Water Resources Development Act of 1992
Public Law 102–580, as amended
Water Resources Development Act of 1992
580
118–272
Statute Compilation
United States House of Representatives
Office of the Legislative Counsel
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
GPO Statute Compilations USLM converter, version 20240419
2025-02-07
Water Resources Development Act of 1992
2982
102
1992-10-31
Water Resources Development Act of 1992
[Public Law 102–580; Approved October 31, 1992]
[As Amended Through P.L. 118–272, Enacted January 4, 2025]
[Currency: This publication is a compilation of the text of Public Law 102–580. It was last amended by the public law listed in the As Amended Through note above and below at the bottom of each page of the pdf version and reflects current law through the date of the enactment of the public law listed at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/comps/]
[Note: While this publication does not represent an official version of any Federal statute, substantial efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of its contents. The official version of Federal law is found in the United States Statutes at Large and in the United States Code. The legal effect to be given to the Statutes at Large and the United States Code is established by statute (1 U.S.C. 112, 204).]
SECTION 1.

SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a)

Short Title.—
This Act may be cited as the “Water Resources Development Act of 1992”.
* * * * * * *
TITLE II—

GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 203.

VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND RECREATION PROJECTS.
(a)

Acceptance.—
In connection with carrying out a water resources project for environmental protection and restoration or a water resources project for recreation, the Secretary is authorized to accept contributions of cash, funds, materials, and services from persons, including governmental entities but excluding the project sponsor.
(b)

Deposit.—
Any cash or funds received by the Secretary under subsection (a) shall be deposited into the account in the Treasury of the United States entitled “Contributions and Advances, Rivers and Harbors, Corps of Engineers (8662)” and shall be available until expended to carry out water resources projects described in subsection (a).
[33 U.S.C. 2325]
SEC. 204.

REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.
(a)

In General.—
(1)

Sediment use.—
(A)

Sediment from federal water resources projects.—
For sediment obtained through or used in the construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized Federal water resources project, including a project authorized for flood control, the Secretary shall develop, at Federal expense, regional sediment management plans and carry out projects at locations identified in plans developed under this section, or identified jointly by the non-Federal interest and the Secretary, for use in the construction, repair, modification, or rehabilitation of projects, including projects for the beneficial use of dredged materials described in section 1122 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note), associated with Federal water resources projects for purposes listed in paragraph (3).
(B)

Sediment from other federal sources and non-federal sources.—
For purposes of projects carried out under this section, the Secretary may include sediment from other Federal sources and non-Federal sources, subject to the requirement that any sediment obtained from a non-Federal source shall not be obtained at Federal expense.
(2)

Cooperation.—
The Secretary shall develop plans under this subsection in cooperation with the appropriate Federal, State, regional, and local agencies.
(3)

Purposes for sediment use in projects.—
The purposes of using sediment for the construction, repair, modification, or rehabilitation of Federal water resources projects are—
(A)
to reduce storm damage to property;
(B)
to protect, restore, and create aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands; and
(C)
to transport and place suitable sediment for the purposes of improving environmental conditions in marsh and littoral systems, stabilizing stream channels, enhancing shorelines, and supporting State and local risk management adaptation strategies.
(4)

Reducing costs.—
To reduce or avoid Federal costs, the Secretary shall consider the beneficial use of dredged material in a manner that contributes to the maintenance of sediment resources in the nearby coastal system.
(b)

Secretarial Findings.—
Subject to subsection (c), projects carried out under subsection (a) may be carried out in any case in which the Secretary finds that—
(1)
the environmental, economic, and social benefits of the project, both monetary and nonmonetary, justify the cost of the project; and
(2)
the project will not result in environmental degradation.
(c)

Determination of Project Costs.—
(1)

Costs of construction.—
(A)

In general.—
Costs associated with construction of a project under this section or identified in a regional sediment management plan shall be limited solely to construction costs that are in excess of the costs necessary to carry out the dredging for construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized Federal water resources project in the most cost-effective way, consistent with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria.
(B)

Cost sharing.—
(i)

In general.—
Except as provided in clause (ii), the non-Federal share of the construction cost of a project under this section shall be determined as provided in subsections (a) through (d) of section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
(ii)

Special rule.—
Construction of a project under this section for one or more of the purposes of protection, restoration, or creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitat, the cost of which does not exceed $750,000 and which is located in a disadvantaged community as determined by the Secretary, may be carried out at Federal expense.
(C)

Total cost.—
The total Federal costs associated with construction of a project under this section may not exceed $15,000,000.
(2)

Operation, maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation costs.—
Operation, maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with a project under this section are the responsibility of the non-Federal interest.
(d)

Selection of Dredged Material Disposal Method for Purposes Related to Environmental Restoration or Storm Damage and Flood Reduction.—
(1)

In general.—
At the request of the non-Federal interest for a water resources development project involving the disposal of dredged material, the Secretary, using funds appropriated for construction or operation and maintenance of the project, may select a disposal method that is not the least cost option if the Secretary determines that the incremental costs of the disposal method are reasonablein relation to—
(A)
the environmental benefits, including the benefits to the aquatic environment to be derived from the creation of wetlands and control of shoreline erosion; or
(B)
the hurricane and storm or flood risk reduction benefits, including shoreline protection, protection against loss of life, and damage to improved property.
(2)

Federal share.—
The Federal share of such incremental costs shall be determined in accordance with subsection (c).
(3)

Special rule.—
Disposal of dredged material under this subsection may include a single or periodic application of sediment for beneficial use and shall not require operation and maintenance.
(4)

Disposal at non-federal cost.—
The Secretary may accept funds from a non-Federal interest to dispose of dredged material as provided under section 103(d)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(d)(1)).
(5)

Selection of dredged material disposal method for certain purposes.—
Activities carried out under this subsection—
(A)
shall be carried out using amounts appropriated for construction or operation and maintenance of the project involving the disposal of the dredged material; and
(B)
shall not carried out using amounts made available under subsection (g).
(e)

State and Regional Plans.—
The Secretary may—
(1)
cooperate with any State or group of States in the preparation of a comprehensive State or regional sediment management plan within the boundaries of the State or among States;
(2)
encourage State participation in the implementation of the plan; and
(3)
submit to Congress reports and recommendations with respect to appropriate Federal participation in carrying out the plan.
(f)

Priority Areas.—
In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall give priority to a regional sediment management project in the vicinity of each of the following:
(1)
Little Rock Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas.
(2)
Fletcher Cove, California.
(3)
Egmont Key, Florida.
(4)
Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana.
(5)
Delaware River Estuary, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
(6)
Fire Island Inlet, Suffolk County, New York.
(7)
Smith Point Park Pavilion and the TWA Flight 800 Memorial, Brookhaven, New York.
(8)
Morehead City, North Carolina.
(9)
Toledo Harbor, Lucas County, Ohio.
(10)
Galveston Bay, Texas.
(11)
Benson Beach, Washington.
(12)
Osceola County, Florida.
(g)

Authorization of Appropriations.—
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $62,500,000 per fiscal year, of which not more than $5,000,000 per fiscal year may be used for the development of regional sediment management plans authorized by subsection (e) and of which not more than $3,000,000 per fiscal year may be used for construction of projects to which subsection (c)(1)(B)(ii) applies. Such funds shall remain available until expended.
[33 U.S.C. 2326]
SEC. 205.

DEFINITION OF REHABILITATION FOR INLAND WATERWAY PROJECTS.
For purposes of laws relating to navigation on inland and intracoastal waterways of the United States, the term “rehabilitation” means—
(1)
major project feature restoration—
(A)
which consists of structural work on an inland navigation facility operated and maintained by the Corps of Engineers;
(B)
which will significantly extend the physical life of the feature;
(C)
which is economically justified by a benefit-cost analysis;
(D)
which will take at least 2 years to complete; and
(E)
(i)
which is initially funded before October 1, 1994, and will require at least $5,000,000 in capital outlays; or
(ii)
which is initially funded on or after such date and will require at least $20,000,000 in capital outlays; and
(2)
structural modification of a major project component (not exhibiting reliability problems)—
(A)
which will enhance the operational efficiency of such component or any other major component of the project by increasing benefits beyond the original project design; and
(B)
which will require at least $1,000,000 in capital outlays.
Such term does not include routine or deferred maintenance. The dollar amounts referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be adjusted annually according to the economic assumption published each year as guidance in the Annual Program and Budget Request for Civil Works Activities of the Corps of Engineers.
[33 U.S.C. 2327]
[Section 206 was repealed by section 1014(c)(2) of P.L. 113-121]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 212.

USE OF PRIVATE SECTOR RESOURCES IN SURVEYING AND MAPPING.
To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall make use of private sector resources in carrying out surveying and mapping activities in the Civil Works Program of the Corps of Engineers.
[33 U.S.C. 569e]
SEC. 213.

USE OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTS.
(a)

Compliance With Buy American Act.—
(1)

In general.—
Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall ensure that procurements with funds appropriated to carry out this Act are conducted in compliance with sections 2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a–l0c), popularly known as the “Buy American Act”.
(2)

Limitation on applicability.—
This subsection shall apply only to procurements made for which—
(A)
amounts are authorized by this Act to be made available; and
(B)
solicitations for bids are issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3)

Reports.—
The Secretary shall report to Congress on procurements covered under this subsection of products that are not domestic products.
(4)

Report on purchase of foreign manufactured articles.—
(A)

In general.—
In the first annual report submitted to Congress after the date of enactment of this paragraph in accordance with section 8 of the Act of August 11, 1888 (25 Stat. 424, chapter 860; 33 U.S.C. 556), and section 925(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2295(b)), the Secretary shall include a report on the amount of acquisitions in the prior fiscal year made by the Corps of Engineers for civil works projects from entities that manufactured the articles, materials, or supplies outside of the United States.
(B)

Contents.—
The report required under subparagraph (A) shall indicate, for each category of acquisition—
(i)
the dollar value of articles, materials, and supplies purchased that were manufactured outside of the United States; and
(ii)
a summary of the total procurement funds spent on goods manufactured in the United States and the total procurement funds spent on goods manufactured outside of the United States.
(C)

Public availability.—
Not later than 30 days after the submission of the report required under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall make such report publicly available, including on the Internet.
(b)

Definitions.—
For the purposes of this section, the term “domestic product” means a product—
(1)
that is manufactured or produced in the United States; and
(2)
at least 50 percent of the cost of the articles, materials, or supplies of which are mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States. * * * * * * *
SEC. 216.

DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL AREAS.
(a)

Study.—
The Secretary shall conduct a study on the need for changes in Federal law and policy with respect to dredged material disposal areas for the construction and maintenance of harbors and inland harbors by the Secretary. As part of the study, the Secretary shall evaluate the need for any changes in Federal and non-Federal cost sharing for such areas and harbor projects, including sources of funding.
(b)

Report.—
Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of the study conducted under subsection (a), together with recommendations of the Secretary.
[33 U.S.C. 2211 note]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 219.

ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a)

In General.—
The Secretary is authorized to provide assistance to non-Federal interests for carrying out water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects described in subsection (c), including waste water treatment and related facilities and water supply, storage, treatment, and distribution facilities. Such assistance may be in the form of technical and planning and design assistance. If the Secretary is to provide any design or engineering assistance to carry out a project under this section, the Secretary shall obtain by procurement from private sources all services necessary for the Secretary to provide such assistance, unless the Secretary finds that—
(1)
the service would require the use of a new technology unavailable in the private sector; or
(2)
a solicitation or request for proposal has failed to attract 2 or more bids or proposals.
(b)

Non-Federal Share.—
The non-Federal share of the cost of projects for which assistance is provided under this section shall not be less than 25 percent, except that such share shall be subject to the ability of the non-Federal interest to pay, including the procedures and regulations relating to ability to pay established under section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
(c)

Project Descriptions.—
The projects for which the Secretary is authorized to provide assistance under subsection (a) are as follows:
(1)

Washington, d.c. and maryland.—
Measures to alleviate adverse water quality impacts resulting from storm water discharges from Federal facilities in the Anacostia River watershed, Washington, D.C. and Maryland.
(2)

Atlanta, georgia.—
A combined sewer overflow treatment facility for the city of Atlanta, Georgia.
(3)

Hazard, kentucky.—
A water system (including a 13,000,000 gallon per day water treatment plant), intake structures, raw water pipelines and pumps, distribution lines, and pumps and storage tanks for Hazard, Kentucky.
(4)

Rouge river, michigan.—
Completion of a comprehensive streamflow enhancement project for the Western Townships Utility Authority, Rouge River, Wayne County, Michigan.
(5)

Jackson county, mississippi.—
Provision of an alternative water supply, projects for stormwater and drainage systems, and projects for the design, installation, enhancement, or repair of sewer systems for Jackson County, Mississippi.
(6)

Epping, new hampshire.—
Evaluation and assistance in addressing expanded and advanced wastewater treatment needs for Epping, New Hampshire.
(7)

Manchester, new hampshire.—
Elimination of combined sewer overflows in the city of Manchester, New Hampshire.
(8)

Rochester, new hampshire.—
Provision of advanced wastewater treatment for the city of Rochester, New Hampshire.
(9)

Paterson and passaic county, new jersey.—
Drainage facilities to alleviate flooding problems on Getty Avenue in the vicinity of St. Joseph's Hospital for the city of Paterson, New Jersey, and Passaic County, New Jersey.
(10)

State of new jersey and new jersey wastewater treatment trust.—
The development of innovative beneficial uses of sewage sludge and conventional and innovative facilities to dispose of sewage sludge or to make reusable products from sewage sludge for local government units that ceased the discharge of sewage sludge in the Atlantic Ocean.
(11)

Erie county, new york.—
A tunnel from North Buffalo, New York, to Amherst Quarry to relieve flooding and improve water quality.
(12)

Erie county, new york.—
A sludge processing disposal facility to serve the Erie County Sewer District 5, New York.
(13)

Otsego county, new york.—
A water storage tank and an adequate water filtration system for the Village of Milford, Otsego County, New York.
(14)

Chenango county, new york.—
A primary source water well and improvement of a water distribution system for New Berlin, Chenango County, New York.
(15)

Greensboro and glassworks, pennsylvania.—
A sewage treatment plant for the borough of Greensboro, Pennsylvania, and the unincorporated village of Glassworks, Pennsylvania.
(16)

Lynchburg, virginia.—
Alleviation of combined sewer overflows for Lynchburg, Virginia, in accordance with combined sewer overflow control plans adopted by, and currently being implemented by, the non-Federal sponsor.
(17)

Richmond, virginia.—
Alleviation of combined sewer overflows for Richmond, Virginia, in accordance with combined sewer overflow control plans adopted by, and currently being implemented by, the non-Federal sponsor.
(18)

Colonias along united states-mexico border.—
Wastewater treatment facilities, water systems (including water treatment plants), intake structures, raw water pipelines and pumps, distribution lines, and pumps and storage tanks for colonias in the United States along the United States-Mexico border.
(19)

Marana, arizona.—
Wastewater treatment and distribution infrastructure, Marana, Arizona.
(20)

Eastern arkansas enterprise community, arkansas.—
Water-related infrastructure, Eastern Arkansas Enterprise Community, Cross, Lee, Monroe, and St. Francis Counties, Arkansas.
(21)

Chino hills, california.—
Storm water and sewage collection infrastructure, Chino Hills, California.
(22)

Clear lake basin, california.—
Water-related infrastructure and resource protection, Clear Lake Basin, California.
(23)

Desert hot springs, california.—
Resource protection and wastewater infrastructure, Desert Hot Springs, California.
(24)

Eastern municipal water district, california.—
Regional water-related infrastructure, Eastern Municipal Water District, California.
(25)

Huntington beach, california.—
Water supply and wastewater infrastructure, Huntington Beach, California.
(26)

Inglewood, california.—
Water infrastructure, Inglewood, California.
(27)

Los osos, california.—
Water and wastewater infrastructure, Los Osos, California.
(28)

Norwalk, california.—
Water-related infrastructure, Norwalk, California.
(29)

Key biscayne, florida.—
Sanitary sewer infrastructure, Key Biscayne, Florida.
(30)

South tampa, florida.—
Water supply and aquifer storage and recovery infrastructure, South Tampa, Florida.
(31)

Fort wayne, indiana.—
Combined sewer overflow infrastructure and wetlands protection, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
(32)

Indianapolis, indiana.—
Combined sewer overflow infrastructure, Indianapolis, Indiana.
(33)

St. charles, st. bernard, and plaquemines parishes, louisiana.—
Water supply and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, St. Charles, St. Bernard, and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana.
(34)

St. john the baptist, st. james, and assumption parishes, louisiana.—
Water and sewer improvements, St. John the Baptist, St. James, and Assumption Parishes, Louisiana.
(35)

Union county, north carolina.—
Water infrastructure, Union County, North Carolina.
(36)

Hood river, oregon.—
Water transmission infrastructure, Hood River, Oregon.
(37)

Medford, oregon.—
Sewer collection infrastructure, Medford, Oregon.
(38)

Portland, oregon.—
Water infrastructure and resource protection, Portland, Oregon.
(39)

Coudersport, pennsylvania.—
Sewer system extensions and improvements, Coudersport, Pennsylvania.
(40)

Park city, utah.—
Water supply infrastructure, Park City, Utah.
(41)

Winchester, kentucky.—
Wastewater infrastructure, Winchester, Kentucky.
(d)

Authorization of Appropriations.—
There is authorized to be appropriated for providing assistance under this section $30,000,000. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
(e)

Authorization of Appropriations for Construction Assistance.—
There are authorized to be appropriated for providing construction assistance under this section—
(1)
$57,500,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(5);
(2)
$2,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(6);
(3)
$20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(7);
(4)
$11,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(8);
(5)
$100,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(2);
(6)
$30,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(9);
(7)
$30,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(16);
(8)
$30,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(17);
(9)
$35,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(18);
(10)
$27,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(19);
(11)
$20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(20);
(12)
$35,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(23);
(13)
$20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(25);
(14)
$20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(26);
(15)
$43,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(27);
(16)
$20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(28);
(17)
$30,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(40);
(18)
$70,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(33); and
(19)
$36,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(34).
(f)

Additional Assistance.—
The Secretary may provide assistance under subsection (a) and assistance for construction for the following:
(1)

Atlanta, georgia.—
The project described in subsection (c)(2), modified to include watershed restoration and development in the regional Atlanta watershed, including Big Creek and Rock Creek.
(2)

Paterson, passaic county, and passaic valley, new jersey.—
The project described in subsection (c)(9), modified to include drainage facilities to alleviate flooding problems on Getty Avenue in the vicinity of St. Joseph's Hospital for the city of Paterson, New Jersey, and Passaic County, New Jersey, and innovative facilities to manage and treat additional flows in the Passaic Valley, Passaic River basin, New Jersey.
(3)

Nashua, new hampshire.—
$20,000,000 for a project to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows in the city of Nashua, New Hampshire.
(4)

Fall river and new bedford, massachusetts.—
$35,000,000 for a project to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows in the cities of Fall River and New Bedford, Massachusetts.
(5)

Findlay township, pennsylvania.—
$11,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Findlay Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
(6)

Dillsburg borough authority, pennsylvania.—
$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Franklin Township, York County, Pennsylvania.
(7)

Hampden township, pennsylvania.—
$3,000,000 for water, sewer, and storm sewer improvements in Hampden Township, Pennsylvania.
(8)

Towamencin township, pennsylvania.—
$1,500,000 for sanitary sewer and water and wastewater infrastructure in Towamencin Township, Pennsylvania.
(9)

Dauphin county, pennsylvania.—
$2,000,000 for a project to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows and water system rehabilitation for the city of Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
(10)

Eastern shore and southwest virginia.—
(A)

In general.—
$52,000,000 for water supply, wastewater infrastructure, and environmental restoration projects in the counties of Accomack, Northampton, Lee, Norton, Wise, Scott, Russell, Dickenson, Buchanan, and Tazewell, Virginia.
(B)

Credit.—
The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.
(11)

Northeast pennsylvania.—
$70,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply in the counties of Lackawanna, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, Wayne, Sullivan, Bradford, Northumberland, Union, Snyder, Luzerne, and Monroe, Pennsylvania, including assistance for the Mountoursville Regional Sewer Authority, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.
(12)

Calumet region, indiana.—
(A)

In general.—
$125,000,000 for water related infrastructure projects in the counties of Benton, Jasper, Lake, Newton, and Porter, Indiana.
(B)

Credit.—
The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.
(13)

Clinton county, pennsylvania.—
$2,000,000 for water related infrastructure in Clinton County, Pennsylvania.
(14)

Patton township, pennsylvania.—
$1,400,000 for water related infrastructure in Patton Township, Pennsylvania.
(15)

North fayette township, allegheny county, pennsylvania.—
$500,000 for water related infrastructure in North Fayette Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
(16)

Springdale borough, pennsylvania.—
$500,000 for water related infrastructure in Springdale Borough, Pennsylvania.
(17)

Robinson township, pennsylvania.—
$1,200,000 for water related infrastructure in Robinson Township, Pennsylvania.
(18)

Upper allen township, pennsylvania.—
$3,400,000 for water related infrastructure in Upper Allen Township, Pennsylvania.
(19)

Jefferson township, greene county, pennsylvania.—
$1,000,000 for water related infrastructure in Jefferson Township, Greene County, Pennsylvania.
(20)

Lumberton, north carolina.—
$1,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure projects in Lumberton, North Carolina.
(21)

Baton rouge, louisiana.—
$100,000,000 for water related infrastructure for the parishes of East Baton Rouge, Ascension, and Livingston, Louisiana.
(22)

East san joaquin county, california.—
(A)

In general.—
$25,000,000 for ground water recharge and conjunctive use projects in Stockton East Water District, California.
(B)

Credit.—
The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.
(C)

In-kind contributions.—
The non-Federal interest may provide any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project in the form of in-kind services and materials.
(23)

Sacramento area, california.—
$45,000,000 for regional water conservation, recycling, reliability, and resiliency projects in Placer, El Dorado, and Sacramento Counties and the San Juan Water District, California.
(24)

Cumberland county, tennessee.—
$5,000,000 for water supply projects in Cumberland County, Tennessee.
(25)

Lakes marion and moultrie, south carolina.—
$235,000,000 for wastewater treatment and water supply treatment and distribution projects in the counties of Berkeley, Calhoun, Clarendon, Colleton, Dorchester, and Orangeberg, South Carolina.
(26)

Bridgeport, connecticut.—
$10,000,000 for a project to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows in the city of Bridgeport, Connecticut.
(27)

Hartford, connecticut.—
$10,000,000 for a project to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows in the city of Hartford, Connecticut.
(28)

New haven, connecticut.—
$10,000,000 for a project to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows in the city of New Haven, Connecticut.
(29)

Oakland county, michigan.—
$20,000,000 for a project to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows in the cities of Berkley, Ferndale, Madison Heights, Royal Oak, Birmingham, Hazel Park, Oak Park, Southfield, Clawson, Huntington Woods, Pleasant Ridge, and Troy, and the village of Beverly Hills, and the Charter Township of Royal Oak, Michigan.
(30)

Desoto county, mississippi.—
$170,000,000 for a wastewater infrastructure project in the county of DeSoto, Mississippi.
(31)

Kansas city, missouri.—
$15,000,000 for a project to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows in the city of Kansas City, Missouri.
(32)

St. louis, missouri.—
$100,000,000 for projects to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows in the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County, Missouri.
(33)

Elizabeth, new jersey.—
$10,000,000 for a project to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows in the city of Elizabeth, New Jersey.
(34)

North hudson, new jersey.—
$20,000,000 for a project to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows for the North Hudson Sewerage Authority, New Jersey.
(35)

Inner harbor project, new york, new york.—
$15,000,000 for a project to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows for the inner harbor project, New York, New York.
(36)

Outer harbor project, new york, new york.—
$15,000,000 for a project to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows for the outer harbor project, New York, New York.
(37)

Lebanon, new hampshire.—
$8,000,000 for a project to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows in the city of Lebanon, New Hampshire.
(38)

Astoria, oregon.—
$5,000,000 for a project to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows in the city of Astoria, Oregon.
(39)

Cache county, utah.—
$5,000,000 for a wastewater infrastructure project for Cache County, Utah.
(40)

Lawton, oklahoma.—
$5,000,000 for a wastewater infrastructure project for the city of Lawton, Oklahoma.
(41)

Lancaster, california.—
$1,500,000 for a project to provide water facilities for the Fox Field Industrial Corridor, Lancaster, California.
(42)

San ramon valley, california.—
$15,000,000 for a project for recycled water for San Ramon Valley, California.
(43)

Harbor/south bay, california.—
$70,000,000 for an industrial water reuse project for the Harbor/South Bay area, California.
(45)1

Washington, d.c., and maryland.—
$15,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(1), modified to include measures to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows in the Anacostia River watershed.
^1
Paragraphs (45) through (70) were added by section 108(d) of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 2763A–220), as enacted into law by section 1(a)(4) of Public Law 106–554. There is not a paragraph (44).
(46)

Duck river, cullman, alabama.—
$5,000,000 for water supply infrastructure, Duck River, Cullman, Alabama.
(47)

Union county, arkansas.—
$52,000,000 for water supply infrastructure, including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution, Union County, Arkansas.
(48)

Cambria, california.—
(A)

In general.—
$10,300,000 for desalination infrastructure, Cambria, California.
(B)

Credit.—
The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project not to exceed $3,000,000 for the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.
(49)

Los angeles harbor/terminal island, california.—
$6,500,000 for wastewater recycling infrastructure, Los Angeles Harbor/Terminal Island, California.
(50)

North valley region, lancaster, california.—
$24,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, North Valley Region, Lancaster, California.
(51)

San diego county, california.—
$10,000,000 for water-related infrastructure, San Diego County, California.
(52)

South perris, california.—
$100,000,000 for water supply desalination infrastructure, South Perris, California.
(53)

Aurora, illinois.—
$8,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure to reduce or eliminate combined sewer overflows, Aurora, Illinois.
(54)

Cook county and lake county, illinois.—
$149,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, and other water-related infrastructure and resource protection and development, Cook County and Lake County, Illinois.
(55)

Madison and st. clair counties, illinois.—
$150,000,000 for water and wastewater assistance (including stormwater management), Madison and St. Clair Counties, Illinois.
(56)

Iberia parish, louisiana.—
$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Iberia Parish, Louisiana.
(57)

Kenner, louisiana.—
$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Kenner, Louisiana.
(58)

Benton harbor, michigan.—
$1,500,000 for water-related infrastructure, City of Benton Harbor, Michigan.
(59)

Genesee county, michigan.—
$6,700,000 for wastewater infrastructure assistance to reduce or eliminate sewer overflows, Genesee County, Michigan.
(60)

Negaunee, michigan.—
$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure assistance, City of Negaunee, Michigan.
(61)

Garrison, crow wing county, mille lacs county, mille lacs indian reservation, and kathio township, minnesota.—
$17,000,000 for a wastewater infrastructure project for the city of Garrison, Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs County, Mille Lacs Indian Reservation established by the treaty of February 22, 1855 (10 Stat. 1165), and Kathio Township, Minnesota. Such assistance shall be provided directly to the Garrison-Kathio-West Mille Lacs Lake Sanitary District, Minnesota, except for assistance provided directly to the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe at the discretion of the Secretary.
(62)

Newton, new jersey.—
$7,000,000 for water filtration infrastructure, Newton, New Jersey.
(63)

Liverpool, new york.—
$2,000,000 for water infrastructure, including a pump station, Liverpool, New York.
(64)

Stanly county, north carolina.—
$8,900,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Stanly County, North Carolina.
(65)

Yukon, oklahoma.—
$5,500,000 for water-related infrastructure, including wells, booster stations, storage tanks, and transmission lines, Yukon, Oklahoma.
(66)

Allegheny county, pennsylvania.—
(A)

In general.—
$30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, and other water-related environmental infrastructure, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
(B)

Credit.—
The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.
(67)

Mount joy township and conewago township, pennsylvania.—
$8,300,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Mount Joy Township and Conewago Township, Pennsylvania.
(68)

Phoenixville borough, chester county, pennsylvania.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater infrastructure and water supply, Phoenixville Borough, Chester County, Pennsylvania.
(69)

Titusville, pennsylvania.—
$7,300,000 for storm water separation and treatment plant upgrades, Titusville, Pennsylvania.
(70)

Washington, greene, westmoreland, and fayette counties, pennsylvania.—
$8,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Washington, Greene, Westmoreland, and Fayette Counties, Pennsylvania.
(71)

Coronado, california.—
(A)
$10,000,000 is authorized for wastewater infrastructure, Coronado, California.
(B)
The Federal Share may be in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs incurred by the non-Federal sponsor for work performed by the non-Federal sponsor before or after the execution of a project cooperation agreement, if the Secretary determines that such work is integral to the project.
(C)
The Secretary is authorized to credit towards the non-Federal share of project costs the costs incurred by the non-Federal sponsor for work performed by the non-Federal sponsor before or after the execution of a project cooperation agreement, if the Secretary determines that such work is integral to the project.
(72)

Charleston, south carolina.—
$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including wastewater collection systems, and stormwater system improvements, Charleston, South Carolina.
(73)

Placer and el dorado counties, california.—
$35,000,000 to improve the efficiency and use of existing water supplies in Placer and El Dorado Counties, California, through water and wastewater projects, programs, and infrastructure.
(74)

Lassen, plumas, butte, sierra, and nevada counties, california.—
$25,000,000 to improve the efficiency and use of existing water supplies in the counties of Lassen, Plumas, Butte, Sierra, and Nevada, California, through water and waste water projects, programs, and infrastructure.
(75)

Indianapolis, indiana.—
$6,430,000 for environmental infrastructure for Indianapolis, Indiana.
(76)

St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin.—
$5,000,000 for waste water infrastructure, St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin.
(77)

Alpine, california.—
$10,000,000 is authorized for a water transmission main, Alpine, CA.
(78)

St. clair county, blount county, and cullman county, alabama.—
$5,000,000 for water related infrastructure, St. Clair County, Blount County, and Cullman County, Alabama.
(79)

Crawford county, arkansas.—
$35,000,000 for water supply infrastructure, Crawford County, Arkansas.
(80)

Alameda and contra costa counties, california.—
$45,000,000 for recycled water treatment facilities within the East Bay Municipal Utility District service area, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California.
(81)

Aliso creek, orange county, california.—
$5,000,000 for water related infrastructure, Aliso Creek, Orange County, California.
(82)

Amador county, california.—
$3,000,000 for wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure, Amador County, California.
(83)

Arcadia, sierra madre, and upland, california.—
$33,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Arcadia, Sierra Madre, and Upland, California, including $13,000,000 for stormwater infrastructure for Upland, California.
(84)

Big bear area regional wastewater agency, california.—
$15,000,000 for water reclamation and distribution infrastructure, Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency, California.
(85)

Brawley colonia, imperial county, california.—
$1,400,000 for water infrastructure to improve water quality in the Brawley Colonia Water District, Imperial County, California.
(86)

Calaveras county, california.—
$16,300,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure improvement projects in Calaveras County, California, including wastewater reclamation, recycling, and conjunctive use projects.
(87)

Contra costa county, california.—
$80,000,000, of which not less than $23,000,000 shall be for water and wastewater infrastructure for the Contra Costa Water District service area, and of which not less than $57,000,000 shall be for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water supply, within the service areas for the Delta Diablo Sanitation District and the Ironhouse Sanitary District, Contra Costa County, California.
(88)

East bay, san francisco, and santa clara areas, california.—
$4,000,000 for a desalination project to serve the East Bay, San Francisco, and Santa Clara areas, California.
(89)

East palo alto, california.—
$4,000,000 for a new pump station and stormwater management and drainage system, East Palo Alto, California.
(90)

Imperial county, california.—
$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including a wastewater disinfection facility and polishing system, to improve water quality in the vicinity of Calexico, California, on the southern New River, Imperial County, California.
(91)

La habra, california.—
$5,000,000 for wastewater and water related infrastructure, city of La Habra, California.
(92)

La mirada, california.—
$4,000,000 for the planning, design, and construction of a stormwater program in La Mirada, California.
(93)

Los angeles county, california.—
$128,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, Diamond Bar, La Habra Heights, Dominguez Channel, Santa Clarita Valley, and Rowland Heights, Los Angeles County, California.
(94)

Los angeles county, california.—
$20,000,000 for the planning, design, and construction of water related infrastructure for Santa Monica Bay and the coastal zone of Los Angeles County, California.
(95)

Malibu, california.—
$3,000,000 for municipal wastewater and recycled water infrastructure, Malibu Creek Watershed Protection Project, Malibu, California.
(96)

Montebello, california.—
$4,000,000 for water infrastructure improvements in south Montebello, California.
(97)

New river, california.—
$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure to improve water quality in the New River, California.
(98)

Orange county, california.—
$10,000,000 for wastewater and water related infrastructure, Anaheim, Brea, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Yorba Linda, Orange County, California.
(99)

Port of stockton, stockton, california.—
$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure projects for Rough and Ready Island and vicinity, Stockton, California.
(100)

Perris, california.—
$3,000,000 for recycled water transmission infrastructure, Eastern Municipal Water District, Perris, California.
(101)

San bernardino county, california.—
$24,000,000 for wastewater and water related infrastructure, Chino and Chino Hills, San Bernardino County, California.
(102)

Santa clara county, california.—
$5,500,000 for an advanced recycling water treatment plant in Santa Clara County, California.
(103)

Santa monica, california.—
$3,000,000 for improving water system reliability, Santa Monica, California.
(104)

Southern los angeles county, california.—
$15,000,000 for environmental infrastructure for the groundwater basin optimization pipeline, Southern Los Angeles County, California.
(105)

Stockton, california.—
$33,000,000 for water treatment and distribution infrastructure, Stockton, California.
(106)

Sweetwater reservoir, san diego county, california.—
$375,000 to improve water quality and remove nonnative aquatic nuisance species from the Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, California.
(107)

Whittier, california.—
$8,000,000 for water, wastewater, and water related infrastructure, Whittier, California.
(108)

Arkansas valley conduit, colorado.—
$10,000,000 for the Arkansas Valley Conduit, Colorado.
(109)

Boulder county, colorado.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water supply, Boulder County, Colorado.
(110)

Montezuma and la plata counties, colorado.—
$1,000,000 for water and wastewater related infrastructure for the Ute Mountain project, Montezuma and La Plata Counties, Colorado.
(111)

Otero, bent, crowley, kiowa, and prowers counties, colorado.—
$35,000,000 for water transmission infrastructure, Otero, Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, and Prowers Counties, Colorado.
(112)

Pueblo and otero counties, colorado.—
$34,000,000 for water transmission infrastructure, Pueblo and Otero Counties, Colorado.
(113)

Enfield, connecticut.—
$1,000,000 for infiltration and inflow correction, Enfield, Connecticut.
(114)

Ledyard and montville, connecticut.—
$7,113,000 for water infrastructure, Ledyard and Montville, Connecticut.
(115)

New haven, connecticut.—
$300,000 for stormwater system improvements, New Haven, Connecticut.
(116)

Norwalk, connecticut.—
$3,000,000 for the Keeler Brook Storm Water Improvement Project, Norwalk, Connecticut.
(117)

Plainville, connecticut.—
$6,280,000 for wastewater treatment, Plainville, Connecticut.
(118)

Southington, connecticut.—
$9,420,000 for water supply infrastructure, Southington, Connecticut.
(119)

Anacostia river, district of columbia and maryland.—
$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development to enhance water quality and living resources in the Anacostia River watershed, District of Columbia and Maryland.
(120)

District of columbia.—
$35,000,000 for implementation of a combined sewer overflow long-term control plan in the District of Columbia.
(121)

Charlotte county, florida.—
$33,000,000 for wastewater and water supply infrastructure, Charlotte County, Florida.
(122)

Charlotte, lee, and collier counties, florida.—
$20,000,000 for water supply interconnectivity infrastructure, Charlotte, Lee, and Collier Counties, Florida.
(123)

Collier county, florida.—
$5,000,000 for water infrastructure to improve water quality in the vicinity of the Gordon River, Collier County, Florida.
(124)

Hillsborough county, florida.—
$6,250,000 for water infrastructure and supply enhancement, Hillsborough County, Florida.
(125)

Jacksonville, florida.—
$25,000,000 for wastewater related infrastructure, including septic tank replacements, Jacksonville, Florida.
(126)

Sarasota county, florida.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Sarasota County, Florida.
(127)

South seminole and north orange county, florida.—
$30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure for the South Seminole and North Orange Wastewater Transmission Authority, Florida.
(128)

Miami-dade county, florida.—
$190,250,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including water reuse supply and a water transmission pipeline, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(129)

Palm beach county, florida.—
$57,500,000 for water infrastructure, Palm Beach County, Florida.
(130)

Albany, georgia.—
$109,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), Albany, Georgia.
(131)

Banks county, georgia.—
$5,000,000 for water infrastructure improvements, Banks County, Georgia.
(132)

Berrien county, georgia.—
$5,000,000 for water infrastructure improvements, Berrien County, Georgia.
(133)

Chattooga county, georgia.—
$8,000,000 for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure improvement, Chattooga County, Georgia.
(134)

Chattooga, floyd, gordon, walker, and whitifield counties, georgia.—
$10,000,000 for water infrastructure improvements, Armuchee Valley, Chattooga, Floyd, Gordon, Walker, and Whitifield Counties, Georgia.
(135)

Dahlonega, georgia.—
$5,000,000 for water infrastructure improvements, Dahlonega, Georgia.
(136)

East point, georgia.—
$20,000,000 for stormwater management and other water infrastructure improvements, city of East Point, Georgia.
(137)

Fayetteville, grantville, lagrange, pine mountain (harris county), douglasville, and carrollton, georgia.—
$24,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Fayetteville, Grantville, LaGrange, Pine Mountain (Harris County), Douglasville, and Carrollton, Georgia.
(138)

Meriwether and spalding counties, georgia.—
$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Meriwether and Spalding Counties, Georgia.
(139)

Moultrie, georgia.—
$5,000,000 for water supply infrastructure, Moultrie, Georgia.
(140)

Stephens county/city of toccoa, georgia.—
$8,000,000 water infrastructure improvements, Stephens County/city of Toccoa, Georgia.
(141)

North vernon and butlerville, indiana.—
$1,700,000 for wastewater infrastructure, North Vernon and Butlerville, Indiana.
(142)

Salem, washington county, indiana.—
$3,200,000 for water supply infrastructure, Salem, Washington County, Indiana.
(143)

Atchison, kansas.—
$20,000,000 to address combined sewer overflows, Atchison, Kansas.
(144)

Central kentucky.—
$10,000,000 for water related infrastructure and resource protection and development, Scott, Franklin, Woodford, Anderson, Fayette, Mercer, Jessamine, Boyle, Lincoln, Garrard, Madison, Estill, Powell, Clark, Montgomery, and Bourbon Counties, Kentucky.
(145)

Lafayette, louisiana.—
$1,200,000 for water and wastewater improvements, Lafayette, Louisiana.
(146)

Lafourche parish, louisiana.—
$7,300,000 for measures to prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the freshwater system, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.
(147)

Lake charles, louisiana.—
$1,000,000 for water and wastewater improvements, Lake Charles, Louisiana.
(148)

Northwest louisiana council of governments, louisiana.—
$2,000,000 for water and wastewater improvements, Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments, Louisiana.
(149)

Ouachita parish, louisiana.—
$1,000,000 for water and wastewater improvements, Ouachita Parish, Louisiana.
(150)

Plaquemine, louisiana.—
$7,000,000 for sanitary sewer and wastewater infrastructure, Plaquemine, Louisiana.
(151)

Rapides area planning commission, louisiana.—
$1,000,000 for water and wastewater improvements, Rapides, Louisiana.
(152)

Shreveport, louisiana.—
$20,000,000 for water supply infrastructure in Shreveport, Louisiana.
(153)

South central planning and development commission, louisiana.—
$17,500,000 for water and wastewater improvements, South Central Planning and Development Commission, Louisiana.
(154)

Union-lincoln regional water supply project, louisiana.—
$2,000,000 for the Union-Lincoln Regional Water Supply project, Louisiana.
(155)

Chesapeake bay improvements, maryland, virginia, and district of columbia.—
$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure projects to benefit the Chesapeake Bay, including the nutrient removal project at the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment facility in the District of Columbia.
(156)

Chesapeake bay region, maryland and virginia.—
$40,000,000 for water pollution control, Chesapeake Bay Region, Maryland and Virginia.
(157)

Michigan.—
(A)

In general.—
$160,000,000 for correction of combined sewer overflows, Michigan.
(B)

Additional projects.—
Amounts made available under subparagraph (A) may be used for design and construction projects for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in Michigan, including for projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and development.
(158)

Central iron range sanitary sewer district, minnesota.—
$12,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure for the Central Iron Range Sanitary Sewer District to serve the cities of Hibbing, Chisholm, Buhl, and Kinney, and Balkan and Great Scott Townships, Minnesota.
(159)

Central lake region sanitary district, minnesota.—
$2,000,000 for sanitary sewer and wastewater infrastructure for the Central Lake Region Sanitary District, Minnesota, to serve Le Grande and Moe Townships, Minnesota.
(160)

Goodview, minnesota.—
$3,000,000 for water quality infrastructure, Goodview, Minnesota.
(161)

Grand rapids, minnesota.—
$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Grand Rapids, Minnesota.
(162)

Willmar, minnesota.—
$15,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Willmar, Minnesota.
(163)

Biloxi, mississippi.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater related infrastructure, city of Biloxi, Mississippi.
(164)

Corinth, mississippi.—
$7,500,000 for a surface water program, city of Corinth, Mississippi.
(165)

Gulfport, mississippi.—
$5,000,000 for water and wastewater related infrastructure, city of Gulfport, Mississippi.
(166)

Harrison county, mississippi.—
$5,000,000 for water and wastewater related infrastructure, Harrison County, Mississippi.
(167)

Jackson, mississippi.—
$139,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including resilience activities for such infrastructure, Jackson, Mississippi.
(168)

Clark county, nevada.—
$30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Clark County, Nevada.
(169)

Clean water coalition, nevada.—
$50,000,000 for the Systems Conveyance and Operations Program, Clark County, Henderson, Las Vegas, and North Las Vegas, Nevada.
(170)

Glendale dam diversion structure, nevada.—
$10,000,000 for water system improvements to the Glendale Dam Diversion Structure for the Truckee Meadows Water Authority, Nevada.
(171)

Henderson, nevada.—
$13,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Henderson, Nevada.
(172)

Indian springs, nevada.—
$12,000,000 for construction of wastewater system improvements for the Indian Springs community, Nevada.
(173)

Reno, nevada.—
$13,000,000 for construction of a water conservation project for the Highland Canal, Mogul Bypass in Reno, Nevada.
(174)

Washoe county, nevada.—
$14,000,000 for construction of water infrastructure improvements to the Huffaker Hills Reservoir Conservation Project, Washoe County, Nevada.
(175)

Cranford township, new jersey.—
$6,000,000 for storm sewer improvements, Cranford Township, New Jersey.
(176)

Middletown township, new jersey.—
$1,100,000 for storm sewer improvements, Middletown Township, New Jersey.
(177)

Paterson, new jersey.—
$35,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Paterson, New Jersey.
(178)

Rahway valley, new jersey.—
$25,000,000 for sanitary sewer and storm sewer improvements in the service area of the Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority, New Jersey.
(179)

Babylon, new york.—
$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Town of Babylon, New York.
(180)

Ellicottville, new york.—
$2,000,000 for water supply, water, and wastewater infrastructure in Ellicottville, New York.
(181)

Elmira, new york.—
$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Elmira, New York.
(182)

Essex hamlet, new york.—
$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Essex Hamlet, New York.
(183)

Fleming, new york.—
$5,000,000 for drinking water infrastructure, Fleming, New York.
(184)

Kiryas joel, new york.—
$25,000,000 for drinking water infrastructure, village of Kiryas Joel, New York.
(185)

Niagara falls, new york.—
$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Niagara Falls Water Board, New York.
(186)

Patchogue, new york.—
$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, village of Patchogue, New York.
(187)

Sennett, new york.—
$1,500,000 for water infrastructure, town of Sennett, New York.
(188)

Springport and fleming, new york.—
$10,000,000 for water related infrastructure, including water mains, pump stations, and water storage tanks, Springport and Fleming, New York.
(189)

Wellsville, new york.—
$2,000,000 for water supply, water, and wastewater infrastructure in Wellsville, New York.
(190)

Yates county, new york.—
$5,000,000 for drinking water infrastructure, Yates County, New York.
(191)

Cabarrus county, north carolina.—
$4,500,000 for water related infrastructure, Cabarrus County, North Carolina.
(192)

Cary, wake county, north carolina.—
$4,000,000 for a water reclamation facility, Cary, Wake County, North Carolina.
(193)

Charlotte, north carolina.—
$14,000,000 for the Briar Creek Relief Sewer project, city of Charlotte, North Carolina.
(194)

Fayetteville, cumberland county, north carolina.—
$6,000,000 for water and sewer upgrades, city of Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina.
(195)

Mooresville, north carolina.—
$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements, town of Mooresville, North Carolina.
(196)

Neuse regional water and sewer authority, north carolina.—
$4,000,000 for the Neuse regional drinking water facility, Kinston, North Carolina.
(197)

Richmond county, north carolina.—
$13,500,000 for water related infrastructure, Richmond County, North Carolina.
(198)

Union county, north carolina.—
$6,000,000 for water related infrastructure, Union County, North Carolina.
(199)

Washington county, north carolina.—
$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Washington County, North Carolina.
(200)

Winston-salem, north carolina.—
$3,000,000 for stormwater upgrades, city of Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
(201)

North dakota.—
$15,000,000 for water-related infrastructure, North Dakota.
(202)

Devils lake, north dakota.—
$15,000,000 for water supply infrastructure, Devils Lake, North Dakota.
(203)

Saipan, northern mariana islands.—
$20,000,000 for water related infrastructure, Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands.
(204)

Akron, ohio.—
$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Akron, Ohio.
(205)

Burr oak regional water district, ohio.—
$4,000,000 for construction of a water line to extend from a well field near Chauncey, Ohio, to a water treatment plant near Millfield, Ohio.
(206)

Cincinnati, ohio.—
$31,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Cincinnati, Ohio.
(207)

Cleveland, ohio.—
$25,500,000 water and wastewater infrastructure, city of Cleveland, Ohio.
(208)

Columbus, ohio.—
$4,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Columbus, Ohio.
(209)

Dayton, ohio.—
$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Dayton, Ohio.
(210)

Defiance county, ohio.—
$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Defiance County, Ohio.
(211)

Fostoria, ohio.—
$2,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Fostoria, Ohio.
(212)

Fremont, ohio.—
$2,000,000 for construction of off-stream water supply reservoir, Fremont, Ohio.
(213)

Lake county, ohio.—
$1,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Lake County, Ohio.
(214)

Lawrence county, ohio.—
$5,000,000 for Union Rome wastewater infrastructure, Lawrence County, Ohio.
(215)

Meigs county, ohio.—
$1,000,000 to extend the Tupper Plains Regional Water District water line to Meigs County, Ohio.
(216)

Mentor-on-lake, ohio.—
$625,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Mentor-on-Lake, Ohio.
(217)

Vinton county, ohio.—
$1,000,000 to construct water lines in Vinton and Brown Townships, Ohio.
(218)

Willowick, ohio.—
$665,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Willowick, Ohio.
(219)

Ada, oklahoma.—
$1,700,000 for sewer improvements and other water infrastructure, city of Ada, Oklahoma.
(220)

Alva, oklahoma.—
$250,000 for wastewater infrastructure improvements, city of Alva, Oklahoma.
(221)

Ardmore, oklahoma.—
$1,900,000 for water and sewer infrastructure improvements, city of Ardmore, Oklahoma.
(222)

Bartlesville, oklahoma.—
$2,500,000 for water supply infrastructure, city of Bartlesville, Oklahoma.
(223)

Bethany, oklahoma.—
$1,500,000 for water improvements and water related infrastructure, city of Bethany, Oklahoma.
(224)

Chickasha, oklahoma.—
$650,000 for industrial park sewer infrastructure, city of Chickasha, Oklahoma.
(225)

Disney and langley, oklahoma.—
$2,500,000 for water and sewer improvements and water related infrastructure, cities of Disney and Langley, Oklahoma.
(226)

Durant, oklahoma.—
$3,300,000 for bayou restoration and water related infrastructure, city of Durant, Oklahoma.
(227)

Eastern oklahoma state university, wilberton, oklahoma.—
$1,000,000 for sewer and utility upgrades and water related infrastructure, Eastern Oklahoma State University, Wilberton, Oklahoma.
(228)

Guymon, oklahoma.—
$16,000,000 for water and wastewater related infrastructure, city of Guymon, Oklahoma.
(229)

Konawa, oklahoma.—
$500,000 for water treatment infrastructure improvements, city of Konawa, Oklahoma.
(230)

Lugert-altus irrigation district, altus, oklahoma.—
$5,000,000 for water related infrastructure improvements, Lugert-Altus Irrigation District, Altus, Oklahoma.
(231)

Midwest city, oklahoma.—
$15,000,000 for improvements to water related infrastructure, the City of Midwest City, Oklahoma.
(232)

Mustang, oklahoma.—
$3,325,000 for water improvements and water related infrastructure, city of Mustang, Oklahoma.
(233)

Norman, oklahoma.—
$10,000,000 for water related infrastructure, Norman, Oklahoma.
(234)

Oklahoma panhandle state university, guymon, oklahoma.—
$275,000 for water testing facility and water related infrastructure development, Oklahoma Panhandle State University, Guymon, Oklahoma.
(235)

Weatherford, oklahoma.—
$500,000 for arsenic program and water related infrastructure, city of Weatherford, Oklahoma.
(236)

Woodward, oklahoma.—
$3,000,000 for water improvements and water related infrastructure, Woodward, Oklahoma.
(237)

Albany, oregon.—
$35,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure to improve habitat restoration, Albany, Oregon.
(238)

Beaver creek reservoir, pennsylvania.—
$3,000,000 for projects for water supply and related activities, Beaver Creek Reservoir, Clarion County, Beaver and Salem Townships, Pennsylvania.
(239)

Hatfield borough, pennsylvania.—
$3,000,000 for wastewater related infrastructure for Hatfield Borough, Pennsylvania.
(240)

Lehigh county, pennsylvania.—
$5,000,000 for stormwater control measures and storm sewer improvements, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
(241)

North wales borough, pennsylvania.—
$1,516,584 for wastewater related infrastructure for North Wales Borough, Pennsylvania.
(242)

Pen argyl, pennsylvania.—
$5,250,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania.
(243)

Philadelphia, pennsylvania.—
$3,000,000 for water supply and wastewater related infrastructure for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
(244)

Stockerton borough, tatamy borough, and palmer township, pennsylvania.—
$10,000,000 for stormwater control measures, particularly to address sinkholes, in the vicinity of Stockerton Borough, Tatamy Borough, and Palmer Township, Pennsylvania.
(245)

Vera cruz, pennsylvania.—
$5,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Vera Cruz, Pennsylvania.
(246)

Commonwealth of puerto rico.—
$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(247)

Charleston, south carolina.—
$4,000,000 for stormwater control measures and storm sewer improvements, Spring Street/Fishburne Street drainage project, Charleston, South Carolina.
(248)

Charleston and west ashley, south carolina.—
$6,000,000 for wastewater tunnel replacement, Charleston and West Ashley, South Carolina.
(249)

Crooked creek, marlboro county, south carolina.—
$25,000,000 for a project for water storage and water supply infrastructure on Crooked Creek, Marlboro County, South Carolina.
(250)

Myrtle beach and vicinity, south carolina.—
$31,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, Myrtle Beach and vicinity, South Carolina.
(251)

North myrtle beach and vicinity, south carolina.—
$74,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, North Myrtle Beach and vicinity, South Carolina.
(252)

Surfside, south carolina.—
$11,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including stormwater system improvements and ocean outfalls, Surfside, South Carolina.
(253)

Cheyenne river sioux reservation (dewey and ziebach counties) and perkins and meade counties, south dakota.—
$65,000,000 for water related infrastructure, Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation (Dewey and Ziebach counties) and Perkins and Meade Counties, South Dakota.
(254)

Athens, tennessee.—
$16,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Athens, Tennessee.
(255)

Blaine, tennessee.—
$500,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, Blaine, Tennessee.
(256)

Claiborne county, tennessee.—
$1,250,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, Claiborne County, Tennessee.
(257)

Giles county, tennessee.—
$2,000,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, county of Giles, Tennessee.
(258)

Grainger county, tennessee.—
$1,250,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, Grainger County, Tennessee.
(259)

Hamilton county, tennessee.—
$500,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, Hamilton County, Tennessee.
(260)

Harrogate, tennessee.—
$2,000,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, city of Harrogate, Tennessee.
(261)

Johnson county, tennessee.—
$600,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, Johnson County, Tennessee.
(262)

Knoxville, tennessee.—
$5,000,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, city of Knoxville, Tennessee.
(263)

Nashville, tennessee.—
$5,000,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, Nashville, Tennessee.
(264)

Lewis, lawrence, and wayne counties, tennessee.—
$2,000,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, counties of Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne, Tennessee.
(265)

Oak ridge, tennessee.—
$4,000,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, city of Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
(266)

Plateau utility district, morgan county, tennessee.—
$1,000,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, Morgan County, Tennessee.
(267)

Shelby county, tennessee.—
$4,000,000 for water related environmental infrastructure, county of Shelby, Tennessee.
(268)

Central texas.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Bosque, Brazos, Burleson, Grimes, Hill, Hood, Johnson, Madison, McLennan, Limestone, Robertson, and Somervell Counties, Texas.
(269)

El paso county, texas.—
$75,000,000 for water related infrastructure and resource protection, including stormwater management, and development, El Paso County, Texas.
(270)

Ft. bend county, texas.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Ft. Bend County, Texas.
(271)

Duchesne, iron, and uintah counties, utah.—
$10,800,000 for water related infrastructure, Duchesne, Iron, and Uintah Counties, Utah.
(272)

Northern west virginia.—
(A)

In general.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, Monongalia, Marion, Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston, Tucker, Mineral, Grant, Gilmer, Brooke, and Ritchie Counties, West Virginia.
(B)

Local cooperation agreements.—
Notwithstanding subsection (a), at the request of a non-Federal interest for a project or a separable element of a project that receives assistance under this paragraph, the Secretary may enter into an agreement developed in accordance with section 571(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 371) for the project or separable element.
(273)

United states virgin islands.—
$25,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure for the St. Croix Anguilla wastewater treatment plant and the St. Thomas Charlotte Amalie wastewater treatment plant, United States Virgin Islands.
(274)

Alabama.—
$85,000,000 for water, wastewater, and other environmental infrastructure in Alabama.
(275)

Chandler, arizona.—
$18,750,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Chandler, Arizona.
(276)

Pinal county, arizona.—
$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Pinal County, Arizona.
(277)

Tempe, arizona.—
$37,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation and groundwater recharge, for the City of Tempe, Arizona.
(278)

Alameda county, california.—
$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, in Alameda County, California.
(279)

Bell gardens, california.—
$12,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, in the city of Bell Gardens, California.
(280)

Calimesa, california.—
$3,500,000 for stormwater management and water supply infrastructure, including groundwater recharge and water recycling, in the city of Calimesa, California.
(281)

Compton creek, california.—
$6,165,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in the vicinity of Compton Creek, city of Compton, California.
(282)

Downey, california.—
$100,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Downey, California.
(283)

East county, san diego county, california.—
$70,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, in East County, San Diego County, California.
(284)

Eastern los angeles county, california.—
$25,000,000 for the planning, design, and construction of water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, for the cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Duarte, El Monte, Glendora, Industry, Irwindale, La Puente, La Verne, Monrovia, San Dimas, and West Covina, and for Avocado Heights, Bassett, and Valinda, California.
(285)

Escondido creek, california.—
$34,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the vicinity of Escondido Creek, city of Escondido, California.
(286)

Fontana, california.—
$16,000,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in the city of Fontana, California.
(287)

Healdsburg, california.—
$23,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, in the city of Healdsburg, California.
(288)

Inland empire, california.—
$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Riverside County and San Bernardino County, California.
(289)

Lomita, california.—
$4,716,600 for stormwater management infrastructure in the city of Lomita, California.
(290)

Marin county, california.—
$28,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Marin County, California.
(291)

Maywood, california.—
$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the city of Maywood, California.
(292)

Monterey peninsula, california.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, and water supply, on the Monterey Peninsula, California.
(293)

North richmond, california.—
$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including coastal flooding resilience measures for such infrastructure, in North Richmond, California.
(294)

Ontario, california.—
$40,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, in the city of Ontario, California.
(295)

Paramount, california.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Paramount, California.
(296)

Petaluma, california.—
$13,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling, in the city of Petaluma, California.
(297)

Placer county, california.—
$21,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, in Placer County, California.
(298)

Rialto, california.—
$27,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the city of Rialto, California.
(299)

Rincon reservation, california.—
$38,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure on the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians reservation, California.
(300)

Sacramento-san joaquin delta, california.—
$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water protection and development, including flooding resilience measures for such infrastructure, in Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County, Solano County, Sacramento County, and Yolo County, California.
(301)

San joaquin and stanislaus, california.—
$200,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, and water supply, in San Joaquin County and Stanislaus County, California.
(302)

Santa rosa, california.—
$19,400,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the city of Santa Rosa California.
(303)

Sierra madre, california.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, and water supply, including earthquake resilience measures for such infrastructure and water supply, in the city of Sierra Madre, California.
(304)

Smith river, california.—
$25,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Howonquet Village and Resort and Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation, Smith River, California.
(305)

South san francisco, california.—
$270,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water recycling, at the San Francisco International Airport, California.
(306)

Temecula, california.—
$18,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, in the city of Temecula, California.
(307)

Torrance, california.—
$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including groundwater recharge and water supply, in the city of Torrance, California.
(308)

Western contra costa county, california.—
$15,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the cities of Pinole, San Pablo, and Richmond, and in El Sobrante, California.
(309)

Yolo county, california.—
$6,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, in Yolo County, California.
(310)

Hebron, connecticut.—
$3,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Hebron, Connecticut.
(311)

New london, connecticut.—
$16,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the town of Bozrah and the City of Norwich, Connecticut.
(312)

Windham, connecticut.—
$18,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Windham, Connecticut.
(313)

Kent, delaware.—
$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water storage and treatment systems, and environmental restoration, in Kent County, Delaware.
(314)

New castle, delaware.—
$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water storage and treatment systems, and environmental restoration, in New Castle County, Delaware.
(315)

Sussex, delaware.—
$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water storage and treatment systems, and environmental restoration, in Sussex County, Delaware.
(316)

Washington, district of columbia.—
$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Washington, District of Columbia.
(317)

Longboat key, florida.—
$12,750,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Longboat Key, Florida.
(318)

Martin, st. lucie, and palm beach counties, florida.—
$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, to improve water quality in the St. Lucie River, Indian River Lagoon, and Lake Worth Lagoon in Martin County, St. Lucie County, and Palm Beach County, Florida.
(319)

Polk county, florida.—
$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Polk County, Florida.
(320)

Okeechobee county, florida.—
$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Okeechobee County, Florida.
(321)

Orange county, florida.—
$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation and water supply, in Orange County, Florida.
(322)

Georgia.—
$75,000,000 for environmental infrastructure in Baldwin County, Bartow County, Floyd County, Haralson County, Jones County, Gilmer County, Towns County, Warren County, Lamar County, Lowndes County, Troup County, Madison County, Toombs County, Dade County, Bulloch County, Gordon County, Walker County, Dooly County, Butts County, Clarke County, Crisp County, Newton County, Bibb County, Baker County, Barrow County, Oglethorpe County, Peach County, Brooks County, Carroll County, Worth County, Jenkins County, Wheeler County, Calhoun County, Randolph County, Wilcox County, Stewart County, Telfair County, Clinch County, Hancock County, Ben Hill County, Jeff Davis County, Chattooga County, Lanier County, Brantley County, Charlton County, Tattnall County, Emanuel County, Mitchell County, Turner County, Bacon County, Terrell County, Macon County, Ware County, Bleckley County, Colquitt County, Washington County, Berrien County, Coffee County, Pulaski County, Cook County, Atkinson County, Candler County, Taliaferro County, Evans County, Johnson County, Irwin County, Dodge County, Jefferson County, Appling County, Taylor County, Wayne County, Clayton County, Decatur County, Schley County, Sumter County, Early County, Webster County, Clay County, Upson County, Long County, Twiggs County, Dougherty County, Quitman County, Meriwether County, Stephens County, Wilkinson County, Murray County, Wilkes County, Elbert County, McDuffie County, Heard County, Marion County, Talbot County, Laurens County, Montgomery County, Echols County, Pierce County, Richmond County, Chattahoochee County, Screven County, Habersham County, Lincoln County, Burke County, Liberty County, Tift County, Polk County, Glascock County, Grady County, Jasper County, Banks County, Franklin County, Whitfield County, Treutlen County, Crawford County, and Hart County, Georgia.
(323)

Guam.—
$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Guam.
(324)

State of hawaii.—
$75,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure (including urban stormwater conveyance), resource protection and development, water supply, environmental restoration, and surface water protection and development, in the State of Hawaii.
(325)

County of hawai‘i, hawaii.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the County of Hawai‘i, Hawaii.
(326)

Honolulu, hawaii.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii.
(327)

Kaua‘i, hawaii.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the County of Kaua‘i, Hawaii.
(328)

Maui, hawaii.—
$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the County of Maui, Hawaii.
(329)

Dixmoor, illinois.—
$15,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the village of Dixmoor, Illinois.
(330)

Forest park, illinois.—
$50,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Forest Park, Illinois.
(331)

Lemont, illinois.—
$3,135,000 for water infrastructure in the village of Lemont, Illinois.
(332)

Lockport, illinois.—
$6,550,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Lockport, Illinois.
(333)

South central illinois.—
$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Montgomery County, Christian County, Fayette County, Shelby County, Jasper County, Richland County, Crawford County, and Lawrence County, Illinois.
(334)

Will county, illinois.—
$36,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Will County, Illinois.
(335)

Orleans parish, louisiana.—
$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Orleans Parish, Louisiana.
(336)

Fitchburg, massachusetts.—
$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Fitchburg, Massachusetts.
(337)

Haverhill, massachusetts.—
$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Haverhill, Massachusetts.
(338)

Lawrence, massachusetts.—
$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Lawrence, Massachusetts.
(339)

Lowell, massachusetts.—
$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Lowell, Massachusetts.
(340)

Methuen, massachusetts.—
$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Methuen, Massachusetts.
(341)

Maryland.—
$100,000,000 for water, wastewater, and other environmental infrastructure, Maryland.
(342)

Boonsboro, maryland.—
$5,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of Boonsboro, Maryland.
(343)

Brunswick, maryland.—
$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Brunswick, Maryland.
(344)

Cascade charter township, michigan.—
$7,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Cascade Charter Township, Michigan.
(345)

Macomb county, michigan.—
$90,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Macomb County, Michigan.
(346)

Northfield, minnesota.—
$33,450,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Northfield, Minnesota.
(347)

Centertown, missouri.—
$15,900,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the village of Centertown, Missouri.
(348)

City of st. louis, missouri.—
$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of St. Louis, Missouri.
(349)

St. louis county, missouri.—
$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in St. Louis County, Missouri.
(350)

Clinton, mississippi.—
$13,600,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, in the city of Clinton, Mississippi.
(351)

Madison county, mississippi.—
$24,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, in Madison County, Mississippi.
(352)

Meridian, mississippi.—
$26,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, in the city of Meridian, Mississippi.
(353)

Oxford, mississippi.—
$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, in the City of Oxford, Mississippi.
(354)

Rankin county, mississippi.—
$24,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, in Rankin County, Mississippi.
(355)

Manchester, new hampshire.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Manchester, New Hampshire.
(356)

Bayonne, new jersey.—
$825,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Bayonne, New Jersey.
(357)

Camden, new jersey.—
$143,800,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Camden, New Jersey.
(358)

Essex and sussex counties, new jersey.—
$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Essex County and Sussex County, New Jersey.
(359)

Flemington, new jersey.—
$4,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the Borough of Flemington, New Jersey.
(360)

Jefferson, new jersey.—
$90,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Jefferson Township, New Jersey.
(361)

Kearny, new jersey.—
$69,900,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the town of Kearny, New Jersey.
(362)

Long hill, new jersey.—
$7,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Long Hill Township, New Jersey.
(363)

Morris county, new jersey.—
$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Morris County, New Jersey.
(364)

Passaic, new jersey.—
$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Passaic County, New Jersey.
(365)

Phillipsburg, new jersey.—
$2,600,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
(366)

Rahway, new jersey.—
$3,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Rahway, New Jersey.
(367)

Roselle, new jersey.—
$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the Borough of Roselle, New Jersey.
(368)

South orange village, new jersey.—
$7,500,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the Township of South Orange Village, New Jersey.
(369)

Summit, new jersey.—
$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Summit, New Jersey.
(370)

Warren, new jersey.—
$4,550,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Warren Township, New Jersey.
(371)

Española, new mexico.—
$21,995,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Española, New Mexico.
(372)

Farmington, new mexico.—
$15,500,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Farmington, New Mexico.
(373)

Mora county, new mexico.—
$2,874,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Mora County, New Mexico.
(374)

Santa fe, new mexico.—
$20,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, in the city of Santa Fe, New Mexico.
(375)

Clarkstown, new york.—
$14,600,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Clarkstown, New York.
(376)

Genesee, new york.—
$85,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water supply, in Genesee County, New York.
(377)

Queens, new york.—
$190,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in Queens, New York.
(378)

Yorktown, new york.—
$40,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Yorktown, New York.
(379)

Brunswick, ohio.—
$4,510,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Brunswick, Ohio.
(380)

Brookings, oregon.—
$2,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the City of Brookings and the Port of Brookings Harbor, Oregon.
(381)

Monroe, oregon.—
$6,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Monroe, Oregon.
(382)

Newport, oregon.—
$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and water storage, in the city of Newport, Oregon.
(383)

Lane county, oregon.—
$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and storage, distribution, and treatment systems, in Lane County, Oregon.
(384)

Palmyra, pennsylvania.—
$36,300,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Palmyra Township, Pennsylvania.
(385)

Pike county, pennsylvania.—
$10,000,000 for water and stormwater management infrastructure, including water supply, in Pike County, Pennsylvania.
(386)

Pittsburgh, pennsylvania.—
$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
(387)

Pocono, pennsylvania.—
$22,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Pocono Township, Pennsylvania.
(388)

Westfall, pennsylvania.—
$16,880,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Westfall Township, Pennsylvania.
(389)

Whitehall, pennsylvania.—
$6,000,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in Whitehall Township and South Whitehall Township, Pennsylvania.
(390)

Beaufort, south carolina.—
$7,462,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in Beaufort County, South Carolina.
(391)

Charleston, south carolina.—
$25,583,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Charleston, South Carolina.
(392)

Horry county, south carolina.—
$19,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, in Horry County, South Carolina.
(393)

Mount pleasant, south carolina.—
$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.
(394)

Portland, tennessee.—
$1,850,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Portland, Tennessee.
(395)

Smith county, tennessee.—
$69,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Smith County, Tennessee.
(396)

Trousdale, macon, and sumner counties, tennessee.—
$178,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Trousdale County, Macon County, and Sumner County, Tennessee.
(397)

United states virgin islands.—
$1,584,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the United States Virgin Islands.
(398)

Bonney lake, washington.—
$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Bonney Lake, Washington.
(399)

Burien, washington.—
$5,000,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in the city of Burien, Washington.
(400)

Ellensburg, washington.—
$3,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Ellensburg, Washington.
(401)

North bend, washington.—
$30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of North Bend, Washington.
(402)

Port angeles, washington.—
$7,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the City and Port of Port Angeles, Washington.
(403)

Snohomish county, washington.—
$56,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Snohomish County, Washington.
[Paragraph (404) was repealed by section 1332(f) of division A of Public Law 118–272.]
(405)

Milwaukee, wisconsin.—
$11,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), and resource protection and development, in the Milwaukee metropolitan area, Wisconsin.
(406)

Buckeye, arizona.—
$12,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of Buckeye, Arizona.
(407)

Flagstaff, arizona.—
$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for water reclamation, withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Flagstaff, Arizona.
(408)

Glendale, arizona.—
$5,200,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Glendale, Arizona.
(409)

Page, arizona.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of Page, Arizona.
(410)

Sahuarita, arizona.—
$4,800,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, in the town of Sahuarita, Arizona.
(411)

Tohono o’odham nation, arizona.—
$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Tohono O’odham Nation, Arizona.
(412)

Tucson, arizona.—
$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water reclamation and recycled water systems), Tucson, Arizona.
(413)

Winslow, arizona.—
$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of Winslow, Arizona.
(414)

Adelanto, california.—
$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the City of Adelanto, California.
(415)

Aptos, california.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Aptos, California.
(416)

Sacramento and san joaquin rivers, bay-delta, california.—
$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, San Francisco Bay–Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta watershed, California.
(417)

Bishop, california.—
$2,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Bishop, California.
(418)

Bloomington, california.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Bloomington, California.
(419)

Butte county, california.—
$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water supply, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection in Butte County, California.
(420)

California city, california.—
$1,902,808 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of California City, California.
(421)

Carson, california.—
$11,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the City of Carson, California.
(422)

Cedar glen, california.—
$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and water storage, in Cedar Glen, California.
(423)

Culver city, california.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in City of Culver City, California.
(424)

Colton, california.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Colton, California.
(425)

East san fernando valley, california.—
$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, drinking water, and water supply, in the City of Los Angeles, California, including Sun Valley.
(426)

Fresno county, california.—
$20,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including stormwater management, surface water resource protection, and environmental restoration, in Fresno County, California.
(427)

Georgetown divide public utility district, california.—
$20,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and water storage, for communities served by the Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, California.
(428)

Grand terrace, california.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Grand Terrace, California.
(429)

Hayward, california.—
$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in the city of Hayward, California.
(430)

Hollister, california.—
$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Hollister, California.
(431)

Kern county, california.—
$50,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in Kern County, California.
(432)

Lake county, california.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Lake County, California.
(433)

Lake tahoe basin.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the communities within the Lake Tahoe Basin in Nevada and California.
(434)

La quinta, california.—
$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the City of La Quinta, California.
(435)

Lakewood, california.—
$8,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Lakewood, California.
(436)

Lawndale, california.—
$6,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, and environmental infrastructure, in the city of Lawndale, California.
(437)

Lone pine, california.—
$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Lone Pine, California.
(438)

Lomita, california.—
$5,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in the city of Lomita, California.
(439)

Los banos, california.—
$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Los Banos, California.
(440)

Los olivos, california.—
$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Los Olivos, California.
(441)

Lynwood, california.—
$12,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of Lynwood, California.
(442)

Madera county, california.—
$27,500,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in Madera County, California.
(443)

Milpitas, california.—
$15,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of Milpitas, California.
(444)

Montecito, california.—
$18,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in the town of Montecito, California.
(445)

Oakland-alameda estuary, california.—
$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems and water quality enhancement, Oakland-Alameda Estuary, Oakland and Alameda Counties, California.
(446)

Oxnard, california.—
$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, conservation, water reuse and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection, in the city of Oxnard, California.
(447)

Patterson, california.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and environmental restoration, in the city of Patterson, California.
(448)

Pomona, california.—
$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in Pomona, California.
(449)

Rohnert park, california.—
$10,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of Rohnert Park, California.
(450)

Salinas, california.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Salinas, California.
(451)

San benito county, california.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in San Benito County, California.
(452)

San buenaventura, california.—
$18,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of San Buenaventura, California.
(453)

San diego county, california.—
$200,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in San Diego County, California.
(454)

South gate, california.—
$5,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of South Gate, California.
(455)

San luis obispo county, california.—
$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water supply, in San Luis Obispo County, California.
(456)

Stanislaus county, california.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in Stanislaus County, California.
(457)

Tijuana river valley watershed, california.—
$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Tijuana River Valley Watershed, California.
(458)

Tulare county, california.—
$20,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including stormwater management, surface water resource protection, and environmental restoration, in Tulare County, California.
(459)

Watsonville, california.—
$28,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Watsonville, California.
(460)

Yolo county, california.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in Yolo County, California.
(461)

Yorba linda water district, california.—
$6,500,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in communities served by the Yorba Linda Water District, California.
(462)

El paso county, colorado.—
$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and stormwater management, El Paso County, Colorado.
(463)

Fremont county, colorado.—
$50,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, in Fremont County, Colorado.
(464)

East hampton, connecticut.—
$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of East Hampton, Connecticut.
(465)

East lyme, connecticut.—
$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of East Lyme, Connecticut.
(466)

Rehoboth beach, lewes, dewey, bethany, south bethany, fenwick island, delaware.—
$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Rehoboth Beach, Lewes, Dewey, Bethany, South Bethany, and Fenwick Island, Delaware.
(467)

Wilmington, delaware.—
$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Wilmington, Delaware.
(468)

Pickering beach, kitts hummock, bowers beach, south bowers beach, slaughter beach, prime hook beach, milton, milford, delaware.—
$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Pickering Beach, Kitts Hummock, Bowers Beach, South Bowers Beach, Slaughter Beach, Prime Hook Beach, Milton, and Milford, Delaware.
(469)

Broward county, florida.—
$50,000,000 for water and water-related infrastructure, including stormwater management, water storage and treatment, surface water protection, and environmental restoration, in Broward County, Florida.
(470)

Deltona, florida.—
$31,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the City of Deltona, Florida.
(471)

Longboat key, florida.—
$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the Town of Longboat Key, Florida.
(472)

Marion county, florida.—
$10,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including water supply, in Marion County, Florida.
(473)

Oviedo, florida.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water storage and treatment, in the city of Oviedo, Florida.
(474)

Osceola county, florida.—
$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, and environmental restoration, in Osceola County, Florida.
(475)

Central florida.—
$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Brevard County, Orange County, and Osceola County, Florida.
(476)

Coastal georgia, georgia.—
$50,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management and water supply), in Bryan, Camden, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, and McIntosh Counties, Georgia.
(477)

Muscogee, henry, and clayton counties, georgia.—
$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), Muscogee, Henry, and Clayton Counties, Georgia.
(478)

Cobb county, georgia.—
$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Cobb County, Georgia.
(479)

Dekalb county, georgia.—
$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in DeKalb County, Georgia.
(480)

Porterdale, georgia.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water supply, and environmental restoration in the city of Porterdale, Georgia.
(481)

Burley, idaho.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water treatment, in the city of Burley, Idaho.
(482)

Belvidere, illinois.—
$17,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Belvidere, Illinois.
(483)

Calumet city, illinois.—
$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Calumet City, Illinois.
(484)

Dupage county, illinois.—
$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in the village of Clarendon Hills, Illinois.
(485)

Fox river, illinois.—
$9,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water storage and treatment, in the villages of Lakemoor, Island Lake, and Volo, and McHenry County, Illinois.
(486)

German valley, illinois.—
$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in the village of German Valley, Illinois.
(487)

Lasalle, illinois.—
$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, drinking water, water treatment, and environmental restoration, in the city of LaSalle, Illinois.
(488)

Rockford, illinois.—
$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in the city of Rockford, Illinois.
(489)

Savanna, illinois.—
$2,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including drinking water, in the city of Savanna, Illinois.
(490)

Sherrard, illinois.—
$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in the village of Sherrard, Illinois.
(491)

Wyandotte county and kansas city, kansas.—
$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas.
(492)

Brownsville, kentucky.—
$14,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in the city of Brownsville, Kentucky.
(493)

Monroe, louisiana.—
$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water supply, and drinking water, in the city of Monroe, Louisiana.
(494)

Pointe celeste, louisiana.—
$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including pump stations, in Pointe Celeste, Louisiana.
(495)

Easthampton, massachusetts.—
$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including wastewater treatment plant outfalls), Easthampton, Massachusetts.
(496)

Franklin, massachusetts.—
$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Franklin, Massachusetts.
(497)

Northampton, massachusetts.—
$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including pump stations, Hockanum Road, Northampton, Massachusetts.
(498)

Winthrop, massachusetts.—
$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Winthrop, Massachusetts.
(499)

Milan, michigan.—
$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in the city of Milan, Michigan.
(500)

Southeast michigan.—
$58,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water supply, in Genesee, Macomb, Oakland, Wayne, and Washtenaw Counties, Michigan.
(501)

Elysian, minnesota.—
$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Elysian, Minnesota.
(502)

Le sueur, minnesota.—
$3,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Le Sueur, Minnesota.
(503)

Byram, mississippi.—
$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Byram, Mississippi.
(504)

Columbia, mississippi.—
$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water quality enhancement and water supply, in the city of Columbia, Mississippi.
(505)

Diamondhead, mississippi.—
$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and drainage systems, Diamondhead, Mississippi.
(506)

Hancock county, mississippi.—
$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Hancock County, Mississippi.
(507)

Laurel, mississippi.—
$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Laurel, Mississippi.
(508)

Madison, mississippi.—
$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Madison, Mississippi.
(509)

Moss point, mississippi.—
$11,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Moss Point, Mississippi.
(510)

Olive branch, mississippi.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water quality enhancement, and water supply, in the city of Olive Branch, Mississippi.
(511)

Pearl, mississippi.—
$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Pearl, Mississippi.
(512)

Picayune, mississippi.—
$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Picayune, Mississippi.
(513)

Starkville, mississippi.—
$6,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water, water treatment, water quality enhancement, and water supply, in the city of Starkville, Mississippi.
(514)

Laughlin, nevada.—
$29,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of Laughlin, Nevada.
(515)

Nye county, nevada.—
$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water wellfield and pipeline in the Pahrump Valley), Nye County, Nevada.
(516)

Pahrump, nevada.—
$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Pahrump, Nevada.
(517)

Storey county, nevada.—
$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Storey County, Nevada.
(518)

New hampshire.—
$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, New Hampshire.
(519)

Belmar, new jersey.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure and stormwater management in Belmar Township, New Jersey.
(520)

Cape may county, new jersey.—
$40,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water supply, desalination, and facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Cape May County, New Jersey.
(521)

Colesville, new jersey.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Colesville, New Jersey.
(522)

Deptford township, new jersey.—
$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Deptford Township, New Jersey.
(523)

Lacey township, new jersey.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure and stormwater management, in Lacey Township, New Jersey.
(524)

Merchantville, new jersey.—
$18,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Merchantville, New Jersey.
(525)

Park ridge, new jersey.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Park Ridge, New Jersey.
(526)

Washington township, new jersey.—
$3,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Washington Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey.
(527)

Bernalillo, new mexico.—
$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the town of Bernalillo, New Mexico.
(528)

Bosque farms, new mexico.—
$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the village of Bosque Farms, New Mexico.
(529)

Carmel, new york.—
$3,450,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Carmel, New York.
(530)

Dutchess county, new york.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Dutchess County, New York.
(531)

Kings county, new york.—
$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in Kings County, New York.
(532)

Mohawk river and tributaries, new york.—
$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, surface water resource protection, environmental restoration, and related infrastructure, in the vicinity of the Mohawk River and tributaries, including the counties of Albany, Delaware, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Lewis, Madison, Montgomery, Oneida, Otsego, Saratoga, Schoharie, and Schenectady, New York.
(533)

Mount pleasant, new york.—
$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Mount Pleasant, New York.
(534)

New rochelle, new york.—
$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), New Rochelle, New York.
(535)

Newtown creek, new york.—
$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the vicinity of Newtown Creek, New York City, New York.
(536)

New york county, new york.—
$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in New York County, New York.
(537)

Orange county, new york.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Orange County, New York.
(538)

Sleepy hollow, new york.—
$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Sleepy Hollow, New York.
(539)

Ulster county, new york.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Ulster County, New York.
(540)

Ramapo, new york.—
$4,000,000 for water infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in the town of Ramapo, New York.
(541)

Rikers island, new york.—
$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows) on Rikers Island, New York.
(542)

Yorktown, new york.—
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Yorktown, New York.
(543)

Canton, north carolina.—
$41,025,650 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Canton, North Carolina.
(544)

Fairmont, north carolina.—
$7,137,500 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the town of Fairmont, North Carolina.
(545)

Murphy, north carolina.—
$1,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of Murphy, North Carolina.
(546)

Robbinsville, north carolina.—
$3,474,350 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Robbinsville, North Carolina.
(547)

Weaverville, north carolina.—
$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Weaverville, North Carolina.
(548)

City of akron, ohio.—
$5,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including drainage systems), City of Akron, Ohio.
(549)

Apple creek, ohio.—
$350,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Apple Creek, Ohio.
(550)

Ashtabula county, ohio.—
$1,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water supply and water quality enhancement), Ashtabula County, Ohio.
(551)

Bloomingburg, ohio.—
$6,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Bloomingburg, Ohio.
(552)

Brooklyn heights, ohio.—
$170,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Brooklyn Heights, Ohio.
(553)

Chagrin falls regional water system, ohio.—
$3,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the villages of Bentleyville, Chagrin Falls, Moreland Hills, and South Russell, and the Townships of Bainbridge, Chagrin Falls, and Russell, Ohio.
(554)

Cuyahoga county, ohio.—
$11,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including combined sewer overflows), Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
(555)

East cleveland, ohio.—
$13,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), East Cleveland, Ohio.
(556)

Erie county, ohio.—
$16,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows) in Erie County, Ohio.
(557)

Huron, ohio.—
$7,100,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Huron, Ohio.
(558)

Kelleys island, ohio.—
$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the village of Kelleys Island, Ohio.
(559)

North olmsted, ohio.—
$1,175,165 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of North Olmsted, Ohio.
(560)

Painesville, ohio.—
$11,800,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the City of Painesville, Ohio.
(561)

Solon, ohio.—
$14,137,341 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Solon, Ohio.
(562)

Summit county, ohio.—
$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in Summit County, Ohio.
(563)

Stark county, ohio.—
$24,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in Stark County, Ohio.
(564)

Struthers, ohio.—
$500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including wastewater infrastructure, stormwater management, and sewer improvements), Struthers, Ohio.
(565)

Toledo and oregon, ohio.—
$10,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the cities of Toledo and Oregon, Ohio.
(566)

Vermilion, ohio.—
$15,400,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the city of Vermilion, Ohio.
(567)

Westlake, ohio.—
$750,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Westlake, Ohio.
(568)

Stillwater, oklahoma.—
$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and water supply infrastructure (including facilities for water storage, withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), in the city of Stillwater, Oklahoma.
(569)

Beaverton, oregon.—
$10,000,000 for water supply in the city of Beaverton, Oregon.
(570)

Clackamas county, oregon.—
$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including combined sewer overflows, in Clackamas County, Oregon.
(571)

Washington county, oregon.—
$50,000,000 for water infrastructure and water supply in Washington County, Oregon.
(572)

Pennsylvania.—
$38,600,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Pennsylvania.
(573)

Berks county, pennsylvania.—
$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, stormwater management, drinking water, and water treatment, in Berks County, Pennsylvania.
(574)

Chester county, pennsylvania.—
$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, stormwater management, drinking water, and water treatment, in Chester County, Pennsylvania.
(575)

Franklin township, pennsylvania.—
$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Franklin Township, Pennsylvania.
(576)

Indian creek, pennsylvania.—
$50,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the boroughs of Telford, Franconia, and Lower Safford, Pennsylvania.
(577)

Pen argyl, pennsylvania.—
$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania.
(578)

Chesterfield county, south carolina.—
$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure and other environmental infrastructure (including stormwater management), Chesterfield County, South Carolina.
(579)

Cheraw, south carolina.—
$8,800,000 for water, wastewater, and other environmental infrastructure in the town of Cheraw, South Carolina.
(580)

Florence county, south carolina.—
$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Florence County, South Carolina.
(581)

Lake city, south carolina.—
$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management in the city of Lake City, South Carolina.
(582)

Tipton county, tennessee.—
$35,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure and water supply infrastructure, including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution, Tipton County, Tennessee.
(583)

Tipton, haywood, and fayette counties, tennessee.—
$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure and water supply, in Tipton, Haywood, and Fayette Counties, Tennessee.
(584)

Austin, texas.—
$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Austin, Texas.
(585)

Amarillo, texas.—
$38,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water storage and treatment systems, in the City of Amarillo, Texas.
(586)

Brownsville, texas.—
$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the City of Brownsville, Texas.
(587)

Clarendon, texas.—
$5,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water storage, in the city of Clarendon, Texas.
(588)

Quinlan, texas.—
$1,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Quinlan, Texas.
(589)

Runaway bay, texas.—
$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water storage and treatment systems, in the city of Runaway Bay, Texas.
(590)

Webb county, texas.—
$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure and water supply in Webb County, Texas.
(591)

Zapata county, texas.—
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Zapata County, Texas.
(592)

King william county, virginia.—
$1,300,000 for wastewater infrastructure in King William County, Virginia.
(593)

Potomac river, virginia.—
$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, environmental infrastructure, and water quality improvements, in the vicinity of the Potomac River, Virginia.
(594)

Chelan, washington.—
$9,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, storage, and distribution, in the city of Chelan, Washington.
(595)

College place, washington.—
$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and storage, in the city of College Place, Washington.
(596)

Ferndale, washington.—
$4,000,000 for water, wastewater, and environmental infrastructure, in the city of Ferndale, Washington.
(597)

Lynden, washington.—
$4,000,000 for water, wastewater, and environmental infrastructure, in the city of Lynden, Washington.
(598)

Othello, washington.—
$14,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water supply, storage, and treatment, and aquifer storage and recovery), in the city of Othello, Washington.
SEC. 223.

BOARD OF ENGINEERS.
The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, established by section 3 of the River and Harbor Act of June 13, 1902 (33 U.S.C. 541), shall cease to exist on the 180th day following the date of the enactment of this Act. The Secretary may reassign to other elements within the Department of the Army such duties and responsibilities of the Board as the Secretary determines to be necessary.
[33 U.S.C. 541 note]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 225.

CHALLENGE COST-SHARING PROGRAM FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF RECREATION FACILITIES.
(a)

In General.—
The Secretary is authorized to develop and implement a program to share the cost of managing recreation facilities and natural resources at water resource development projects under the Secretary's jurisdiction.
(b)

Cooperative Agreements.—
(1)

In general.—
To implement the program under this section, the Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with non-Federal public entities and private nonprofit entities to provide for operation and management of recreation facilities and natural resources at civil works projects under the Secretary's jurisdiction where such facilities and resources are being maintained at complete Federal expense.
(2)

Requirements.—
Before entering into an agreement under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ensure that the non-Federal public entity or private nonprofit entity has the authority and capability—
(A)
to carry out the terms of the agreement; and
(B)
to pay damages, if necessary, in the event of a failure to perform.
(c)

User Fees.—
(1)

Collection of fees.—
(A)

In general.—
The Secretary may allow a non-Federal public entity or private nonprofit entity that has entered into an agreement pursuant to subsection (b) to collect user fees for the use of developed recreation sites and facilities, whether developed or constructed by the non-Federal public entity or private nonprofit entity or the Department of the Army.
(B)

Use of visitor reservation services.—
(i)

In general.—
A non-Federal public entity or a private nonprofit entity described in subparagraph (A) may use, to manage fee collections and reservations under this section, any visitor reservation service that the Secretary has provided for by contract or interagency agreement, subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
(ii)

Transfer.—
The Secretary may transfer, or cause to be transferred by another Federal agency, to a non-Federal public entity or a private nonprofit entity described in subparagraph (A) user fees received by the Secretary or other Federal agency under a visitor reservation service described in clause (i) for recreation facilities and natural resources managed by the non-Federal public entity or private nonprofit entity pursuant to a cooperative agreement entered into under subsection (b).
(2)

Use of fees.—
(A)

In general.—
A non-Federal public entity or private nonprofit entity that collects a user fee under paragraph (1)—
(i)
may retain up to 100 percent of the fees collected, as determined by the Secretary; and
(ii)
notwithstanding section 210(b)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 460d–3(b)(4)), shall use any retained amounts for operation, maintenance, and management activities relating to recreation and natural resources at recreation site at which the fee is collected.
(B)

Requirements.—
The use by a non-Federal public entity or private nonprofit entity of user fees collected under paragraph (1)—
(i)
shall remain subject to the direction and oversight of the Secretary; and
(ii)
shall not affect any existing third-party property interest, lease, or agreement with the Secretary.
(3)

Terms and conditions.—
The authority of a non-Federal public entity or private nonprofit entity under this subsection shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be necessary to protect the interests of the United States.
(d)

Contributions.—
(1)

In general.—
For purposes of carrying out this section the Secretary may accept contributions of funds, materials, and services from non-Federal public entities, private nonprofit entities, and other private entities.
(2)

Deposit of funds.—
Any funds received by the Secretary under this subsection shall be deposited into the account in the Treasury of the United States entitled “Contributions and Advances, Rivers and Harbors, Corps of Engineers (8662)” and shall be available until expended to carry out the purposes of this section.
(e)

Definitions.—
In this section:
(1)

Non-federal public entity.—
The term “non-Federal public entity” means a non-Federal public entity as defined in the memorandum issued by the Corp of Engineers on April 4, 2018, and titled “Implementation Guidance for Section 1155, Management of Recreation Facilities, of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2016, Public Law 114–322”.
(2)

Private nonprofit entity.—
The term “private nonprofit entity” means an organization that is described in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of that Code.
[33 U.S.C. 2328]
SEC. 226.

DEBARMENT OF PERSONS CONVICTED OF FRAUDULENT USE OF “MADE IN AMERICA” LABELS.
If the Secretary determines that a person has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing a “Made in America” inscription to any product sold in or shipped to the United States which is not made in the United States and which is used in a civil works project of the Secretary, the Secretary shall debar the person from contracting with the Federal Government for a period of not less than 3 years and not more than 5 years. For purposes of this section, the term “debar” has the meaning that term has under section 4654(c) of title 10, United States Code.
[33 U.S.C. 569f]
TITLE III—

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 313.

SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCE PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT PILOT PROGRAM.
(a)

Establishment of Program.—
The Secretary shall establish a pilot program for providing environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in south central Pennsylvania. Such assistance may be in the form of design and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in south central Pennsylvania, including projects for waste water treatment and related facilities, water supply, storage, treatment, and distribution facilities, and surface water resource protection and development.
(b)

Public Ownership Requirement.—
The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned.
(c)

Consultation With SARCD Council.—
In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall consult the SARCD Council.
(d)

Local Cooperation Agreements.—
(1)

In general.—
Before providing assistance under this Act, the Secretary shall enter into a local cooperation agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with such assistance.
(2)

Requirements.—
Each local cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:
(A)

Plan.—
Development by the Secretary, in consultation with the SARCD Council and other appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
(B)

Legal and institutional structures.—
Establishment of each such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to assure the effective long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.
(3)

Cost-sharing.—
Total project costs under each local cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall be shared at 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal. The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward its share of project costs but not to exceed 25 percent of total project costs. Operation and maintenance costs shall be 100 percent non-Federal.
(e)

Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.—
Nothing in this section shall be construed as waiving, limiting, or otherwise affecting the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law which would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance provided under this section.
(f)

Report.—
Not later than December 31, 1998, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the pilot program carried out under this section, together with recommendations concerning whether or not such program should be implemented on a national basis.
(g)

Authorization and Allocation of Appropriations.—
(1)

Authorization of appropriations.—
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $410,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1992. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
(2)

Allocation.—
Funds appropriated to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 1993 through 1998 shall be expended as follows: 50 percent for providing assistance in the Chesapeake Bay watershed area of south central Pennsylvania and 50 percent for providing assistance in the Ohio River watershed area of south central Pennsylvania.
(3)

Transfers.—
The Secretary may expend up to 20 percent of the amounts required to be expended under paragraph (2) for providing assistance in a watershed area for providing assistance in the other watershed area referred to in paragraph (2); except that the aggregate amount expended for providing assistance in the Chesapeake Bay watershed area for fiscal years 1993 through 1998 shall be 50 percent of the aggregate of the ftnds appropriated to carry out this section for such fiscal years.
(4)

Corp of engineers expenses.—
10 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2002 may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer and implement projects under this section at 100 percent Federal expense.
(h)

Definitions.—
For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1)

SARCD council.—-
he term “SARCD Council” means the Southern Allegheny Resource Conservation and Development Council.
(2)

South central pennsylvania.—
The term “south central Pennsylvania” means Allegheny, Armstrong, Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Somerset, Washington, Beaver, Jefferson, and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 324.

HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS AREA, NEW JERSEY.
(a)

In General.—
The Secretary is authorized to provide planning, design, and construction assistance to the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission for the development of an environmental improvement program for the Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
(b)

Elements.—
The program to be developed under subsection (a) may include at a minimum the following areas:
(1)
Restoration and acquisitions of significant wetlands and aquatic habitat that contribute to the Meadowlands ecosystem.
(2)
Development and implementation of a regional system to protect, preserve, and monitor wetlands and aquatic habitat.
* * * * * * *
(7)
Research, development, and implementation for a water quality improvement program, including restoration of hydrology and tidal flows and remediation of hot spots and other sources of contaminants that degrade existing or planned sites.
(c)

Cost Sharing.—
Total project costs under subsection (a) shall be shared at 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal. The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward its share of project costs, but not to exceed 25 percent of total project costs. The non-Federal interest may also provide in-kind services not to exceed the non-Federal share of the total project cost. Operation and maintenance cost shall be 100 percent non-Federal.
(d)

Credit.—
The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a project to be carried out under the program developed under subsection (a) the cost of design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.
(e)

Authorization of Appropriation.—
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1992. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
[Section 325 repealed by section 3054(c) of Public Law 110–114.]
* * * * * * *
[Section 330 repealed by section 1206(d)(2) of division A of Public Law 118–272.]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 340.

SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.
(a)

Establishment of Program.—
The Secretary shall establish a pilot program for providing environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in southern West Virginia. Such assistance may be in the form of design and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in southern West Virginia, including projects for waste water treatment and related facilities, water supply, storage, treatment, and distribution facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and development.
(b)

Public Ownership Requirement.—
The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned.
(c)

Local Cooperation Agreements.—
(1)

In general.—
Before providing assistance under this Act, the Secretary shall enter into a local cooperation agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with such assistance.
(2)

Requirements.—
Each local cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:
(A)

Plan.—
Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
(B)

Legal and institutional structures.—
Establishment of each such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to assure the effective long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.
(3)

Cost-sharing.—
(A)

In general.—
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), total project costs under each local cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall be shared at 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal. The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward its share of project costs but not to exceed 25 percent of total project costs. Operation and maintenance costs shall be 100 percent non-Federal.
(B)

Exception.—
In the case of a project benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)), the Federal share of the total project costs under the applicable local cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall be 90 percent.
(C)

Federal share.—
The Federal share of the total project costs under this paragraph may be provided in the same form as described in section 571(e)(3)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 371).
(d)

Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.—
Nothing in this section shall be construed as waiving, limiting, or other- wise affecting the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law which would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance provided under this section.
(e)

Definition of Southern West Virginia.—
In this section, the term “southern West Virginia” means the counties of Boone, Braxton, Cabell, Calhoun, Clay, Fayette, Gilmer, Greenbrier, Jackson, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan, Mason, McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Monroe, Nicholas, Pendleton, Pocahontas, Putnam, Raleigh, Roane, Summers, Wayne, Webster, Wirt, and Wyoming, West Virginia.
(f)

Authorization of Appropriations.—
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out the pilot program under this section $170,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1992. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
(g)

Corps of Engineers.—
Not more than 10 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.
(h)

Nonprofit Entities.—
In accordance with section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV—

INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 401.

INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH PROGRAM.
(a)

Authorization.—
(1)

In general.—
The Secretary may engage in activities to inform the United States of technological innovations abroad that could significantly improve water resources development in the United States.
(2)

Inclusions.—
Activities under paragraph (1) may include—
(A)
development, monitoring, assessment, and dissemination of information about foreign water resources projects that could significantly improve water resources development in the United States;
(B)
research, development, training, and other forms of technology transfer and exchange; and
(C)
offering technical services that cannot be readily obtained in the private sector to be incorporated into water resources projects if the costs for assistance will be recovered under the terms of each project.
(b)

Cooperation.—
The Secretary may carry out the provisions of this section in cooperation with Federal departments and agencies, State and local agencies, authorities, institutions, corporations (profit or nonprofit), foreign governments, or other organizations.
(c)

Funding.—
The funds to carry out the provisions of this section shall include funds deposited in a special account with the Secretary of the Treasury for such purposes by any cooperating entity or organization according to cost-sharing agreements proscribed by the Secretary. Reimbursement for services provided under this section shall be credited to the appropriation concerned.
[33 U.S.C. 2329]
SEC. 402.

MARINE TECHNOLOGY REVIEW.
(a)

Dredging Needs.—
The Secretary is authorized to conduct such studies as are necessary to provide a report to Congress on the dredging needs of the national ports and harbors of the United States. The report shall include existing and projected future project depths, types and sizes of ships in use, and world trade patterns, an assessment of the future national waterside infrastructure needs, and a comparison of drafts of United States and selected world ports.
(b)

Authorization of Appropriations.—
There is authorized to be appropriated $2,500,000 to carry out this section for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1992. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
[33 U.S.C. 2268]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 404.

ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK.
(a)

Development of Program.—
The Secretary is authorized and directed to develop a data collection and monitoring program of coastal and related environmental processes for the Atlantic Coast (and associated back bays) of New York, from Coney Island to Montauk Point, with a view toward providing information necessary to develop a program for addressing post storm actions, environmental restoration or conservation measures for coastal and back bays, and long-term shoreline erosion control. The plan for collecting data and monitoring information included in such annual report shall be coordinated with and agreed to by appropriate agencies of the State of New York.
(b)

Annual Reports.—
The Secretary shall provide an annual report of data collection and monitoring activities to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives.
(c)

Authorization of Appropriations.—
There are authorized to be appropriated $1,400,000 for each of fiscal years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, $2,500,000 for fiscal years 2000 through 2004, and $7,500,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2004, to carry out this section. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
(d)

Tsunami Warning System.—
There is authorized to be appropriated $800,000 for the Secretary to carry out a project for a tsunami warning system, Atlantic Coast of New York.
* * * * * * *
TITLE V—

CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT AND OCEAN DUMPING
* * * * * * *
SEC. 502.

NATIONAL CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT TASK FORCE.
(a)

Establishment.—
There is established a National Contaminated Sediment Task Force (hereinafter referred to in this section as the “Task Force”). The Task Force shall—
(1)
advise the Administrator and the Secretary in the implementation of this title;
(2)
review and comment on reports concerning aquatic sediment quality and the extent and seriousness of aquatic sediment contamination throughout the Nation;
(3)
review and comment on programs for the research and development of aquatic sediment restoration methods, practices, and technologies;
(4)
review and comment on the selection of pollutants for development of aquatic sediment criteria and the schedule for the development of such criteria;
(5)
advise appropriate officials in the development of guidelines for restoration of contaminated sediment;
(6)
make recommendations to appropriate officials concerning practices and measures—
(A)
to prevent the contamination of aquatic sediments; and
(B)
to control sources of sediment contamination; and
(7)
review and assess the means and methods for locating and constructing permanent, cost-effective long-term disposal sites for the disposal of dredged material that is not suitable for ocean dumping (as determined under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.)).
(b)

Membership.—
(1)

In general.—
The membership of the Task Force shall include 1 representative of each of the following:
(A)
The Administrator.
(B)
The Secretary.
(C)
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
(D)
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(E)
The Geological Survey.
(F)
The Department of Agriculture.
(2)

Additional members.—
Additional members of the Task Force shall be jointly selected by the Administrator and the Secretary, and shall include—
(A)
not more than 3 representatives of States;
(B)
not more than 3 representatives of ports, agriculture, and manufacturing; and
(C)
not more than 3 representatives of public interest organizations with a demonstrated interest in aquatic sediment contamination.
(3)

Cochairmen.—
The Administrator and the Secretary shall serve as cochairmen of the Task Force.
(4)

Clerical and technical assistance.—
Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary to discharge the duties of the Task Force shall be provided by the personnel of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers.
(5)

Compensation for additional members.—
The additional members of the Task Force selected under paragraph (2) shall, while attending meetings or conferences of the Task Force, be compensated at a rate to be fixed by the cochairmen, but not to exceed the daily equivalent of the base rate of pay in effect for grade GS–15 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel time) during which they are engaged in the actual performance of duties vested in the Task Force. While away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Task Force, such members shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703(b) of title 5, United States Code.
(c)

Report.—
Within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Task Force shall submit to Congress a report stating the findings and recommendations of the Task Force.
[33 U.S.C. 1271 note]
SEC. 503.

SEDIMENT SURVEY AND MONITORING.
(a)

Survey.—
(1)

In general.—
The Administrator, in consultation with the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Secretary, shall conduct a comprehensive national survey of data regarding aquatic sediment quality in the United States. The Administrator shall compile all existing information on the quantity, chemical and physical composition, and geographic location of pollutants in aquatic sediment, including the probable source of such pollutants and identification of those sediments which are contaminated pursuant to section 501(b)(4).
(2)

Report.—
Not later than 24 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall report to the Congress the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of such survey, including recommendations for actions necessary to prevent contamination of aquatic sediments and to control sources of contamination.
(b)

Monitoring.—
(1)

In general.—
The Administrator, in consultation with the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Secretary, shall conduct a comprehensive and continuing program to assess aquatic sediment quality. The program conducted pursuant to this subsection shall, at a minimum—
(A)
identify the location of pollutants in aquatic sediment;
(B)
identify the extent of pollutants in sediment and those sediments which are contaminated pursuant to section 501(b)(4);
(C)
establish methods and protocols for monitoring the physical, chemical, and biological effects of pollutants in aquatic sediment and of contaminated sediment;
(D)
develop a system for the management, storage, and dissemination of data concerning aquatic sediment quality;
(E)
provide an assessment of aquatic sediment quality trends over time;
(F)
identify locations where pollutants in sediment may pose a threat to the quality of drinking water supplies, fisheries resources, and marine habitats; and
(G)
establish a clearing house for information on technology, methods, and practices available for the remediation, decontamination, and control of sediment contamination.
(2)

Report.—
The Administrator shall submit to Congress a report on the findings of the monitoring under paragraph (1) on the date that is 2 years after the date specified in subsection (a)(2) and biennially thereafter.
[33 U.S.C. 1271]
* * * * * * *