers and harbors of the United States, to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title; table of contents.

(a) Short title.—This Act may be cited as the “Water Resources Development Act of 2026”.

(b) Table of contents.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Secretary defined.

TITLE I—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. Program Offices within the Directorate of Civil Works.
Sec. 102. Contracting efficiency.
Sec. 103. Removal or remediation of contaminated sediment.
Sec. 104. Levee owners board.
Sec. 105. Categorical permissions.
Sec. 106. Contributions by non-Federal interests.
Sec. 107. Electronic submission and tracking of permit applications.
Sec. 108. Project study schedule and cost estimate.
Sec. 109. Continuing authority programs.
Sec. 110. Dredged material management plans.
Sec. 111. Dredging coordination.
Sec. 112. Federal standard for dredged material disposal or placement.
Sec. 113. Levee certifications.
Sec. 114. Allocations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Sec. 115. Soo Lock operator wage rates.
Sec. 116. Beneficial use of dredged material from harbors in the State of Ohio.
Sec. 117. Minimum real estate interest.
Sec. 118. Real estate appraisal validity.
Sec. 119. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 120. Prohibition on diversion of water from Missouri River.
Sec. 121. Law enforcement at water resources development projects.
Sec. 122. Disaster debris removal.
Sec. 123. Wildfire contingency strategies.
Sec. 124. Reservoir sediment pilot program.
Sec. 125. Environmental dredging.
Sec. 126. Expenses for control of aquatic plant growths and invasive species.
Sec. 127. Feasibility studies; review of shoreline and streambank protection.
Sec. 128. Harmful algal bloom demonstration program.
Sec. 129. Shoreline and riverine protection and restoration.
Sec. 130. Fish and oyster habitat restoration.
Sec. 131. Benefits and costs attributable to certain measures.
Sec. 132. Policy on utilization of all Corps authorities and missions.
Sec. 133. Comprehensive feasibility studies and approaches for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management.
Sec. 134. Realignment of certain Corps of Engineers Districts.
Sec. 135. Update of Corps policy.
Sec. 136. Availability of project information.
Sec. 137. Fish and wildlife mitigation.
Sec. 138. Sense of Congress regarding evaluation of flood risk management projects.
Sec. 139. Recreational access.
Sec. 140. Sense of Congress on munitions disposal.
Sec. 141. Corps of Engineers workforce.
Sec. 142. Reporting and oversight.
Sec. 143. Ability to pay.
Sec. 144. Pilot program prioritization.

TITLE II—STUDIES AND REPORTS

Sec. 201. Authorization of proposed feasibility studies.
Sec. 202. Expedited completion.
Sec. 203. Expedited modification of existing feasibility studies.
Sec. 204. Expedited completion of other feasibility studies.
Sec. 205. Corps of Engineers reports.
Sec. 206. Report on the inland waterways system.
Sec. 207. GAO studies.
Sec. 208. Inspector General reports.
Sec. 209. Acceleration of emergency inland navigation projects.
Sec. 210. Assessment of commercial fish landings data.
Sec. 211. Assessments of dryland stream technologies and shoreline stabilization technologies.
Sec. 212. Assessment of nonstructural approaches to flood risk management and hurricane and storm risk reduction.
Sec. 213. Post-disaster watershed assessment for impacted areas.
Sec. 214. Updated plan on Federal hopper dredge recapitalization.
Sec. 215. Choctawhatchee and Pea River basins, Alabama and Florida.
Sec. 216. Mobile Harbor land use assessment.
Sec. 217. Honolulu Harbor, Hawaii.
Sec. 218. Chicago Area Waterway System.
Sec. 219. Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin project, Brandon Road, Will County, Illinois.
Sec. 220. Columbia Lock and Dam, Louisiana.
Sec. 221. Lower Mississippi River Comprehensive Management Study.
Sec. 222. Disposition study for Cape Cod Canal, Massachusetts.
Sec. 223. New England regional confined aquatic disposal facilities.
Sec. 224. Assateague Island, Maryland and Virginia.
Sec. 225. Big Sandy Lake, Minnesota.
Sec. 226. Upper Missouri River Basin sedimentation.
Sec. 227. Table Rock Lake disposition study, Missouri and Arkansas.
Sec. 228. Table Rock Lake, Missouri and Arkansas.
Sec. 229. Evaluation of atomic contamination at Cochiti Lake, Sandoval County, New Mexico.
Sec. 230. National Academy of Sciences study on Upper Rio Grande Basin.
Sec. 231. Arbuckle-Timbered Hills, Oklahoma.
Sec. 232. Disposition and cost allocation study of Willamette Valley, Oregon.
Sec. 233. Foster Joseph Sayers Reservoir and Dam, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 234. Humphreys County, Tennessee.
Sec. 235. Sam Rayburn Reservoir, Texas.
Sec. 236. Columbia River, Washington.
Sec. 237. Tri-Cities Area, Washington.

TITLE III—DEAUTHORIZATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS

Sec. 301. Deauthorization of inactive projects.
Sec. 302. General reauthorizations.
Sec. 303. Conveyances.
Sec. 304. Land exchange, Walton and Bay Counties, Florida.
Sec. 305. Port Canaveral, Florida.
Sec. 306. Specific deauthorizations.
Sec. 307. Environmental infrastructure.
Sec. 308. Forecast-informed reservoir operations.
Sec. 309. Floodplain management services.
Sec. 310. Planning assistance to States.
Sec. 311. Mendenhall Glacier outburst flooding, Alaska.
Sec. 312. Hansen Dam, Los Angeles–San Gabriel River Basin, California.
Sec. 313. Morro Bay, California.
Sec. 314. Oceanside, California.
Sec. 315. Pajaro River, California.
Sec. 316. Rio Grande Environmental Management Program, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.
Sec. 317. Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Sec. 318. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, Louisiana.
Sec. 319. Pilottown anchorage area, Louisiana.
Sec. 320. Jack Hubbard Memorial Breakwater, Burt Township, Michigan.
Sec. 321. Sardis Lake, Panola County, Mississippi.
Sec. 322. Hydraulic evaluation of Upper Mississippi River.
Sec. 323. Lower Missouri River comprehensive flood protection.
Sec. 324. Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee.
Sec. 325. Great Lakes Commission.
Sec. 326. Great Lakes Fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 327. Truckee River and tributaries, Nevada.
Sec. 328. Cooperative agreements, New Mexico.
Sec. 329. Kinzua Dam safety modification study, Allegheny River, New York and Pennsylvania.
Sec. 330. Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina.
Sec. 331. Massillon Local Protection Project, Tuscarawas River, Ohio.
Sec. 332. Toussaint River Federal navigation project, Carroll Township, Ohio.
Sec. 333. Río Puerto Nuevo flood risk management project, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 334. Buffalo Bayou Tributaries and Resiliency Study, Texas.
Sec. 335. Chambers, Galveston, and Harris Counties, Texas, expedited real estate transfers.
Sec. 336. Coastal Virginia.
Sec. 337. Norfolk Coastal Storm Risk Management, Virginia.
Sec. 338. Puget Sound and adjacent waters restoration, Washington.
Sec. 339. Lower Columbia River.
Sec. 340. Lower Columbia River Basin ecosystem restoration assessment.
Sec. 341. Puget Sound nearshore ecosystem restoration, Washington.
Sec. 342. Washington Metropolitan Area, Washington, District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia.
Sec. 343. Federal Triangle Area, Washington, District of Columbia.

TITLE IV—WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE

Sec. 401. Project authorizations.
Sec. 402. Expedited completion of projects and activities.

TITLE V—DAM SAFETY

Sec. 501. National Dam Safety Program amendments.

SEC. 2. Secretary defined.

In this Act, the term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Army.

TITLE I—General Provisions

SEC. 101. Program Offices within the Directorate of Civil Works.

(a) Office of Inland Navigation Construction Management.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish within the Directorate of Civil Works an office to be known as the “Office of Inland Navigation Construction Management”.

(2) ADMINISTRATION.—In establishing the office under this subsection, the Secretary shall—

(A) designate an Inland Program Manager, who shall head the office and report directly to the Deputy Commanding General for Civil Works and Emergency Operations; and

(B) provide the office with sufficient administrative, technical, and budgetary support to direct, perform, and coordinate the following tasks related to the inland waterways navigation mission of the Corps of Engineers:

(i) Develop and maintain an inland waterway program management plan.

(ii) Oversee inland waterways construction projects and major rehabilitation projects along the inland and intracoastal waterways of the United States, as described in section 206 of the Inland Waterways Revenue Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1804).

(iii) Coordinate, validate, and oversee funding for the projects described in clause (ii), including the transactions of the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.

(iv) Conduct in-progress reviews for individual project designs and construction.

(v) Provide updates at every meeting of the Inland Waterways Users Board established under section 302 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2251).

(vi) Develop and annually update the projects described in clause (ii) in accordance with the capital investment strategy authorized by section 302(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2251).

(3) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website), a report detailing the results of the status of the implementation of this subsection, including—

(A) the progress of the Secretary in establishing the Office of Inland Navigation Construction Management;

(B) the status of every inland waterway construction project and major rehabilitation project in the most recent capital investment strategy, including any issues related to delays or cost overruns; and

(C) any recommendations related to the operational improvement of the Office of Inland Navigation Construction Management.

(b) Office of Water Supply, Water Conservation, and Drought Resiliency.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish within the Directorate of Civil Works an office to be known as the “Office of Water Supply, Water Conservation, and Drought Resiliency”.

(2) ADMINISTRATION.—In establishing the office under this subsection, the Secretary shall—

(A) designate a Water Supply, Water Conservation, and Drought Resiliency Program Manager, who shall head the office and report directly to the Deputy Commanding General for Civil Works and Emergency Operations;

(B) staff the office with personnel who may reside in any district or division of the Corps of Engineers; and

(C) provide the office with sufficient administrative, technical, and budgetary support to direct, perform, and coordinate the following tasks related to the water supply mission of the Corps of Engineers:

(i) Identify and evaluate opportunities using authorities of the Corps of Engineers to promote water supply, water conservation, and drought resiliency at water resource development projects.

(ii) Provide to the Corps of Engineers, States, and non-Federal interests information on existing policies and guidance documents of the Corps of Engineers related to, and make recommendations on new policies and guidance documents to improve, water supply, water conservation, and drought resiliency, including—

(I) implementation of subtitle B of title I of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024;

(II) the method for the accounting of storage use under water supply storage agreements at Corps of Engineers reservoirs;

(III) the reallocation of storage space at Corps of Engineers reservoirs to water supply;

(IV) the interpretation and implementation of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b); and

(V) the interpretation and implementation of section 6 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (33 U.S.C. 708).

(iii) Assist and provide guidance to States and non-Federal interests on accessing programs, services, and other technical and financial assistance made available by the Corps of Engineers related to water supply, water conservation, and drought resiliency efforts related to water resources development projects.

(iv) Coordinate the review and completion of water supply reallocation studies and reports to clear backlogs and ensure new studies and reports are completed in a timely manner.

(v) Act as a liaison between the Corps of Engineers and non-Federal interests for studies, projects, and agreements for water supply, water conservation, and drought resiliency efforts related to water resources development projects, including efforts to—

(I) reallocate storage space in projects to store water for municipal and industrial water supply purposes pursuant to the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b);

(II) enter into surplus water contracts pursuant to section 6 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (33 U.S.C. 708); and

(III) modify the operation of projects under other authorities to produce water supply benefits incidental to and consistent with authorized purposes, including by—

(aa) adjusting the timing of releases for other authorized purposes to create opportunities for water supply conservation, use, and storage;

(bb) capturing stormwater;

(cc) releasing water from storage to replenish aquifer storage and recovery;

(dd) releasing water from storage to augment storage at another Federal or non-Federal storage facility; and

(ee) other conservation measures that enhance the use of a Corps of Engineers project for water supply.

(vi) Conduct outreach and workshops for potential non-Federal interests to provide information on the authorities described in clause (i).

(vii) Evaluate budget requests to ensure sufficient resources are requested and allocated by the Directorate to fulfill the tasks described in this subparagraph.

(viii) Cooperate with State, regional, and local government and planning authorities to identify strategies to augment water supplies, enhance drought resiliency, promote contingency planning, and assist in the planning and development of alternative water sources.

(ix) Other tasks in furtherance of the water supply mission as determined by the Secretary.

(3) REPORT REQUIRED.—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 that describes—

(A) the progress of the Secretary in establishing the Office of Water Supply, Water Conservation, and Drought Resiliency, including a description of the status of implementing paragraph (2)(C);

(B) the number of staff assigned to such Office; and

(C) for each water supply study or project being conducted or implemented by the Corps of Engineers as of the date on which such report is submitted—

(i) the status of each such study or project;

(ii) the date upon which each such study or project commenced;

(iii) the estimated date of completion of each such study or project; and

(iv) any significant impediments or obstacles that may reasonably affect the timeline to complete each such study or project.

(c) Office on Technical Assistance and Community Outreach.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish within the Directorate of Civil Works an office to be known as the “Office on Technical Assistance and Community Outreach”.

(2) ADMINISTRATION.—In establishing the office under this subsection, the Secretary shall—

(A) designate a Technical Assistance and Community Outreach Manager who shall head the office and report directly to the Deputy Commanding General for Civil Works and Emergency Operations;

(B) staff the office with personnel who may reside in any district or division of the Corps of Engineers; and

(C) provide the office with sufficient administrative, technical, and budgetary support to direct, perform, and coordinate the following tasks:

(i) Assist and provide guidance to non-Federal interests on accessing programs, services, and other technical and financial assistance made available by the Corps of Engineers relating to water resources development projects, including under—

(I) a continuing authority program (as such term is defined in section 7001(c)(1)(D) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d));

(II) section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a), including the Silver Jackets program established pursuant to such section;

(III) section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–16);

(IV) section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269);

(V) section 5014 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note);

(VI) section 118 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note);

(VII) section 165 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note);

(VIII) the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (33 U.S.C. 3901 et seq.);

(IX) sections 1148 and 1305 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3039; 33 U.S.C. 2201 note);

(X) section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213m); and

(XI) section 1148 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024.

(ii) Coordinate the implementation of public awareness, education, outreach, and engagement requirements under section 8117 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2281b).

(iii) Identify programs, services, and other assistance made available by other Federal and State agencies relating to water resources development projects for purposes of advising potential non-Federal interests on the best available applicable assistance.

(3) PRIORITIZATION.—In carrying out paragraph (2)(C), to the maximum extent practicable, the Technical Assistance and Community Outreach Manager shall prioritize providing technical assistance and guidance to a non-Federal interest seeking to carry out a water resources development project that will benefit a rural community, a Tribal community, or a community described in the guidance issued by the Secretary pursuant to section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note).

(4) ELECTRONIC PORTAL.—

(A) DEVELOPMENT.—In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall develop an online, interactive portal that—

(i) contains information relating to the programs described in paragraph (2)(C)(i); and

(ii) can be used by a potential non-Federal interest as a succinct guide to accessing such programs for an applicable potential water resources development project.

(B) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary shall ensure that the portal developed under subparagraph (A) is made available in a prominent location on the public-facing website of the headquarters of the Corps of Engineers and of each district and division of the Corps of Engineers.

(d) Office on Alternative Delivery Methods.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish within the Directorate of Civil Works an office to be known as the “Office on Alternative Delivery Methods”.

(2) ADMINISTRATION.—In establishing the office under this subsection, the Secretary shall—

(A) designate an Alternative Delivery Manager who shall head the office and report directly to the Deputy Commanding General for Civil Works and Emergency Operations;

(B) staff the office with personnel who may reside in any district or division of the Corps of Engineers; and

(C) provide the office with sufficient administrative, technical, and budgetary support to direct, perform, and coordinate the following tasks:

(i) Assist and provide guidance to non-Federal interests on accessing alternative delivery programs, services, and other technical and financial assistance made available by the Corps of Engineers relating to water resources development projects, including under—

(I) sections 203 and 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231; 2232);

(II) section 1043 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note);

(III) section 1113 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2326e);

(IV) section 159 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020; and

(V) section 1107(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note).

(ii) Coordinate with non-Federal interests to establish clear review standards, procedures, and timelines for the review and approval of studies, plans, specifications, and other materials submitted pursuant to the programs described in clause (i).

(iii) Identify opportunities to accelerate project delivery and reduce administrative burdens associated with the use of alternative delivery methods and contributed funds authorities.

(iv) Coordinate across headquarters, divisions, and districts of the Corps of Engineers to ensure the consistent implementation of alternative delivery authorities.

(v) Develop and maintain guidance and best practices for the acceptance and use of contributed funds provided by non-Federal interests to carry out activities related to water resources development projects.

(vi) Provide technical assistance to non-Federal interests regarding the eligibility of expenditures for credit or reimbursement, including expenditures incurred pursuant to written agreements entered into under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b).

(3) REPORT.—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 that describes—

(A) the progress of the Secretary in establishing the Office on Alternative Delivery Methods;

(B) the number of staff assigned to such Office;

(C) the activities carried out by the Office; and

(D) recommendations for legislative or administrative actions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of alternative delivery methods.

(e) Coordination; funding.—

(1) COORDINATION.—Each office established under subsections (a) through (d) shall coordinate with other offices established under such subsections and with any other office of the Corps of Engineers to ensure consistency across the Corps of Engineers.

(2) FUNDING.—The offices established under subsections (a) through (d) shall be funded using amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated for the general expenses of the Directorate of Civil Works.

SEC. 102. Contracting efficiency.

(a) Sense of Congress.—It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) the Corps of Engineers should maximize the efficiency of contract actions through the use of multiyear or continuing contracts; and

(2) multiyear or continuing contracts—

(A) provide cost savings by combining work across multiple projects across different accounts of the Corps of Engineers; and

(B) increase reliability of projects constructed or maintained by the Corps of Engineers and ensure realization of the benefits derived from such projects.

(b) Review.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall carry out a review of any considerations relating to and benefits of awarding multiyear or continuing contracts for the construction of authorized water resources development projects carried out by the Secretary.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In developing the review under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall—

(A) describe existing statutory authorities and limitations under which the Corps of Engineers may carry out water resources development projects utilizing a multiyear or continuing contract, including such authorities and limitations under section 10 of the Act of September 22, 1922 (33 U.S.C. 621) and section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2331);

(B) review—

(i) prior instances in which the Secretary has carried out an authorized water resources development project utilizing a multiyear or continuing contract for the construction;

(ii) prior instances in which the heads of other Federal agencies, including the Secretary of Defense, have carried out large-scale infrastructure or asset construction projects utilizing a multiyear or continuing contract for the construction; and

(iii) the response of the Corps of Engineers to prior recommendations of the Comptroller General related to management of water resources development projects that utilize multiyear or continuing contracts; and

(C) evaluate—

(i) potential cost savings, considerations, and benefits (including accelerated completion of construction) from awarding multiyear or continuing contracts for the construction of authorized water resources development projects; and

(ii) safeguards to minimize the inefficient reprogramming of appropriated funds related to multiyear or continuing contracts.

(3) REPORT.—Upon completion of the review 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, including any legislative recommendations that result from such review.

SEC. 103. Removal or remediation of contaminated sediment.

(a) In general.—The Secretary shall not be liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) for the release of a hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant resulting from any covered activity carried out in accordance with a joint plan developed under this section by the Secretary, in coordination with the non-Federal interest for the covered activity, and approved by the Administrator.

(b) Joint plan.—A joint plan developed under subsection (a) shall—

(1) ensure that the covered activity protects human health and the environment; and

(2) include—

(A) relevant and appropriate requirements of the National Contingency Plan;

(B) a description of the work to be undertaken;

(C) identification of—

(i) the method to be used for dredged material disposal;

(ii) the roles and responsibilities of the Secretary and non-Federal interest; and

(iii) sources of funding; and

(D) such other terms and conditions as the Administrator determines necessary.

(c) Consultation; public comment.—In developing a joint plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—

(1) consult with interested Federal, State, and local government officials; and

(2) provide an opportunity for public comment.

(d) Obligations of the Secretary.—Prior to carrying out any covered activity pursuant to a joint plan developed under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—

(1) document any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant present in the contaminated sediment to be removed or remediated; and

(2) seek to identify any person potentially responsible for the release of such hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant.

(e) Cost recovery.—Nothing in this section affects the responsibility of the Federal Government to seek recovery under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) from responsible parties of response costs incurred by the Secretary in carrying out a covered activity.

(f) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term “Administrator” means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

(2) CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT.—The term “contaminated sediment” means sediment in which a hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant is present.

(3) COVERED ACTIVITY.—The term “covered activity” means the removal or remediation of contaminated sediment pursuant to—

(A) a water resources development project specifically authorized by Congress for such purpose; or

(B) section 312(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1272(f)).

(4) HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE.—The term “hazardous substance” has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601).

(5) NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN.—The term “National Contingency Plan” means the national contingency plan published under section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605).

(6) POLLUTANT OR CONTAMINANT.—The term “pollutant or contaminant” has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601).

SEC. 104. Levee owners board.

(a) Establishment.—There is established a Levee Owners Board.

(b) Membership.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Owners Board shall be composed of eleven members, each of which is a Federal levee system owner-operator, appointed by the Secretary so as to represent various regions of the country, including at least one member from each of the eight divisions of the Corps of Engineers.

(2) TERMS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—A member of the Owners Board shall be appointed for a period of 3 years.

(B) REAPPOINTMENT.—A member of the Owners Board may be reappointed to the Owners Board, as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

(C) VACANCIES.—A vacancy on the Owners Board shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment was made.

(3) CHAIRPERSON.—The members of the Owners Board shall appoint a chairperson from among the members of the Owners Board.

(4) OBSERVERS.—The Secretary shall designate, and the Administrator may designate, a representative to act as an observer of the Owners Board.

(c) Duties.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Owners Board shall meet not less frequently than semiannually to develop and make recommendations to the Secretary and Congress regarding levee system reliability throughout the United States.

(2) ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—The Owners Board shall provide—

(A) prior to the development of the budget proposal of the President for a given fiscal year, advice and recommendations to the Secretary regarding overall levee system reliability;

(B) advice and recommendations to Congress regarding any feasibility report for a flood risk management project that has been submitted to Congress;

(C) not later than 60 days after the date of the submission of the budget proposal of the President to Congress for a given fiscal year, advice and recommendations to Congress regarding flood risk management project construction and rehabilitation priorities and corresponding spending levels;

(D) advice and recommendations to the Secretary and Congress regarding the effectiveness of the levee safety program of the Corps of Engineers, including comments and recommendations on relevant information contained in the reports of Corps of Engineers activities and expenditures provided by the Secretary under subsection (d)(2); and

(E) advice and recommendations to the Secretary, Congress, and the Administrator regarding the effectiveness of the levee safety initiative, including comments and recommendations on relevant information contained in the reports of Corps of Engineers activities and expenditures provided by the Secretary under subsection (d)(2).

(3) INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT.—The Owners Board shall ensure that any advice or recommendations made under paragraph (2) reflect the independent judgment of the Owners Board.

(d) Duties of the Secretary.—The Secretary shall—

(1) designate an Executive Secretary who shall assist the chairperson in administering the Owners Board and ensuring that the Owners Board operates in accordance with chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code;

(2) provide to the Owners Board detailed reports of Corps of Engineers activities and expenditures related to flood risk management and levees, including for the levee safety program of the Corps of Engineers and the levee safety initiative, not less frequently than semiannually; and

(3) submit to the Owners Board a copy of any completed feasibility report for a flood risk management project submitted to Congress.

(e) Administration.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Owners Board shall be subject to chapter 10 of title 5, other than section 1013, and with the consent of the appropriate agency head, the Owners Board may use the facilities and services of any Federal agency.

(2) MEMBERS NOT CONSIDERED SPECIAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.—For the purposes of complying with chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code, the members of the Owners Board shall not be considered special Government employees (as defined in section 202 of title 18, United States Code).

(3) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—Non-Federal members of the Owners Board, while engaged in the performance of their duties away from their homes or regular places of business, may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code.

(f) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) LEVEE SAFETY INITIATIVE.—The term “levee safety initiative” means the levee safety initiative established under section 9005 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303a).

(2) NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY ACT OF 2007 TERMS.—The terms “Administrator”, “levee”, “levee system”, and “rehabilitation” have the meanings given those terms in section 9002 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3301).

(3) OWNERS BOARD.—The term “Owners Board” means the Levee Owners Board established by this section.

SEC. 105. Categorical permissions.

(a) In general.—Section 14(a) of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 408(a)) is amended—

(1) by striking “It shall not be lawful” and inserting the following:

“(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be lawful”; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

“(2) CATEGORICAL PERMISSIONS.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, by rule, establish categorical permissions for any category of activities for which an application for permission under paragraph (1) may be submitted.

“(B) SCOPE.—In establishing categorical permissions under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall consider the following:

“(i) The type and similarity of activities to be included in any specific category.

“(ii) The geographic area to which the categorical permission will apply.

“(iii) The type and similarity of the public works with respect to which the categorical permission will apply.

“(iv) The effects of the activities to be included in a category on the applicable public works and on environmental and cultural resources.

“(v) Any additional Federal regulatory requirements that apply to the activities to be included in a category.

“(vi) An appropriate period of validity for the categorical permission.

“(C) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may only establish a categorical permission under this subsection that the Secretary determines will apply to a category of activities that—

“(i) are similar in nature to activities for which applications for permission are regularly submitted under this section;

“(ii) will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when carried out separately; and

“(iii) will cause only minimal cumulative adverse environmental effects.

“(D) PUBLIC INPUT.—

“(i) SCOPING PROCESS.—In establishing categorical permissions under this paragraph, the Secretary shall solicit input from non-Federal interests, including landowners, hydropower operators, and resource agencies.

“(ii) COMMENT PERIOD.—The Secretary shall make all draft categorical permissions, including any associated analyses and other documentation, available for public review and comment for not less than 30 days.

“(E) TRANSPARENCY.—The Secretary shall publish all categorical permissions established under this paragraph on an appropriate website of the Corps of Engineers, including, for each categorical permission, identification of—

“(i) the types of activities to which the categorical permission applies;

“(ii) any specific circumstances that, if present, would cause the categorical permission to not apply to an activity of a type identified under clause (i);

“(iii) the geographic area to which the categorical permission applies;

“(iv) the types of public works with respect to which the categorical permission applies; and

“(v) the period for which the categorical permission is valid.

“(F) INCORPORATION INTO APPLICATION PROCESS.—

“(i) IDENTIFICATION IN REQUEST.—A non-Federal entity may identify in an application for permission under this subsection any categorical permission that may apply to the activity for which the permission is requested.

“(ii) INCLUSION IN COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION.—In informing a non-Federal entity whether an application for permission under this subsection is complete under subsection (d)(1), the Secretary shall include an assessment of whether a categorical permission will apply to the activity for which permission is requested, including an evaluation of the applicability of—

“(I) any categorical permission identified by the non-Federal entity in the application; and

“(II) any other categorical permission the Secretary determines appropriate.

“(G) LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this paragraph affects—

“(i) the authority of the Secretary to grant or deny permission under this section; or

“(ii) any obligation to comply with the provisions of any Federal or State law, including—

“(I) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);

“(II) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); and

“(III) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

“(H) DEADLINE FOR PROPOSED RULE.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2026, the Secretary shall publish a proposed rule establishing categorical permissions under this paragraph.”.

SEC. 106. Contributions by non-Federal interests.

Section 902(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280(b)) is amended to read as follows:

“(b) Contributions by non-Federal interests.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), in accordance with section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701h), if the Chief of Engineers makes a determination under section 8155(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2280 note) that an authorized water resources development project has exceeded, or is expected to exceed, its maximum cost under subsection (a), the Secretary may—

“(1) accept funds from the non-Federal interest for such project pursuant to a written agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b); and

“(2) use such funds to carry out such project, if the use of such funds does not increase the Federal share of the cost of such project.”.

SEC. 107. Electronic submission and tracking of permit applications.

(a) Electronic system.—Section 2040(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2345(a)) is amended—

(1) in the subsection heading, by striking “Development of Electronic” and inserting “Electronic”;

(2) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall implement an electronic system to allow the electronic—

“(A) preparation and submission of applications for permits and requests for jurisdictional determinations under the jurisdiction of the Secretary; and

“(B) tracking of documents related to Federal environmental reviews for projects under the jurisdiction of the Secretary or for which the Corps of Engineers is designated as the lead Federal agency.”;

(3) in paragraph (2)—

(A) in subparagraph (E), by striking “; and” and inserting a semicolon;

(B) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

“(G) documents related to Federal environmental reviews for projects under the jurisdiction of the Secretary or for which the Corps of Engineers is designated as the lead Federal agency.”; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

“(5) COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES.—To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall use the electronic system required under paragraph (1) to enhance interagency coordination in the preparation of documents related to Federal environmental reviews.”.

(b) System requirements.—Section 2040(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2345(b)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (4), by striking “; and” and inserting a semicolon;

(2) in paragraph (5)(C), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(6) enable a non-Federal interest for a project to—

“(A) submit information related to the preparation of any Federal environmental review document associated with the project; and

“(B) track the status of a Federal environmental review associated with the project.”.

(c) Record retention.—Section 2040(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2345(d)) is amended—

(1) in the subsection heading, by striking “Record of Determinations” and inserting “Record Retention”;

(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting “, and all Federal environmental review documents included in the electronic system” before the period at the end; and

(3) in paragraph (2), by inserting “and all Federal environmental review documents included in the electronic system” before “after the 5-year”.

(d) Availability of records.—Section 2040(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2345(e)) is amended—

(1) in the subsection heading, by striking “Determinations” and inserting “Records”; and

(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting “, and all final Federal environmental review documents included in the electronic system,” before “available to the public”.

(e) Deadline for electronic system implementation.—Section 2040(f)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2345(f)(1)) is amended by striking “2 years after the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022” and inserting “1 year after the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2026”.

(f) Applicability.—Section 2040(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2345(g)) is amended by inserting “, and the requirements described in subsections (d) and (e) relating to Federal environmental documents shall apply with respect to Federal environmental review documents that are prepared after the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2026” before the period at the end.

(g) E–NEPA.—Section 2040 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2345) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(i) Consistency with E–NEPA.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall take into consideration the results of the permitting portal study conducted pursuant to the amendment made by section 321(b) of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (137 Stat. 44).”.

(h) Conforming amendment.—Section 2040 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2345) is amended in the section heading by striking “Permit Applications” and inserting “Permit Applications and Other Documents”.

SEC. 108. Project study schedule and cost estimate.

(a) Vertical integration and acceleration of studies.—Section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c) is amended—

(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:

“(a) In general.—In carrying out a feasibility study carried out by the Secretary pursuant to section 905(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282), the Secretary shall—

“(1) complete the feasibility study as efficiently and expeditiously as practicable;

“(2) align the scope of the feasibility study with the goals of the non-Federal interest, to the extent practicable in accordance with the authorities of the Secretary and statutory requirements relating to water resources development projects;

“(3) carry out the feasibility study in a manner that ensures that personnel from the district, division, and headquarters levels of the Corps of Engineers concurrently conduct the review required under such section 905; and

“(4) include in the report submitted with respect to the study under section 2033(f)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2282a(f)(2)) sufficient information for Congress to fully review the study, which may be in the form of details relating to any remaining project cost uncertainties as appropriate for the maturity of the project design.”;

(2) in subsection (d)(1), by striking “the environmental review process under section 1005” and inserting “any required environmental review”;

(3) by striking subsections (b), (c), (e), and (f); and

(4) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (b).

(b) Detailed project schedule.—Section 905(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(g)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (2), by striking “, to the maximum extent practicable,”;

(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:

“(3) REQUIREMENTS.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out paragraph (2), for each feasibility study, the relevant District Engineer shall establish deadlines for milestones, and a total cost estimate for the study, taking into consideration, to the maximum extent practicable—

“(i) the goals of the non-Federal interest;

“(ii) the statutory requirements and authorities of the Corps of Engineers;

“(iii) the complexity of the study; and

“(iv) any other factors identified by the District Engineer and the non-Federal interest.

“(B) COLLABORATION WITH NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—The District Engineer shall collaborate with the relevant non-Federal interest in establishing deadlines for milestones under subparagraph (A).

“(C) COMPLEXITY.—In determining the complexity of a feasibility study for purposes of subparagraph (A), the District Engineer shall consider, with respect to the project that is the subject of the feasibility study—

“(i) the type, size, location, scope, and overall projected cost of the project;

“(ii) whether the project will use any innovative design or construction techniques;

“(iii) whether the project will require significant action by other Federal, State, or local agencies;

“(iv) whether there is significant public dispute as to the nature or effects of the project; and

“(v) whether there is significant public dispute as to the economic or environmental costs or benefits of the project.

“(D) EXTENSIONS.—At the request of the relevant non-Federal interest, the District Engineer shall extend any deadline established under subparagraph (A).”; and

(3) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:

“(4) CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION.—For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall—

“(A) submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate an annual report that includes—

“(i) a list of all detailed project schedules established under paragraph (2) in the fiscal year;

“(ii) a description of any such project schedule that is expected to result in the completion of a final feasibility report more than 4 years after the date on which the Secretary determines the Federal interest for purposes of the report pursuant to section 2033(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2282a(f));

“(iii) a description of any feasibility study for which the maximum Federal cost is expected to exceed $5,000,000, based on the total cost estimate established under paragraph (2), including an explanation of such exceedance; and

“(iv) an explanation of any missed deadlines or extensions; and

“(B) make publicly available (including on a publicly available website) a copy of the annual report described in subparagraph (A) not later than 14 days after the date on which a report is submitted to Congress.”.

(c) Applicability.—

(1) NEW STUDIES.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to feasibility studies initiated on or after the date of enactment of this section.

(2) ONGOING STUDIES.—For any feasibility study initiated before the date of enactment of this section, but for which a final report of the Chief of Engineers has not been submitted to Congress pursuant to section 2033 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2282a) on or before such date of enactment, the Secretary shall, upon request from the relevant non-Federal interest, apply the requirements of section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (as amended by this section) and section 905(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (as amended by this section) to the feasibility study.

(d) Notification to Congress on terminated studies.—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 on any feasibility study terminated or proposed to be terminated, including a summary of the reasons for such termination, and any proposed alternatives the non-Federal interest may pursue in lieu of a feasibility study.

SEC. 109. Continuing authority programs.

(a) Project modifications for improvements to flood risk management.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish a program to carry out studies and projects for the improvement of covered projects.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—

(A) STUDIES.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out a study of a covered project under this subsection to determine whether there is a need to modify the structure or operations of the covered project in order to—

(I) improve flood risk management; or

(II) meet applicable Federal standards, including levee accreditation standards.

(ii) FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT.—The Secretary shall include in a study carried out under this subsection—

(I) as part of the calculation of benefits and costs, each calculation identified in section 2033(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2282a(d)); and

(II) an assessment of geographical transfers of, or changes in, flood risk within and beyond the boundaries of the covered project.

(B) PROJECTS.—The Secretary may carry out a project under this subsection to make modifications to the structure or operations of a covered project if the Secretary determines, based on the study of the covered project carried out under subparagraph (A), that—

(i) the modifications—

(I) are feasible and consistent with the authorized purposes of the covered project;

(II) will provide for flood risk management in the public interest; and

(III) are cost effective; and

(ii) any increases in flood risk that may result from the modifications will be offset within the boundaries of the covered project.

(C) COORDINATION.—In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies.

(D) ITEMS PROVIDED BY THE NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal interest for a project carried out under this subsection shall provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations necessary for the project.

(ii) CREDIT.—The value of land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations provided under clause (i) shall be credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project carried out under this subsection.

(E) AGREEMENTS.—Construction of a project under this subsection shall be initiated only after a non-Federal interest has entered into a binding agreement with the Secretary to pay—

(i) the non-Federal share of the costs of construction required under this subsection; and

(ii) 100 percent of any operation, maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with the project, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

(3) COST SHARE.—

(A) STUDY.—Subject to subparagraph (C), the Federal share of the cost of a study carried out under this subsection shall be 50 percent, except that the first $100,000 of the cost of the study shall be at Federal expense.

(B) CONSTRUCTION.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (C), the non-Federal share of the cost of construction of a project carried out under this subsection shall be 75 percent.

(ii) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—The non-Federal share of the cost of construction of a project carried out under this subsection may be provided in the form of in-kind contributions, including a contribution of a facility or supply or of a service that is necessary to carry out the project.

(iii) OTHER FEDERAL FUNDS.—Subject to subparagraph (C), the non-Federal share of the cost of construction of a project carried out under this subsection may be provided in the form of funds provided to the non-Federal interest by another Federal agency, if such Federal agency provides written consent to the non-Federal interest for the use of such funds for the project.

(C) LIMITATION.—The total Federal amount expended for a study or project under this subsection shall be not more than $15,000,000.

(4) LIMITATIONS.—

(A) BETTERMENTS.—The Secretary may include in a project under this subsection a modification to the structure or operations of a covered project that is necessary solely for purposes of meeting State or local building, zoning, or other standards only as an element of a locally preferred plan.

(B) DEFERRED MAINTENANCE.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may not include in a project under this subsection any modification to the structure or operations of a covered project to address any operations and maintenance responsibilities of the non-Federal interest for the covered project, including to address any deferred or incomplete maintenance of the covered project by the non-Federal interest.

(ii) BASELINE CONDITION.—The Secretary shall use the as-built condition of a covered project, including the as-built condition of any modifications authorized by the Secretary, as the basis for determining any modifications to the structure or operations of the covered project to be included in a project carried out under this subsection.

(5) COVERED PROJECT DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term “covered project” means—

(A) a water resources development project constructed by the Secretary for the purpose of flood risk management; and

(B) a project with respect to which the Secretary is authorized to provide assistance under section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).

(6) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this subsection $50,000,000 for each fiscal year.

(b) Applicability of expenditure limits.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to each covered water resources development project, the Secretary shall apply the maximum per-project Federal expenditure limit for the continuing authority program under which the project is authorized, as the provision of law establishing such limit is in effect on the day after the date of enactment of this Act.

(2) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection:

(A) CONTINUING AUTHORITY PROGRAM.—The term “continuing authority program” has the meaning given that term in section 7001(c)(1)(D)(iii) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d(c)(1)(D)(iii)) (as amended by this Act).

(B) COVERED WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DEFINED.—The term “covered water resources development project” means a water resources development project authorized pursuant to a continuing authority program, including a water resources development project for which—

(i) an initial construction contract was awarded before January 4, 2025; and

(ii) construction is not complete as of the date of enactment of this Act.

(c) Studies and projects for drought resiliency.—Section 155 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2347c) is amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 155. Studies and projects for drought resiliency.

“(a) In general.—The Secretary shall establish a program to carry out, in partnership with non-Federal interests, studies and projects for drought resiliency.

“(b) Requirements.—

“(1) STUDIES.—The Secretary may carry out a study under this section for a project to provide for drought resiliency, including through—

“(A) the implementation of water conservation measures to mitigate and address drought conditions;

“(B) the management of sediment for increased water in the applicable watershed;

“(C) mitigation and monitoring associated with aquatic or riparian nonnative species that exacerbate drought conditions, such as salt cedar;

“(D) the planting of native plant species that will reduce the risk of drought and the incidence of nonnative plant species;

“(E) the construction of small water storage projects; or

“(F) other actions that increase drought resiliency and water conservation.

“(2) PROJECTS.—The Secretary may carry out a project under this subsection if the Secretary determines, based on the study for the project carried out under paragraph (1), that the project—

“(A) will provide for drought resiliency, including through actions described in such paragraph;

“(B) is in the public interest; and

“(C) is cost effective.

“(3) USE OF NATURAL AND NATURE-BASED FEATURES.—In carrying out a study or 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))).

“(4) ITEMS PROVIDED BY NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—

“(A) 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.

“(B) 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.

“(5) 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—

“(A) the non-Federal share of the costs of construction required under this section; and

“(B) 100 percent of any operation, maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with the project, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

“(c) Cost-Share.—

“(1) STUDIES.—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.

“(2) CONSTRUCTION.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (3), and except as provided in subparagraph (B), the non-Federal share of the cost of construction of a project carried out under this section shall be 35 percent.

“(B) SMALL WATER STORAGE PROJECTS.—A small water storage project carried out under this section shall be subject to the cost-sharing requirements applicable to construction of projects under section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213), including—

“(i) for municipal and industrial water supply, the non-Federal share of the cost shall be 100 percent;

“(ii) for agricultural water supply, the non-Federal share of the cost shall be 35 percent; and

“(iii) for recreation, including recreational navigation, the non-Federal share of the cost shall be 50 percent of separable costs and, in the case of any harbor or inland harbor or channel project, 50 percent of joint and separable costs allocated to recreational navigation.

“(3) LIMITATION.—The total Federal amount expended for a study or project under this section shall be not more than $10,000,000.

“(d) Technical assistance.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary may provide technical assistance to a non-Federal interest necessary to support comprehensive, systemwide approaches, and operations, maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation activities, that take into account changing conditions from extreme and prolonged weather events.

“(e) Funding.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $35,000,000 for each fiscal year.

“(f) Small water storage project defined.—In this section, the term ‘small water storage project’ means a project for water storage that—

“(1) in the case of a new project, has a water storage capacity of not less than 2,000 acre-feet and not more than 30,000 acre-feet; or

“(2) in the case of an enlargement of an existing project, is for an enlargement of not less than 1,000 acre-feet and not more than 30,000 acre-feet.”.

(d) Emergency streambank and shoreline protection.—Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r) is amended by striking “$50,000,000” and inserting “$62,500,000”.

(e) 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 “$90,000,000” and inserting “$100,000,000”.

(f) Removal of obstructions; clearing channels.—Section 2 of the Act of August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g) is amended by striking “$15,000,000” and inserting “$19,000,000”.

(g) Project modifications for improvement of environment or drought resiliency.—Section 1135(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(h)) is amended by striking “$62,000,000” and inserting “$75,000,000”.

(h) Conforming amendments.—Section 7001(c)(1)(D)(iii) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d(c)(1)(D)(iii)) is amended—

(1) in subclause (IX), by striking “; and” and inserting a semicolon;

(2) in subclause (X), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(XI) section 109(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2026; and

“(XII) section 155 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020.”.

SEC. 110. Dredged material management plans.

(a) Planning period.—In developing a dredged material management plan for an authorized water resources development project, the Secretary shall provide for a minimum of 10 years of dredged material placement capacity.

(b) Exception.—The requirement established under subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to an authorized water resources development project if the Secretary finds that providing for a minimum of 10 years of dredged material placement capacity in the dredged material management plan for the project is not feasible due to complexity, controversy, or other compelling factors.

SEC. 111. Dredging coordination.

(a) Consultation.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In determining the scope and performance timeline to be included in a contract entered into on or after the date of enactment of this Act with an entity to carry out maintenance dredging at an authorized water resources development project, the Secretary shall consult with stakeholders, including—

(A) the non-Federal interest for the project;

(B) relevant Federal and State entities; and

(C) to the extent practicable, other non-Federal entities that utilize or rely on the project.

(2) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if the Secretary determines that an emergency exists or there is an important national interest at stake, the Secretary may determine the scope and performance timeline to be included in a contract described in such paragraph without consulting with stakeholders that are not a party to the contract.

(b) Communication.—If the Secretary receives, from an entity carrying out maintenance dredging at an authorized water resources development project under a contract entered into with the Secretary, information about changes with respect to the performance of such maintenance dredging, the Secretary shall, not later than 3 business days after receiving such information—

(1) determine whether such changes are reasonably likely to affect the period of performance of dredging under the contract; and

(2) if the Secretary determines that such changes are reasonably likely to affect such period, notify the applicable non-Federal interest of such changes.

(c) Capability numbers.—With respect to any maintenance dredging activity, the Secretary shall, upon request, make available to the applicable non-Federal interest the estimate made by the Secretary of the amount of funding that the Secretary could reasonably expend in a fiscal year with respect to such activity.

SEC. 112. Federal standard for dredged material disposal or placement.

(a) In general.—The Secretary shall update the regulations under chapter II of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations that are applicable to establishing the Federal standard for dredged material disposal or placement for a water resources development project—

(1) to align the requirements and policy of such regulations with—

(A) section 1130 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3018);

(B) section 125(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2326g), including—

(i) the directive to include the economic benefits and efficiencies from the beneficial use of dredged material in any determination relating to the Federal standard; and

(ii) the national goal established in subsection (a)(1)(B) of such section of beneficially using not less than 70 percent by volume of suitable dredged material obtained from the construction or operation and maintenance of water resources development projects; and

(C) section 1122 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note); and

(2) taking into consideration—

(A) the capacity of facilities using the confined aquatic disposal methodology to store dredged material, including the available capacity to store contaminated dredged material;

(B) benefits, including monetary value creation, attributable to the beneficial use of dredged material;

(C) any monetary benefits of environmental and coastal resiliency attributable to the beneficial use of dredged material;

(D) the demand on the Corps of Engineers for environmental and ecological restoration projects in coastal areas; and

(E) any incremental cost borne by non-Federal interests in implementing beneficial dredged material placement separately from a project.

(b) Initiation timeline.—Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking to carry out subsection (a).

SEC. 113. Levee certifications.

Section 3014 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (42 U.S.C. 4131) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(c) Rulemaking.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator and the Committee on Levee Safety established under section 9003 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3302), shall initiate a rulemaking to establish the methodology or process by which the Secretary shall conduct a risk assessment in evaluating a levee under subsection (b).

“(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In issuing the rule under this subsection, the Secretary shall—

“(A) evaluate—

“(i) multiple methodologies for conducting risk assessments, including deterministic and probabilistic methods; and

“(ii) the significant differences between each method with respect to—

“(I) cost of using each method;

“(II) reproducibility of results;

“(III) level of confidence in results produced by each method;

“(IV) how each method accounts for flood risk assessment and management implications, including risk to human life and property;

“(V) economic impacts; and

“(VI) other relevant factors; and

“(B) provide for a public notice and comment period of not less than 90 days.

“(3) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection:

“(A) DETERMINISTIC METHOD.—The term ‘deterministic method’ means, with respect to levee evaluations under this section, a physical-criteria-based evaluation that determines compliance with the 1-percent-annual chance flood event standard set forth in section 65.10 of title 44, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment of this subsection, by measuring levee performance against specific, fixed physical margins, including freeboard, embankment protection, closure devices, and structural stability, to establish a binary determination of structural adequacy.

“(B) PROBABILISTIC METHOD.—The term ‘probabilistic method’ means, with respect to levee evaluations under this section, a statistical-inference-based evaluation used as an alternative or supplement to a deterministic methodology to determine the likelihood of levee failure or overtopping during a 1-percent-annual chance flood event, through the use of—

“(i) system response curves or fragility curves, which define the conditional probability of failure as a function of water stage or load;

“(ii) Monte Carlo simulations or similar stochastic modeling used to propagate uncertainty in hydrologic, hydraulic, or geotechnical parameters; and

“(iii) catastrophe models or proprietary risk-rating algorithms used to determine flood insurance premiums or levee safety action classifications.”.

SEC. 114. Allocations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

(a) Sense of Congress.—It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary should annually allocate all funds (including funds appropriated from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund) made available to the Secretary to pay for operations and maintenance costs of harbors and inland harbors within the United States, including costs of expanded uses carried out at an eligible harbor or inland harbor under section 210(d)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238(d)(2)), in accordance with the requirements of 102(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2238 note).

(b) Amendments.—Section 102(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2238 note) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)—

(A) by striking “to the extent practicable,”; and

(B) by striking “, to the extent there are identifiable operations and maintenance needs,”; and

(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:

“(3) ANNUAL REPORTING.—For each fiscal year, 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 an annual report that includes the following:

“(A) The total amount of expenditures made in the fiscal year to pay for projects described in each of subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (1).

“(B) A list of projects for which such expenditures were made, including the amounts expended for each project.

“(C) An explanation for any failure to make such expenditures in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (1) in the fiscal year, and a corrective plan for the subsequent fiscal year.”.

SEC. 115. Soo Lock operator wage rates.

Notwithstanding any other law, rule, or regulation, nonsupervisory, leader, and supervisory wage employees of the Corps of Engineers at the navigation locks at Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, who are engaged in operating lock and dam equipment or who repair and maintain navigation lock and dam operating machinery and equipment shall be paid from special wage schedules having rates identical to the regular wage schedule authorized for the Detroit District Office.

SEC. 116. Beneficial use of dredged material from harbors in the State of Ohio.

(a) In general.—The Secretary shall expedite the review of a request of a non-Federal interest to enter into a partnership agreement under section 217(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326a(c)) for the design, construction, or operation of a facility used to demonstrate potential beneficial uses of dredged material from a federally authorized harbor in the State of Ohio.

(b) User fees.—An agreement described in subsection (a) and entered into after an expedited review under subsection (a) may provide for the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal interest for funds provided by such non-Federal interest for activities carried out pursuant to the agreement through the payment of subsequent user fees to the non-Federal interest in a manner consistent with section 217(d)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326a(d)(2)), as though the non-Federal interest is a private entity under such section.

(c) Dredged material management plan.—In reviewing a request pursuant to subsection (a), if the Secretary determines that timely completion of a dredged material management plan with respect to a federally authorized harbor described in subsection (a) is not feasible due to complexity, controversy, or other compelling factors, the Secretary may enter into the agreement prior to completion of such a dredged material management plan.

(d) Practices and procedures.—Prior to entering into an agreement reviewed pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary may apply the practices and procedures described in part 337 of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, to the facility that is proposed to be subject to the requested agreement.

SEC. 117. Minimum real estate interest.

(a) Policy and guidance updates.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise or update the policy and guidance documents of the Corps of Engineers related to identifying and approving the appropriate minimum interest in real property necessary to support a water resources development project, including Chapter 12 of Engineering Regulation 405–1–12, entitled Real Estate Handbook, consistent with section 1104 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (33 U.S.C. 598b).

(2) PUBLICATION.—The Secretary shall make publicly available (including on a publicly available website) the changes to any policy or guidance documents made pursuant to this section.

(b) Delegation of approval authority.—Section 1104 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (33 U.S.C. 598b) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(f) Delegation of approval authority.—The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, delegate approval of the minimum interest in real property identified under subsection (b) necessary to support a specific water resources development project to the District Commander of the district of the Corps of Engineers in which the project is located.”.

SEC. 118. Real estate appraisal validity.

(a) In general.—Not later than 210 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall—

(1) complete a review of policies and guidance of the Corps of Engineers that are applicable to the real estate appraisal process for civil works projects for purposes of identifying efficiencies that may be incorporated into such process, including guidance related to review and approval of such appraisals; and

(2) based on such review, issue revisions to such policies and guidance to ensure efficient project delivery and avoid delays during feasibility study review and approval, to the extent practicable.

(b) Requirements.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall develop—

(1) guidelines for determining the validity of an appraisal at any time during the period beginning on the date on which the Secretary receives the appraisal and ending on the date on which the certification of a total project cost estimate for the applicable project expires; and

(2) standard—

(A) timeframes for review of appraisals; and

(B) delegations of authority to approve appraisals, for use at the discretion of the Secretary.

(c) Report to Congress.—Not later than 30 days after completion of the review under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that—

(1) describes the findings of the review;

(2) identifies any revisions to policy and guidance made as a result of the review; and

(3) identifies any additional recommendations for legislative action to further improve the real estate appraisal process.

SEC. 119. Watershed and river basin assessments.

Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)(5), by inserting “(including projected water supply needs for municipal, domestic, industrial, and agricultural purposes)” after “supply”; and

(2) in subsection (d)—

(A) in paragraph (17), by striking “; and” and inserting a semicolon;

(B) in paragraph (18), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

“(19) Eightmile River Watershed, Connecticut;

“(20) Central Florida watersheds;

“(21) Muskegon River Watershed, Michigan;

“(22) Great Egg Harbor River Watershed, New Jersey;

“(23) Middle Rio Grande Watershed, New Mexico;

“(24) the Upper Ohio River Basin;

“(25) the Rio Grande Basin, Texas; and

“(26) the Great Salt Lake Basin.”.

SEC. 120. Prohibition on diversion of water from Missouri River.

(a) Approval by governors for diversion of water.—No water may be diverted or exported from any portion of the Missouri River, or from any tributary of the Missouri River, for use outside of a Missouri River State unless such diversion or export is approved by the Governor of each of the Missouri River States.

(b) Approval of governors for diversion studies.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may not undertake any study, or expend any Federal funds to contract for any study, of the feasibility of diverting or exporting water from any portion of the Missouri River, or from any tributary of the Missouri River, for use outside the Missouri River States, unless such study or expenditure is approved by the Governor of each of the Missouri River States.

(c) Previously authorized diversions.—The prohibition on diverting or exporting water under subsection (a) shall not apply to any diversion or export of water from the Missouri River that is authorized with respect to express or implied Federal reserved water rights on or before January 1, 2025.

(d) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) MISSOURI RIVER.—The term “Missouri River” means the portions of the Missouri River within the United States.

(2) MISSOURI RIVER STATE.—The term “Missouri River State” means the States of Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Wyoming.

SEC. 121. Law enforcement at water resources development projects.

Section 120(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5d(b)) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$20,000,000”.

SEC. 122. Disaster debris removal.

(a) Sense of Congress.—It is the sense of Congress that the standard terms and provisions used by the Corps of Engineers in emergency debris removal contracts should facilitate effective and expedient removal of disaster-generated debris that poses a risk to public safety while maximizing the value to the taxpayer and minimizing the risk of unnecessary debris removal that harms property, natural systems, or wildlife.

(b) Evaluation.—In determining the standard terms and provisions that the Corps of Engineers should use in emergency debris removal contracts, the Secretary shall evaluate—

(1) the various contract and fee structures utilized by the Corps of Engineers and the impact of each such structure on total cost and work quality, including an assessment of such structures that is tied to the volume of debris removed;

(2) the addition of terms requiring coordination between the Corps of Engineers, the contractor, Federal, State, and local agencies and officials and other relevant experts prior to removing debris to ensure protection of healthy vegetation, important habitats, and vulnerable wildlife; and

(3) other terms and measures to protect private property, habitat, and wildlife during emergency debris removal activities.

SEC. 123. Wildfire contingency strategies.

(a) In general.—At the request of the non-Federal interest for a water resources development project, the Secretary shall develop a wildfire contingency strategy for identifying both wildfire risks and possible wildfire mitigation with respect to such project.

(b) Contents.—In developing a strategy under subsection (a), the Secretary shall include a—

(1) wildfire risk assessment; and

(2) wildfire mitigation plan.

(c) Wildfire risk assessment.—In the wildfire risk assessment described in subsection (b)(1) for a project, the Secretary shall identify—

(1) risks to such project from wildfires—

(A) that may affect the operation of and ability to carry out the authorized purposes of the project, including navigation, flood control, irrigation, hydropower, water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife conservation; and

(B) that may affect life and private property in the vicinity of the project; and

(2) risks of sediment, debris, and associated runoff into the project that may occur after a wildfire.

(d) Wildfire mitigation plan.—In the wildfire mitigation plan described in subsection (b)(2) for a project, the Secretary shall develop—

(1) a strategy that identifies actions the Secretary or non-Federal interest may take to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to the project from a wildfire, including—

(A) hazardous fuels management;

(B) fuel or fire breaks;

(C) treatments for invasive species and vegetation;

(D) aquatic ecosystem restoration activities to increase wildfire resistance; and

(E) operational changes, including updates to water control manuals or associated water control plans;

(2) a summary of resources and capabilities to implement such plan;

(3) a timeline to implement such plan; and

(4) any other information determined necessary by the Secretary.

(e) Consultation.—In developing strategies under subsection (a), the Secretary shall, as applicable, consult with other Federal agencies, States, Tribal governments, local governments, and relevant stakeholders.

(f) Prioritization.—In responding to requests for wildfire contingency strategies from non-Federal interests pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall prioritize developing strategies for projects located in areas where there is considerable risk of wildfire or that has been subject to recent wildfires.

(g) 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 implementation of this section.

SEC. 124. Reservoir sediment pilot program.

(a) In general.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish, using available funds, a pilot program under which the Secretary may accept services provided by a State for the removal of sediment captured behind a project for the purpose of restoring the authorized storage capacity of the project.

(b) Requirements.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall—

(1) review the services of the State to ensure that the services are consistent with the authorized purposes of the project;

(2) ensure that the State will indemnify the United States for, or has entered into an agreement approved by the Secretary to address, any adverse impact to the project as a result of such services; and

(3) require the State, prior to initiating the services and upon completion of the services, to conduct sediment surveys to determine the sediment profile and quality before and after the completion of such services.

(c) Limitation.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may not accept services under subsection (a) if the Secretary, after consultation with the Chief of Engineers, determines that accepting the services is not advantageous to the United States.

(2) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—If the Secretary makes a determination under paragraph (1) that accepting services is not advantageous to the United States, the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate written notice describing the reasoning for the determination.

(d) Agreement.—Prior to accepting services under subsection (a), the Secretary shall enter into a written agreement with the State and the non-Federal interest for the project that authorizes the Secretary to provide credit to the non-Federal interest for operation and maintenance of the project for the value of the services provided under subsection (a) that the Secretary determines are integral to the project.

(e) Congressional notification.—Prior to accepting services provided by a State under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate written notice that the Secretary intends to accept the services.

(f) Prioritization.—In carrying out the pilot program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall prioritize accepting services for projects in the following locations:

(1) John Redmond Reservoir, Kansas, authorized pursuant to section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 173).

(2) Kanopolis Lake, Kansas, and the surrounding lands managed by the Corps of Engineers.

(3) Tuttle Creek Lake, Kansas, authorized pursuant to section 2 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1218).

(4) Sardis Lake reservoir, Oklahoma, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1187; 95 Stat. 1137).

(g) Project defined.—In this section, the term “project” means a dam owned or operated by the United States and under the jurisdiction of the Secretary.

(h) Termination.—This pilot program shall terminate on the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 125. Environmental dredging.

Section 8127(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3716) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(6) The project for navigation, Ipswich River, Massachusetts, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731).”.

SEC. 126. Expenses for control of aquatic plant growths and invasive species.

Section 104(a) of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(4) INDIRECT COSTS.—Funds made available to carry out this section may be used to pay reasonable and necessary indirect costs associated with activities carried out under this section, including administrative expenses, overhead, and other costs not directly attributable to a specific project.”.

SEC. 127. Feasibility studies; review of shoreline and streambank protection.

Section 116(b) of Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2282 note) is amended by inserting “, shoreline protection, or emergency streambank protection” after “reduction”.

SEC. 128. Harmful algal bloom demonstration program.

Section 128 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 610 note) is amended—

(1) in subsection (c)—

(A) in paragraph (15), by striking “and” at the end;

(B) in paragraph (16), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

“(17) Putnam Lake, New York;

“(18) Ross Island Lagoon, Oregon;

“(19) Lakes and reservoirs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including Blue Marsh Lake; and

“(20) Rio Grande River Basin, Texas.”; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

“(h) Annual update to committees.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate an update on the status of the demonstration program carried out under subsection (a).”.

SEC. 129. 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:

“(N) Shoreline of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

“(O) Blackstone River, Rhode Island.

“(P) Rio Grande bordering counties, Texas.

“(Q) Passumpsic River watershed, Vermont.”.

SEC. 130. Fish and oyster habitat restoration.

Section 704(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263(b)(2)) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking “and” at the end;

(2) in subparagraph (D)(v), by striking the period and inserting “; and”; and

(3) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:

“(E) the restoration and rehabilitation of habitat for fish, including native oysters, in the East River, Flushing Bay and River, and Bronx River, New York, including—

“(i) the construction of oyster bars and reefs;

“(ii) the rehabilitation of existing marginal habitat and oyster reef sites;

“(iii) the use of appropriate alternative substrate material in oyster bar and reef construction;

“(iv) the construction and upgrading of oyster hatcheries; and

“(v) activities relating to increasing the output of native oyster broodstock for seeding and monitoring of restored sites to ensure ecological success.”.

SEC. 131. Benefits and costs attributable to certain measures.

(a) In general.—In the evaluation by the Secretary of benefits and costs of an authorized water resources development project, the Secretary shall treat benefits attributable to measures that utilize a natural feature or nature-based feature (as such terms are defined in section 1184(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a))) to be at least equal to the costs of such measures.

(b) Considerations.—

(1) APPLICABILITY.—The Secretary shall utilize the authority under subsection (a) on not more than 10 projects that utilize a natural feature or nature-based feature, including the projects specified under paragraph (2).

(2) PRIORITY PROJECTS.—The Secretary shall utilize the authority under subsection (a) on—

(A) the project for flood and storm damage reduction, New York and New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries, New York and New Jersey, as authorized by the Act of June 15, 1955 (chapter 140, 69 Stat. 132; 134 Stat. 2676; 138 Stat. 3152); and

(B) the development of a recommendation for mitigation of hot spot erosion on an authorized coastal storm risk management project in the State of New Jersey developed under section 1217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3081).

(c) Report.—Not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website), a report detailing the results of each evaluation of benefits and costs carried out using the authority under this section.

(d) Sunset.—The authority of the Secretary to initiate an evaluation under subsection (a) shall terminate on the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 132. Policy on utilization of all Corps authorities and missions.

(a) Policy.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—It is the policy of the United States for the Corps of Engineers, consistent with applicable statutory authorities, to—

(A) fully utilize the programmatic, technical and planning assistance, and project-specific authorities provided by Congress in addressing the mission areas described in paragraph (2);

(B) maximize using the full array of authorities and mission areas described in paragraph (2) to comprehensively address local water resources challenges, consistent with the goals of the applicable non-Federal interest;

(C) fully identify and analyze national economic development benefits, regional economic development benefits, environmental quality benefits, and other societal effects of proposed water resource development activities and projects;

(D) ensure that the Corps of Engineers receives and allocates sufficient funding to address the varied local water resources challenges of diverse geographic regions of the United States; and

(E) maximize the development, evaluation, and recommendation of project alternatives for water resources development projects that produce comprehensive project benefits.

(2) MISSION AREAS DESCRIBED.—The mission areas described in this paragraph are the following:

(A) Navigation, including coastal and inland waterways navigation.

(B) Flood risk management and coastal storm risk management (including nonstructural, natural, or nature-based features, and efforts to control, retain, and reuse stormwater).

(C) Environmental and ecosystem restoration and protection.

(D) Municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply, water conservation, and drought resiliency.

(E) Recreation, including recreational navigation.

(F) Hydropower.

(G) Aquatic plant and species control.

(H) Emergency response.

(I) Research and development.

(b) Full consideration.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall give full consideration to requests and proposals from non-Federal interests that are in alignment with the authorized programmatic, technical and planning assistance, and project-specific authorities and mission areas described in subsection (a).

SEC. 133. Comprehensive feasibility studies and approaches for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management.

(a) Clarification of Federal policy related to comprehensive flooding and nonstructural approaches.—

(1) DECLARATION OF POLICY.—Section 1 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701a) is amended—

(A) by striking the section designator and all that follows through “recognized” and inserting the following:

“SECTION 1. Declaration of policy.

“(a) In general.—It is recognized”;

(B) by inserting “, other water bodies, and shorelines” after “the rivers”;

(C) by inserting “that such destructive floods can originate or be augmented by the isolated or combined impacts of water from a variety of drivers, such as riverine discharges, extreme weather events, coastal and tidal flooding, sea level rise, subsidence, and stormwater;” after “national welfare;”;

(D) by inserting “(including the reduction of comprehensive flood risk from the isolated and compound effects of any of the drivers identified in section 8106(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2282g(a)))” before “is a proper activity”;

(E) by inserting “(including the study and implementation of water resources development projects that provide comprehensive flood risk reduction)” before “are in the interest of the general welfare”; and

(F) by adding at the end the following:

“(b) Nonstructural approaches.—It is the sense of Congress that—

“(1) structural features and nonstructural features should be given equal consideration in every feasibility study conducted by the Chief of Engineers for flood risk management or hurricane and storm damage risk reduction; and

“(2) the implementation of nonstructural features determined by the Chief of Engineers to align with the policy established by section 2031(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 1962–3) is part of the primary mission of the Corps of Engineers for flood risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction.”.

(2) DEFINITION OF FLOOD CONTROL.—Section 2 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (33 U.S.C. 701a–1) is amended by inserting “and the reduction of comprehensive flood risk from the isolated and compound effects of any of the drivers identified in section 8106(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2282g(a));” after “damages,”.

(b) Clarification on scope of feasibility studies for comprehensive flood risk.—Section 8106(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2282g(a)) is amended—

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking “shall formulate” and inserting “shall include in the study any effects within the geographic scope of the study of, and formulate”;

(2) in paragraph (4), by striking “frequency” and inserting “frequency, including flooding associated with stormwater that flows at a rate of less than 800 cubic feet per second for the 10-percent flood”;

(3) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (10) as clauses (i) through (x), respectively, and adjusting the margins accordingly;

(4) in the matter preceding clause (i), as so redesignated, by striking “In carrying out” and inserting the following:

“(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out”; and

(5) by adding at the end the following:

“(2) RECOMMENDATION OF COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD RISK REDUCTION ALTERNATIVE.—If the Secretary determines that a project alternative identified by the non-Federal interest pursuant to paragraph (1) is feasible, the Secretary shall incorporate such alternative in the recommended plan for the project as a project feature the costs of which are shared as construction.”.

SEC. 134. Realignment of certain Corps of Engineers Districts.

Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall realign the following districts of the Corps of Engineers as follows:

(1) Atchison County, Missouri, and Holt County, Missouri, shall be transferred to the Kansas City District.

(2) Northeast Missouri shall be transferred from the Rock Island District to the St. Louis District.

SEC. 135. Update of Corps policy.

(a) In general.—Except as otherwise specifically provided by this Act, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall—

(1) issue any new policy or guidance document necessary to implement this Act; and

(2) revise or update any policy or guidance document of the Corps of Engineers in effect on the date of enactment of this Act to be in compliance with this Act, including the amendments made by this Act.

(b) Revocation of prior policy and guidance.—Effective on the date that is 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, any policy or guidance document of the Corps of Engineers that is not in compliance with this Act, including the amendments made by this Act, is revoked.

SEC. 136. Availability of project information.

(a) Sense of Congress.—It is the sense of Congress that the Corps of Engineers, including each district of the Corps of Engineers, should have open communications with each office of a Member of Congress.

(b) In general.—At the request of the Chairman or Ranking Member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, the Secretary and the Chief of Engineers shall provide, as expeditiously as possible, information or technical assistance relating to water resources development projects, including information relating to feasibility studies, Chief’s Reports, project justification and scope, authorization and implementation status, estimated project costs and schedules, operational capabilities, and other information relating to such projects.

(c) Rule of construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant any authority to the Secretary or the Chief to deny a request for information related to a water resources development project.

SEC. 137. Fish and wildlife mitigation.

Section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283) is amended—

(1) in subsection (d)—

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking “shall not submit” and all that follows through “unless such report contains” and inserting “may not approve any proposal related to a water resources project unless the Secretary has prepared a report relating to the project that contains”;

(B) in paragraph (2)—

(i) by striking “The Secretary” and inserting the following:

“(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary”; and

(ii) by adding at the end the following:

“(B) IDENTIFICATION.—The Secretary shall consult with the non-Federal interest for a water resources project, and other stakeholders, to the maximum extent practicable—

“(i) to identify mitigation implementation practices or accepted assessment methodologies used in the region of the water resources project and incorporate such practices and methodologies into the mitigation plan for such project; and

“(ii) to identify projects that have not been constructed, or concepts described in mitigation plans for other water resources projects, that may be used to meet the restoration or mitigation needs of the water resources project.”; and

(C) in paragraph (3)(B)(iv)(I), by inserting “or a description of the requirements for a third-party mitigation instrument that would be developed in the case that a contract for future delivery of credits will be used” after “to be used”;

(2) in subsection (i)(1)(A)—

(A) in clause (i), by inserting “, for immediate delivery or future delivery to be identified in the mitigation instrument” after “banks”; and

(B) in clause (ii), by inserting “, for immediate delivery or future delivery to be identified in the mitigation instrument” after “programs”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(l) Separable elements.—Mitigation of fish and wildlife losses required under this section that is provided in the form of credit shall be considered a separable element of a project without requiring further evaluation.

“(m) Transparency.—The Secretary shall ensure that—

“(1) the mitigation requirements for each water resources project—

“(A) are made publicly available (including on a publicly available website of the headquarters of the Corps of Engineers); and

“(B) include the location of the project, the anticipated schedule for mitigation, the type of mitigation required, the amount of mitigation required, and the remaining mitigation needs;

“(2) the mitigation plan for such project is made publicly available, as applicable;

“(3) the information described in paragraph (1) is updated regularly; and

“(4) carrying out the requirements of this subsection with respect to each water resources project is considered a project expense.

“(n) Coordination.—To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that the project delivery team and regulatory team of the Corps of Engineers work in coordination to successfully carry out mitigation efforts.”.

SEC. 138. Sense of Congress regarding evaluation of flood risk management projects.

It is the sense of Congress that, for each flood risk management project completed by the Corps of Engineers prior to the date of enactment of this Act for which an interest in real property is required, the Secretary should—

(1) review and, if necessary, update the minimum real estate interest necessary for the project, based on the As-built Drawings approved by the Secretary with respect to the project—

(A) to maintain project benefits pursuant to applicable guidance of the Corps of Engineers;

(B) to comply with the requirements of the manual prepared under section 5(c)(1) of the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(c)(1)); and

(C) to be able to receive any permissions under section 14 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 408), required for any anticipated construction, operation and maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of the project;

(2) provide a summary of the review under paragraph (1) to the non-Federal interest for, or levee operator of, the project, including with the review, if applicable, identification of any additional interest in real property that the non-Federal interest must acquire to meet the minimum real estate interest determined necessary in the review; and

(3) develop a streamlined process through which the Secretary, upon request of a non-Federal interest, may update project boundaries to reflect any update to the minimum real estate interest necessary for the project, as determined by a review under paragraph (1).

SEC. 139. Recreational access.

(a) Sense of Congress.—It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary should, when a public recreational amenity, including a park, trail, green space, recreational waterway, or other public open space available for recreational opportunities, is affected by the construction of a water resources development project—

(1) maintain a level of recreational access to such public recreational amenity that is equivalent to the level provided when the public recreational amenity is not affected by such construction, including by providing alternative access where necessary to ensure continued recreational opportunities during such construction; and

(2) minimize temporary disruptions to such access through project planning and coordination with affected communities.

(b) Recreational access preservation plan.—To the maximum extent practicable, as part of a feasibility study for a water resources development project, the Secretary shall—

(1) review the potential impact of construction of the project on existing public recreational amenities, including facilities for hiking, biking, walking, and waterborne recreation; and

(2) include in any final recommendation for such project a plan to minimize disruptions and maintain recreational access, as described in subsection (a), to such amenities during and after construction of the project.

SEC. 140. Sense of Congress on munitions disposal.

It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary should collaborate with the Secretary of Defense to identify the agency responsible for remediation of explosive ordnance and unexploded ordnance disposal in accordance with the authority provided in section 1027 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 426e–2).

SEC. 141. Corps of Engineers workforce.

(a) Sense of Congress on Corps of Engineers workforce needs.—It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) the Corps of Engineers should maintain a professional workforce capable of addressing the varied statutory responsibilities entrusted to the Corps of Engineers in a timely manner, including—

(A) the technical expertise necessary to design and deliver complex projects for navigation, flood and storm risk reduction, ecosystem restoration, water supply and water conservation, hydropower, and recreation;

(B) the ability to partner with State and local governments and Indian Tribes in providing technical and planning assistance to communities in addressing local water resources challenges; the personnel required to meet its emergency response authorities; and

(C) the regulatory expertise to administer statutory reviews and approvals; and

(2) the Corps of Engineers should—

(A) improve its recruiting efforts;

(B) offer clear paths to Federal internships for students from high school through postgraduate school;

(C) offer clear paths to Federal careers for recent graduates;

(D) promote the appropriate utilization of volunteers; and

(E) provide meaningful training, mentoring, and career development opportunities, including apprenticeships, to ensure that future Corps of Engineers workforce needs are met.

(b) Evaluation of Corps of Engineers workforce needs.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall seek to contract with the National Academy of Public Administration to carry out a comprehensive review of workforce demands and needs of the Corps of Engineers, which shall include—

(A) an evaluation of the professional workforce needs of the Corps of Engineers necessary to meet the statutory responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers, including—

(i) ensuring the full staffing of positions that support missions, projects, or operations, including such positions that are—

(I) inherently governmental or related to public safety, navigational capacity, or national security; or

(II) necessary for the review and resolution of statutory reviews and approvals in a timely manner; and

(ii) challenges facing the Corps of Engineers related to recruitment, retention, reductions-in-force, retirements, credentialing, professional development, on-the-job training, and other readiness-related gaps;

(B) an evaluation of how increased use of public-private partnerships and other efforts by non-Federal interests to carry out responsibilities related to the study, planning, design, and construction of authorized water resources development projects affect future Corps of Engineers workforce needs;

(C) an assessment of the existing technology used by the Corps of Engineers, the effects of any inefficiencies in the use of technology by the Corps of Engineers, and recommendations for improved technology or tools to accomplish the missions and responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers; and

(D) recommendations based on the review under this paragraph to improve the capacity and preparedness of the Corps of Engineers workforce to ensure that such responsibilities are fully and competently addressed in a timely manner and increase the efficiency of the Corps of Engineers project delivery.

(2) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which the Secretary receives the findings of the review under paragraph (1), 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—

(A) a copy of such findings; and

(B) a detailed response to such findings, including any recommendations the Secretary plans to implement to ensure that the statutory responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers are fully and competently addressed and ensure the efficiency of project delivery.

SEC. 142. Reporting and oversight.

(a) Report.—

(1) 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 that includes for each report described in paragraph (2) the following:

(A) A summary of the status of the report, including if the report has been initiated.

(B) The amount of funds that—

(i) have been made available to carry out each such report; and

(ii) the Secretary requires to complete each such report.

(C) A detailed summary of the resources and procedures the Secretary intends to use to complete the report, including the expected timeline for completion of the report.

(D) Any other information regarding the report that the Secretary determines may be relevant to such committees in understanding the status, timing, and progress towards completion of the report.

(2) REPORTS DESCRIBED.—The reports described in this paragraph are the following:

(A) The initial report required under section 1150(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3040).

(B) The report on turbidity in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, required under section 1205(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3071).

(C) The report on ice jam prevention and mitigation required under section 1205(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3075).

(D) 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).

(E) 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).

(F) The report on the disposition study on hydropower in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, required under section 8220(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3762).

(G) The report on the status of the implementation of real estate administrative fees required under section 1120 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3014).

(H) The report summarizing comparisons of the benefit-cost ratios of projects in covered communities required under section 1148(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3039).

(I) The report on dredge capacity required under section 8205 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3754).

(J) The report identifying opportunities for potential exchange of land or flowage easements associated with the Lake O’ the Pines, Texas, project, as required under section 1222 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3082).

(b) Prior guidance.—Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue guidance regarding each of the following:

(1) Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)).

(2) Section 444 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3747; 113 Stat. 286; 138 Stat. 3149).

(3) Section 8132 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2238e).

(4) Section 1129 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3018).

(5) Section 1148 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3039).

SEC. 143. Ability to pay.

Section 1139(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3026) is amended—

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting “and studies” after “projects”; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

“(17) The project for flood risk management, Big Island Local Flood Protection Project, Illinois, authorized pursuant to section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742).

“(18) The project for shoreline erosion management, Hickman Bluff Stabilization, Kentucky, authorized by section 3071 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1124).

“(19) The study for the project for ecosystem restoration, Lower Osage River Basin, Missouri, authorized by section 201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2670).

“(20) The project for ecosystem restoration, Lower Blackstone River, Rhode Island, described in section 8361 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3804).

“(21) The study for the reallocation of water supply storage, Aquilla Lake, Texas, carried out in accordance with section 301 of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b), authorized by section 202(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2675).

“(22) The study to modify the 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. 144. Pilot program prioritization.

Section 118(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(10) The project for flood risk management, Big Island Local Flood Protection Project, Illinois, authorized pursuant to section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742).

“(11) The project for shoreline and riverine protection and restoration, Passumpsic River watershed, Vermont, authorized by section 212 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332).”.

TITLE II—Studies and Reports

SEC. 201. Authorization of proposed feasibility studies.

(a) 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:

(1) AFRICATOWN, ALABAMA.—Project for ecosystem restoration in the vicinity of the community of Africatown in Mobile County, Alabama.

(2) BIG CREEK LAKE, ALABAMA.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Big Creek Lake, Mobile County, Alabama.

(3) MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA.—Project for ecosystem restoration in Mobile County, Alabama, in the vicinity of Chickasaw Creek, Hog Bayou, Three Mile Creek, and Mobile River.

(4) GALENA, ALASKA.—Project for flood risk management, City of Galena, Alaska.

(5) RUSSIAN CREEK, ALASKA.—Project for flood risk management, including riverbank stabilization, Russian Creek, Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska, in the vicinity of the community of Bell Flats.

(6) SCOW BAY, ALASKA.—Project for navigation, Scow Bay, Borough of Petersburg, Alaska.

(7) SITKA, ALASKA.—Project for coastal storm risk management, City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska.

(8) DUDLEYVILLE, ARIZONA.—Project for flood risk management, Dudleyville, Arizona.

(9) CARMEL RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Carmel River, Monterey County, California.

(10) EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, City of El Monte, California.

(11) HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA.—Project for coastal storm risk management and ecosystem restoration, City of Hayward, California, in the vicinity of the Water Resource Recovery Facility.

(12) PASADENA, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, Lower Arroyo Seco, City of Pasadena, California.

(13) REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood risk management, Redwood City, California.

(14) SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CALIFORNIA.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline erosion protection, City of San Clemente, California.

(15) SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood risk management, including sediment management, in the vicinity of the Sweetwater Reservoir, including its spillways and dikes, San Diego County, California.

(16) CAPITOL REGION, CONNECTICUT.—Project for flood risk management in proximity to the Connecticut River, Capitol Region, Connecticut.

(17) COGINCHAUG RIVER, CONNECTICUT.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Coginchaug River, towns of Durham and Middlefield, Connecticut.

(18) DELAWARE RIVER, DELAWARE.—Project for flood risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, recreation, and ecosystem restoration, Delaware River, Delaware.

(19) NEW CASTLE, DELAWARE.—Project for flood risk management, City of New Castle, Delaware.

(20) BOGGY CREEK WATERSHED, FLORIDA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including sediment and debris management, Boggy Creek Watershed, Florida.

(21) BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Project for flood risk management, coastal storm risk management, and ecosystem restoration, in the back bay system of Broward County, Florida.

(22) EATONVILLE, FLORIDA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, town of Eatonville, Florida, in the vicinity of Lake King.

(23) FLAGLER COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including effects on back bays and open-coast shorelines, Flagler County, Florida.

(24) HORSESHOE BEACH, FLORIDA.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, town of Horseshoe Beach, Florida.

(25) LAKE HART WATERSHED, FLORIDA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including sediment and debris management, Lake Hart Watershed, Florida.

(26) LITTLE WEKIVA WATERSHED, FLORIDA.—Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, including sediment management, and shoreline erosion, Little Wekiva Watershed, Orange County, Florida, including Lake Lawne and Lake Orlando.

(27) LOWER WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER WATERSHED, FLORIDA.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Lower Withlacoochee River watershed, Florida.

(28) PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Project for ecosystem restoration and water supply, Pasco County, Florida.

(29) SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED, FLORIDA.—Project for flood risk reduction and ecosystem restoration within the Shingle Creek Watershed, including Lake Fran and Lake Richmond, Florida.

(30) ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA.—Project for flood risk management, coastal storm risk management, and ecosystem restoration, city of St. Petersburg, Florida, including canals in the city of St. Petersburg.

(31) ELKHORN LAKE, LETCHER COUNTY, KENTUCKY.—Project for flood risk management and water supply at Elkhorn Lake, Letcher County, Kentucky.

(32) GWINNETT COUNTY, GEORGIA.—Project for flood risk management, Gwinnett County, Georgia.

(33) SOUTH RIVER WATERSHED, GEORGIA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, South River watershed, Georgia.

(34) HONOLULU, HAWAII.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, including shoreline erosion protection, in the vicinity of the Waikīkī Natatorium War Memorial, Kaimana and Waikīkī beaches, City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii.

(35) PORT ALLEN, KAUA‘I COUNTY, HAWAII.—Project for flood risk management, navigation, and coastal storm risk management, Port Allen, Kaua‘i County, Hawaii.

(36) LITTLE SOAP CREEK WATERSHED, IOWA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Little Soap Creek Watershed, Appanoose and Davis Counties, Iowa.

(37) LOWER DES MOINES RIVER WATERSHED, IOWA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Lower Des Moines River Watershed, Appanoose, Davis, Marion, Monroe, and Wapello Counties, Iowa.

(38) COMITE RIVER, LOUISIANA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including sediment and debris management, in the vicinity of East Baton Rouge Parish and East Feliciana Parish, Comite River, Louisiana.

(39) SAINT CHARLES PARISH, LOUISIANA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including water and sediment management, Saint Charles Parish, Louisiana.

(40) SCOTT’S BLUFF, LOUISIANA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including shoreline erosion prevention along the Mississippi River, Scott’s Bluff, City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, which the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, carry out utilizing and incorporating existing work, including analysis provided pursuant to section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–16).

(41) ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND.—Project for flood risk management, City of Rockville, Maryland, in the vicinity of the Rockville Water Treatment Plant.

(42) ISLAND END RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management in the vicinity of Island End River, cities of Chelsea and Everett, Massachusetts.

(43) PROVINCETOWN, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, Town of Provincetown, Massachusetts.

(44) WINTHROP, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for navigation in the vicinity of Winthrop Town Pier, Town of Winthrop, Massachusetts.

(45) BAY CITY, MICHIGAN.—Project for flood risk management, Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan.

(46) GLADWIN AND MIDLAND COUNTIES, MICHIGAN.—Project for ecosystem restoration and streambank erosion prevention, Gladwin and Midland Counties, Michigan.

(47) OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration along the Caddell Drain, Oakland County, Michigan.

(48) WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, Wayne County, Michigan, in the vicinity of the seawall along Lakeshore Drive.

(49) MISSISSIPPI SOUND BEACHES, MISSISSIPPI.—Project for ecosystem restoration and coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, Mississippi Sound beaches in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi.

(50) ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.—Project for flood risk management, navigation, recreation, and ecosystem restoration in the vicinity of Laclede’s Landing, city of St. Louis, Missouri.

(51) BERGEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management in Bergen County, New Jersey.

(52) BOGOTA, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management, borough of Bogota, New Jersey.

(53) CAMDEN AND GLOUCESTER COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration in riverine areas stemming from the Delaware River, Camden and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey.

(54) CRESSKILL, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management, Borough of Cresskill, New Jersey.

(55) GARWOOD, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management, Borough of Garwood, New Jersey.

(56) GLOUCESTER CITY, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management in the vicinity of Proprietors Park, Gloucester City, New Jersey.

(57) OVERPECK CREEK WATERSHED, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management, including debris management, Overpeck Creek watershed, Borough of Tenafly, New Jersey.

(58) PASCACK BROOK, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management, including debris management, in the vicinity of Pascack Brook, boroughs of Montvale and Park Ridge, New Jersey.

(59) PASCACK VALLEY, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management along the Hackensack River, Pascack Brook, and Musquapsink Brook in the Pascack Valley, Bergen County, New Jersey.

(60) WEST ORANGE, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management, township of West Orange, New Jersey.

(61) RIO GRANDE BASIN, NEW MEXICO.—Project for water supply and ecosystem restoration, Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico.

(62) AMITY HARBOR, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, Amity Harbor, New York.

(63) ATLANTIC BEACH, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, Village of Atlantic Beach, New York.

(64) BAYPORT, NEW YORK.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline erosion protection, Bayport, New York.

(65) DAVIS PARK, FIRE ISLAND, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk and coastal storm risk management, including shoreline erosion protection, Davis Park, Fire Island, New York.

(66) LAWRENCE, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk management, coastal storm risk management, and navigation, in the vicinity of Bannister Bay and Village of Lawrence, New York.

(67) MATTITUCK INLET, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK.—Project for navigation, coastal storm risk management, and ecosystem restoration, in Mattituck Inlet, Town of Southold, New York.

(68) MOHAWK RIVER AND ERIE CANAL, NEW YORK.—Project for ecosystem restoration, including aquatic invasive species management, Mohawk River and Erie Canal in the vicinity of the City of Rome, New York.

(69) NISSEQUOGUE RIVER, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk management, coastal storm risk management, navigation, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, in the vicinity of Stony Brook Harbor, Nissequogue River, New York.

(70) PECONIC BAY, NEW YORK.—Project for navigation and coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, Peconic Bay and connected harbors and inlets, New York.

(71) POINT O’ WOODS, FIRE ISLAND, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk management, coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage protection and mitigation, and ecosystem restoration, Point O’ Woods, Fire Island, New York.

(72) PORT WASHINGTON, NEW YORK.—Project for navigation, in the vicinity of Tom’s Point, Port Washington, New York.

(73) SOUTH SHORE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK.—Project for ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, coastal storm risk management, and navigation, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York.

(74) SPRING VALLEY, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk management in the vicinity of Memorial Park, Village of Spring Valley, New York.

(75) CAPE FEAR RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA.—Project for water supply and ecosystem restoration, Cape Fear River in the vicinity of Cumberland County, North Carolina.

(76) FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Cross Creek, Fayetteville, North Carolina.

(77) TOPSAIL BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA.—Project for flood risk management, Town of Topsail Beach, North Carolina.

(78) WHITEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.—Project for flood risk management, City of Whiteville, North Carolina.

(79) WHITEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.—Project for flood risk management, Waccamaw River basin, City of Whiteville, North Carolina.

(80) MAUMEE RIVER, OHIO.—Project for flood risk management, including riverbank stabilization, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, Maumee River, in the vicinity of Glass City Riverwalk, Ohio.

(81) HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including sediment management, Hood River County, Oregon.

(82) SAUCON CREEK, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood risk management, Saucon Creek, in the vicinity of the Borough of Hellertown, Pennsylvania.

(83) CEIBA, PUERTO RICO.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, and ecosystem restoration, Ceiba, Puerto Rico.

(84) FAJARDO, PUERTO RICO.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, and ecosystem restoration, Fajardo, Puerto Rico.

(85) LOÍZA, PUERTO RICO.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, and ecosystem restoration, Loíza, Puerto Rico.

(86) NAGUABO, PUERTO RICO.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, and ecosystem restoration, Naguabo, Puerto Rico.

(87) RÍO ANTÓN RUÍZ, PUERTO RICO.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration along the Río Antón Ruíz and adjacent levees in Humacao, Puerto Rico.

(88) VEGA BAJA, PUERTO RICO.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, including sediment management, Puerto Nuevo Lagoon (also known as “Quintín Valle Lagoon”), Vega Baja, Puerto Rico.

(89) YABUCOA, PUERTO RICO.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, and ecosystem restoration, Yabucoa, Puerto Rico.

(90) EASTON POND, RHODE ISLAND.—Project for coastal storm risk management, ecosystem restoration, and water supply, Easton Pond, City of Newport, Rhode Island.

(91) WEST RIVER WATERSHED, RHODE ISLAND.—Project for flood risk management, West River watershed, Rhode Island.

(92) CUMBERLAND COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—Project for water supply, Cumberland County, Tennessee.

(93) DUCK RIVER, TENNESSEE.—Project for flood risk reduction, ecosystem restoration, water supply, and recreation, Duck River, Tennessee.

(94) ENKA DAM, TENNESSEE.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Enka Dam, in the vicinity of Newport, Tennessee.

(95) ARROYO COLORADO RIVER, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including shoreline erosion protection, along the Arroyo Colorado River in the City of Rio Hondo, Texas.

(96) BELL AND MCLENNAN COUNTIES, TEXAS.—Project for water supply, Bell and McLennan Counties, Texas.

(97) CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk management, water supply, and ecosystem restoration, in the vicinity of Sweeney Lake and Resaca de los Fresnos, Cameron County, Texas.

(98) ESCOBARES, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk management, City of Escobares, Texas.

(99) NUECES COUNTY SHORELINE, TEXAS.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline erosion protection, Nueces County, Texas.

(100) ODESSA, TEXAS.—Project for water supply in the City of Odessa, Texas.

(101) PARKER COUNTY, TEXAS.—Project for water supply, Parker County, Texas.

(102) ROMA, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk management, City of Roma, Texas.

(103) UPPER SAN JACINTO RIVER BASIN, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk management and water supply, Upper San Jacinto River basin, in the vicinity of Liberty, Montgomery, and San Jacinto Counties, Texas.

(104) WINN PARK, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk management, Winn Park, City of Farmers Branch, Texas.

(105) LOWER SPANISH FORK RIVER, UTAH.—Project for ecosystem restoration, lower Spanish Fork River, Utah.

(106) CLINCH RIVER, VIRGINIA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, along the Clinch River, Town of Richlands, Virginia.

(107) NOOKSACK RIVER, WASHINGTON.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including shoreline erosion, Nooksack River, Whatcom County, Washington.

(b) Project modifications.—The Secretary is authorized to conduct a feasibility study for the following project modifications:

(1) LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, SEWARD, ALASKA.—Modifications to the project for flood diversion in Lowell Canyon, Seward, Alaska, authorized by section 5032 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1205; 134 Stat. 2719; 138 Stat. 3136), for environmental mitigation.

(2) MORRO BAY, CALIFORNIA.—Modifications to the project for harbor development, Morro Bay, California, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 21), for navigation improvements and ecosystem restoration.

(3) NAUGATUCK RIVER, TORRINGTON, CONNECTICUT.—Modifications to the project for structural flood damage reduction, Naugatuck River, Connecticut, authorized pursuant to the first section of the Act of December 22, 1944 (33 U.S.C. 701–1), to improve flood risk management and reduce erosion within the Naugatuck River Flood Damage Reduction System.

(4) ASSAWOMAN CANAL, DELAWARE.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Assawoman Canal, Delaware, authorized pursuant to section 9 of the Act of July 5, 1884 (chapter 229, 23 Stat. 149), for flood risk management.

(5) PENSACOLA HARBOR, FLORIDA.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Pensacola Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1174), for recreation and for additional deepening to 40 feet and widening.

(6) TAMPA HARBOR, FLORIDA.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, Florida, authorized by section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3167), for additional deepening to 47 feet.

(7) LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GWINNETT COUNTY, GEORGIA.—Modifications to the project for flood protection, power production, water supply, navigation, recreation, and fish and wildlife management at Lake Sidney Lanier, Gwinnett County, Georgia, authorized pursuant to the first section of the Act of July 24, 1946 (chapter 595, 60 Stat. 635), to improve flood risk management, navigation safety, hydropower reliability, and water supply.

(8) CHICAGO HARBOR LOCK, ILLINOIS.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Chicago Harbor Lock, Illinois, authorized pursuant to section 1 of the Act of July 11, 1870 (chapter 240, 16 Stat. 226; 21 Stat. 182; 37 Stat. 217; 40 Stat. 1283; 76 Stat. 1176), to add recreation as an authorized purpose.

(9) SAYLORVILLE RESERVOIR, IOWA.—Modifications to the project for flood control, Saylorville Reservoir, Iowa, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 310), to include water supply and sediment management.

(10) LAWRENCE, ON KANSAS RIVER, KANSAS.—Modifications to the project for flood protection, Lawrence, on Kansas River, Kansas, authorized pursuant to section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1588), to study raising levees on the Kansas River in Lawrence, Kansas, north of Bowersock Dam.

(11) BUCKHORN LAKE, LESLIE AND PERRY COUNTIES, KENTUCKY.—Modifications to the project for flood control and other purposes authorized pursuant to section 4 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1217), to include sediment and debris management at Buckhorn Lake in Leslie and Perry Counties, Kentucky.

(12) LOUISVILLE METROPOLITAN FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION, JEFFERSON AND BULLITT COUNTIES, KENTUCKY.—Modifications to the project for flood risk management, Louisville Metropolitan Flood Protection System Reconstruction, Jefferson and Bullitt Counties, Kentucky, authorized by section 401(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2735), to expand project scope and incorporate features identified in the document prepared for the non-Federal interest for the project, issued in June 2017, and titled “20–Year Comprehensive Facility Plan, Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan, Volume 4: Ohio River Flood Protection”.

(13) CURTIS CREEK CHANNEL, MARYLAND.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 297), to expand the Federal channel to include the Curtis Creek Channel to a depth of 29 feet.

(14) BOSTON HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1867 (chapter 144, 14 Stat. 420; 104 Stat. 4607; 128 Stat. 1365), for additional deepening and widening.

(15) GRENADA LAKE, YAZOO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MISSISSIPPI.—Modifications to the project for flood control of the Yazoo River and Tributaries, Mississippi, authorized by section 10 of the Act of May 15, 1928 (chapter 569, 45 Stat. 538), to add recreation as a project purpose on the Yalobusha River, including at Grenada Lake.

(16) NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NEW JERSEY.—Modifications to the project for navigation for the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, New Jersey, authorized pursuant to section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 13; 100 Stat. 4181) to reroute the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway near Ventnor City, New Jersey.

(17) RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NEW JERSEY.—Modifications to the project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Rahway River Basin, New Jersey, authorized by section 401(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2737; 136 Stat. 3736; 138 Stat. 3066), to improve flood risk management for municipalities within the basin that are subject to repetitive flooding.

(18) PORT OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey, authorized by section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576), to improve navigation south of the Elizabeth Port Authority Marine Terminal.

(19) ALLEGHENY RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA.—Modifications to the project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Allegheny River, Pennsylvania, authorized pursuant to the first section of the Act of July 25, 1912 (chapter 253, 37 Stat. 216; 46 Stat. 928; 49 Stat. 1035), to add recreation as a project purpose.

(20) DELAWARE AND SCHUYLKILL RIVERS, PENNSYLVANIA.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Delaware River, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (including Philadelphia to the Sea), authorized by section 1 of the Act of June 25, 1910 (chapter 382, 36 Stat. 637; 46 Stat. 921; 52 Stat. 803; 59 Stat. 14; 68 Stat. 1249; 72 Stat. 297), and the project for navigation, Schuylkill River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 1 of the Act of August 8, 1917 (40 Stat. 252; 46 Stat. 921; 60 Stat. 635), to improve navigation for large commercial vessels in the vicinity of the confluence of the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers.

(21) CHARLESTON PENINSULA, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Modifications to the project for coastal storm risk management, Charleston Peninsula, South Carolina, authorized by section 8401(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3842), to include features for tidal- and inland-related flood risk management measures.

(22) LAKE AQUILLA, BRAZOS RIVER BASIN, TEXAS.—Modifications to the project for water supply, flood risk management, and recreation, Lake Aquilla, Brazos River Basin, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 741), for reallocation of water supply storage.

(23) JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA.—Modifications to the project for navigation, James River, Virginia, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1174; 102 Stat. 4045), to include additional portions at the Appomattox River and add flood risk management as a purpose.

(24) NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, authorized by section 201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4090; 132 Stat. 3840; 136 Stat. 3763), to improve navigation in the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River.

SEC. 202. Expedited completion.

(a) 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:

(1) Project for storm damage prevention and reduction, coastal erosion, and ice and glacial damage in the State of Alaska, authorized by section 8315 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3783).

(2) Project for reallocation of water supply storage, Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas, authorized pursuant to section 301 of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b).

(3) Project for flood control and allied purposes, Homer Navigation Improvements, Alaska, authorized pursuant to section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1181).

(4) Project for navigation, Port of Nome Modifications, Alaska, authorized by section 401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2733).

(5) Project for flood risk management, Cave Buttes Dam, Phoenix, Arizona, authorized by section 1201(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3802).

(6) Project for flood risk management, McMicken Dam and Trilby Wash, Maricopa County, Arizona, authorized by section 8201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3744; 138 Stat. 3065).

(7) Project for ecosystem restoration, Rio Salado Oeste, Phoenix, Arizona, authorized pursuant to section 6 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1225).

(8) Project for flood risk management, Yavapai County, in the vicinity of the City of Cottonwood, Arizona, authorized by section 1201(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3050).

(9) Project for flood control and other purposes, Calaveras River and Littlejohn Creek and tributaries, California, authorized by section 10 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 902; 138 Stat. 3058).

(10) Project for flood risk management, water supply, and ecosystem restoration, Chowchilla River, Ash Slough, and Berenda Slough, Madera County, California, authorized by section 6 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1595; 52 Stat. 1225; 138 Stat. 3059).

(11) Project for flood control, water conservation, environmental restoration, water supply, and related purposes, Coyote Valley Dam, California, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 177; 130 Stat. 1682; 132 Stat. 3803; 134 Stat. 2672; 136 Stat. 3835; 138 Stat. 3065).

(12) Project for ecosystem restoration and water supply conservation and recharge, Eastman Lake, California, authorized by section 1201(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3050).

(13) Project for flood control, environmental restoration, and recreation, Murrieta Creek, California, authorized by section 103 of title I of appendix B of Public Law 106–377 (114 Stat. 1441A–65; 136 Stat. 3786).

(14) Project for ecosystem restoration, City of Petaluma, California, authorized by section 8201(a)(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3745).

(15) Project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, and recreation, Pine Flat Dam, Fresno County, California, authorized by section 1201(a)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3050).

(16) Project for flood control, Redbank and Fancher Creeks, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112).

(17) Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Salinas River, California, authorized by section 1201(a)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3050).

(18) Project for flood risk management, including sea level rise, San Diego Bay, California, authorized by section 1201(a)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3050).

(19) Project for flood risk management, including stormwater runoff reduction, City of San Mateo, California, authorized by section 1201(a)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3051).

(20) Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and South Florida, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program, Lake Okeechobee Watershed Restoration, Florida, authorized pursuant to section 601(d)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680; 121 Stat. 1179; 134 Stat. 2673; 136 Stat. 3761; 138 Stat. 3067).

(21) Project for flood risk management, water supply, ecosystem restoration, recreation, and related purposes, Lake Istokpoga, Florida, authorized pursuant to section 8214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3759).

(22) Project for ecosystem restoration, Lake Runnymede, Florida, authorized by section 8201(a)(16) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3745).

(23) Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Lake Tohopekaliga, Florida, authorized by section 8201(a)(19) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3745).

(24) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and ecosystem restoration in the vicinity of MacDill Air Force Base, City of Tampa, Florida, authorized by section 1201(a)(37) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3052).

(25) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Port Tampa Bay, Florida, including McKay Bay, authorized by section 8201(a)(18) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3745).

(26) Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and water storage, Shingle Creek and Kissimmee River, Osceola County, Florida, authorized by section 201(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2670; 136 Stat. 3749).

(27) 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, and required to be expedited by section 1203(a)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3065).

(28) Project for local flood protection, Hanapēpē River, island of Kaua‘i, Hawaii, authorized by section 10 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 903; 138 Stat. 3060).

(29) Project for flood risk management, Kaiaka-Waialua watershed, O‘ahu, Hawaii, authorized pursuant to section 1201(a)(45) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3052).

(30) Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, County of Kaua‘i, Hawaii, authorized pursuant to section 1201(a)(46) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3052).

(31) Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, County of Maui, Hawaii, authorized by section 1201(a)(47) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3052).

(32) Project for flood control and allied purposes, Wailupe Stream, ‘Āina Haina, Honolulu, Hawaii, authorized pursuant to section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197).

(33) Project for flood risk management, Waimea River, County of Kaua‘i, Hawaii, authorized pursuant to section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1830).

(34) Project for flood risk management, Hoosic River, Massachusetts, authorized pursuant to the resolution of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives adopted on December 2, 2010 (docket number 2828), for environmental restoration, streambank stabilization, flood risk management, watershed management, floodplain management, and other allied purposes.

(35) Project for navigation, Saginaw River, Michigan, authorized pursuant to section 456 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 332).

(36) Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Tittabawassee River, Chippewa River, Pine River, and Tobacco River, Michigan, authorized by section 8201(a)(46) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3747).

(37) Project for ecosystem restoration, Lower Osage River Basin, Missouri, authorized by section 201(a)(16) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2670).

(38) Project for flood control of the Mississippi River in its alluvial valley and for its improvement from the Head of the Passes to Cape Girardeau, Missouri, authorized by the first section of the Act of May 15, 1928 (chapter 569, 45 Stat. 534; 138 Stat. 3060).

(39) Project for flood risk management, Berry’s Creek, New Jersey, authorized by section 1201(a)(91) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3055).

(40) Project for flood risk management, Fleischer Brook, New Jersey, authorized by section 1201(a)(92) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3055).

(41) Project for flood risk management and hydropower, Great Falls Raceway, Paterson, New Jersey, authorized by section 1201(a)(93) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3055).

(42) General reevaluation report for project for flood risk management, Green Brook Sub-basin, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey, authorized by section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4119; 134 Stat. 2671; 138 Stat. 3066).

(43) General reevaluation report for the project for hurricane and storm damage, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, Cape May County, New Jersey, authorized by section 1401(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1712).

(44) Project for flood risk management, Ho-Ho-Kus Brook and Saddle River, Village of Ridgewood, New Jersey, authorized by section 1201(a)(98) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3055).

(45) Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Passaic River Basin, Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, and Passaic Counties, New Jersey, authorized by section 1201(a)(95) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3055).

(46) Project for navigation and flood risk management, Passaic River, Paterson, New Jersey, authorized by section 1201(a)(96) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3055).

(47) Project for navigation, Borough of Paulsboro, New Jersey, authorized by section 1201(a)(97) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3055).

(48) 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).

(49) Project for flood risk management, Whippany River Watershed, Morris County, New Jersey, authorized by section 8201(a)(59) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3747).

(50) Project for flood risk management, Wolf Creek, New Jersey, authorized by section 1201(a)(99) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3055).

(51) Project for storm damage reduction, to include additional replacement of beach groins, Long Beach, New York, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665; 138 Stat. 3061).

(52) Project for ecosystem restoration, Great Salt Lake, Utah, authorized by section 8201(a)(88) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3749).

(53) Project for coastal storm risk management, Virginia Coastal Storm Risk Management, authorized pursuant to the Act of June 15, 1955 (chapter 140, 69 Stat. 132).

(b) Study reports.—The Secretary shall expedite the completion of a final report of the Chief of Engineers or other decision document, as applicable, for each of the following projects for the project to be considered for authorization:

(1) Project for flood risk management, Selma Flood Risk Management and Bank Stabilization, Alabama, authorized by section 8401(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3839).

(2) Project for ecosystem restoration, Salt River (Va Shly’Ay Akimel), Maricopa County, Arizona, as authorized by section 6 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1225).

(3) Study for repairs to recontour and stabilize the slope at Dardanelle Lock and Dam, Arkansas, authorized pursuant to section 7 of the Act of July 24, 1946 (chapter 595, 60 Stat. 640).

(4) Project for ecosystem restoration and recreation, Los Angeles River, California, as authorized by section 1407(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1714).

(5) Project for flood risk reduction, San Francisco Bay, California, authorized by section 142 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2930; 100 Stat. 4158; 134 Stat. 2672; 138 Stat. 3136).

(6) Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and South Florida, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program, Central Everglades Planning Project, Florida, authorized pursuant to section 601(d)(2)(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2684; 110 Stat. 3767; 114 Stat. 2680; 121 Stat. 1052; 128 Stat. 1369; 130 Stat. 1713; 132 Stat. 3819; 136 Stat. 3791; 138 Stat. 3067).

(7) Project for navigation, Port Everglades, Florida, authorized by section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1709; 136 Stat. 3792).

(8) Project for flood risk management and resiliency, Lower Missouri Jefferson City L–142 Flood Risk Management Study, Lower and Upper Missouri River Comprehensive Flood Protection, Missouri, authorized by section 2 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (chapter 377, 55 Stat. 646; 58 Stat. 897; 134 Stat. 2687).

(9) Project for flood and storm damage reduction, New York and New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries, New York and New Jersey, as authorized by the Act of June 15, 1955 (chapter 140, 69 Stat. 132; 134 Stat. 2676; 138 Stat. 3152).

(10) 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; 138 Stat. 3083).

(11) Project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, navigation, and ecosystem restoration, Chincoteague Island, Virginia, authorized by section 1201(27) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1683).

(c) Watershed and river basin assessments.—The Secretary shall expedite the completion of an assessment under section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a) for Lower Rouge River Watershed, Michigan.

(d) Dredged materials management plans.—The Secretary shall expedite the completion of a dredged material management plan for each of the following projects:

(1) Homer Small Boat Harbor, Homer, Alaska, authorized pursuant to section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1181).

(2) Ashtabula Harbor, Ohio, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 3, 1896 (chapter 314, 29 Stat. 209).

(3) Cleveland Harbor, Ohio, authorized by the first section of the Act of August 14, 1876 (chapter 267, 19 Stat. 133; 100 Stat. 4095; 101 Stat. 1329–107).

(e) Water control manuals.—The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expedite completion of updates to the water control manuals at the Terminus Dam and Lake Kaweah Project, Kaweah River, California, authorized by section 10 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 901).

(f) Issues Evaluation Studies.—The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the Issues Evaluation Study for Black Butte Lake, Stoney Creek, California, authorized pursuant to the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 900).

SEC. 203. Expedited modification of existing feasibility studies.

(a) Unalaska (Dutch Harbor), Alaska modification.—The feasibility study for navigation, Unalaska (Dutch Harbor) Channels, Alaska, authorized by section 401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2734) is modified to authorize the Secretary to include in the study coastal storm risk management and shoreline erosion protection.

(b) Alexandria to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana.—The feasibility 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, as authorized by section 1202(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3064), is modified to include Vermilion Bay.

(c) Expedited completion.—The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the feasibility studies described in subsections (a) and (b), as modified by such subsections, and if the Secretary determines that a project that is the subject of the feasibility study described in subsection (a) or (b) is justified in the completed report, may proceed directly to preconstruction planning, engineering, and design of the project.

SEC. 204. Expedited completion of other feasibility studies.

(a) 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)).

(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)).

(c) 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)).

(d) Southern Florida Water Management District, Central and Southern Florida Flood Resiliency Study (Broward Basins), Florida.—The Secretary shall expedite the review and coordination of the Central and Southern Florida Resiliency Study—Broward Basins for the project for flood risk management, Southern Florida Water Management District, Florida, under section 203(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231(b)).

SEC. 205. Corps of Engineers reports.

(a) Report on the formulation of future water resources development projects.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and biennially thereafter for a period of 10 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 describing the use of the procedures under part 234 of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, issued pursuant to section 110 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (42 U.S.C. 1962–4), with respect to ongoing feasibility studies for water resources development projects.

(2) INCLUSION.—The Secretary shall include in the report submitted under paragraph (1)—

(A) a project-by-project identification of any feasibility study carried out in accordance with the procedures described in paragraph (1) and an identification of, and rationale for, any study carried out during the period applicable to the report that was not developed using such procedures;

(B) an evaluation of the outcomes of such procedures on the formulation, evaluation, and recommendations for a proposed water resources development project; and

(C) a summary of stakeholder engagement and public input received related to the formulation, evaluation, and recommendation of the project.

(b) Report on impacts of commercial and industrial water supply users on water resources development projects.—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 effects of new commercial and industrial water users on water resources development projects authorized for the purpose of water supply or water conservation.

(c) Report on Forecast-Informed Reservoir Operations.—

(1) 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 detailing the implementation of forecast-informed reservoir operations at 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).

(2) CONTENTS.—The Secretary shall include in the report submitted under paragraph (1)—

(A) a list of projects at which forecast-informed reservoir operations have been implemented or evaluated and, with respect to any project for which such operations were evaluated but not implemented, a rationale for why the operations were not implemented at each such project;

(B) a list of projects at which the viability of using airborne snow observatory flights has been implemented or evaluated for use in forecast-informed reservoir operations and, with respect to any project for which such operations were evaluated but not implemented, a rationale for why the operations were not implemented at each such project;

(C) an assessment of the effectiveness of such operations in improving water supply and flood risk management, and other authorized project purposes;

(D) any barriers to implementation of forecast-informed reservoir operations, including technical, operational, or legal constraints; and

(E) recommendations for any modifications to existing authorities to expand or improve such operations.

(d) Recreational access for floating cabins.—

(1) 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 floating cabins, including—

(A) a summary of any authorities and procedures the Secretary uses to manage activities or permissions relating to floating cabins;

(B) identification of any laws, regulations, administrative barriers, or other limitations that prohibit or inhibit greater use of, or installation of new, floating cabins;

(C) recommendations of the Secretary with respect to changes the Secretary may implement to facilitate greater use of, or installation of new, floating cabins; and

(D) with respect to each recommendation identified under subparagraph (C)—

(i) the estimated cost to the Corps of Engineers to implement, and operate under, such change; and

(ii) a detailed description of any effects, including benefits, that such change is expected to have on—

(I) any operations at water resources development projects operated and maintained by the Corps; and

(II) the mission of the Corps as it relates to recreation.

(2) FLOATING CABIN DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term “floating cabin” means a floating cabin, as such term is defined in section 1035 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1234), that is located on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary, including Federal water resources reservoirs or lake projects administered by the Secretary.

(e) Report on easements for hurricane and storm damage reduction projects.—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 implementation of authorities granted in section 1145(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (33 U.S.C. 598c(d)), including—

(1) an assessment of any administrative actions taken (including any guidance issued, policy changes made, or process improvements implemented) by the Secretary to implement such section;

(2) a summary of the use of each authority used by the Secretary in carrying out a project pursuant to such section, including—

(A) the number and types of projects for which each such authority was used;

(B) the status of any easement acquisition, easement relocation, or easement modification activity carried out using each such authority; and

(C) any reduction in project delays or costs, or any reduction in administrative burdens, attributable to the use of each such authority; and

(3) identification of any additional legislative authorities the Secretary determines are necessary to improve project delivery under such section.

(f) Beneficial use of dredged material; management plans report.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate the strategic plan required by section 8130(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3717), developed in accordance with the national goal described in section 125(a)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2326g(a)(1)(B)).

(2) FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINE.—If the Secretary fails to submit the strategic plan described in paragraph (1) by the deadline established by such paragraph, the Secretary shall, not later than 225 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 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) a detailed explanation of why the Secretary failed to submit the strategic plan by the deadline;

(B) a summary of the status of the development of the strategic plan, including whether it has been initiated; and

(C) a projected date for submission of the strategic plan.

(g) Report on the applicability of architectural and engineering fee caps.—

(1) 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 any statutory, regulatory, or policy limitation on architectural and engineering service fees applicable to water resources development projects carried out under the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall include in the report submitted under paragraph (1)—

(A) a description of any limitation applied by the Secretary to architectural and engineering service fees for such projects, including, where applicable, the identification of the authority for the limitation; and

(B) an assessment of the effects of any limitations applied by the Secretary to such fees on the ability of the Secretary to carry out such projects, including a list of projects the cost or schedule of which was affected by such limitations.

(h) Report on realignment of Corps divisions.—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 implications and feasibility of realigning the divisions of the Corps to transfer the responsibilities of the Little Rock District to the Mississippi Valley Division.

SEC. 206. Report on the inland waterways system.

(a) In general.—The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study to evaluate the condition and reliability of water resources development projects within inland and intracoastal waterways of the United States.

(b) Components.—In carrying out the study required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—

(1) examine inland and intracoastal waterways of the United States and the ability of such waterways to meet the needs of the United States, including emergency and defense needs;

(2) investigate the reliability and effectiveness of water resources development projects within such waterways with respect to commerce, navigation, environment, and recreation;

(3) assess the condition of flood control structures (including locks, levees, and dams) along such waterways to determine the structural importance and identify any necessary repairs to maintain future reliability of such waterways;

(4) assess the effectiveness of ecosystem restoration and mitigation efforts within such waterways;

(5) evaluate water resources development projects (including separable elements) within such waterways that will reduce recurring dredging requirements to maintain authorized navigation dimensions of such waterways and prevent channel migration;

(6) assess the funding needed to improve the reliability and effectiveness of water resources development projects within such waterways; and

(7) identify components of water resources development projects that, in case of failure, would likely have significant impacts on the function of such waterways.

(c) 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 study required under subsection (a).

(d) Inland and intracoastal waterways of the United States defined.—In this section, the term “inland and intracoastal waterways of the United States” means the inland and intracoastal waterways described in section 206 of the Inland Waterways Revenue Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1804).

SEC. 207. GAO studies.

(a) Study on Cost-Sharing efforts for recreation facilities.—

(1) 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 efforts of the Secretary to share with non-Federal public entities and private nonprofit entities the cost of managing recreation facilities and natural resources at water resource development projects under the jurisdiction of the Secretary.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In conducting the review under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall—

(A) describe the actions the Secretary is taking, or plans to take, to implement section 225 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2328);

(B) evaluate the use of joint management agreements, including cooperative agreements under subsection (b)(1) of such section, and other partnership authorities, that allow the Secretary to share responsibilities with, or transfer or delegate responsibilities to, non-Federal public entities and private nonprofit entities, for the operation and management of recreation facilities and natural resources;

(C) assess the effectiveness of such agreements in reducing Federal costs, improving facility conditions, and maintaining or enhancing public access;

(D) identify any legal, regulatory, or administrative barriers to the expanded use of such agreements; and

(E) develop recommendations for legislative or administrative actions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of such partnership authorities.

(3) 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 that contains the results of such review, including any recommendations developed under paragraph (2)(E).

(b) Study on beach renourishment efforts.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall initiate an analysis that includes—

(A) the statutory authorities and programs used by, and available to, the Secretary to support beach renourishment cycles, including initial construction, periodic renourishment, and emergency renourishment activities;

(B) an evaluation of financial, regulatory, and technical barriers that contribute to delays in carrying out beach renourishment activities;

(C) a description of the Corps of Engineers process for evaluating the beneficial use of dredged material for beach renourishment activities, including procuring materials from other projects carried out by the Corps of Engineers; and

(D) recommendations for legislative, regulatory, or administrative actions to address barriers identified under subparagraph (B) and to improve the efficiency, predictability, and effectiveness of the beach renourishment efforts of the Corps of Engineers.

(2) 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.

(c) Study on architectural and engineering design services.—

(1) 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 methods by which the Corps of Engineers performs architectural and engineering design services, including—

(A) an analysis of the procurement of such services through contracts with private sector firms;

(B) an assessment of the extent to which employees of the Corps of Engineers carry out such services; and

(C) a comparative assessment of the benefits and costs of the methods described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).

(2) 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.

(d) Review of compliance with State fish and wildlife recommendations.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall initiate a review of the compliance of the Secretary with any requirements under, and incorporation of any recommendations submitted to the Secretary pursuant to, the following:

(A) Section 2 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 662), including technical recommendations related to evaluating impacts to fish and wildlife resources.

(B) State management programs approved under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1455).

(C) State comprehensive plans approved under section 4 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669c).

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In conducting the review under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall—

(A) assess the extent to which the Corps of Engineers incorporates any recommendation submitted by a Federal or State agency pursuant to the statutes identified in paragraph (1) in developing a feasibility study for the construction or modification of a water resources development project or an operations or mitigation plan for a water resources development project; and

(B) to the extent that any recommendation is not incorporated, provide a detailed explanation and legal justification as to why such recommendation was not incorporated.

(3) 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.

SEC. 208. Inspector General reports.

(a) Report on inherently governmental functions.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Engineer Inspector General of the Corps of Engineers 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 related to identifying the inherently governmental function status of Corps of Engineers park rangers.

(2) CONTENTS.—In the report submitted under paragraph (1), the Engineer Inspector General shall include—

(A) an assessment of—

(i) the policies, guidance, and practices of the Corps of Engineers for identifying and classifying functions and duties related to environmental management, public safety, and enforcement duties for projects; and

(ii) the extent to which such policies, guidance, and practices comply with the requirements of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 501 note) and other applicable laws, regulations, and guidance governing inherently governmental functions;

(B) an assessment of any risks to environmental management, public safety, enforcement duties, or governmental decisionmaking resulting from the potential misclassification of park ranger functions;

(C) an assessment of Corps of Engineers policies and procedures for distinguishing functions that must be performed by Federal employees from functions that may appropriately be performed by contractors;

(D) an assessment of any potential deficiencies in Corps of Engineers policies, procedures, internal controls, staffing practices, or organizational structures that may impair compliance with applicable requirements governing inherently governmental functions and the effective performance of environmental management, public safety, and enforcement duties; and

(E) any recommendations for administrative or legislative actions necessary to improve compliance with requirements governing inherently governmental functions and the performance of park ranger responsibilities.

(b) Report on Tribal policies and programs.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Engineer Inspector General of the Corps of Engineers 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 implementation of policies and programs of the Corps of Engineers relating to Tribal communities, including the uniformity of application of such policies and programs across all districts of the Corps of Engineers.

(2) CONTENTS.—In the report submitted under paragraph (1), the Engineer Inspector General shall include—

(A) an assessment of the Tribal Liaison position (as established by section 8112 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2281a)), including a description of how each applicable district office has implemented the position and the responsibilities of such position;

(B) the implementation status of—

(i) section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269);

(ii) section 1141 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (33 U.S.C. 2269 note); and

(iii) section 8115 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2281b note);

(C) an assessment of the Secretary’s alignment with requirements of subsections (c) and (d) of section 112 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2356) with respect to Tribal communities;

(D) an assessment of the alignment of the Secretary’s guidance, guidelines, and policies with clearly stated congressional intent with respect to Tribal communities; and

(E) an evaluation of barriers within the Corps of Engineers that hinder or prohibit successful Tribal engagement, consultation, or partnership.

SEC. 209. Acceleration of emergency inland navigation projects.

In carrying out any authorized inland navigation project, the Secretary shall expedite completion of any modification, repair, or rehabilitation that is subject to an emergency declaration issued by the Secretary, including a non-breach emergency, to ensure continued navigation functionality and structural integrity, including by expediting the completion of investigations, engineering and design, and construction activities necessary to resolve emergency conditions.

SEC. 210. Assessment of commercial fish landings data.

Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate the results of the corrective action plan developed by the Secretary in response to the report of the Comptroller General of the United States, published on April 28, 2025, and titled “Army Corps of Engineers: Commercial Fishing Data Could Help Inform Budget Process” (GAO–25–107447).

SEC. 211. Assessments of dryland stream technologies and shoreline stabilization technologies.

(a) Assessment of natural infrastructure in dryland streams technologies and approaches.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Engineer Research and Development Center, shall carry out research and development activities on, and test the effectiveness of, natural infrastructure in dryland streams technologies and approaches to using such technologies in arid, semi-arid, and drought-prone areas.

(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable—

(A) ensure that the locations where research and development activities and tests are carried out are geographically diverse;

(B) undertake research and development activities and tests that include human-made infrastructure that mimics natural infrastructure, such as rock check dams, beaver dam analogs, gabions, and weirs; and

(C) based on information collected from the carrying out and completion of research and development activities described in paragraph (2), assess the potential uses and effectiveness of such human-made infrastructure with respect to restoring dryland ecosystems, enhancing flood risk reduction efforts, and enhancing water supply, water conservation, and drought resiliency efforts.

(3) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out a research and development activity or test under subsection (a), the Secretary may consult with—

(A) the heads of other Federal agencies; and

(B) appropriate State government agencies in States with arid or semi-arid areas.

(4) SUMMARY TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website), a written summary of the activities and tests carried out under subsection (a).

(b) Assessment of shoreline stabilization and erosion control technologies.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Engineer Research and Development Center and, as appropriate, in consultation with other Federal agencies and coastal States, shall carry out research and development activities on, and test the effectiveness of, shoreline stabilization, erosion control, and wave energy reduction technologies applicable to coastal areas exposed to flooding and erosion, including flooding and erosional impacts associated with tidally influenced portions of rivers, bays, and estuaries that are hydrologically connected to the coastal water body.

(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—

(A) to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that research and development activities and testing are carried out in diverse geographic locations; and

(B) carry out research and development activities and testing of 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))), including the use of engineered technologies that mimic natural processes or structures, or approaches that combine natural and engineered elements.

(3) SUMMARY TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website) a written summary of the activities carried out under this subsection.

SEC. 212. Assessment of nonstructural approaches to flood risk management and hurricane and storm risk reduction.

Not later than 6 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 following projects:

(1) The project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, and Passaic Counties, New Jersey, including as it relates to buyouts in the Township of Wayne, Passaic County, New Jersey, authorized pursuant to section 101(a)(18) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607).

(2) The project for flood risk management, Township of Denville, New Jersey, being carried out pursuant to section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

(3) The project for flood control, Green Brook Sub-basin, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey, authorized by section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4119; 134 Stat. 2671).

(4) The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, New Jersey Back Bays, Cape May, Ocean, Atlantic, Monmouth, and Burlington Counties, authorized by resolutions of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, approved in December 1987.

(5) The project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, New York, authorized by section 401(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2738).

SEC. 213. Post-disaster watershed assessment for impacted areas.

(a) 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:

(1) Areas of Catron and Grant Counties, New Mexico, impacted by the June 2025 wildfires.

(2) Areas of Valencia County, New Mexico, impacted by the June 2025 wildfires.

(3) Areas near Ruidoso, New Mexico, impacted by the June 2024 wildfires.

(b) 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 post-disaster watershed assessments carried out under subsection (a).

SEC. 214. Updated plan on Federal hopper dredge recapitalization.

Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall—

(1) with respect to Federal hopper dredges identified in the analysis of the Corps of Engineers titled “Hopper Dredge Recapitalization Analysis” (published June 20, 2017) and owned and operated by the Corps of Engineers as of the date of enactment of this Act, update the plan and timeline for recapitalization of such Federal hopper dredges that is included in such analysis; and

(2) submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate such updated plan and timeline.

SEC. 215. Choctawhatchee and Pea River basins, Alabama and Florida.

(a) In general.—For purposes of carrying out the study of improvements for flood control, water quality, water supply, drought management, and fish and wildlife enhancement authorized by the Congressional Committee Resolution adopted April 24, 1990, by the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate (relating to the Choctawhatchee and Pea River Basins, Alabama and Florida, as described in House Document 242, 72d Congress, 1st session), and any related review conducted pursuant to the Congressional Committee Resolution adopted August 1, 1990, by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives (relating to the Pea River watershed, Alabama), the Secretary shall—

(1) develop a scope of work, including a communications plan, in collaboration with the non-Federal interest, that is in accordance with the intent of such authorizing documents and, to the extent practicable, meets the objectives of the non-Federal interest;

(2) include in the study area the entire Choctawhatchee River basin and Pea River basin, and all hydrologically connected downstream receiving waters, in the States of Alabama and Florida; and

(3) coordinate, as practicable, with relevant State, local, and Tribal entities in Alabama and Florida and with appropriate Federal agencies.

(b) Applicability.—This section shall apply to any feasibility study carried out pursuant to the authorizations described in subsection (a).

SEC. 216. Mobile Harbor land use assessment.

(a) In general.—The Secretary shall carry out an assessment of the long-term viability of existing dredged material placement areas for Mobile Harbor, including State-owned upland dredged materials disposal facilities.

(b) Beneficial use.—In carrying out the assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall include recommendations for the beneficial use of dredged materials from Mobile Harbor, including the viability of using such dredged materials at locations on Pinto Island and Blakeley Island in Mobile, Alabama.

SEC. 217. Honolulu Harbor, Hawaii.

Not later than 30 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 an update describing the status of the study to modify the project for navigation, Honolulu Harbor, Hawaii, authorized by the first section of the Act of March 3, 1905 (chapter 1482, 33 Stat. 1146; 136 Stat. 3750; 138 Stat. 3064), including the status of the assessment of the benefits of the project modification on disaster resiliency and enhanced national security from utilization of the harbor by the Department of Defense authorized by section 1202(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3064).

SEC. 218. Chicago Area Waterway System.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate an assessment of the Calumet Harbor Dredged Material Disposal Facility, also known as the Chicago Area Confined Disposal Facility, authorized pursuant to section 123 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1823).

(b) Inclusion.—The Secretary shall include in the assessment under subsection (a)—

(1) a description of work related to the ongoing and future dredging of the Calumet River and Harbor;

(2) a plan for carrying out activities related to the closure of the Chicago Area Confined Disposal Facility, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, including remediation, capping, seeding, and other measures necessary to stabilize the facility and ensure that the site of the facility is prepared for the authorized use of such site after such closure;

(3) a plan of actions to be taken to ensure conveyance of the Chicago Area Confined Disposal Facility to the Chicago Park District in a timely fashion after the completion of closure activities carried out pursuant to the plan under paragraph (2); and

(4) a plan of actions to be taken to ensure the Secretary coordinates with State and local governments in carrying out this section.

SEC. 219. Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin project, Brandon Road, Will County, Illinois.

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—

(1) the results of an assessment to identify any contaminated sediments associated with the project for ecosystem restoration, Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study—Brandon Road, Will County, Illinois, authorized by section 401(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2740); and

(2) a plan, developed in coordination with the non-Federal interest for such project, to remediate such sediments simultaneously with construction of the project.

SEC. 220. Columbia Lock and Dam, Louisiana.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report regarding the Columbia Lock and Dam, Louisiana, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 13, 1902 (chapter 1079, 32 Stat. 357), that includes—

(1) a description of the nature and extent of the structural concerns that resulted in the declaration by the Secretary in August, 2024, of a non-breach emergency at the lock and dam;

(2) a summary of actions taken by the Corps of Engineers to address such concerns, including interim operational or emergency measures;

(3) recommended permanent remedial actions necessary to ensure continued navigation functionality and structural integrity;

(4) an evaluation of whether such recommended permanent remedial actions may be implemented as discrete, segmented projects or phases, including an assessment of—

(A) the technical feasibility of such segmentation;

(B) potential cost efficiencies or risk reduction associated with phased implementation; and

(C) the extent to which segmentation could accelerate completion of critical repairs; and

(5) an estimated schedule and cost range for implementation of such recommended permanent remedial actions, including any segmented or phased approach identified based on the evaluation under paragraph (4).

SEC. 221. Lower Mississippi River Comprehensive Management Study.

The Secretary shall expedite completion of the Lower Mississippi River Comprehensive Management Study, authorized by section 213 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2684; 136 Stat. 3795).

SEC. 222. Disposition study for Cape Cod Canal, Massachusetts.

(a) 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 of a portion of the project for navigation, Cape Cod Canal, Massachusetts, authorized by the first section of the Act of August 30, 1935 (chapter 831, 49 Stat. 1029), that the Secretary determines—

(1) is not needed to carry out the authorized purposes of the project; and

(2) could be conveyed to the Town of Sandwich or the Town of Bourne, Massachusetts, for the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant.

(b) 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. 223. New England regional confined aquatic disposal facilities.

(a) Expedite assessment.—The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the assessment of the availability of confined aquatic disposal facilities in the New England District region required under section 8128(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3716).

(b) Submission to Congress.—Upon completion of the assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate the results of such assessment.

(c) Study authorization.—The Secretary is authorized to conduct—

(1) a study for the construction of confined aquatic disposal facilities in the Massachusetts Bay and Ipswich Bay region for the disposal of contaminated dredged material in such region; and

(2) any other study recommended by the Secretary in the assessment under subsection (a).

SEC. 224. Assateague Island, Maryland and Virginia.

Section 534(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3775) is amended by striking “$35,000,000” and inserting “$45,000,000”.

SEC. 225. Big Sandy Lake, Minnesota.

(a) Shoreline management plan.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a shoreline management plan for the Big Sandy Lake project.

(b) Shoreline use permits.—Upon the establishment of a shoreline management plan under subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized to issue to an owner of land adjacent to the Big Sandy Lake project, upon request by the owner and consistent with the shoreline management plan, a shoreline use permit for activities relating to an existing structure or a new structure on land that is held by the Corps of Engineers for the project and adjacent to the land of the owner.

(c) Disposition study.—

(1) 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 release, transfer, conveyance, or exchange of excess easements, or the conveyance of excess land, held for the Big Sandy Lake project.

(2) SCOPE.—In carrying out the disposition study under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—

(A) for each segment of shoreline property owned by the Corps of Engineers at the Big Sandy Lake project that corresponds to the width of an adjacent plot of private property, identify—

(i) the appraised value of the segment of shoreline property; and

(ii) a legal description and the acreage of the segment of shoreline property; and

(B) develop recommendations for any restrictions or conditions on any shoreline property at the Big Sandy Lake project that is owned by, or subject to an easement held by, the Corps of Engineers that would be necessary to sustain the authorized purposes of the Big Sandy Lake project if the shoreline property were to be conveyed to, or the easement were to be released, transferred or conveyed to, or exchanged with, a non-Federal entity.

(3) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the status of the disposition study required under paragraph (1).

(d) Big Sandy Lake project defined.—In this section, the term “Big Sandy Lake project” means the Sandy Lake dam and reservoir, located in Aitkin County, Minnesota, originally authorized as one of the six Mississippi River Headwater reservoirs authorized by the first section of the Act of June 14, 1880 (chapter 211, 21 Stat. 193; 22 Stat. 203).

SEC. 226. Upper Missouri River Basin sedimentation.

(a) Comprehensive study.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study to identify the core sedimentation issues in the Upper Missouri River Basin.

(2) RECOMMENDATIONS.—In conducting the study under this subsection, the Secretary may develop recommendations for—

(A) the construction of a water resources development project;

(B) the structural or operational modification of existing water resources development projects, except as provided in subsection (f);

(C) monitoring or adaptive management measures for water resources development projects to respond to changing conditions in the Upper Missouri River Basin;

(D) additional studies focusing on specific geographic areas within the Upper Missouri River Basin;

(E) management plans and actions, to be carried out by responsible Federal agencies, to address or reduce sedimentation in the Upper Missouri River Basin; and

(F) further research on issues with respect to which data or current technology does not allow for immediate solutions.

(b) Continuation of study.—The following studies shall be considered a continuation of the study conducted under subsection (a):

(1) Any study recommended to be carried out in a report that the Chief of Engineers prepares for the study conducted under subsection (a).

(2) Any additional study recommended under subsection (a)(2).

(3) Any study spun off from the study conducted under subsection (a), or from an additional study recommended under paragraph (2) of such subsection, before the completion of such study.

(c) Use of existing data.—In conducting the study under subsection (a), and in carrying out any study pursuant to subsection (b), the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, make use of existing data provided to the Secretary by any applicable Federal, State, and local agency, Indian Tribe, non-Federal interest, or other stakeholder, or from any relevant multistate monitoring program.

(d) Costs.—

(1) LIMITATION.—The total cost of the study conducted under subsection (a) shall not exceed $25,000,000.

(2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of the study conducted under subsection (a) and any study carried out pursuant to subsection (b) shall be 65 percent.

(e) Deadline.—Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that contains the results of the study conducted under subsection (a), including any recommendations developed under paragraph (2) of such subsection.

(f) Prohibition.—In conducting the study under subsection (a), and in carrying out any study pursuant to subsection (b), the Secretary may not consider any changes to the Missouri River Basin Mainstem Reservoir System Master Water Control Manual.

SEC. 227. Table Rock Lake disposition study, Missouri and Arkansas.

(a) 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 release, transfer, conveyance, or exchange of excess easements, or the exchange of excess land, held for flood risk management and operation of 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).

(b) Actions.—In carrying out the study required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—

(1) ensure that the relevant non-Federal interest for the Table Rock Lake project is provided right of first refusal for any potential release, transfer, conveyance, or exchange of excess easements; and

(2) work alongside such non-Federal interest in identifying opportunities for land exchanges, where possible.

(c) 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 of the status of the disposition study required under subsection (a).

SEC. 228. Table Rock Lake, Missouri and Arkansas.

Section 1323 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3143) is amended—

(1) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the following:

“(a) Structures.—The Secretary shall permit the ongoing presence of an eligible structure at the Table Rock Lake project until the abandonment of the eligible structure.

“(b) Sewer or septic systems.—The Secretary shall permit the ongoing presence of an eligible sewer or septic system at the Table Rock Lake project until the abandonment or imminent failure of the eligible sewer or septic system.”;

(2) in subsection (c)—

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking “eligible structure, means the allowance of the structure” and inserting “eligible structure or eligible sewer or septic system, means the allowance of the structure or sewer or septic system”;

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (4) and (6), respectively;

(C) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:

“(2) ELIGIBLE SEWER OR SEPTIC SYSTEM.—The term ‘eligible sewer or septic system’ means a privately owned sewer or septic system that—

“(A) as of the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2026, is located on fee land or land subject to a flowage easement held by the United States; and

“(B) does not impact the reservoir level, water quality, or operations of the Table Rock Lake project.

“(3) ELIGIBLE STRUCTURE.—The term ‘eligible structure’ means a structure for human habitation, shed, retaining wall, deck, patio, gazebo, driveway, fence, or similar structure, that, as of the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2026, is located—

“(A) on fee land or land subject to a flowage easement held by the United States; and

“(B) higher than the elevation contour of 936 feet above mean sea level.”; and

(D) by inserting before paragraph (6), as so redesignated, the following:

“(5) IMMINENT FAILURE.—The term ‘imminent failure’ means, with respect to an eligible sewer or septic system, a final order by the applicable unit of local government to the owner of an eligible sewer or septic system that such system be replaced.”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(d) Savings clause.—Nothing in the section shall prevent the Secretary from issuing a shoreline use permit, other applicable permit, easement, or outgrant, consistent with a shoreline management plan or other applicable policy, for a structure, sewer system, or septic system proposed to be built or modified after the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2026 at the Table Rock Lake project.”.

SEC. 229. Evaluation of atomic contamination at Cochiti Lake, Sandoval County, New Mexico.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy and the People of Cochiti Pueblo, shall initiate an evaluation of the area including the lands adjacent to and including the Cochiti Lake in relation to the early atomic energy program of the United States, including the Manhattan Engineering District, to determine whether the area is eligible to be added to the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program of the Corps of Engineers.

(b) Congressional notification.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 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 results of the evaluation initiated under subsection (a), including—

(1) whether the area referred to in subsection (a) contains contamination that resulted from the early atomic energy program;

(2) whether further remedial action in the area is needed; and

(3) if eligible, the timeline for adding the area to the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.

SEC. 230. National Academy of Sciences study on Upper Rio Grande Basin.

Section 1230 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3086) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(d) Implementation updates.—Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, and annually thereafter until the report prepared under subsection (a) is completed, 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 an update describing the status of the implementation of this section.”.

SEC. 231. Arbuckle-Timbered Hills, Oklahoma.

(a) In general.—Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary, in coordination with relevant Federal and State agencies and non-Federal interests, may conduct a study on water supply, water storage capacity, and drought resiliency for the regions overlaying the Arbuckle-Timbered Hills Aquifer, Oklahoma.

(b) Components.—In carrying out a study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall identify infrastructure needs to support increased water storage in and around the Arbuckle-Timbered Hills Aquifer.

SEC. 232. Disposition and cost allocation study of Willamette Valley, Oregon.

(a) In general.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue the report required by section 8220 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3762), as modified by this section.

(b) Cost allocation.—The Secretary shall include in the report described in subsection (a)—

(1) a review of the cost allocation for capital investments for fish passage, and associated monitoring facilities, constructed or proposed after September 30, 2025, and for operation and expenses related to such capital investments, at the dams, reservoirs, and related facilities of the Willamette Valley hydropower project; and

(2) a description of the relative public value of continued hydropower operations at the Willamette Valley hydropower project compared to flood control and other authorized purposes.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “Willamette Valley hydropower project” has the meaning given that term in section 8220(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3762).

SEC. 233. Foster Joseph Sayers Reservoir and Dam, Pennsylvania.

(a) 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 release, transfer, conveyance, or exchange of excess easements, or the exchange of excess land, held for flood risk management and operation of the Foster Joseph Sayers Reservoir and Dam project, located in Pennsylvania and constructed as one of the flood risk management reservoir projects in the plan for flood protection on the West Branch of the Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania and New York, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1257).

(b) Scope.—The disposition study required by subsection (a) shall include—

(1) identification of the minimum real property required for the operation or maintenance of the Foster Joseph Sayers Reservoir and Dam project;

(2) evaluation of the potential effects of the release, transfer, conveyance, or exchange of excess property interests on flood control and recreation missions of the Corps of Engineers; and

(3) identification of the exact legal description and acreage of the property interests, including easements, suitable for conveyance.

(c) 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 of the status of the disposition study required under subsection (a).

SEC. 234. Humphreys County, Tennessee.

The Secretary shall coordinate with representatives of the Natural Resources Conservation Service to expedite completion of watershed planning assistance to Humphreys County, Tennessee, pursuant to the agreement entered into between the Secretary and the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service on November 30, 2022, for such assistance.

SEC. 235. Sam Rayburn Reservoir, Texas.

(a) Joint assessment.—Upon request of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, shall jointly assess the condition of the Harvey Creek boat ramp at Sam Rayburn Reservoir, San Augustine County, Texas, to identify any repairs to the boat ramp that may be necessary.

(b) Technical assistance to the Forest Service.—Upon request of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary shall provide technical and design assistance to the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief, for any repairs to the boat ramp described in subsection (a) that the Secretary of Agriculture determines necessary based on an assessment under subsection (a).

SEC. 236. Columbia River, Washington.

(a) Tri-Cities disposition study.—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 conveyance of covered lands to a covered entity for a public purpose.

(b) Land into trust disposition study.—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 transfer of covered lands to the Secretary of the Interior to be taken into trust for the benefit of a covered Tribal entity.

(c) Consultation.—To identify the exact location, acreage, and boundaries of the covered lands to be included in a disposition study under this section, the Secretary shall consult with covered entities, covered Tribal entities, and other stakeholders, as applicable.

(d) Contents.—In carrying out a disposition study under this section, the Secretary shall—

(1) review and describe the effects, if any, on the authorized purpose of each Corps of Engineers project expected to be affected by a conveyance or transfer, as applicable, of covered lands that are the subject of the study;

(2) identify all Federal easements on such covered lands;

(3) identify all federally owned flood risk management and flood control infrastructure on such covered lands;

(4) identify and describe each new authority needed, if any, to convey or transfer, as applicable, such covered lands;

(5) for each parcel of land within such covered lands, identify and describe any rights-of-way, access easements, flood easements, and other similar legal instruments, agreements, or encumbrances needed to operate and maintain all flood control infrastructure operated and maintained by the Corps of Engineers;

(6) identify and describe any current agreements entered into by the Corps of Engineers and a non-Federal entity for use of, or access to, such covered lands; and

(7) identify any restrictions or conditions on lands proposed for conveyance that the Secretary recommends and determines to be necessary to sustain the authorized purposes of each Corps of Engineers project expected to be affected by a conveyance or transfer, as applicable, of such covered lands.

(e) 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 each disposition study required under this section.

(f) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) COVERED ENTITY.—The term “covered entity” means—

(A) the City of Kennewick, Washington;

(B) the City of Pasco, Washington;

(C) the City of Richland, Washington;

(D) Benton County, Washington;

(E) Franklin County, Washington; and

(F) the Port Commission of the Port of Pasco, located in the City of Pasco, Washington.

(2) COVERED LANDS.—The term “covered lands” means the shoreline and adjacent lands located along the Columbia River within in the following areas of land owned by the Corps of Engineers:

(A) With respect to the disposition study required in subsection (a)—

(i) the area of approximately 370 acres in Benton County, Washington;

(ii) the area of approximately 465 acres in the City of Kennewick, Washington;

(iii) the area of approximately 350 acres in the City of Pasco, Washington;

(iv) the area of approximately 640 acres in the City of Richland, Washington;

(v) the area of approximately 8 acres within the Port of Pasco, Washington; and

(vi) the area of approximately 520 acres in Franklin County, Washington.

(B) With respect to the disposition study required in subsection (b)—

(i) the area of approximately 200 acres within the Umatilla Indian Reservation;

(ii) the area of approximately 160 acres within the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation; and

(iii) any additional areas, as determined by the Secretary.

(3) COVERED TRIBAL ENTITY.—The term “covered Tribal entity” means—

(A) the Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation;

(B) the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation; and

(C) other federally recognized Indian Tribes, as determined appropriate by the Secretary.

SEC. 237. Tri-Cities Area, Washington.

(a) In general.—The Secretary shall expedite the property conveyances authorized under section 501(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3752).

(b) Congressional notification.—If the Secretary fails to convey any property to the appropriate non-Federal entity pursuant to section 501(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 within 18 months of the date of enactment of this Act, 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—

(1) which property has not been conveyed;

(2) why such property has not been conveyed; and

(3) of the timeline to convey such property.

TITLE III—Deauthorizations and Modifications

SEC. 301. Deauthorization of inactive projects.

Section 301 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 579d–2) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) in paragraph (2), by striking “and” at the end;

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

“(4) to address the backlog of water resources development projects that the Secretary is authorized to construct.”;

(2) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by striking “Water Resources Development Act of 2024” and inserting “Water Resources Development Act of 2026” each place it appears; and

(3) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following:

“(3) UPDATES.—After submission of the final deauthorization list and appendix under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—

“(A) review and update the list and appendix as necessary; and

“(B) not less than every six months, beginning after the date of such submission—

“(i) provide to the committees described in paragraph (1)(A) the updated list and appendix; and

“(ii) publish the updated list and appendix in the Federal Register.”.

SEC. 302. General reauthorizations.

(a) Lakes program.—Section 602 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 138 Stat. 3164) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) in paragraph (38), by striking “and” at the end;

(B) in paragraph (39), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

“(40) Lake Waumpi, Orange County, Florida;

“(41) Lake Becerra, Glendale Heights, Illinois;

“(42) Electric Lake (Mill Pond), Park Ridge, New Jersey;

“(43) Pondside Park pond, Harrington Park, New Jersey; and

“(44) Putnam Lake, Putnam County, New York.”; and

(2) in subsection (e), by striking “$40,000,000” and inserting “$60,000,000”.

(b) Chesapeake Bay oyster recovery program.—Section 704(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263) is amended, in the second sentence, by striking “$120,000,000” and inserting “$150,000,000”.

(c) Civil works research and development.—Section 7(c)(8) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (33 U.S.C. 2313) is amended by striking “2028” and inserting “2030”.

(d) Rehabilitation of Corps of Engineers constructed dams.—Section 1177(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 467f–2 note) is amended by striking “$60,000,000” and inserting “$80,000,000”.

(e) Chattahoochee River program.—Section 8144(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3724) is amended by striking “$40,000,000” and inserting “$50,000,000”.

(f) Columbia River basin.—Section 8309(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3780; 138 Stat. 3043) is amended by striking “2026 and 2027” and inserting “2026 through 2030”.

(g) Lower Missouri River streambank erosion control evaluation and demonstration program.—Section 8350(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3798) is amended by striking “5 years” and inserting “8 years”.

(h) Non-Federal implementation of feasibility studies.—Section 1043(a) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (7), by striking “terminates on the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act” and inserting “terminates on September 30, 2030”; and

(2) in paragraph (8), by striking “2019” and inserting “2030”.

(i) Acequias irrigation system.—Section 1113(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4232; 110 Stat. 3719; 136 Stat. 3781; 138 Stat. 3161) is amended by striking “$90,000,000” and inserting “$120,000,000”.

(j) Monitoring and assessment program for Saline Lakes in the Great Basin.—Section 8143(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3724) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$12,500,000”.

(k) Non-Federal interest dredging authority.—Section 1113(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2326e) is amended by striking “10” and inserting “14”.

SEC. 303. Conveyances.

(a) Generally applicable provisions.—

(1) 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.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF PROPERTY SCREENING PROVISIONS.—Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to any conveyance under this section.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

(b) City of Corona, California.—

(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary may convey, without consideration, to the City of Corona, California, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property described in paragraph (2), for the purpose of public water reclamation, wastewater treatment, environmental management, or related municipal purposes.

(2) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed under this subsection is the approximately 48 acres of land, including improvements located at 2205 Railroad Street, Corona, California.

(3) RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.—In carrying out the conveyance under this subsection, the Secretary shall, after consultation with the City of Corona, reserve and retain from the conveyance under this subsection such easements, rights-of-way, and other interests that the Secretary determines to be necessary and appropriate to ensure the continued operation of the Prado Dam Basin flood control project, authorized pursuant to section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1589; 100 Stat. 4113).

(4) 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.

(c) Town of Duck, North Carolina.—

(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary shall convey, without consideration, to the Town of Duck, North Carolina, 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 and public safety facility.

(2) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed under this subsection is the approximately 4.02 acres of land, with approximately 330 linear feet of road frontage and approximately 530 linear feet of depth, including improvements on that land, located at 1259 Duck Road, Duck, North Carolina.

(3) 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.

(d) City of Toledo, Ohio.—

(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary may convey, without consideration, to the City of Toledo, Ohio, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property described in paragraph (2), for the purpose of public benefit, including parks and recreation.

(2) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed under this subsection is the small land mass known as Grassy Island, including any improvements on that land, located in Maumee Bay at the mouth of Maumee River in Ohio.

(3) 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.

(e) County of Umatilla, Oregon.—

(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary may convey to the County of Umatilla, Oregon, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property described in paragraph (2), for the purpose of public benefit.

(2) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed under this subsection is approximately 25 acres of Federal land, including improvements on that land, in Umatilla County, Oregon, and described as follows:

(A) All of Tax Lot 1301.

(B) Approximately 12 acres of Tax Lot 1001.

(3) RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.—The Secretary shall, after consultation with the County of Umatilla, reserve and retain from the conveyance under this subsection such easements, rights-of-way, licenses, and other interests that the Secretary determines to be necessary and appropriate to ensure the continued operation of the project for flood control and other purposes, John Day Dam, Columbia River, Washington and Oregon, authorized under section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 179).

(4) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall—

(A) identify all agreements and other encumbrances entered into with a non-Federal entity on the property to be conveyed under this subsection; and

(B) in a form and manner determined by the Secretary, transfer any such agreements and encumbrances identified under subparagraph (A) to the County of Umatilla, as appropriate.

(5) 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.

(6) CONSIDERATION.—The County of Umatilla shall pay to the Secretary an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the property conveyed under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.

SEC. 304. Land exchange, Walton and Bay Counties, Florida.

(a) In general.—Upon conveyance, by warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary, by The St. Joe Company to the United States of all right, title, and interest in and to the non-Federal land, the Secretary shall release, by quitclaim deed, to The St. Joe Company, all interests held by the United States in any easements on the covered land other than the interests described in the covered easement.

(b) Consideration.—As consideration for the conveyance and release of interests under subsection (a), The St. Joe Company shall pay to the Secretary an amount equal to the difference between the fair market value of the interests the Secretary is releasing under subsection (a) and the fair market value of the non-Federal land, as determined by an appraised value mutually agreed upon by the Secretary and The St. Joe Company.

(c) Deadline.—The conveyance and release of interests under subsection (a) shall be completed not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

(d) Applicability of property screening provisions.—Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to any conveyance under this section.

(e) Costs of conveyance.—The St. Joe Company shall be responsible for all reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate transaction and environmental documentation costs, associated with any conveyance or release of easements under this section.

(f) Liability.—The St. Joe Company 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 under this section. The United States shall remain responsible for any liability with respect to activities carried out, before such date, on the real property conveyed.

(g) Additional terms and conditions.—The Secretary may require that any conveyance or release of interests 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.

(h) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) COVERED EASEMENT.—The term “covered easement” means any non-exclusive, perpetual easement on the covered land, which grants the Secretary the right, to maintain the following easements as set forth in the nonstandard estate language:

(A) The channel maintenance and operations easement.

(B) The ingress and egress easement.

(C) The drainage trench easement.

(2) COVERED LAND.—The term “covered land” means the approximately 79.60 acres of land in Bay County and Walton County, Florida, as generally depicted on the map entitled “Boundary Survey Giles Land Swap Intracoastal Waterway Parcel Bay County and Walton County, Florida”, prepared by Dewberry Engineers, Inc., and dated January 26, 2021, under Project Number 50135600.

(3) NON-FEDERAL LAND.—The term “non-Federal land” means the approximately 103.49 acres of land in Bay County, Florida, as generally depicted as Parcel B on the map entitled “Description Sketch Land Exchange (USACE/SJC) East Bay Parcel SEC. 13, T–5–S, R–12–W Bay County, Florida”, prepared by Dewberry Engineers, Inc., and dated September 28, 2021, under Project Number 50145235.

(4) THE ST. JOE COMPANY.—The term “The St. Joe Company” means The St. Joe Company, headquartered in Panama City Beach, Florida, originally incorporated in 1936, and previously known as the St. Joe Paper Company.

SEC. 305. Port Canaveral, Florida.

(a) In general.—On receipt of a written request from the Canaveral Port Authority, the Secretary shall—

(1) review the covered land, including any easements on such land, and determine whether any portion of such land or easements are no longer required for the purposes of the Canaveral Harbor project;

(2) identify any portion of the covered land that the Secretary determines is no longer required under paragraph (1) and that would be suitable for conveyance or exchange with the Canaveral Port Authority; and

(3) as appropriate—

(A) convey, at fair market value to, or through exchange for real property of not less than equal value with, the Canaveral Port Authority any portion of the covered land that the Secretary determines is no longer required under paragraph (1); and

(B) grant to the Canaveral Port Authority any easement on the covered land that the Secretary determines under paragraph (1) is no longer required and will not adversely impact the operation of the Canaveral Harbor project.

(b) Actions.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall—

(1) determine the exact acreage and the legal description of any real property interest to be conveyed under this section based on a survey that is satisfactory to the Secretary and completed by the non-Federal interest of the Canaveral Harbor project;

(2) coordinate with the Canaveral Port Authority in identifying opportunities for land exchanges, where possible; and

(3) ensure that any conveyance, grant of easements, or exchange of land carried out under this section, does not interfere with any Federal navigation project that has been constructed or is authorized to be constructed as of the date of enactment of this Act.

(c) Deed.—The Secretary shall convey any property described in subsection (a)(3)(A) under this section by quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

(d) Applicability of real property screening requirements.—Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to the conveyance of property under this section.

(e) Costs of conveyance or grant of an easement.—The Canaveral Port Authority shall be responsible for all reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate transaction and environmental documentation costs, associated with a conveyance or grant of an easement under this section.

(f) Liability.—An entity to which a conveyance or grant of an easement 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 grant of an easement, on the real property conveyed, or with respect to which an easement is granted. 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 granted.

(g) Additional terms and conditions.—The Secretary may require that any conveyance or grant 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.

(h) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) CANAVERAL HARBOR PROJECT.—The term “Canaveral Harbor project” means the project for navigation, Canaveral Harbor, Port Canaveral, Florida, authorized by section 2 of Act of March 2, 1945 (chapter 19, 59 Stat. 16).

(2) COVERED LAND.—The term “covered land” means the land owned and known as “USACOE TRACT 100” that is held by the United States for the Canaveral Harbor project.

SEC. 306. Specific deauthorizations.

(a) Deauthorization of designated portions of Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California.—

(1) 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; 138 Stat. 3019), consisting of the flood channels described in paragraph (2), is no longer authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.

(2) 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 as may be further described in an agreement entered into under paragraph (3):

(A) Alhambra Wash Channel (Valley Blvd. to Rio Hondo).

(B) Arcadia Wash Channel.

(C) Ballona Creek Channel (La Salle Ave. to Vista Del Mar).

(D) Ballona Creek Channel (Redondo Blvd. to Washington Blvd.).

(E) Benedict Canyon Channel.

(F) Burbank Western Channel (Roscoe Blvd. to Victory Blvd.).

(G) Caballero Creek Channel.

(H) Centinela Creek Channel.

(I) Compton Creek Channel (Main St. to 122nd St.).

(J) Compton Creek Channel (Southern Pacific Rail Yard to Los Angeles River).

(K) Coyote Creek Channel (Valley View St. to San Gabriel River).

(L) Eaton Wash Channel.

(M) Grandview Ave Channel.

(N) Haines Canyon Channel (Plainview Ave. to Tujunga Wash).

(O) Kenter Canyon Channel.

(P) Lopez Canyon Diversion Channel.

(Q) Los Angeles River (Owensmouth Ave. to Sepulveda Flood Control Basin).

(R) Los Angeles River (Sepulveda Flood Control Basin to Lankershim Blvd.).

(S) Los Angeles River (Stewart and Grey Rd. to Pacific Ocean).

(T) North Fork Channel.

(U) Pacoima Wash Channel.

(V) Rio Hondo Channel (Lower Azusa Rd. to Rosemead Blvd.).

(W) Rio Hondo Channel (500 ft. south of Whittier Narrows Dam to Union Pacific Rail Yard).

(X) Rubio Wash Channel.

(Y) San Gabriel River Channel (Santa Fe Flood Control Basin to Thienes Ave.).

(Z) San Gabriel River Channel (Whittier Narrows Dam to Pacific Ocean).

(AA) San Jose Creek Channel (Thomas Creek to San Jose Creek Diversion).

(BB) Santa Anita Wash Channel.

(CC) Sawpit Wash Channel.

(DD) Sawtelle–Westwood Channel.

(EE) Sycamore Wash Channel.

(FF) Tujunga Wash Channel (436 ft. south of Hansen Dam to Los Angeles River).

(GG) Verdugo Wash Channel (Verdugo Debris Basin to San Fernando Rd.).

(3) 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—

(A) will continue to operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and replace as necessary, the flood channels described in paragraph (2)—

(i) in perpetuity at no cost to the United States; and

(ii) in a manner that does not reduce the level of flood protection of the project described in paragraph (1);

(B) will retain public ownership of all real property and easements required for the continued functioning of the flood channels described in paragraph (2), consistent with authorized purposes of the project described in paragraph (1);

(C) 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

(D) 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).

(4) 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—

(A) enter into an agreement under paragraph (3); and

(B) monitor compliance with such agreement.

(5) REPEAL.—The following are repealed:

(A) Subsections (c) and (d) of section 8320 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3785).

(B) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 1302(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3109).

(b) Lower San Joaquin River and tributaries, California.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The portion 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 3.76 mile Dos Rios Levee along the right bank of the San Joaquin River between River Mile 88 and River Mile 85, is no longer authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.

(2) REPEAL.—Section 1302(p) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3114) is repealed.

(c) Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam, Minneapolis, Minnesota.—Section 2010 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1270; 132 Stat. 3812; 136 Stat. 3795) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(h) Clarification.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the requirements of section 356(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2724; 138 Stat. 3141), the Secretary shall retain ownership of, and operation and maintenance responsibility for, the underwater cutoff wall constructed by the Secretary on the riverbed in the vicinity of St. Anthony Falls, Minnesota.

“(2) ASSESSMENT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall complete and transmit to the State of Minnesota and to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate an assessment of the condition of the underwater cutoff wall described in paragraph (1).”.

(d) Harlem River Federal Navigation Channel, New York.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the project for navigation, Harlem River, New York, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 18, 1878 (chapter 264, 20 Stat. 158), is modified to deauthorize the portion of the project consisting of the areas described in paragraph (2).

(2) AREAS DESCRIBED.—The areas referred to in paragraph (1) are—

(A) the area that is a closed polygon formed by straight lines connecting, in the order listed, the following points, and thence extending landward to the existing physical shoreline—

(i) beginning at a point on the shoreline north of the Macombs Dam Bridge at N244191.72, E1002503.69;

(ii) running south-southwesterly approximately 59.5 feet to a point at N244133.98, E1002489.25;

(iii) running south-southwesterly approximately 579.8 feet to a point at N243572.61, E1002344.44;

(iv) running southerly approximately 173.9 feet to a point at N243399.67, E1002326.56;

(v) running southerly approximately 189.0 feet to a point at N243212.20, E1002302.50;

(vi) running southerly approximately 354.4 feet to a point at N242858.69, E1002277.63;

(vii) running southerly approximately 292.3 feet to a point at N242566.45, E1002281.31;

(viii) running southerly approximately 791.2 feet to a point at N241778.27, E1002350.13;

(ix) running southerly approximately 254.5 feet to a point at N241525.84, E1002382.88;

(x) running southerly approximately .6 feet to a point at N241469.61, E1002389.06;

(xi) running southerly approximately 190.2 feet to a point at N241280.22, E1002406.69;

(xii) running southwesterly approximately 93.6 feet to a point at N241209.59, E1002345.25; and

(xiii) running southwesterly approximately 15.4 feet terminating at a point on the shoreline at N241197.95, E1002335.13; and

(B) the area that is a closed polygon formed by straight lines connecting, in the order listed, the following points, and thence extending landward to the existing physical shoreline—

(i) beginning at a point on the shoreline south of the Macombs Dam Bridge at N240595.14, E1002396.69;

(ii) running south-southeasterly approximately 30.5 feet to a point at N240569.30, E1002412.94;

(iii) running south-southeasterly approximately 97.5 feet to a point at N240486.75, E1002464.88;

(iv) running southerly approximately 477.6 feet to a point at N240010.61, E1002502.81;

(v) running southerly approximately 60.4 feet to a point at N239950.33, E1002506.19;

(vi) running southerly approximately 39.5 feet to a point at N239910.88, E1002506.94;

(vii) running southerly approximately .3 feet to a point at N239773.63, E1002509.38;

(viii) running southerly approximately 97.9 feet to a point at N239676.67, E1002523.13;

(ix) running southerly approximately 58.1 feet to a point at N239618.58, E1002524.19;

(x) running southerly approximately 289.1 feet to a point at N239330.02, E1002541.31;

(xi) running southerly approximately 331.3 feet to a point at N238999.31, E1002560.94;

(xii) running southerly approximately 583.2 feet to a point at N238416.61, E1002585.50;

(xiii) running southerly approximately 387.8 feet to a point at N238029.20, E1002602.56;

(xiv) running southerly approximately 120.0 feet to a point at N237909.23, E1002603.81;

(xv) running west-northwesterly approximately 42 feet to a point at N237919.38, E1002563.06; and

(xvi) running west-northwesterly approximately 1 foot to a point on the shoreline at N237919.63, E1002562.06.

(e) Hudson River Channel partial deauthorization, New York.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the project for navigation, Hudson River Channel, New York, authorized by the first section of the Act of March 4, 1913 (chapter 144, 37 Stat. 804), is modified to deauthorize the portion of the channel consisting of the area described in paragraph (2).

(2) AREA DESCRIBED.—The area referred to in paragraph (1) is the area bounded by the following coordinates:

(A) W 740004.90, N 404615.84.

(B) W 735957.24, N 404612.68.

(C) W 740015.09, N 404601.62.

(D) W 740007.71, N 404558.52.

(f) Newtown Creek Federal Navigation Channel, New York.—

(1) DEFINITION OF NEWTOWN CREEK, NEW YORK PROJECT.—In this subsection, the term “Newtown Creek, New York project” means the project for navigation, Newtown Creek, New York and associated tributaries, authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1919 (chapter 95, 40 Stat. 1276; 46 Stat. 920; 50 Stat. 845; 138 Stat. 3113).

(2) MODIFICATION.—Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Newtown Creek, New York project is modified to reduce, in part, the authorized dimensions of the project, such that the remaining authorized depths are as follows:

(A) A 20-foot deep channel with a center line beginning at point North 40.735668 and West 73.9242159, thence to a point North 40.733648 and West 73.940546.

(B) An 18-foot deep channel with a center line beginning at point North 40.733648 and West 73.940546, thence to a point North 40.722214 and West 73.925873.

(C) An 18-foot deep turning basin southwest of a line formed by points North 40.726201 and West 73.927288; and North 40.723507 and West 73.924712.

(D) A 16-foot-deep channel with a center line beginning at a point North 40.722214 and West 73.925873, thence to a point North 40.718066 and West 73.923931.

(E) A 16-foot-deep channel with a center line beginning at a point North 40.718663 and West 73.924175, thence to a point North 40.717538 and West 73.927437.

(F) A 14-foot-deep channel with a center line beginning at a point North 40.717538 and West 73.927437, thence to a point North 40.716610 and West 73.929278.

(G) A 12-foot-deep channel with a center line beginning at a point North 40.716610 and West 73.929278, thence to a point North 40.713164 and West 73.931352.

(3) DEAUTHORIZATIONS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The portions of the Newtown Creek navigation project described in subparagraph (B) are deauthorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.

(B) PORTIONS DESCRIBED.—The portions referred to in subparagraph (A) are—

(i) the portion of the project adjacent to the turning basin consisting of—

(I) the area east of a line formed by points North 40.726201 and West 73.927288; and North 40.723507 and West 73.924712; and

(II) the area containing Maspeth Creek;

(ii) the upstream portion of English Kills consisting of the area—

(I) beginning at a point North 40.713164 and West 73.931352; and

(II) extending upstream to the project boundary; and

(iii) Dutch Kills, consisting of the area—

(I) beginning at a point North 40.737623 and West 73.946809; and

(II) extending upstream to the project boundary.

(g) Charleston, South Carolina.—

(1) DEAUTHORIZATION.—Upon completion of the sale of the Union Pier marine terminal property and cessation of commercial port operations at the Union Pier marine terminal by the South Carolina Ports Authority, the project for navigation, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, authorized by section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1708) consisting of the area described in paragraph (2) is no longer authorized.

(2) PORTION DESCRIBED.—The area referred to in paragraph (1) is the portion of the Federal channel located within Charleston Harbor bounded by the following coordinates: 32° 47′ 14.754772″ N, 79° 55′ 16.260605″ W; to 32° 47′ 14.647666″ N, 79° 55′ 23.873993″ W; to 32° 46′ 49.186843″ N, 79° 55′ 23.371716″ W; to 32° 46′ 49.293940″ N, 79° 55′ 15.758944″ W; to 32° 47′ 5.254548″ N, 79° 55′ 16.073410″ W; to 32° 47′ 9.672485″ N, 79° 55′ 10.888283″ W; thence back to 32° 47′ 14.754772″ N, 79° 55′ 16.260605″ W.

(h) Shot Pouch Creek, South Carolina.—The project for snagging and clearing, Shot Pouch Creek, South Carolina, authorized by section 2 of August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g), consisting of 2.15 miles of Shot Pouch Creek from the Sumter Bypass to Swan Lake, is no longer authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 307. Environmental infrastructure.

(a) Consistency with reports.—Congress finds that the projects and project modifications described in this subsection are in accordance with the reports submitted to Congress by the Secretary under section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d), titled “Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development”, or have otherwise been reviewed by Congress.

(b) New projects.—Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3115) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(599) AUBURN, ALABAMA.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Auburn, Alabama.

“(600) EDWARDSVILLE, ALABAMA.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Edwardsville, Alabama.

“(601) GADSDEN, ALABAMA.—$12,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and distribution systems, in the city of Gadsden, Alabama.

“(602) LOWER ALABAMA, ALABAMA.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, environmental restoration, and surface water protection, in Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Conecuh, Crenshaw, Macon, Mobile, Monroe, Montgomery, Pike, Russell, and Washington Counties, Alabama.

“(603) MOBILE, ALABAMA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including ecosystem restoration and resiliency, in the city of Mobile, Alabama.

“(604) SOUTHSIDE, ALABAMA.—$4,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including distribution systems, in the city of Southside, Alabama.

“(605) NELSON LAGOON, ALASKA.—$3,300,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply and storage, in the Native Village of Nelson Lagoon, Alaska.

“(606) SITKA, ALASKA.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including reclamation and storage, in the city and borough of Sitka, Alaska.

“(607) SOLDOTNA, ALASKA.—$1,300,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation and storage, in the city of Soldotna, Alaska.

“(608) LEE COUNTY, ARKANSAS.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Lee County, Arkansas.

“(609) COTTONWOOD, ARIZONA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, distribution systems, and stormwater management, in the city of Cottonwood, Arizona.

“(610) GILA COUNTY, ARIZONA.—$24,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, treatment, and distribution systems, in Gila County, Arizona.

“(611) GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, ARIZONA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and conservation, in the Gila River Indian Community, Arizona.

“(612) MARICOPA, ARIZONA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, distribution systems, and stormwater management, in the city of Maricopa, Arizona.

“(613) PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA.—$7,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation and distribution systems and environmental restoration, in Pima County, Arizona.

“(614) SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, ARIZONA.—$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation and distribution systems and environmental restoration, in Santa Cruz County, Arizona.

“(615) ARTESIA, CALIFORNIA.—$1,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and environmental infrastructure, in the city of Artesia, California.

“(616) ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Atascadero, California.

“(617) BELMONT, SAN CARLOS, REDWOOD CITY, AND WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA.—$9,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including environmental restoration, in the cities of Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City and the West Bay Sanitary District, California.

“(618) BURBANK, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water distribution systems, in the city of Burbank, California.

“(619) CERRITOS, CALIFORNIA.—$16,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Cerritos, California.

“(620) COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Coachella, California.

“(621) EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA.—$18,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of El Monte, California.

“(622) EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA.—$1,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of El Segundo, California.

“(623) ELSINORE VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Lake Elsinore, California.

“(624) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA.—$44,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, drainage systems, and environmental restoration, in the city of Encinitas, California.

“(625) IRVINE, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Irvine, California.

“(626) LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE, CALIFORNIA.—$29,024,625 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and storage capacity, in the city of La Cañada Flintridge, California.

“(627) LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in the city of Laguna Beach, California.

“(628) LOMPOC, CALIFORNIA.—$6,300,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Lompoc, California.

“(629) MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA.—$2,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of Manhattan Beach, California.

“(630) MISSION VIEJO, RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, AND SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, water recycling, and stormwater management in the cities of Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, and San Clemente, California.

“(631) MODESTO, CALIFORNIA.—$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including facility relocation, in the city of Modesto, California.

“(632) MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$27,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Monterey County, California.

“(633) MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA.—$17,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Morgan Hill, California.

“(634) OJAI, CALIFORNIA.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Ojai, California.

“(635) REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Redwood City, California.

“(636) SACRAMENTO RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA.—$155,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including environmental restoration and surface water protection in the Sacramento River Basin, California, including the counties of Shasta, Tehama, Butte, Glenn, Colusa, Sutter, Yuba, Sacramento, and Yolo, California.

“(637) SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.—$67,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, distribution systems, stormwater management, and environmental restoration, in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California.

“(638) SAN FERNANDO, CALIFORNIA.—$28,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply and distribution systems, in the city of San Fernando, California.

“(639) SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$30,665,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and water reuse and related facilities, in San Mateo County, California.

“(640) SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$3,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Santa Barbara County, California.

“(641) SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA.—$3,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, distribution systems, and supply, in the city of Santa Cruz, California.

“(642) SEASIDE, CALIFORNIA.—$14,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, stormwater management, and water reclamation and distribution systems, in the city of Seaside, California.

“(643) SOLVANG, CALIFORNIA.—$2,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including distribution systems, in the city of Solvang, California.

“(644) SONOMA AND MARIN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.—$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, stormwater management, surface water protection, and environmental restoration, in Sonoma and Marin Counties, California.

“(645) SUTTER, CALIFORNIA.—$3,350,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the county of Sutter, California.

“(646) TURLOCK, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Turlock, California.

“(647) VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$23,459,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply and water storage, in Ventura County, California.

“(648) WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of West Covina, California.

“(649) AURORA, COLORADO.—$15,600,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Aurora, Colorado.

“(650) CUSTER COUNTY, COLORADO.—$20,000,000 for water and water infrastructure, including water supply, in Custer County, Colorado.

“(651) NORTHERN COLORADO.—$22,500,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply and environmental restoration, in Boulder, Broomfield, Larimer, Logan, Morgan, Sedgwick, Washington, and Weld Counties, Colorado.

“(652) CONNECTICUT RIVER VALLEY, CONNECTICUT.—$12,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and environmental restoration, in the towns of Andover, Avon, Berlin, Bloomfield, Bolton, Canton, Columbia, Coventry, East Granby, East Hartford, East Windsor, Ellington, Enfield, Farmington, Glastonbury, Granby, Hartford, Hebron, Manchester, Mansfield, Marlborough, New Britain, Newington, Plainville, Rocky Hill, Simsbury, Somers, South Windsor, Southington, Stafford, Suffield, Tolland, Vernon, West Hartford, Wethersfield, Willington, Windsor, and Windsor Locks, and the cities of Hartford and New Britain, Connecticut.

“(653) DANBURY, CONNECTICUT.—$32,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and water storage and distribution systems, in the city of Danbury, Connecticut.

“(654) HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Hartford, Connecticut.

“(655) LOWER CONNECTICUT RIVER VALLEY, CONNECTICUT.—$12,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and environmental restoration, in the towns of Chester, Clinton, Cromwell, Deep River, Durham, East Haddam, East Hampton, Essex, Haddam, Killingworth, Lyme, Middlefield, Old Lyme, Old Saybrook, Portland, and Westbrook, and the city of Middletown, Connecticut.

“(656) NEW BRITAIN, CONNECTICUT.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of New Britain, Connecticut.

“(657) NORTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT.—$12,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and environmental restoration, in the towns of Ashford, Brooklyn, Canterbury, Chaplin, Eastford, Hampton, Killingly, Plainfield, Pomfret, Putnam, Scotland, Sterling, Thompson, Union, Voluntown, and Woodstock, Connecticut.

“(658) SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT.—$12,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and environmental restoration, in the towns of Bozrah, Colchester, East Lyme, Franklin, Griswold, Groton, Lebanon, Ledyard, Lisbon, Montville, North Stonington, Preston, Salem, Sprague, Stonington, Waterford, and Windham, the boroughs of Jewett City and Stonington, and cities of Groton, New London, and Norwich, Connecticut.

“(659) THOMASTON, CONNECTICUT.—$8,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Thomaston, Connecticut.

“(660) WATERBURY, CONNECTICUT.—$5,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply and distribution systems, in the city of Waterbury, Connecticut.

“(661) ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, FLORIDA.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, stormwater management, and water reclamation, in the city of Altamonte Springs, Florida.

“(662) BUNNELL, FLORIDA.—$16,600,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Bunnell, Florida.

“(663) COLUMBIA AND SUWANNEE COUNTIES, FLORIDA.—$39,300,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Columbia and Suwannee Counties, Florida.

“(664) ESCAMBIA, WALTON, OKALOOSA, AND SANTA ROSA COUNTIES, FLORIDA.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Escambia, Walton, Okaloosa, and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida.

“(665) GILCHRIST COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Gilchrist County, Florida.

“(666) HERNANDO COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$29,600,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and environmental restoration, in Hernando County, Florida.

“(667) HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA.—$46,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Hollywood, Florida.

“(668) NORTH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including distribution systems, monitoring infrastructure, stormwater management, and environmental restoration, in the cities of Aventura, Miami Gardens, North Miami Beach, and Sunny Isles Beach, the town of Golden Beach, and Miami-Dade County, Florida.

“(669) PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$400,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including distribution systems, in Pasco County, Florida.

“(670) RIVIERA BEACH, FLORIDA.—$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, distribution systems, and stormwater management, in the city of Riviera Beach, Florida.

“(671) SANFORD, FLORIDA.—$3,800,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Sanford, Florida.

“(672) TAMPA BAY, FLORIDA.—$100,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties and the cities of New Port Richey, St. Petersburg, and Tampa, Florida.

“(673) WINTER PARK, FLORIDA.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Winter Park, Florida.

“(674) AVONDALE ESTATES, GEORGIA.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Avondale Estates, Georgia.

“(675) FAIRBURN, GEORGIA.—$5,670,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and distribution systems, in the city of Fairburn, Georgia.

“(676) GARDEN CITY, GEORGIA.—$4,300,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Garden City, Georgia.

“(677) NEWTON COUNTY, GEORGIA.—$23,900,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and distribution systems, in Newton County, Georgia.

“(678) ADDISON, ILLINOIS.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Addison, Illinois.

“(679) EAST MOLINE, ILLINOIS.—$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of East Moline, Illinois.

“(680) PORT BYRON, ILLINOIS.—$1,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the village of Port Byron, Illinois.

“(681) SHANNON, ILLINOIS.—$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including distribution systems, in the village of Shannon, Illinois.

“(682) SOUTH PEKIN, ILLINOIS.—$8,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the village of South Pekin, Illinois.

“(683) BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Baltimore, Maryland.

“(684) HOLYOKE, MASSACHUSETTS.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Holyoke, Massachusetts.

“(685) BAY REGION, MICHIGAN.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, stormwater management, and surface water protection, in Bay, Midland, Saginaw, Genesee, and Tuscola Counties, Michigan.

“(686) KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and surface water resource protection, in Kent County, Michigan.

“(687) LAPEER, MACOMB, OAKLAND, AND ST. CLAIR COUNTIES, MICHIGAN.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Lapeer, Macomb, Oakland, and St. Clair Counties, Michigan.

“(688) MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICHIGAN.—$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and surface water resource protection, in Muskegon County, Michigan.

“(689) OTTAWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN.—$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and surface water resource protection, in Ottawa County, Michigan.

“(690) OWOSSO, MICHIGAN.—$47,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply and desalination, in the city of Owosso, Michigan.

“(691) WESTPHALIA, MICHIGAN.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the village of Westphalia, Michigan.

“(692) COKATO, MINNESOTA.—$4,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Cokato, Minnesota.

“(693) NORWOOD YOUNG AMERICA, MINNESOTA.—$21,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Norwood Young America, Minnesota.

“(694) SARTELL, MINNESOTA.—$24,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, stormwater management, and surface water protection, in the city of Sartell, Minnesota.

“(695) BRANDON, MISSISSIPPI.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Brandon, Mississippi.

“(696) CHOCTAW COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Choctaw County, Mississippi.

“(697) FOREST, MISSISSIPPI.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Forest, Mississippi.

“(698) GRENADA, MISSISSIPPI.—$3,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Grenada, Mississippi.

“(699) LUCEDALE, MISSISSIPPI.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Lucedale, Mississippi.

“(700) SARDIS, MISSISSIPPI.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Sardis, Mississippi.

“(701) WEST POINT, MISSISSIPPI.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of West Point, Mississippi.

“(702) KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.—$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water supply, in Kansas City, Missouri.

“(703) NEW LONDON, NEW HAMPSHIRE.—$15,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of New London, New Hampshire.

“(704) SULLIVAN COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE.—$1,500,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in Sullivan County, New Hampshire.

“(705) BERGEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Bergen County, New Jersey.

“(706) CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.—$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including environmental restoration, in Camden County, New Jersey.

“(707) DEMAREST, NEW JERSEY.—$2,310,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the borough of Demarest, New Jersey.

“(708) JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY.—$1,300,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water supply, in Jersey City, New Jersey.

“(709) PALMYRA, NEW JERSEY.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Palmyra, New Jersey.

“(710) DOÑA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.—$25,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply and desalination, in Doña Ana County, New Mexico.

“(711) LOS ALAMOS COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.—$1,500,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in Los Alamos County, New Mexico.

“(712) VALENCIA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Valencia County, New Mexico.

“(713) BRONX COUNTY, NEW YORK.—$90,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Bronx County, New York.

“(714) BROOKHAVEN, NEW YORK.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Brookhaven, New York.

“(715) FREEPORT, NEW YORK.—$3,300,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Freeport, New York.

“(716) GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK.—$11,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the village of Garden City, New York.

“(717) LAWRENCE, NEW YORK.—$130,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Lawrence, New York.

“(718) LONG BEACH, NEW YORK.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Long Beach, New York.

“(719) LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK.—$65,570,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York.

“(720) NASSAU COUNTY, NEW YORK.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water reclamation, and environmental restoration, in Nassau County, New York.

“(721) NORTH SALEM AND LEWISBORO, NEW YORK.—$600,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the towns of North Salem and Lewisboro, New York.

“(722) OSSINING, NEW YORK.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the village of Ossining, New York.

“(723) PORT JEFFERSON, NEW YORK.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Port Jefferson, New York.

“(724) RICHMOND COUNTY, NEW YORK.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Richmond County, New York.

“(725) WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK.—$49,400,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and storage, in Westchester County, New York.

“(726) ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.—$50,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Asheville, North Carolina.

“(727) DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Durham, North Carolina.

“(728) GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$6,350,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Granville County, North Carolina.

“(729) HARNETT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$35,670,500 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Harnett County, North Carolina.

“(730) HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA.—$6,820,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and distribution systems, in the town of Hillsborough, North Carolina.

“(731) JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$7,979,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Johnston County, North Carolina.

“(732) PITT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Pitt County, North Carolina.

“(733) WHITE LAKE, NORTH CAROLINA.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of White Lake, North Carolina.

“(734) CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Clermont County, Ohio.

“(735) JACKSON COUNTY, OHIO.—$8,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Jackson County, Ohio.

“(736) LYNCHBURG, OHIO.—$6,380,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the village of Lynchburg, Ohio.

“(737) NEW HOLLAND, OHIO.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the village of New Holland, Ohio.

“(738) WAVERLY, OHIO.—$12,995,750 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the village of Waverly, Ohio.

“(739) CHICKASAW NATION, OKLAHOMA.—$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the territory under the jurisdiction of the Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma.

“(740) KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON.—$37,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and water recycling and reuse systems, in Klamath County, Oregon.

“(741) MILTON-FREEWATER, OREGON.—$13,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Milton-Freewater, Oregon.

“(742) SALEM, OREGON.—$75,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, distribution systems, and environmental restoration, in the city of Salem, Oregon.

“(743) BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

“(744) BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—$2,500,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply and distribution systems, in Blair County, Pennsylvania.

“(745) CAMBRIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—$3,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Cambria County, Pennsylvania.

“(746) CARBON AND SCHUYLKILL COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA.—$2,500,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply and water storage, in Carbon and Schuylkill Counties, Pennsylvania.

“(747) CHAMBERSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA.—$12,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.

“(748) JIM THORPE, PENNSYLVANIA.—$5,175,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and distribution systems, in the borough of Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania.

“(749) LAUREL MOUNTAIN, PENNSYLVANIA.—$4,500,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply and distribution systems, in the borough of Laurel Mountain, Pennsylvania.

“(750) MCCALMONT TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—$60,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the McCalmont Township, Pennsylvania.

“(751) MERCERSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA.—$3,375,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Mercersburg, Pennsylvania.

“(752) MEYERSDALE, PENNSYLVANIA.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the borough of Meyersdale, Pennsylvania.

“(753) MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and environmental restoration, in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

“(754) PAINT BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA.—$600,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Paint Borough, Pennsylvania.

“(755) PUNXSUTAWNEY, PENNSYLVANIA.—$1,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the borough of Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania.

“(756) SHIPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA.—$2,400,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.

“(757) SPRINGHILL TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Springhill Township, Pennsylvania.

“(758) WINDBER, PENNSYLVANIA.—$2,600,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the borough of Windber, Pennsylvania.

“(759) COROZAL, PUERTO RICO.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the municipality of Corozal.

“(760) BURRILLVILLE, RHODE ISLAND.—$10,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply and distribution systems, in the town of Burrillville, Rhode Island.

“(761) COVENTRY, RHODE ISLAND.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the town of Coventry, Rhode Island.

“(762) NARRAGANSETT, RHODE ISLAND.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Narragansett, Rhode Island.

“(763) NORTH KINGSTOWN, RHODE ISLAND.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including distribution systems, in the town of North Kingstown, Rhode Island.

“(764) PAWTUCKET, RHODE ISLAND.—$16,600,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island.

“(765) WARWICK, RHODE ISLAND.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including distribution systems, in the city of Warwick, Rhode Island.

“(766) BERKELEY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$14,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and distribution systems, in Berkeley County, South Carolina.

“(767) GEORGETOWN, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$4,275,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Georgetown, South Carolina.

“(768) HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina.

“(769) ISLE OF PALMS, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Isle of Palms, South Carolina.

“(770) BRAZORIA, FORT BEND, AND GALVESTON COUNTIES, TEXAS.—$5,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in Brazoria, Fort Bend, and Galveston Counties, Texas.

“(771) BURLESON, TEXAS.—$12,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply and distribution systems, in the city of Burleson, Texas.

“(772) GRANBURY, TEXAS.—$8,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Granbury, Texas.

“(773) GRANDVIEW, TEXAS.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Grandview, Texas.

“(774) HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Harris County, Texas.

“(775) JIM HOGG COUNTY, TEXAS.—$7,500,000 for water infrastructure, including distribution systems, in Jim Hogg County, Texas.

“(776) KEMAH, TEXAS.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Kemah, Texas.

“(777) KINGSVILLE, TEXAS.—$19,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Kingsville, Texas.

“(778) LAREDO, TEXAS.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, storage, distribution systems, environmental restoration, and stormwater management, in the city of Laredo, Texas.

“(779) MERCEDES, TEXAS.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and reuse systems, in the city of Mercedes, Texas.

“(780) MIDLAND COUNTY, TEXAS.—$25,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in Midland County, Texas.

“(781) ODESSA, TEXAS.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and storage, in the city of Odessa, Texas.

“(782) PORT OF BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS.—$18,700,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply and water reuse systems, in the Port of Brownsville, Texas.

“(783) STARR COUNTY, TEXAS.—$7,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and distribution systems, in Starr County, Texas.

“(784) CENTERVILLE, UTAH.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and distribution systems, in the city of Centerville, Utah.

“(785) EPHRAIM, UTAH.—$20,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Ephraim, Utah.

“(786) FAIRFAX AND PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTIES, VIRGINIA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water reclamation infrastructure, in Fairfax and Prince William Counties, Virginia.

“(787) HENRICO COUNTY, VIRGINIA.—$25,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply and distribution systems, in Henrico County, Virginia.

“(788) ORANGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and distribution systems, in Orange County, Virginia.

“(789) ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Arlington, Washington.

“(790) MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and distribution systems, in the city of Moses Lake, Washington.”.

(c) Modifications.—

(1) FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA.—Section 219(f)(407) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3116) is amended by striking “$5,000,000” and inserting “$13,888,889”.

(2) TUCSON, ARIZONA.—Section 219(f)(412) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3116) is amended by striking “$30,000,000” and inserting “$57,013,889”.

(3) WINSLOW, ARIZONA.—Section 219(f)(413) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3116) is amended by striking “$3,000,000” and inserting “$9,000,000”.

(4) ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(278) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3808) is amended—

(A) by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “$116,000,000”; and

(B) by inserting “including water supply,” after “infrastructure,”.

(5) ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(80) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1258; 138 Stat. 3127) is amended—

(A) by striking “$45,000,000” and inserting “$51,000,000”;

(B) by inserting “water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, and” after “for”; and

(C) by striking “within the East Bay Municipal Utility District service area,” and inserting “in”.

(6) CALAVERAS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(86) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1259; 136 Stat. 3816; 138 Stat. 3127) is amended by striking “$16,300,000” and inserting “$27,000,000”.

(7) CAMBRIA, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(48)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 121 Stat. 1208) is amended—

(A) by striking “$10,300,000” and inserting “$17,800,000”; and

(B) by inserting “water and wastewater infrastructure,” before “desalination”.

(8) COLTON, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(424) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335;) is amended by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “$40,000,000”.

(9) EAST PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(89) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1259) is amended—

(A) by striking “$4,000,000” and inserting “$37,000,000”; and

(B) by striking “a new pump station and stormwater management and drainage system” and inserting “water and wastewater infrastructure, including water storage, water supply, and stormwater management”.

(10) EAST SAN FERNANDO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(425) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3117) is amended by striking “$50,000,000” and inserting “$72,000,000”.

(11) FONTANA, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(286) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3809) is amended—

(A) by striking “16,000,000” and inserting “$56,000,000”; and

(B) by striking “stormwater management infrastructure” and inserting “wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, and water supply and distribution systems”.

(12) INLAND EMPIRE, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(288) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 136 Stat. 3809) is amended by striking “$60,000,000” and inserting “$65,000,000”.

(13) LAKE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(432) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3117) is amended by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “$30,000,000”.

(14) LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Section 8319(e)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3784, 138 Stat. 3128) is amended by striking “$100,000,000” and inserting “$200,000,000”.

(15) LOS OLIVOS, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(440) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3117) is amended by striking “$4,000,000” and inserting “$30,000,000”.

(16) ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(98) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1259) is amended—

(A) by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$18,000,000”;

(B) by inserting “and environmental restoration” after “water related infrastructure”; and

(C) by inserting “including water supply,” before “Anaheim”.

(17) PERRIS, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(100) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1260) is amended—

(A) by striking “$3,000,000” and inserting “$28,000,000”; and

(B) by striking “recycled water transmission infrastructure” and inserting “water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and recycled water”.

(18) SALINAS, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(450) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3118) is amended—

(A) by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “$25,000,000”; and

(B) by inserting “and stormwater management” after “water supply”.

(19) SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(101), Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1260; 138 Stat. 3128) is amended—

(A) by striking “$24,000,000” and inserting “$84,000,000”; and

(B) by inserting “including water supply and stormwater management,” after “infrastructure,”.

(20) SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(453) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3118) is amended by striking “$200,000,000” and inserting “$211,500,000”.

(21) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(103) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1260) is amended—

(A) by striking “$3,000,000” and inserting “$15,000,000”; and

(B) by striking “improving” and inserting “water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and improvements to”.

(22) SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(454) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3118) is amended by striking “$5,000,000” and inserting “$6,000,000”.

(23) TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(307) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3810) is amended by striking “$100,000,000” and inserting “$133,000,000”.

(24) WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—Section 219(f)(316) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3810) is amended—

(A) by striking “$1,000,000” and inserting “$201,000,000”; and

(B) by inserting “distribution systems” after “stormwater management”.

(25) DELTONA, FLORIDA.—Section 219(f)(470) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3119) is amended by striking “$31,200,000” and inserting “$50,000,000”.

(26) MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Section 219(f)(472) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3119) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$20,500,000”.

(27) ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Section 219(f)(321) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3810) is amended—

(A) by striking “$50,000,000” and inserting “$125,000,000”; and

(B) by inserting “, stormwater management,” after “reclamation”.

(28) OVIEDO, FLORIDA.—Section 219(f)(473) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3119) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$15,000,000”.

(29) SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Section 219(f)(126) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1261) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$50,000,000”.

(30) GEORGIA.—Section 219(f)(322) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3811) is amended by striking “$75,000,000” and inserting “$125,000,000”.

(31) ATLANTA, GEORGIA.—Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3817; 138 Stat. 3129) is amended—

(A) in subsection (c)(2), by striking “A combined” and inserting “Water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and a combined”; and

(B) in subsection (e)(5), by striking “$100,000,000” and inserting “$142,000,000”.

(32) EAST POINT, GEORGIA.—Section 219(f)(136) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1261; 136 Stat. 3817; 138 Stat. 3129) is amended—

(A) by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “$24,000,000”; and

(B) by inserting “, water supply,” after “stormwater management”.

(33) GUAM.—Section 219(f)(323) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3811; 138 Stat. 3129) is amended by striking “$35,000,000” and inserting “$45,000,000”.

(34) COOK COUNTY AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—Section 219(f)(54) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 114 Stat. 2763A–221; 138 Stat. 3129) is amended by striking “$149,000,000” and inserting “249,000,000”.

(35) ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS.—Section 219(f)(488) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3120) is amended by striking “$4,000,000” and inserting “$7,000,000”.

(36) MARYLAND.—Section 219(f)(341), of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended by striking “$100,000,000” and inserting “$225,000,000”.

(37) HAVERHILL, MASSACHUSETTS.—Section 219(f)(337) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3812; 138 Stat. 3130) is amended by striking “$30,000,000” and inserting “$40,000,000”.

(38) LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS.—Section 219(f)(339) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3812; 138 Stat. 3130) is amended by striking “$30,000,000” and inserting “$40,000,000”.

(39) MICHIGAN.—Section 219(f)(157) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1262; 136 Stat. 3818; 138 Stat. 3130) is amended—

(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking “$160,000,000” and inserting “$225,000,000”; and

(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting “(including stormwater management)” after “wastewater treatment and related facilities”.

(40) SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN.—Section 219(f)(500) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3121) is amended by striking “$58,000,000” and inserting “$93,000,000”.

(41) NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA.—Section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368; 136 Stat. 3820) is amended—

(A) in subsection (a), by inserting “Lake of the Woods,” after “Lake,”; and

(B) in subsection (h), by striking “$80,000,000” and inserting “$120,000,000”.

(42) BILOXI, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(163) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1263; 138 Stat. 3130) is amended—

(A) by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$48,000,000”; and

(B) by inserting “including stormwater management and water supply,” after “infrastructure,”.

(43) DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(30) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 119 Stat. 282; 119 Stat. 2257; 122 Stat. 1623; 134 Stat. 2718; 138 Stat. 3130) is amended by striking “$170,000,000” and inserting “$175,000,000”.

(44) DIAMONDHEAD, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(505) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3121) is amended by striking “$7,000,000” and inserting “$10,000,000”.

(45) HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(166) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1263) is amended—

(A) by striking “$5,000,000” and inserting “$8,000,000”; and

(B) by inserting “including stormwater management, drainage systems, and surface water protection,” after “infrastructure,”.

(46) JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(167) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1263; 138 Stat. 3131) is amended—

(A) by striking “$139,000,000” and inserting “$154,000,000”; and

(B) by inserting “water supply, stormwater management, and” after “including”.

(47) MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(352) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “$26,000,000” and inserting “$50,000,000”.

(48) OLIVE BRANCH, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(510) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3122) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$20,000,000”.

(49) OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(353), Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$25,000,000”.

(50) PEARL, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(511) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3122) is amended—

(A) by striking “$7,000,000” and inserting “$14,000,000”; and

(B) by inserting “water supply, water storage,” after “systems,”.

(51) PICAYUNE, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(512) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3122) is amended by striking “$5,000,000” and inserting “$8,000,000”.

(52) STARKVILLE, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(513) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3122) is amended by striking “$6,000,000” and inserting “$10,000,000”.

(53) LAKE TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION, NEVADA AND CALIFORNIA.—Section 108(c) of division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (118 Stat. 2942; 136 Stat. 3820) is amended—

(A) in paragraph (3), by striking “and”;

(B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting “; and”; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

“(5) aquatic invasive species identification, containment, mitigation, and eradication.”.

(54) ESSEX AND SUSSEX COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY.—Section 219(f)(358) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “$60,000,000” and inserting “$85,000,000”.

(55) MORRIS COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.—Section 219(f)(363) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “$30,000,000” and inserting “$55,000,000”.

(56) NEW HAMPSHIRE.—Section 219(f)(518) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3122) is amended—

(A) by striking “$25,000,000” and inserting “$106,000,000”; and

(B) by striking “including water and wastewater infrastructure” and inserting “including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water supply and stormwater management), environmental restoration, drought resiliency, and surface water protection”.

(57) FARMINGTON, NEW MEXICO.—Section 219(f)(372) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3814) is amended—

(A) by striking “$15,500,000” and inserting “$17,500,000”; and

(B) by inserting “and stormwater management” after “supply”.

(58) DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK.—Section 219(f)(530) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1258; 136 Stat. 3808; 138 Stat. 3123) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$15,000,000”.

(59) KIRYAS JOEL, NEW YORK.—Section 219(f)(184) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1264; 138 Stat. 3131) is amended by striking “$25,000,000” and inserting “30,000,000”.

(60) NEWTOWN CREEK, NEW YORK.—Section 219(f)(535) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3123) is amended by striking “$25,000,000” and inserting “$75,000,000”.

(61) ORANGE COUNTY, NEW YORK.—Section 219(f)(537) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3123) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$15,000,000”.

(62) QUEENS, NEW YORK.—Section 219(f)(377) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3814; 138 Stat. 3131) is amended by striking “$190,000,000” and inserting “$261,000,000”.

(63) ULSTER COUNTY, NEW YORK.—Section 219(f)(539) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3123) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$15,000,000”.

(64) MOORESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.—Section 219(f)(195) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1264) is amended by striking “$4,000,000” and inserting “$20,000,000”.

(65) KELLEYS ISLAND, OHIO.—Section 219(f)(558) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3125) is amended by striking “$1,000,000” and inserting “$16,500,000”.

(66) STARK COUNTY, OHIO.—Section 219(f)(563) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3125) is amended by striking “$24,000,000” and inserting “$49,000,000”.

(67) SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO.—Section 219(f)(562) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3125) is amended by striking “$25,000,000” and inserting “$50,000,000”.

(68) TOLEDO AND OREGON, OHIO.—Section 219(f)(565) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3125) is amended—

(A) by striking “$10,500,000” and inserting “$45,000,000”; and

(B) by inserting “, including stormwater management, water supply, and environmental restoration,” after “wastewater infrastructure”.

(69) MIDWEST CITY, OKLAHOMA.—Section 219(f)(231) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1266; 134 Stat. 2719; 138 Stat. 3132) is amended—

(A) by striking “$15,000,000” and inserting “$20,000,000”; and

(B) by striking “improvements to water related infrastructure” and inserting “water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply”.

(70) PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.—Section 1349(e)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3159) is amended by striking “$25,000,000” and inserting “75,000,000”.

(71) CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Section 219(f)(574) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3125) is amended by striking “$7,000,000” and inserting “$20,500,000”.

(72) PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.—Section 219(f)(243) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1266; 138 Stat. 3132) is amended by striking “$3,000,000” and inserting “$53,000,000”.

(73) SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.—Section 313(g)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4845; 109 Stat. 407; 110 Stat. 3723; 113 Stat. 310; 121 Stat. 1146; 134 Stat. 2719; 136 Stat. 3821) is amended by striking “$410,000,000” and inserting “$415,000,000”.

(74) SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA AND DELAWARE RIVER BASIN.—Section 566 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3786; 113 Stat. 352; 136 Stat. 3821) is amended—

(A) by striking the section heading and inserting “Southeastern Pennsylvania and Delaware River Basin.”;

(B) in subsection (a), by striking “Lower”;

(C) in subsection (b), by striking “Lower”;

(D) by amending subsection (g) to read as follows:

“(g) Areas defined.—In this section:

“(1) DELAWARE RIVER BASIN.—The term ‘Delaware River Basin’ means the Schuylkill Valley, Upper Estuary, Lower Estuary, and Delaware Bay Watersheds and the East Branch Delaware, Lackawaxen, Lehigh, Middle Delaware–Mongaup–Brodhead, Middle Delaware–Musconetcong, and Upper Delaware subwatersheds of the Delaware River Basin in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of New Jersey, New York, and Delaware.

“(2) SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA.—The term ‘southeastern Pennsylvania’ means Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania.”; and

(E) in subsection (h)—

(i) by striking “Lower”; and

(ii) by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “$92,690,000”.

(75) COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO.—Section 219(f)(246) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1267) is amended—

(A) by striking “$35,000,000” and inserting “$75,000,000”; and

(B) by inserting “, including stormwater management, surface water protection, and environmental restoration,” after “infrastructure”.

(76) BEAUFORT, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Section 219(f)(390) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3815) is amended by striking “$7,462,000” and inserting “$13,462,000”.

(77) FLORENCE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Section 219(f)(580) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3126) is amended—

(A) by striking “$40,000,000” and inserting “$75,000,000”; and

(B) by inserting “, including water supply,” after “infrastructure”.

(78) LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Section 219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 117 Stat. 1838; 130 Stat. 1677; 132 Stat. 3818; 134 Stat. 2719; 136 Stat. 3818; 138 Stat. 3132) is amended by striking “$235,000,000” and inserting “$295,000,000”.

(79) TIPTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—Section 219(f)(582) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3126) is amended by striking “$35,000,000” and inserting “$85,000,000”.

(80) TIPTON, HAYWOOD, AND FAYETTE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE.—Section 219(f)(583) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3126) is amended by striking “$50,000,000” and inserting “$100,000,000”.

(81) PORTLAND, TENNESSEE.—Section 219(f)(394) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3815) is amended—

(A) by striking “$1,850,000” and inserting “$19,850,000”; and

(B) by inserting “and stormwater management” after “water supply”.

(82) AMARILLO, TEXAS.—Section 219(f)(585) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3126) is amended by striking “$38,000,000” and inserting “$56,000,000”.

(83) BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS.—Section 219(f)(586) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3126) is amended—

(A) by striking “$40,000,000” and inserting “$42,300,000”; and

(B) by inserting “including regional water and water reuse infrastructure,” after “infrastructure,”.

(84) ZAPATA COUNTY, TEXAS.—Section 219(f)(591) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3126) is amended—

(A) by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “$30,000,000”; and

(B) by inserting “and distribution systems” after “water supply”.

(85) PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON.—Section 219(f)(402) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 136 Stat. 3815) is amended by striking “$7,500,000” and inserting “$12,000,000”.

(86) 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; 138 Stat. 3133) is amended—

(A) in subsection (b), by inserting “Colorado,” before “rural Idaho”;

(B) in subsection (c), by inserting “Colorado,” before “Idaho”; and

(C) in subsection (i)—

(i) in paragraph (1)—

(I) by striking “$850,000,000” and inserting “$890,000,000”; and

(II) by striking “and” at the end; and

(ii) in paragraph (2)—

(I) by striking “$250,000,000” and inserting “$351,598,000”;

(II) by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and

(III) by adding at the end the following:

“(3) $150,000,000 for Colorado.”.

SEC. 308. Forecast-informed reservoir operations.

(a) In general.—In carrying out the assessment required under section 1162(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (33 U.S.C. 2319 note), the Secretary shall include an assessment of New Hogan Dam and Lake, Calaveras River, California, authorized pursuant to the section 10 of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 902), and Shasta Dam and Lake, Sacramento River, California, authorized pursuant to section 2 of the Act of August 26, 1937 (chapter 832, 50 Stat. 850; 54 Stat. 1199).

(b) Additional utilization.—Section 1222(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3811; 134 Stat. 2661; 136 Stat. 3777) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking “and the Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint River Basin” and inserting “the Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint River Basin, and the Pend Oreille River Basin”; and

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking “or the Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint River Basin” and inserting “the Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint River Basin, or the Pend Oreille River Basin” each place it appears.

SEC. 309. Floodplain management services.

(a) Eligibility.—Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking “and to provide advice” and inserting “to support State efforts to establish and implement integrated floodplain management programs that both reduce flood risk and protect and restore floodplain functions; and to provide advice”; and

(2) in subsection (e), by striking “The Secretary of the Army is authorized to expend not to exceed” and inserting “Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated”.

(b) Prioritizing flood risk resiliency technical assistance.—Section 111(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 709a note) is amended by striking “or communities” and inserting “, rural communities, or communities”.

SEC. 310. Planning assistance to 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 to read as follows:

“(B) TYPES OF ASSISTANCE.—Technical assistance under this paragraph may include—

“(i) provision and integration of hydrologic, economic, and environmental data and analyses;

“(ii) assessment of the structural integrity of a water resources development project;

“(iii) development of integrated floodplain management programs that both reduce flood risk and protect and restore floodplain functions; and

“(iv) title research for abandoned structures.”.

SEC. 311. Mendenhall Glacier outburst flooding, Alaska.

The Secretary shall—

(1) expedite the completion of the Mendenhall Glacier outburst flooding technical report, authorized pursuant to section 8315 of the Water Resource Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3783; 138 Stat. 3147); and

(2) develop a recommendation that provides permanent and resilient flood control mitigation for glacial lake outburst floods that emanate from Suicide Basin and Lake Mendenhall and that affect Juneau, Alaska.

SEC. 312. Hansen Dam, Los Angeles–San Gabriel River Basin, California.

In evaluating and implementing the water control manual for the Hansen Dam project, Los Angeles–San Gabriel River Basin and Ballona Creek, California, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1589; 55 Stat. 647), the Secretary shall—

(1) coordinate with the City of Los Angeles to identify new or expanded recreational opportunities on lands that are leased or could be leased by the City for recreation;

(2) undertake necessary background studies to support the authorized purposes of the project, including recreation; and

(3) ensure that the water quality parameters for the project are sufficient to meet authorized project purposes.

SEC. 313. Morro Bay, California.

In carrying out operations and maintenance activities for the project for harbor development, Morro Bay, California, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (chapter 19, 59 Stat. 21), the Secretary shall carry out any necessary repair or maintenance activities on a breakwater, revetment, or seawall constructed as part of the project in such a manner as to ensure each such activity is sufficient to meet the authorized purpose of the project.

SEC. 314. Oceanside, California.

In carrying out the study for the project for shoreline protection, Oceanside, California, authorized pursuant to section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2636; 121 Stat. 1176; 134 Stat. 2672; 138 Stat. 3077), the Secretary shall coordinate with the city of Oceanside, California, on the development of a recommendation that—

(1) is feasible;

(2) maximizes the use of 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)));

(3) utilizes updated sediment sampling and analysis; and

(4) is acceptable to the city of Oceanside.

SEC. 315. Pajaro River, California.

At the request of the non-Federal interest, the Secretary is authorized to acquire any interest in real property required for the project for flood protection on the Pajaro River, California, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1421), in fee simple title.

SEC. 316. Rio Grande Environmental Management Program, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.

Section 5056 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1213) is amended—

(1) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by striking all that follows “construction” and inserting “and design of water resource protection and restoration projects; and”;

(2) by striking subsection (b)(2) and inserting:

“(2) USE OF EXISTING INFORMATION.—In carrying out the program authorized by paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary shall consider data and analyses developed under paragraph (1)(B) and any relevant Federal, State, and local water resource planning efforts in the Rio Grande Basin.

“(3) PROJECTS.—In carrying out the program authorized by paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary shall include projects for—

“(A) drought, wildfire, flooding, and other natural disaster resiliency mitigation, including through the use of measures utilizing a natural feature or nature-based feature (as those terms are defined in section 1184(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a));

“(B) the protection and restoration of fish and wildlife habitat;

“(C) addressing the impacts of excess sedimentation and salinity on surface and groundwater availability;

“(D) improvements or rehabilitation of water-resources related infrastructure;

“(E) the prevention and control of the spread of aquatic invasive species; and

“(F) other water resource protection and restoration activities determined appropriate by the Secretary.”;

(3) in subsection (f), by striking “$15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2029” and inserting “$20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030”; and

(4) by inserting at the end the following:

“(g) Reports.—Not later than December 31, 2027, and every 5 years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that—

“(1) contains an evaluation of the program carried out under subsection (b)(1)(A), including a description of all projects carried out under such program;

“(2) contains a description of future projects planned to be carried out under such program;

“(3) provides updates of a systemic habitat needs assessment and an assessment of needs for other related purposes in the Rio Grande Basin, including flood damage reduction, wildfire risk mitigation, and drought mitigation; and

“(4) identifies any needed adjustments in the authorization of such program.”.

SEC. 317. Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida.

(a) In general.—In accordance with the Act of October 15, 1940 (33 U.S.C. 701h–1), the Secretary shall repay the non-Federal interest for the Federal share of any advanced funds contributed by the non-Federal interest for the project for navigation, Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida, authorized by section 1001(17) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1052).

(b) Application of Corps policy.—In providing the repayment required under subsection (a), the Secretary may not require a new start determination for a project before providing such repayment.

SEC. 318. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, Louisiana.

In carrying out the project for ecosystem restoration, Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, Louisiana, authorized by section 7013(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1281), notwithstanding any requirement of the plan described in such section that the non-Federal interest provide land for the project in fee in order to satisfy the property rights requirements of the project, the Secretary shall, where feasible, allow the non-Federal interest to provide easements on the land for the project in order to satisfy such property rights requirements.

SEC. 319. Pilottown anchorage area, Louisiana.

Pursuant to section 106 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 635), the Secretary is authorized to operate and maintain, at Federal expense, the Pilottown anchorage area, Mississippi River above Head of Passes, Louisiana, extending from River Mile 6.7 above Head of Passes to Mile 1.5 above Head of Passes established by the United States Coast Guard.

SEC. 320. Jack Hubbard Memorial Breakwater, Burt Township, Michigan.

(a) Designation.—The breakwater at the Grand Marais Harbor, Michigan, authorized pursuant to section 1 of the Act of June 14, 1880 (chapter 211, 21 Stat. 190; 64 Stat. 166), shall hereafter be known and designated as the “Jack Hubbard Memorial Breakwater”.

(b) References.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the breakwater referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Jack Hubbard Memorial Breakwater.

SEC. 321. Sardis Lake, Panola County, Mississippi.

Section 8377(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3824) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking “The Secretary is authorized to” and inserting “Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2026, the Secretary shall”; and

(2) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking “subsection such easements” and inserting “subsection the minimum easements”.

SEC. 322. Hydraulic evaluation of Upper Mississippi River.

Section 8219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 652 note) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(e) Coordination with Upper Mississippi River System flood risk and resiliency study.—The Federal Emergency Management Agency may only use information developed under subsection (a) with respect to any area of the Upper Mississippi River in accordance with a congressionally authorized project described in a final report of the Chief of Engineers for a study conducted with respect to such area under section 1227 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3084) (including any study described in subsection (d)(2) of such section).”.

SEC. 323. Lower Missouri River comprehensive flood protection.

(a) In general.—The Secretary may carry out a project for flood risk management in the Lower Missouri River, as identified in the System Plan, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.

(b) Eligible activities.—

(1) PROJECTS INCLUDED IN SYSTEM PLAN.—For any project identified in the System Plan as a System Plan component, the Secretary may carry out flood risk management measures for such project in accordance with the design criteria and guidelines of the System Plan.

(2) COMPATIBLE MEASURES.—The Secretary may include in a flood risk management project authorized under this section compatible measures for environmental improvements and recreation, if the Secretary determines the compatible measures are—

(A) feasible;

(B) consistent with System Plan recommendations;

(C) beneficial to the community;

(D) not detrimental to flood protection; and

(E) supported by State and local partners.

(c) Spinoff studies.—Any project or spinoff studies identified in the System Plan may be considered a continuation of the Lower Missouri Basin study and studied and designed in accordance with section 216(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2681).

(d) Coordination.—The Secretary shall coordinate activities carried out pursuant to this section with other activities carried out by the Secretary in the Missouri River Basin.

(e) System Plan Update.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to update the System Plan, as necessary and in accordance with section 216 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2681), as additional data is developed, and projects are implemented pursuant to this section.

(2) PROJECTS NOT INCLUDED IN SYSTEM PLAN.—For any project not identified in the System Plan as a System Plan component, the Secretary is authorized to study such project and, if the Secretary determines that such project is feasible and consistent with the flood risk management measures identified in the feasibility report for such study and the goals identified in the System Plan, the Secretary shall update the System Plan pursuant to paragraph (1) so that the System Plan includes such project.

(f) Cost limitation.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary may not expend more than $60,000,000 in Federal funds for a single project carried out under this section in the State of Missouri.

(2) EXCEPTION.—With respect to a project under this section in the State of Missouri for which the Federal share of costs is expected to exceed $60,000,000 or a project within the scope of the Lower Missouri Basin study, the Secretary may carry out the project if—

(A) the Secretary submits to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate the determination that the project is feasible; and

(B) construction of the project, to be carried out substantially in accordance with the System Plan and subject to the conditions described in such determination, is specifically authorized by Congress.

(g) Limitation for incomplete or deferred maintenance or upkeep.—The Secretary may not carry out a project under this section to address deferred, or incomplete, maintenance or upkeep of such project, except if such maintenance or upkeep is—

(1) attributable to changed conditions or design standards; and

(2) in compliance with such project with respect to which the Secretary is authorized to provide assistance under section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).

(h) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) LOWER MISSOURI BASIN STUDY.—The term “Lower Missouri Basin study” has the meaning given such term in section 216(a)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2681).

(2) SYSTEM PLAN.—The term “System Plan” means the Lower Missouri Flood Risk and Resiliency System Plan prepared pursuant to section 216(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2681).

SEC. 324. Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee.

Section 5018 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1199) is amended—

(1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:

“(6) CHAIR.—The Chair of the Committee shall be elected by the members of the Committee.”; and

(2) in subsection (c), by striking “The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)” and inserting “Chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code,”.

SEC. 325. Great Lakes Commission.

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Executive Director of the Great Lakes Commission established under Article IV of the Great Lakes Basin Compact (82 Stat. 414) to support water resources development efforts related to the execution of the Compact, and carried out in collaboration with the Secretary, $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2030.

SEC. 326. Great Lakes Fishery and ecosystem restoration.

Section 506 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–22) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(g) Limitation.—The total Federal amount expended for a project carried out under this section shall be not more than $20,000,000.”.

SEC. 327. Truckee River and tributaries, Nevada.

Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the features within the State of Nevada of the project for flood protection on Truckee River and tributaries, California and Nevada, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat.1264), are no longer authorized.

SEC. 328. Cooperative agreements, New Mexico.

Section 3117 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1137) is amended by striking “to assist in carrying out any operation or maintenance activity associated with the flood control project” and inserting “to assist in carrying out any operation, maintenance, recreational management, or related stewardship activities associated with the flood control project, including activities that improve recreational access, visitor use management, public safety, or natural and cultural resources stewardship”.

SEC. 329. Kinzua Dam safety modification study, Allegheny River, New York and Pennsylvania.

(a) In general.—In carrying out the dam safety modification study pursuant to section 8 of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f) for the project for the Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, New York and Pennsylvania, authorized pursuant to section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1586; 52 Stat. 1217), the Secretary shall identify any real property associated with such project that the Secretary determines is not needed to carry out the authorized purposes of the project.

(b) Conveyance authorized.—Upon completion of the dam safety modification study described in subsection (a), the Secretary may convey, without consideration, to the Seneca Nation of Indians, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property identified as excess under such subsection.

(c) Reversion.—If the Secretary determines that the property conveyed under this section 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.

SEC. 330. Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina.

The project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina, authorized by section 7002(3) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1367) is modified to deauthorize the portion of the project known as North Topsail Beach, in accordance with the Supplemental Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 9, 2025.

SEC. 331. Massillon Local Protection Project, Tuscarawas River, Ohio.

Pursuant to section 133 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2327a), the Secretary shall carry out rehabilitation efforts at the sluice gates of the Massillon Local Protection Project, Tuscarawas River, Ohio, authorized by section 6 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1592; 50 Stat. 879).

SEC. 332. Toussaint River Federal navigation project, Carroll Township, Ohio.

The cost share for operation and maintenance activities for the Toussaint River Federal navigation project, Carroll Township, Ohio, authorized pursuant to section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), 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. 333. Río Puerto Nuevo flood risk management project, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

(a) In general.—In carrying out the project for flood control, Rio Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico, authorized by section 204(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1828; 100 Stat. 4127; 132 Stat. 76), the Secretary shall conduct a general reevaluation report to reconsider natural and nature-based approaches to flood control as alternatives to the construction of each project element described in subsection (b).

(b) Project elements defined.—For purposes of subsection (a), the project elements to be reconsidered are—

(1) Contract No. 4 for the Central Río Piedras and Las Américas Bridges;

(2) Contract No. 5A for the Notre Dame Bridge;

(3) Contract No. 6A for the Upper Río Piedras;

(4) Contract No. 6B for Quebrada Buena Vista;

(5) Contract No. 7B for Quebradas Doña Ana and Contract No. 7A and 7C for Quebradas Josefina; and

(6) Contract No. 5B for the West Piñero Avenue Bridge.

(c) Inclusions in general reevaluation report.—In conducting the reevaluation report under subsection (a) the Secretary shall include in such report the following data and analyses, updated to reflect conditions as of the date of enactment of this Act:

(1) Hydrologic and hydraulic data.

(2) A review of local acceptability and economic conditions in the project area.

(3) Any real estate costs analysis.

(4) Cost apportionment analysis, including in such updated analysis a detailed description of projected operation and maintenance responsibilities associated with the completed project and the estimated cost to complete the project.

(d) Consideration; consultation.—In reevaluating the project elements under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—

(1) consider the use of natural and nature-based features;

(2) consult with the heads of applicable Federal agencies, agencies of Puerto Rico, and community stakeholders within the geographic scope of the project;

(3) validate any findings through an external review process that is independent and outside of the Corps of Engineers; and

(4) develop a process for public participation through which the Secretary shall—

(A) regularly publish any findings; and

(B) hold public hearings and regular consultation meetings to give ample opportunity for public comment on the findings.

(e) Interim progress report.—Not later than 1 year 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 an interim status report with respect to the reevaluation report required under subsection (a), and include in such interim status report—

(1) any conclusions and recommendations made, and activities carried out, pursuant to subsection (a);

(2) identification of any additional, site-specific areas within the geographic scope of the project for which the Secretary recommends any additional reevaluation; and

(3) any interim actions taken by the Secretary to reduce comprehensive flood risk within the geographic scope of the project while carrying out the reevaluations under subsection (a), including if applicable, the cost of each such action.

(f) Expedited consideration.—The Secretary shall expedite the completion of each reevaluation of a project element under subsection (a).

SEC. 334. Buffalo Bayou Tributaries and Resiliency Study, Texas.

(a) 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; 138 Stat. 3082), any review required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) as part of the study, and the report of the Chief of Engineers for the study.

(b) Reports.—The report of the Chief of Engineers for the study described in subsection (a) shall contain recommendations for carrying out a comprehensive project as described in subsection (c), and is not required to include further evaluation of alternatives to the comprehensive project that are not acceptable to the non-Federal interest for the project.

(c) Comprehensive project.—For purposes of subsection (b), a comprehensive project is a project—

(1) to be carried out by the Secretary, in partnership with the Harris County Flood Control District, as part of the project in Buffalo Bayou and its tributaries, Texas, authorized by the Act of June 20, 1938 (chapter 535, 52 Stat. 804);

(2) designed considering any prior studies and information provided to the Corps of Engineers by the Harris County Food Control District;

(3) which shall include an analysis of a subterranean tunnel conveyance system; and

(4) that, carried out pursuant to a comprehensive benefits plan developed by the Secretary and determined acceptable by the non-Federal interest—

(A) is capable of conveying, at an appropriate rate, the volume of water in the Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries Study area, based on an analysis that includes conveyance during a storm event equivalent to Hurricane Harvey;

(B) is designed to avoid, or minimize to the extent practicable, any adverse effects on the environment and community; and

(C) is designed to promote infrastructure resiliency, including infrastructure necessary for reservoir operations.

(d) Deadline.—The Secretary shall prioritize Federal funding for the completion of the Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries Resiliency Study pursuant to subsection (a) in the first submission after the date of enactment of this Act of each of the following:

(1) A budget submission.

(2) A 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.

(e) Report to Congress.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate the report of the Chief of Engineers for the study described in subsection (a), regardless of design maturity status of the project covered by the report.

(f) Comprehensive benefits plan defined.—In this section, the term “comprehensive benefits plan” means a comprehensive benefits plan developed pursuant to 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.

SEC. 335. Chambers, Galveston, and Harris Counties, Texas, expedited real estate transfers.

Section 1327(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3144) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting “(including the portions of Spilman Island and Pelican Island owned by, or subject to an easement held by, the United States), to determine whether any such land or easements are no longer required for project purposes” before “; and”; and

(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting “under such paragraph” before “are no longer”.

SEC. 336. Coastal Virginia.

(a) In general.—In carrying out an analysis of a measure benefitting Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of the head of another Federal agency as part of the feasibility study for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and navigation, Coastal Virginia, authorized by section 1201(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3802), the Secretary may use, for any portion of the cost of such analysis, funds—

(1) made available to the Secretary for water resources development investigations; or

(2) contributed by such agency head.

(b) Federal expense requirement.—The Secretary shall carry out each analysis described in subsection (a) at Federal expense, except that, with respect to an analysis described in subsection (a) to the extent it relates to formulation of measures to reduce risk to a military installation, upon request of the non-Federal interest for the project described in subsection (a), the Secretary may use funds contributed by the non-Federal interest pursuant to the terms and conditions of the agreement between the Secretary and the non-Federal interest for the project that relate to sharing the cost of the study.

(c) Savings provision.—Nothing in this section affects any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the head of a Federal agency, other than the Secretary, for the construction of an authorized water resources development project, or a separable element of such project, resulting from the study described in subsection (a).

SEC. 337. Norfolk Coastal Storm Risk Management, Virginia.

(a) In general.—In carrying out an analysis of a measure benefitting Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of the head of another Federal agency as part of the feasibility study for the modification of the 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), the Secretary may use, for any portion of the cost of such analysis, funds—

(1) made available to the Secretary for water resources development investigations; or

(2) contributed by such agency head.

(b) Federal expense requirement.—The Secretary shall carry out each analysis described in subsection (a) at Federal expense, except that, with respect to an analysis described in subsection (a) to the extent it relates to formulation of measures to reduce risk to a military installation, upon request of the non-Federal interest for the project described in subsection (a), the Secretary may use funds contributed by the non-Federal interest pursuant to the terms and conditions of the agreement between the Secretary and the non-Federal interest for the project that relate to sharing the cost of the study.

(c) Savings provision.—Nothing in this section affects any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the head of a Federal agency, other than the Secretary, for the construction of an authorized water resources development project, or a separable element of such project, resulting from the study described in subsection (a).

SEC. 338. Puget Sound and adjacent waters restoration, Washington.

Section 544(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2675; 132 Stat. 3826) is amended to read as follows:

“(f) Limitation.—The total Federal amount expended for a critical restoration project under this section shall not be more than $20,000,000.”.

SEC. 339. Lower Columbia River.

The total cost of constructing dredged material stabilization and retaining structures related to maintenance dredging for 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 264, 20 Stat. 157), shall be considered eligible operation and maintenance costs assigned to commercial navigation for the purpose of section 210(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238(a)(2)).

SEC. 340. Lower Columbia River Basin ecosystem restoration assessment.

The Secretary shall conduct an assessment of the lower Columbia River Basin to identify opportunities to carry out cost-effective projects and measures to support salmon and steelhead restoration by—

(1) restoring, improving, and reconnecting aquatic and riparian habitat; and

(2) providing cold water refugia for native anadromous fish species.

SEC. 341. Puget Sound nearshore ecosystem restoration, Washington.

In carrying out the project for ecosystem restoration, Puget Sound, Washington, authorized by section 1401(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1713; 136 Stat. 3806), the Secretary shall consider the removal, relocation, and replacement of the following sites to be a project feature the costs of which are shared as construction:

(1) Highway 101 causeway and bridge over the Lilliwaup Estuary of the Hood Canal site.

(2) NE North Shore Road roadway and bridge over the Tahuya Estuary of the Hood Canal site.

(3) Highway 101 causeway and bridge over the Snow Creek and Salmon Creek (at the head of Discovery Bay) site.

(4) County and local roads and bridges over the Nooksack and Lummi Rivers and Tennant Creek at the Nooksack Estuary of the Northern Puget Sound site.

SEC. 342. Washington Metropolitan Area, Washington, District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia.

(a) In general.—In carrying out 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; 138 Stat. 3160), the Secretary shall carry out a second phase of the study focused on the identification of a secondary water source and additional water storage capability or other long-term and large-scale backup water supply solutions necessary to meaningfully reduce the structural water supply risk of the region.

(b) Treatment of study.—In carrying out the second phase of the study under this section, the Secretary—

(1) shall treat such study as a continuation of the first phase of the study carried out under section 8201(a)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022; and

(2) shall continue such study without a new investment decision.

SEC. 343. Federal Triangle Area, Washington, District of Columbia.

(a) In general.—In carrying out an analysis of a measure benefitting Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of the head of another Federal agency as part of the feasibility study for the project for flood risk management, Federal Triangle Area, Washington, District of Columbia, authorized by section 8201(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3745), the Secretary may use, for any portion of the cost of such analysis, funds—

(1) made available to the Secretary for water resources development investigations; or

(2) contributed by such agency head.

(b) Federal expense requirement.—The Secretary shall carry out each analysis described in subsection (a) at Federal expense.

(c) Savings provision.—Nothing in this section affects any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the head of a Federal agency, other than the Secretary, for the construction of an authorized water resources development project, or a separable element of such project, resulting from the study described in subsection (a).

TITLE IV—Water Resources Infrastructure

SEC. 401. 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:

(1) NAVIGATION.—

A. State | B. Name | C. Date of Report of Chief of Engineers | D. Estimated Costs
1. WA & OR | Columbia River Turning Basins Navigation Improvements | September 26, 2025 | Federal: $16,408,000Non-Federal: $5,489,000Total: $21,897,000

(2) FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT.—

A. State | B. Name | C. Date of Report of Chief of Engineers | D. Estimated Costs
1. KY | Kentucky River, Beattyville Flood Risk Management Project, Lee County | March 24, 2026 | Federal: $7,979,000Non-Federal: $4,562,000Total: $12,541,000

(3) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.—

A. State | B. Name | C. Date of Report of Chief of Engineers | D. Estimated Costs
1. WY | Little Goose Creek, Sheridan | June 4, 2026 | Federal: $45,333,000 Non-Federal: $35,601,000 Total: $80,934,000

(4) HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE RISK REDUCTION.—

A. State | B. Name | C. Date of Report of Chief of Engineers | D. Estimated Costs
1. NC | Surf City, Onslow and Pender Counties, North Carolina, Coastal Storm Risk Management | July 15, 2025 | Initial Federal: $121,750,000Initial Non-Federal: $76,863,000Total: $198,613,000Renourishment Federal: $171,007,000Renourishment Non-Federal: $191,297,000Renourishment Total: $362,304,000

(5) MODIFICATIONS AND OTHER PROJECTS.—

A. State | B. Name | C. Date of Decision Document | D. Estimated Costs
1. AZ | Rio de Flag, Flagstaff | June 12, 2026 | Total: $244,633,000
2. CA | Port of Long Beach Deep Draft Navigation project, Los Angeles County | June 11, 2026 | Total: $255,811,000
3. FL | Central and Southern Florida, Canal 111 (C-111) South Dade Project | October 14, 2025 | Federal: $477,280,500Non-Federal: $477,280,500Total: $954,561,000
4. KY | Kentucky Lock Addition, Lower Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers | June 11, 2026 | Total: $2,741,549,000
5. MS | Memphis Metropolitan Stormwater—North DeSoto County Feasibility Study, DeSoto County | March 10, 2026 | Federal: $47,341,000Non-Federal: $25,491,000Total: $72,832,000
6. TN | Chickamauga Lock Replacement Project, Chickamauga Lake, Hamilton County | June 11, 2026 | Total: $1,566,787,000

SEC. 402. Expedited completion of projects and activities.

(a) Continuing authorities programs.—The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expedite completion of the following projects:

(1) Projects for emergency streambank erosion and shoreline protection under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r) for the following areas:

(A) County Creek, Bartlett, Illinois.

(B) Ohio River, Brandenberg, Kentucky.

(C) Falmouth, Massachusetts, in the vicinity of Menauhant Road.

(D) Muskegon Heights, Michigan.

(E) Old Mission Peninsula, Michigan.

(F) Euclid Creek, Euclid, Ohio.

(G) Little Miami River, Milford, Ohio.

(H) Mountain Creek, Macungie, Pennsylvania.

(2) Project for beach erosion and hurricane and storm damage reduction, Bolongo Bay, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands, under section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g).

(3) Projects for flood control under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) for the following areas:

(A) Ak-Chin Levee, Pinal County, Arizona.

(B) Lower Santa Cruz River, Arizona.

(C) McCormick Wash, Globe, Arizona.

(A) Rose and Palm Garden Washes, Douglas, Arizona.

(B) Beseck Lake, Connecticut.

(C) Woodbridge, Connecticut.

(D) Little Wekiva River, Florida.

(E) Peachtree and Nancy Creek watersheds, Atlanta, Georgia.

(F) Golconda, Illinois.

(G) Traverse City, Michigan.

(H) Marshall County, Minnesota.

(I) Peckman River, Verona, New Jersey.

(J) Third River, Clifton, New Jersey.

(K) Nanny Hagen Brook, Pleasantville, New York.

(L) McKenzie River, Springfield, Oregon.

(M) 42nd Street Levee, Springfield, Oregon.

(N) Medina Colonia, Zapata County, Texas.

(4) Projects for navigation under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) for the following areas:

(A) Kodiak Harbor, Kodiak, Alaska.

(B) Laupahoehoe Harbor, Hawaii.

(C) Black River and Lake Huron, Alcona Township, Michigan.

(5) Project for beneficial uses of dredged material, New Jersey Meadowlands (also known as Hackensack Meadowlands), New Jersey, under section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).

(6) Projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) for the following areas:

(A) El Corazón de los Tres Ríos del Norte, Pima County, Arizona.

(B) North Haven, Connecticut.

(C) Savannah River below Augusta, Georgia.

(D) Waimea 400 Wetlands, Kaua‘i, Hawaii.

(E) Marshall County, Minnesota.

(F) Polk Swamp, Dorchester County, South Carolina.

(G) Ficklen Island Dam, Fredericksburg, Virginia.

(7) Projects to modify projects for improvement of the environment or drought resiliency under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) for the following areas:

(A) Wayne County, Iowa.

(B) Wild Rice River, Minnesota.

(C) Lower Pearl River, Mississippi.

(D) Rio Chama and Rio Grande between the Abiquiu and Cochiti Reservoirs, New Mexico.

(8) Projects to control, retain, and reuse stormwater associated with flood control efforts under section 1108 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3006) for the following areas:

(A) Klondike Canyon, Rancho Palos Verdes, California.

(B) City of Lompoc, California.

(C) Lake Avondale, Avondale Estates, Georgia.

(D) Falmouth, including Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

(E) Waveland, Mississippi.

(b) Other projects and activities.—The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expedite completion of the following:

(1) Project for flood risk management, Little Colorado River, Navajo County, Arizona, authorized by section 401(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2735).

(2) Project for flood damage reduction, Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576; 121 Stat. 1107; 130 Stat. 1716; 136 Stat. 3833; 138 Stat. 3067) (as modified by this Act).

(3) Project for ecosystem restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona, authorized by section 101(b)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577).

(4) Project for beach erosion, Surfside Sunset and Newport Beach, Orange County, California, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1177).

(5) 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).

(6) Maintenance dredging at the Greenwich Harbor, Connecticut.

(7) Maintenance dredging at the Southport Harbor, Connecticut.

(8) Project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood control, and protection of water quality, Central and Southern Florida, Indian River Lagoon, Florida, authorized by section 1001(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1051).

(9) Comprehensive plan for the purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the Northern Estuaries Ecosystem, Florida, authorized by section 8215 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3760; 138 Stat. 3138).

(10) Operations and maintenance activities necessary as of the date of enactment of this Act for the project for navigation, Chicago Harbor Lock, Chicago, Illinois, authorized pursuant to the first section of the Act of July 11, 1870 (chapter 240, 16 Stat. 226; 21 Stat. 182; 37 Stat. 217; 40 Stat. 1283; 76 Stat. 1176).

(11) Project for ecosystem restoration, Naval Weapons Station Earle Oyster Reef Restoration, Monmouth County, New Jersey, pursuant to the Hudson-Raritan Estuary Ecosystem Restoration project authorized by section 401(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2740).

(12) Project for navigation, Times Beach dike wall repair, Buffalo Harbor, New York, authorized by the Act of May 20, 1826 (chapter 78, 4 Stat. 175).

(13) Maintenance dredging of the project for navigation, Tillamook Bay, Oregon, authorized by the first section of the Act of July 27, 1912 (chapter 254, 37 Stat. 220).

(14) Project for periodic beach nourishment, Presque Isle Peninsula, Erie, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2918).

(15) Project for ecosystem restoration, Lower Blackstone River, Rhode Island, authorized pursuant to section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330; 136 Stat. 3804).

(16) Maintenance dredging at Two Rivers Harbor, Two Rivers, Wisconsin, authorized pursuant to the Act of March 3, 1871 (chapter 118, 16 Stat. 538; 34 Stat. 1101; 49 Stat. 1035; 72 Stat. 298).

(c) Tribal partnership program.—The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expedite completion of the Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project, associated with the Gila River Indian Community, Arizona, authorized pursuant to section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269).

TITLE V—Dam Safety

SEC. 501. National Dam Safety Program amendments.

The National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467 et seq.) is amended—

(1) in section 8(e)(4), by striking “2” and inserting “7”;

(2) in section 8A(j)(4), by striking “2026” and inserting “2031”; and

(3) in section 14(a)(2)(A)(ii)—

(A) in subclause (I), by striking “and low-head dams”; and

(B) in subclause (II), by striking “and low-head dams”.