Congressional Record, Volume 164 Issue 93 (Wednesday, June 6, 2018)

[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 93 (Wednesday, June 6, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4798-H4815]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2018

General Leave

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous materials on H.R. 8.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rouzer). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 918 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 8.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1437

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 8) to provide for improvements to the rivers and harbors of the
United States, to provide for the conservation and development of water
and related resources, and for other purposes, with Mr. Palmer in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the floor today the Water
Resources Development Act of 2018. This marks the third Congress in a
row that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the House
will consider a water resources bill, so we are back to regular order
when it comes to WRDA.
I hope we bring it to the floor today, and I hope we pass a WRDA
bill. That is good news for the American people and the American
economy, because WRDA works. WRDA works because it ensures that
Congress carries out its clear Federal role in addressing
infrastructure that is critical to our commerce and competitiveness,
and to protecting communities throughout the country.
WRDA authorizes targeted investments in America's harbors, ports,
locks, dams, inland waterways, flood protection, environmental
restoration, and other water resources infrastructure.
This infrastructure, maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
is vital to every part of the country and every American benefits from
it. You don't have to live near a port or a major waterway to
experience these benefits. The health of this infrastructure directly
impacts how efficiently the things we buy get onto our store shelves,
and how quickly the goods that we produce get to markets around the
world.
WRDA improvements originate at the local level. They grow our local,
regional, and national economies, and they create good-paying jobs.
Restoring WRDA legislation to a 2-year congressional cycle was one of
the first goals when I became chairman in 2013. By working together, we
passed WRDA into law in 2014 and 2016.
Both of these measures attracted broad bipartisan support, and this
bill is no different, passing out of our committee unanimously 2 weeks
ago. I want to thank Ranking Member DeFazio, Water Resources
Environment Subcommittee Chairman Garret Graves, and Subcommittee
Ranking Member Grace Napolitano for working with me to introduce this
bill.
Our bipartisan legislation follows the fiscally responsible,
transparent process for considering Corps activities that Congress
established in 2014. It maintains strong congressional oversight and
the constitutional authority of the Legislative Branch. It deauthorizes
old projects to fully offset new authorizations, and sunsets new
authorizations to prevent future backlogs.
WRDA also builds on past reforms of the Corps and explores new ways
to deliver projects more efficiently. In keeping with traditional
WRDAs, my cosponsors and I agreed to narrowly focus our bill on the
civil works program of the Corps. Preserving the civil works focus of
this bill increases the likelihood of final passage.
If we don't enact a bill into law this year, we will delay necessary
water infrastructure improvements and increase project costs. Let's
approve this vital bill today. Let's build our water infrastructure.
Let's grow our economy, and let's create jobs. Let's pass WRDA, because
WRDA does work, and let's ensure that WRDA continues to work for the
American people.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to a good debate today and to moving
this bill to the Senate, so I urge all of my colleagues to support the
bill.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a cost estimate from the
Congressional Budget Office for H.R. 8.

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, June 4, 2018.
Hon. Bill Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 8, the Water
Resources Development Act of 2018.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
Enclosure.

H.R. 8--Water Resources Development Act of 2018

As reported by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
on June 1, 2018

SUMMARY

H.R. 8 would authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) to construct projects to improve navigation and flood
management, to mitigate storm and hurricane damage and to
provide assistance for water recycling and water treatment
projects. The bill also would authorize the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to assist states and local
governments in mitigating flood risks from aging dams and
levees. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 8 would cost
about $1.1 billion over the next five years and $2.5 billion
over the 2019-2028 period, assuming appropriation of
authorized and necessary amounts.
Enacting H.R. 8 also would increase direct spending by $5
million over the 2019-2028 period; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures apply. The bill would authorize the Corps to
convey nine acres of federal land to the city of Nashville,
Tennessee, in exchange for the fair market value of the
property, which CBO estimates would total about $1 million.
The bill also would authorize the Corps to credit the
nonfederal sponsor of the Kissimmee River Restoration Project
for certain in-kind contributions totaling $6 million.
Enacting the bill would not affect revenues.
H.R. 8 would significantly increase direct spending by more
than $2.5 billion and on-budget deficits by more than $5
billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year
periods beginning in 2029, by authorizing the Corps to spend
amounts in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund without further
appropriation.
H.R. 8 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA).

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The estimated budgetary effect of H.R. 8 is shown in the
following table. The costs of the legislation fall within
budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).

[[Page H4799]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2019-2023 2019-2028
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCREASES OR DECREASES (-) IN DIRECT SPENDING

Estimated Budget Authority.................................. 0 -1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 -1 5
Estimated Outlays........................................... 0 -1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 -1 5
INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Water Resources Infrastructure:
Estimated Authorization Level........................... 13 157 152 226 231 224 226 171 161 165 778 1,726
Estimated Outlays....................................... 5 67 110 161 198 208 215 193 172 163 541 1,491
Dam and Levee Safety:
Authorization Level..................................... 30 123 123 123 123 30 30 30 0 0 522 612
Estimated Outlays....................................... 12 57 89 108 116 83 56 40 20 9 382 590
Navigation and Nonfederal Construction Programs:
Authorization Level..................................... 13 38 38 38 38 13 13 13 13 13 163 225
Estimated Outlays....................................... 5 19 28 33 36 26 18 14 12 12 121 203
Studies and Other Provisions:
Estimated Authorization Level........................... 26 29 27 24 16 12 12 12 13 13 122 184
Estimated Outlays....................................... 36 23 25 24 19 14 12 12 12 12 104 167
Total:
Estimated Authorization Level....................... 82 346 339 410 408 278 281 225 187 190 1,584 2,747
Estimated Outlays................................... 36 165 252 326 369 330 302 260 216 195 1,148 2,451
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BASIS OF ESTIMATE

For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 8 will be enacted
near the end of 2018 and that the authorized and necessary
amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal year. Estimates
of amounts necessary to implement the bill are based on
information from the Corps and FEMA; estimated outlays are
based on historical spending patterns for similar projects
and programs. Major components of the estimated costs are
described below.

Spending Subject to Appropriation

CBO estimates that H.R. 8 would authorize appropriations
totaling about $2.7 billion over the 2019-2028 period for
water infrastructure projects and studies administered by the
Corps and FEMA. We estimate that implementing those
provisions would cost $2.5 billion over the 2018-2028 period.

Water Resources Infrastructure

CBO estimates that implementing provisions of the bill that
would authorize the Corps to construct and modify water
infrastructure projects would cost about $1.5 billion over
the 2019-2028 period, assuming appropriation of the specified
amounts and accounting for anticipated inflation. Those
provisions would authorize the Corps to construct seven new
projects and would modify the existing authorization of three
projects aimed at mitigating hurricane and storm damage,
strengthening flood-risk management, improving the nation's
navigation system, restoring the environment, and providing
assistance for water recycling and water treatment projects.
Using information from the Corps, CBO estimates that the
total cost to complete those projects would be $4.2 billion.
H.R. 8 would authorize the appropriation of $2.7 billion to
cover the federal share of those costs--of that $1.7 billion
would need to be appropriated over the 2019-2028 period
(assuming historical rates of spending for similar
projects)--and nonfederal entities would be responsible for
the remaining costs, totaling an estimated $1.5 billion.
The estimated cost of the largest project authorized by
H.R. 8 totals $3.3 billion; the federal share would total
about $2.2 billion. That project aims to address erosion
along the coast in Galveston, Texas, and restore ecosystems
including wetlands and marshes to enhance protection from
storm surge in the area that was damaged by Hurricane Harvey.
The estimated cost for the other projects authorized by the
bill total $0.9 billion; the federal share of those projects
totals about $0.6 billion.
Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO
estimates that spending on the project to restore the Texas
coast in Galveston would total about $940 million over the
2019-2028 period. CBO estimates that construction spending
for the other six projects and three modifications would
total about $550 million over the next 10 years.
To estimate how funds appropriated for those projects would
be spent, CBO used information from the Corps about when
construction for each project could begin, how long it would
take to complete, and what funding would be necessary to
complete it over the anticipated construction period.
Construction schedules and the pattern of spending for
such projects is uncertain and plans are subject to change
because of delays in obtaining funding and other
unforeseen circumstances. For this estimate, CBO assumed
that those projects with greater costs to benefits ratios
would be prioritized for funding. Information on cost
benefit ratios was provided to CBO by the Corps. CBO also
analyzed the historical spending patterns of similar
projects. Because of their size and complexity some large
Corps projects can take several years to commence and more
than ten years to complete. CBO estimates that the federal
share of the projects and modifications authorized by this
title would require the appropriation of about $1.7
billion over the 2019-2028 period; the remainder of the
federal share to complete the projects would be needed
after 2028.
Finally, the bill would withdraw the authorization for five
projects originally authorized more than 70 years ago.
Information from the Corps indicates that these projects are
complete and no additional construction is planned; therefore
CBO expects that deauthorizing them would have no budgetary
effect.

dam and levee safety

Using information provided by the Corps and FEMA, CBO
estimates that implementing provisions addressing dam and
levee safety would cost $590 million over the 2019-2028
period, assuming appropriation of authorized amounts.
H.R. 8 would reauthorize the national dam and levee safety
programs operated by FEMA Corps. Those programs provide
grants to local and state governments to assist with levee
safety and rehabilitation, maintaining databases for the
nation's dams and levees, and implementing a public awareness
and education program for managing dam and levee safety.
Under those programs the Corps also would provide technical
assistance to local and state governments to rehabilitate
high risk levees. H.R. 8 would authorize the appropriation of
$372 million for FEMA and the Corps to implement those
programs. Using information on historical spending patterns
for similar projects, CBO estimates that implementing those
provisions would cost $365 million over the 2019-2028 period.
The bill also would increase amounts authorized to be
appropriated each year for the Corps to rehabilitate dams
considered to be highly hazardous until the authorization for
program expires in 2026. Dams eligible for funding would
include those constructed by the Corps before 1940 that have
been classified as a high hazard by the state where the dam
is located and that are operated by a nonfederal entity.
Using information on historical spending patterns for this
program, CBO estimates that implementing that provision would
cost $225 million over the 2019-2028 period.

navigation and nonfederal construction programs

CBO estimates that implementing provisions of the bill
related to navigation and nonfederal construction programs
would cost $203 million over the 2019-2028 period, assuming
appropriation of the specified amounts.
H.R. 8 would increase the amounts authorized to be
appropriated each year by $12.5 million for the Corps to
construct small harbor projects to improve navigation. Using
information from the Corps, CBO estimates that implementing
that provision would cost $108 million over the 2019-2028
period.
The bill also would reauthorize a pilot program for the
Corps to contract with nonfederal partners to construct
projects to manage risk from floods, reduce damage from
storms and improve navigation of the nation's harbors. The
program aims to identify opportunities for reducing the costs
and the time required to complete construction projects. The
provision would authorize the appropriation of $25 million
for each year from 2020 through 2023. Using information from
the Corps, CBO estimates that implementing that provision
would cost $95 million over the 2019-2028 period.

studies and other provisions

Using information provided by the Corps, CBO estimates that
implementing the provisions described below would cost $167
million over the 2019-2028 period, assuming appropriation of
the necessary amounts. Those provisions would:
Authorize the Corps to credit non-federal partners for work
carried out on projects to protect, preserve, and restore the
Louisiana coastal ecosystems;
Authorize the Corps to conduct about 20 feasibility studies
for projects to reduce risks stemming from floods, to restore
ecosystems, and to improve navigation; and
Direct the Corps to prepare a report on aquatic invasive
species and other management reports, fund a demonstration
project aimed at harmful algal bloom, and provide housing
support to Indian tribes displaced by the construction of
John Day Dam on the Columbia River in Washington and Oregon.
CBO's cost estimate for H.R. 8 excludes the costs of
implementing section 108, which would authorize the Corps to
restore infrastructure for shore protection damaged by
natural disasters to pre-storm levels because the number of
eligible projects is not available.

[[Page H4800]]

changes in direct spending

Using information provided by the Corps, CBO estimates that
implementing the provisions described below would increase
direct spending by about $5 million. The construction phase
of the Kissimmee River Restoration Project in Florida is
nearly complete and the Corps anticipates that the final
accounting for the federal and nonfederal shares of the
project's cost will occur in about 5 years. The Corps has
previously determined that certain in-kind contributions
provided by the local sponsor of the project were ineligible
as a qualifying credit toward the portion of the local cost
share. H.R. 8 would reverse that decision by the Corps and
reduce any cash settlement that would be required by the
local sponsor to reconcile the nonfederal account. The Corps
would be required to credit the nonfederal sponsor for the
Kissimmee River Restoration Project for those in-kind
contributions, which total $6 million.
The bill also would authorize the Corps to convey 9 acres
of federal land to the city of Nashville, Tennessee, in
exchange for payment of the fair market value of the
property. Using information provided by the Corps, CBO
estimates the city would pay the federal government about
$600,000 in 2020 when the property is transferred.

pay-as-you-go considerations

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-
reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation
affecting direct spending or revenues. The net changes in
outlay that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are
an increase in direct spending of $5 million.
Enacting the bill would not affect revenues over the 2019-
2028 period.

increase in long-term direct spending and deficits

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 8 would increase net
direct spending and on-budget deficits by more than $2.5
billion and on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in at
least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning
in 2029.
Under the bill, balances in the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund (HMTF) would become available to the Corps, without
further appropriation, beginning in fiscal year 2029. The
Corps would expend those funds on nonroutine maintenance
costs and deferred repairs at eligible projects. CBO
estimates that the balance in the HMTF would total about $15
billion in 2029. In recent years the annual appropriation
from the HMTF has been about $1 billion. CBO estimates that
direct spending from the HMTF in 2029 and later years would
exceed $1 billion per year. CBO cannot predict whether annual
discretionary appropriations from the HMTF would continue at
any level after 2028.

mandates

H.R. 8 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in UMRA.

estimate prepared by

Federal Costs: Aurora Swanson; Mandates: Jon Sperl.

estimate reviewed by

Kim P. Cawley, Chief, Natural and Physical Resources Cost
Estimates Unit.
Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 8, the Water Resources
Development Act of 2018. This is the product of many months of hard
work by members of the committee and staff, and I particularly want to
congratulate the chairman. This will be his last WRDA bill, but until
his leadership, water resources bills had languished for, I believe, a
decade. So this has been a tremendous achievement.
This is a good bill. However, it could be better. In the last
Congress, I offered an amendment in committee to take the harbor
maintenance trust fund off budget, allow the Corps to spend the
proceeds in the trust fund every year, and draw down the surplus that
deals with a backlog on all of our ports.
Ports affect the entire Nation, any time you have an import or an
export, which covers virtually all of the States of the union. These
red dots are harbors that are critical to our infrastructure. On a
daily basis, our major ports are at about 35 percent of their
authorized depth. 35 percent. Why is that? Well, because we don't have
the money to fix them. And the jetties are falling apart. We don't have
the money to fix them.
Well, actually, we do have the money to fix them, but some very
shortsighted people around here want to play games. They want to
collect a tax from the American people--a minuscule tax, 0.0125 cents
on the value of every imported good that comes through a harbor. That
is, if you buy a $30,000 car, you are going to spend about $37.50 that,
starting with Ronald Reagan, was dedicated to maintaining our harbors
at proper depths and maintaining the jetties for these harbors, not
limiting the funds just to the commercial harbors, but to small and
emerging ports, which are also critical to the Nation: the fishing
industry, recreation, and others.
However--and this has been a bipartisan problem, starting even when
Democrats have been in charge--this has been underspent on an annual
basis. Today, there is $10.5 billion of taxes collected from the
American people sitting idle or having been spent somewhere else. It
has got a theoretical trust fund.
Now, that is going to grow every year as we underspend this tax. It
could grow to $20 billion within a decade. So we don't have the money
to dredge the ports and we don't have the money to fix the jetties,
because Congress is diverting the money. I actually worked on this with
the chairman's father quite some time ago, and the chairman has been
supportive of my efforts.
Unfortunately, it was stripped out of that bill by the Rules
Committee 2 years ago. And this year, again, the Rules Committee found
that they would not allow this to go forward. So we offered it in a
different form to get around their technical objections about budget
caps and discretionary spending.

{time} 1445

So we offered--well, there actually is a way around that. They didn't
like that either. They want to continue to steal money from the
American people and divert it to be spent who knows where--somewhere
else, but not on our harbors and our ports.
Now, the administration actually sent to what is called their
statement down to us with an SAP--and it really is a SAP; they are
SAPs--a Statement of Administration Policy is what it stands for. They
sent down a provision where they said: This is great that you are not
allowing the Congress to spend the tax collected from the American
people on the stated purpose.
What? Really? Yes. That is their position. They say that the ports
should have greater flexibility to spend local money on the ports.
Well, they have all the flexibility in the world to spend local money
on local ports. They can partner with the Corps and fund Corps
activities. I did that a number of years ago in Oregon. They don't have
the money, and we are depriving them of the money.
But this is the Trump administration's solution. The big
infrastructure package? This is going to be counted. We are going to
add $3 billion to the pile of unfunded Corps projects.
We have got today $96 billion of Corps projects that have been
authorized by Congress that aren't funded in the foreseeable future. At
the end of this debate there will be $99 billion--almost $100 billion--
quite an achievement, and the administration is applauding this. They
think this is just great because it gives the local ports the
capability of raising money they can't raise to spend on the
improvements they can't make.
Meanwhile, we are stealing money from the American people. It is a
very sad day. So with that said, I will move on. There are other issues
in this bill that are critical.
We have $3 billion to new Chief's Reports which will go on the shelf
for the indefinite future, maybe 100 years or longer. But people can go
home and say: Well, I got that project, all we need to do now is get
the money.
Maybe a future Congress--maybe next year--we will decide to start
spending the harbor maintenance tax on harbor maintenance. Who knows?
It might depend upon who is in charge around here.
There are other provisions in here that are critical, authorizing the
national levee safety initiative, the national dam safety program--
those are pretty important things--promoting improved safety measures,
and reducing the risk to life and property.
There are a couple of provisions that benefit or would go for Corps
projects in my district, one related to Fern Ridge Dam, and a
collapsing road near the dam. A number of years ago, we had to expedite
funds to fix a collapsing dam, now we have a collapsing road by the
collapsing dam, and hopefully, the Corps can get to that before we have
a major problem; and then delivering on a very long-ago promise to

[[Page H4801]]

Indian tribes that were displaced by dams that were built three-
quarters of a century ago. Their villages were flooded and displaced,
and this would authorize the Corps to provide housing assistance to
those tribes.
There are other meritorious things in this bill. Again, I want to
congratulate the chairman on what will be the third conservative 2-year
authorization of the Water Resources Development Act. We just need to
find the will and the money to fund the necessary projects.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Graves), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
from Pennsylvania for all of his leadership on this important
legislation. I want to thank my friend from Oregon and my friend from
California for working with us on this, as there is a bipartisan
agreement to move this bill forward.
Mr. Chairman, why are we doing this bill? People at home who are
watching this, people who are living in their communities, why are we
doing this bill?
We are doing this bill because we need to ensure that people live in
places that are safe--safe from flooding and safe from hurricanes. We
just saw last year the 2017 hurricanes, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria,
and Nate, where we spent well over $150 billion so far--I believe we
are near $180 billion--responding to those disasters. People need to
live in safe, resilient communities.
We need to ensure that we can build navigation channels that stay
compatible with trends in shipping. We built the Panama Canal. The
United States built the Canal, yet the Panamanians have stepped in and
deepened and widened the canal and the lock system in a shorter period
of time than we have been able to even deepen ports here in the United
States.
Then, of course, there are environmental issues, the environmental
consequences of many of these projects, including in my home State of
Louisiana, where we have lost 2,000 square miles of our coast, and the
Corps of Engineers has not stepped in and done a single thing to
actually restore the environmental consequences of their actions--2,000
square miles of coastal wetlands. If you or I did that, we would be in
jail today.
So the reason we are doing this bill is because as the ranking
member, Mr. DeFazio, mentioned a few minutes ago, we have a nearly $100
billion backlog in projects. We are putting forward somewhere around $2
billion a year in construction funds. You can do the math. I am a math
whiz, and I can tell you that you will finish those projects
approximately never, because $2 billion a year on $100 billion, you
can't even keep up with inflation. We must reform the process, and this
bill moves in that direction.
There are important reforms in this bill like allowing the non-
Federal sponsors, the States, the parishes, the counties, the water
boards, and the ports, to grab components of these projects and move
them forward on their own working in collaboration with the Corps of
Engineers to ensure that we are moving these projects forward
efficiently.

We need to make sure that we are moving redundancies in the process
and allowing these non-Federal entities to use the same permitting
process that the Corps of Engineers just went through and spent
millions of dollars complying with. We are still being respectful to
the environment, but we are not forcing them to carry out redundant
measures, paying twice for the same actions because that doesn't make
sense.
Let me go back and talk about, again, what these outcomes actually
yield. We are talking about projects to prevent communities from
flooding, to prevent hurricane damages, to restore the environment, and
to ensure that our ports and waterways can facilitate the ships that
are growing in width and in depth across the globe to where we can have
more cost-effective shipping in the United States and our port systems
and we can facilitate the trade that comes around the globe and into
our country.
Mr. Chairman, they have projects that have been in the study phase,
not for months or years, but for decades. We have projects that have
been waiting on full implementation of construction for decades. Once
again, in my home State of Louisiana, we have the Comite project that
has been around for 32 years, $100 million nearly has been spent, and
nothing has been done to actually provide flood relief--$100 million.
We have another project in southeast Louisiana in Terrebone and
Lafourche Parishes, where the Corps of Engineers has spent nearly $80
million and hasn't put a shovel in the ground yet.
How do you do that when you look at the fact that we have a $20
trillion deficit and we are spending those sorts of dollars on actions
that aren't benefiting taxpayers? Who is that representing? Because it
is not the people who sent us here.
So I will say it again: this bill moves forward in transparency, it
moves forward in efficiency while respecting the environment, it allows
projects to be expedited, and it gives more flexibility for the Corps
and their non-Federal partners to work together to deliver these
projects.
One thing that is in here that I know the chairman is a big fan of
and we pushed as well with our friends across the aisle, is taking a
look to study whether or not the Corps of Engineers should remain
within the Department of Defense.
Is this a mission that is truly compatible with our Department of
Defense? I want Secretary Mattis focused on Syria and focused on Iran,
North Korea, China, Russia, and other threats to our country. I don't
want him or her also worried about what is happening with a coastal
wetlands permit. I want him focused on the national defense of our
country, so looking at where this mission perhaps could be better
housed, better compatibility, and ultimately to deliver better outcomes
to taxpayers across the country.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I associate the remarks of my ranking member, the
chairman of the committee, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr.
Graves. I rise in strong support of the bipartisan bill, H.R. 8, the
Water Resources Development Act of 2018.
I very strongly thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and
Chairman Graves for their work on this legislation. It is encouraging
to see that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee continue in
a bipartisan fashion on this legislation every 2 years.
This bill authorizes Army Corps of Engineers' feasibility studies,
Chief's Reports, and section 7001 water resource projects across the
country for a diverse array of purposes, including flood damage
reduction, ecosystem restoration, hurricane and storm damage reduction,
water supply--very important to me--and navigation.
It also includes an important water recycling project for Los Angeles
County in California, with the West Basin Municipal Water District's
Harbor/South Bay project. This project provides a $35 million increase
for an existing, successful authorization to improve microfiltration of
wastewater and delivery to residents and businesses. This will create
long-term water supply reliability in our drought-prone region.
I want to thank my good friends, Directors Carol Kwan and Gloria
Gray, for their commitment to this cost-effective and innovative water
supply option for all their constituents.
I also am pleased to see the inclusion of several provisions that
will continue the work we have done in recent WRDAs to assist
communities experiencing drought with additional water supply options.
These provisions include section 109 that will require the Corps to
work with local governments on integrated water resources planning to
incorporate in Corps projects locally developed plans for stormwater
management, water quality improvements, and--my baby--water recycling.
Section 107 provides for forecast-informed reservoir operations in
water control manuals to ensure that dams are being used effectively to
maximize local water supply.
Section 115 provides a comprehensive report on the operation and
maintenance backlog of Corps projects so that

[[Page H4802]]

Congress has a full accounting of the unmet needs of authorized water
resource projects.
We have such a backlog, and there is that fund that goes nowhere, the
billions of dollars that should be going to the ports that do not
benefit, and we have a tremendous backlog.
I am concerned that the bill does not include a bipartisan provision
supported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that would
fully fund the harbor maintenance trust fund. Congress needs to remedy
this inequity in the harbor maintenance trust fund once and for all, so
that the taxes paid into the system are benefiting the projects they
were intended for. I support the efforts of port stakeholders,
including the American Association of Port Authorities, which
includes all ports in the United States which recently approved, for
the first time, a national agreement with all ports to create fairness
in the harbor maintenance trust fund. It is very unfortunate that the
House leadership is using procedural tactics to prevent the House from
addressing this critical issue.

I am confident that this bill, when and if enacted, will provide
drought-prone regions like mine and other very necessary areas with the
tools necessary to increase water supply and water conservation
measures and be prepared for future storm events to capture and reuse
the water that would have otherwise been lost.
I want to thank my constituent water agencies for their input
throughout this process, including the Upper San Gabriel Valley
Municipal Water District, the Three Valleys Municipal Water District,
the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, the San Gabriel
WaterMaster, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, and my
local Corps leadership, General Helmlinger, Colonel Gibbs, and David
Van Dorpe.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this bill, and I ask Members to
support H.R. 8.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Graves). The other Mr. Graves from the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee is the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R.
8.
I want to say, too, the chairman's commitment to passing bipartisan
WRDA bills every 2 years has been very impactful on better managing the
bureaucracy of the Corps of Engineers.
I think we can all agree that the Corps needs regular examination of
projects and policy to hold them accountable, and this is good
government and a policy I would like to see the committee remain
committed to in the future.
In my district, Mr. Chairman, this bill is extremely important to the
agriculture economy and to everyone who relies on the Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers.

{time} 1500

My district alone is bordered by 400 miles of Missouri and
Mississippi River frontage. So we in northern Missouri are directly
affected by the Corps' actions.
I am glad that the committee unanimously adopted my amendment to
bring some common sense to the management of the endangered species--
specifically, the pallid sturgeon--that live along the Missouri River.
Past efforts to help the pallid sturgeon have led to multiple years
of flooding and millions of dollars' worth of damage to my
constituents. What is worse is the fact that the Corps has spent money
year after year on population recovery, and it has not helped the
pallid sturgeon one bit. This is absolutely unacceptable.
Before the Army Corps builds any new, unproven structures along the
Missouri and spends millions of taxpayer dollars, they are now required
to prove that it actually works. Furthermore, the Army Corps must prove
that these structures, called IRCs, do not negatively impact the other
management priorities on the Missouri River that the Corps is
responsible for, most importantly, which is flood control and
navigation.
Mr. Chairman, the Corps shouldn't be focused on constructing
environmental habitats. They should be protecting people and businesses
from flooding and helping facilitate navigation on the river. We have
been down this road before with unproven methods to help fish over
people.
In closing, this is a good bill. It is necessary to advance important
flood control projects and ensure our inland waterways remain a
reliable and efficient option for transporting goods up and down the
rivers. I urge all my colleagues to vote for H.R. 8.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), my colleague on the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Water Resources and
Environment Subcommittee and a cosponsor of this bill, I rise in
support of H.R. 8.
Our water infrastructure is important to the health of our economy
and job growth, including infrastructure job opportunity in the skilled
trades.
Supporting our water infrastructure is essential to the goal of
ensuring environmental justice. Communities in poverty and women and
children are especially vulnerable to the harsh consequences of failing
and faulty water infrastructure. Let us not forget Flint, Michigan.
This bill continues this important bipartisan process.
As a Representative from Michigan, this bill continues to protect the
Great Lakes region. The Davis amendment on the floor today affirms the
commitment to fighting invasive species. Completion of the long-awaited
Brandon Road Study is needed to combat environmental threats to our
region.
The Great Lakes waterways create thousands of jobs and create
billions in revenue, annually. We must continue to support the Army
Corps' operations that operate these critical waterways.
As Members know, our Nation's infrastructure is in desperate need of
repair, and we cannot kick the can down the road anymore. I urge my
colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), a member of the committee.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Shuster
and Graves, Ranking Member DeFazio, and also my other good friend, the
ranking member on the subcommittee, Mrs. Napolitano. I am proud to join
them to support this bill and to say that WRDA works.
In 2014, during my first term in Congress, we passed the first Water
Resource Development Act in 7 years. This bill made critical reforms to
add efficiencies to the Corps' process of studying and recommending
projects for authorization, and, importantly, it set us up to get WRDA
back on a 2-year cycle of authorizations. This bill represents the
continuation of that process.
Our bill authorizes a total of eight Army Corps of Engineers Chief's
Reports received since the last WRDA passed by us in 2016. All of these
Chief's Reports have been fully vetted by the committee at hearings
during this Congress and in an open and transparent process.
Now, I haven't shied away from my criticism of the Corps in the past.
I think that the Corps is good at building things, but actually getting
to construction is typically the most difficult part of the process.
One particular provision in this bill directs the National Academy of
Sciences to analyze the Corps' civil works functions and the potential
impacts of transferring those functions to another Federal agency. They
will be required to provide recommendations to us in Congress.
Mr. Chairman, it is truly clear that WRDA works. The authorizing
committee has diligently worked over the past three Congresses to get
us back on this 2-year cycle to ensure that we continue to improve
processes.
I would also be remiss, Mr. Chairman, if I didn't mention those
projects of national significance that have been authorized for many
years and yet have seen very little progress, including the Navigation
and Ecosystem Sustainability Program, or NESP. Authorized by Congress
in 2007, this critical project would expand seven locks on the Upper
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers to meet the demand for barges to
transport agricultural and other commodities to the global marketplace.

[[Page H4803]]

Unfortunately, because of incongruent priorities at the Corps in the
past and a reluctance from the Appropriations Committee, we have yet to
see this move forward.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Harper). The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, we can and must do better
to align our priorities with the Corps to ensure critical projects of
national significance don't languish after an initial authorization,
which is why, related to my earlier comments, I believe it is important
for Congress to understand the implications and potential efficiencies
of moving the Corps' mission to another Federal agency.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I
thank the committee Democrats and Republicans for bringing this
bipartisan bill to the floor.
One of the most important pieces of infrastructure in my particular
district in the State of Michigan is the Saginaw River. This Federal
port allows for raw material from around the world to be brought into
our communities to be used in manufacturing and agriculture and is
really the lifeblood of the economy there.
The depth of the river, however, currently limits the size of the
ships that can use this very important port. Our dock owners on the
Saginaw River have joined with the local government and businesses to
propose deepening the Saginaw River to increase business opportunities
and grow jobs in our region.
The Army Corps process to authorize deepening of the river, however,
can sometimes be rather time-consuming. While millions have been spent
by dock owners, under current law, the Army Corps construction plan for
considering construction projects does not allow those investments that
have already been made.
So I am supporting this legislation, in part, because of the reforms
in the bill. It changes the way the Army Corps does their cost-benefit
analysis on a project. It will greatly benefit many projects, including
the Saginaw River's deepening project.
This will grow jobs in my district, in our State, and in our country.
It is a step in the right direction. I encourage the Corps to work with
those local members and that local coalition on the deepening of this
river using the reforms in this bill. This is really important for my
district.
I really appreciate the work of the committee in coming together and
delivering these reforms and delivering a good bill to the floor in a
bipartisan fashion. I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a conservative in support of
this measure.
As conservatives, we want less government; but the government that we
have, we want to work better. I think that WRDA does that.
I think one of the things we look at is how do we become more
competitive as a society relative to all the other places around the
globe in the way that we deliver goods, whether by land, by air, or by
sea. Again, this bill does that.
I stand in support of this measure and thank the chairman for his
work on it. I want to particularly single him out for what he has done
with the WRDA process.
As has already been mentioned, there was a 7-year skip between WRDA
bills. But there was a bill in 2014; there was a bill in 2016; there
was a bill in 2018. That kind of predictability is absolutely necessary
if you are going to see marine and other investments as we have seen,
for instance, in a place like Charleston.
Two, I want to thank him for what he is doing with regard to non-
Federal sponsors. This idea of adding new flexibility in the way that
we originate programs, I think, makes a lot of sense. One authorization
means a bottleneck. What this bill does is frees up bottlenecks in the
way that things get funded.
Third, I want to single out Garret Graves and, again, the chairman,
for this study on whether or not civil works can be done by nonmilitary
actors. I think that this is vital in moving the backlog through that
now exists on the WRDA front.
Finally, I want to say thanks for what he is doing on cost-benefit
analysis. A place like Charleston has been heavily hampered as a
consequence of their throwing in local money. What we want to reward at
the Federal level is more in the way of State and local money as we
leverage Federal investment.
Again, I thank the chairman for what he has done on this measure, and
I rise in support of H.R. 8.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a bright light of
bipartisanship that is sorely needed by communities like mine in Hawaii
and those in Florida as well.
There is nothing more necessary and basic to life than water.
Strengthening and upgrading our water infrastructure is critical to
protecting the health, safety, and welfare of communities all across
the country. Those like mine, who are surrounded by water, and those in
our coastal communities are acutely aware of the dire need for
investment.
For example, for us in Hawaii, we rely on our ports for the vast
majority of the basic needs and supplies that we have to ship in for
our residents. We have also experienced historic floods in Hawaii
recently, like other States, exposing the urgent need for investment in
water infrastructure.
Just one example, risk experts in Hawaii have warned that the Ala Wai
watershed's high vulnerability to devastating flooding could result in
financial devastation to the tune of over $1.1 billion, damaging more
than 3,000 structures, and speaks to the fact that the area is home to
over 150,000 residents and over 80,000 visitors every day.
This bipartisan legislation will secure critical funding for flood
risk management both on the Ala Wai Canal, other places in Hawaii, and
across the country, helping to provide that necessary safety and
security for our residents.
This is a critical piece of bipartisan legislation that deserves the
support of Congress. Let's take this opportunity to better the lives of
our constituents and residents across the country by strengthening our
national infrastructure and ensuring clean and safe drinking water for
all.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, North Carolina's Seventh Congressional
District is fortunate to have some of the most beautiful beaches and
waterways in the United States, which are major contributors to our
State's vibrant tourism industry, attracting more than 50 million
visitors a year and generating more than $22.9 billion in revenue. This
Water Resources and Development Act is critical to strengthening our
country's infrastructure projects, all of which are so critical to the
Nation's economy.
In the district I represent, Carolina Beach's Coastal Storm Damage
Reduction project reached the end of its 50-year authorization in 2014.
While the Army Corps of Engineers works to complete their study to
determine future authorization of this project, this bill provides for
continued authorization in the interim and long-term certainty of
nourishment should the Corps study be favorable and funding available.
Our ports, beaches, inlets, and waterways are the lifeline of
economic activity and job growth for our coastal communities, and they
are incredibly important for the Nation as a whole.
I thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio and the rest of my
colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for
putting forth a strong bill that addresses the unique coastal needs of
North Carolina's Seventh District and makes great improvements to
current law enabling critical projects to move forward while saving
taxpayer dollars in multiple ways. A job well done.
I urge everyone's support.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa).

[[Page H4804]]

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, when I first got to the U.S. House, a WRDA
bill hadn't passed in 6 years. Since then, Chairman Shuster has led a
renaissance in the committee, putting us back on the 2-year cycle,
which I applaud him and all of our colleagues on the committee for
spearheading these efforts. What we are looking for is predictability
and stability in this process. Just a few weeks ago, that process
continued, as the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 passed
through the committee in a unanimous and bipartisan fashion.

{time} 1515

Now, WRDA stands before the House ready for final passage. This
legislation will institute, importantly, a review process of the Army
Corps of Engineers' backlog that can save, in the near term, $3
billion. Now, with $100 billion worth of work identified, and maybe $2
billion per year allocated, when will we ever get caught up on this
unless there is a review and new process put in place?
We will also implement a study to improve Army Corps' administration
and procedures, and greatly increase the role of local shareholders in
carrying out water development projects like we have seen in Sutter and
Butte Counties in northern California. Indeed, the public will be much
better served in safety when working on these levee projects and
getting them done timely and for lower costs.
This whole WRDA legislation will be key for important flood control
work and levee work, in addition to the many other things that have
been talked about today. This bill is an important next step in moving
this process forward, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I rise today in support of H.R.
8--the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2018. As the most
senior Texan on the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee and
former chair of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, I am
pleased to support this bill which represents a bipartisan effort to
authorize critical water infrastructure projects and develop our
nation's future water resources.
Our ports, inland waterways, locks, dams, flood protection, and other
water infrastructure are vital to our nation and its global
competitiveness. Water infrastructure forms a critical backbone in
support of our overall infrastructure needs and H.R. 8 will ensure that
the United States can provide not only basic water resources for its
people, but also promote commerce along our nation's waterways.
One element of the WRDA bill that I wish had been addressed is the
full use of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF). The HMTF was
established to cover the operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses of
our waterways and harbors. As Harbor Maintenance Taxes (HMTs) are
collected, it is the responsibility of Congress to appropriate its
spending for dredging and other O&M activities. A sufficient amount of
HMT revenue is collected each year to meet our nation's annual
authorized harbor maintenance needs. It is critical that we remain open
to the idea of fully utilizing the HMTF for harbor maintenance
purposes.
Mr. Chair, I look forward to working with Congress to continue
authorizing these important projects and sticking to a two-year
authorization cycle. Doing so will ensure that we are able to advance
water resources development projects in a timely manner and provide the
predictability and support that is so desperately needed.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R.
8, the Water Resources Development Act of 2018. Our district, centered
in Eastside and Northside Houston and eastern Harris County, was one of
the most highly impacted by Hurricane Harvey. While we have passed
emergency supplemental funding the Port of Houston and the Army Corps
of Engineers have drastic needs for mitigating the damage done by
Harvey.
The Port of Houston is the second busiest in the U.S. in terms of
overall tonnage and the busiest in the U.S. in terms of foreign
tonnage. Silt, from the bayous has drastically limited maneuverability
and depth. The port had recently completed dredging to 45 feet. Many of
the ships can no longer get through the channel due to hurricane
damage. The disaster funding has not reached our ports.
The port currently estimates that first phase of recovery from the
storm will cost an estimated $457 million dollars. The ship channel is
the lifeblood of Houston. The energy renaissance that we have
experienced in this country is also driven by industry that relies on
the Port and the ship channel. It's absolutely essential to our
district that we adequately fund corps projects that get the port back
at their normal capacity.
Decades ago Congress created the Harbor Maintenance Fund, a tax on
goods to keep our ports and harbors in good working order, and every
year appropriators do not appropriate the needed funds. It is past time
that we start putting all the money collected from port economic
activity back into maintaining our ports.
Army Corps of Engineer projects go hand in hand with the health of
our ports as well. Houston is a city of Bayous. When our Bayou's are
damaged in a storm like Harvey the silt flows downstream into the ship
channel. The turning basis, which was hit hard in the Tax Day Floods of
2016 has seen draft restrictions for over 1,300 days now.
These Army Corps projects don't just save money though, they create
jobs. These improvements in this bill aren't theoretical, they're
shovel ready projects the Corps has read to go.
The Army Corps of Engineers recently announced that it was allocating
around $360 million to address high-priority needs for hurricane
ravaged regions but unfortunately while many projects have been
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, no action has been
take to clear these projects.
I call on Director Mulvaney to take immediate action on these needs
so OMB won't stand as a roadblock to protecting my constituents as we
enter a new hurricane season. I'd like to thank my colleagues on the
Transportation and Infrastructure committee for crafting a Water
Resources Development Act that addresses these pressing issues and urge
my colleagues to support the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, printed in the
bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text
of Rules Committee Print 115-72, shall be considered as adopted, and
shall be considered as an original bill for purpose of further
amendment under the 5-minute rule. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 8

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 2018''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Secretary defined.

TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. Sense of Congress regarding water resources development
bills.
Sec. 102. Assessment of harbors and inland harbors.
Sec. 103. Levee safety initiative reauthorization.
Sec. 104. Dam safety.
Sec. 105. Rehabilitation of Corps of Engineers constructed dams.
Sec. 106. Forecast-informed reservoir operations.
Sec. 107. Identification of nonpowered dams for hydropower development.
Sec. 108. Emergency response to natural disasters.
Sec. 109. Integrated water resources planning.
Sec. 110. Mitigation banks.
Sec. 111. Indian Tribes.
Sec. 112. Columbia River.
Sec. 113. Dissemination of information.
Sec. 114. Non-Federal engagement and review.
Sec. 115. Comprehensive backlog report.
Sec. 116. Structures and facilities constructed by Secretary.
Sec. 117. Transparency in administrative expenses.
Sec. 118. Study of the future of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers.
Sec. 119. Acknowledgment of credit.
Sec. 120. Non-Federal implementation pilot program.
Sec. 121. Study of water resources development projects by non-Federal
interests.
Sec. 122. Construction of water resources development projects by non-
Federal interests.
Sec. 123. Advanced funds for water resources development studies and
projects.
Sec. 124. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 125. Study on economic and budgetary analyses.

[[Page H4805]]

Sec. 126. Study of corrosion management at Corps of Engineers projects.
Sec. 127. Costs in excess of Federal participation limit.
Sec. 128. Report on innovative materials.
Sec. 129. Study on Corps of Engineers.
Sec. 130. GAO study.
Sec. 131. GAO report on Alaska Native village relocation efforts due to
flooding and erosion threats.
Sec. 132. Study and report on expediting certain waiver processes.
Sec. 133. Corps of Engineers continuing authorities program.
Sec. 134. Credit in lieu of reimbursement.
Sec. 135. Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule review.
Sec. 136. Missouri River.
Sec. 137. Access to real estate data.
Sec. 138. Aquatic invasive species research.
Sec. 139. Harmful algal bloom technology demonstration.
Sec. 140. Bubbly Creek, Chicago ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 141. Operation and maintenance of navigation and hydroelectric
facilities.
Sec. 142. Hurricane and storm damage reduction.
Sec. 143. Post-disaster watershed assessments in the territories of the
United States.

TITLE II--STUDIES

Sec. 201. Authorization of proposed feasibility studies.
Sec. 202. Additional studies.
Sec. 203. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects.

TITLE III--DEAUTHORIZATIONS, MODIFICATIONS, AND RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Deauthorization of inactive projects.
Sec. 302. Backlog prevention.
Sec. 303. Project modifications.
Sec. 304. Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Sec. 305. Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. 306. Conveyances.
Sec. 307. Clatsop County, Oregon.
Sec. 308. Kissimmee River Restoration, Central and Southern Florida.
Sec. 309. Lytle and Cajon Creeks, California.
Sec. 310. Yuba River Basin, California.

TITLE IV--WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE

Sec. 401. Project authorizations.

SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.

In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Army.

TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 101. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING WATER RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT BILLS.

It is the sense of Congress that, because the missions of
the Corps of Engineers for navigation, flood control, beach
erosion control and shoreline protection, hydroelectric
power, recreation, water supply, environmental protection,
restoration, and enhancement, and fish and wildlife
mitigation benefit all Americans, and because water resources
development projects are critical to maintaining the
country's economic prosperity, national security, and
environmental protection, Congress should consider a water
resources development bill not less often than once every
Congress.

SEC. 102. ASSESSMENT OF HARBORS AND INLAND HARBORS.

Section 210(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``shall assess the'' and
inserting ``shall assess, and issue a report to Congress on,
the''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Opportunities for beneficial use of dredged
materials.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall identify potential opportunities for the beneficial use
of dredged materials obtained from harbors and inland harbors
referred to in subsection (a)(2), including projects eligible
under section 1122 of the Water Resources Development Act of
2016 (130 Stat. 1645; 33 U.S.C. 2326 note).''.

SEC. 103. LEVEE SAFETY INITIATIVE REAUTHORIZATION.

Title IX of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007
(33 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 9005(g)(2)(E)(i), by striking ``2015 through
2019'' and inserting ``2019 through 2023''; and
(2) in section 9008, by striking ``2015 through 2019'' each
place it appears and inserting ``2019 through 2023''.

SEC. 104. DAM SAFETY.

Section 14 of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33
U.S.C. 467j) is amended by striking ``2015 through 2019''
each place it appears and inserting ``2019 through 2023''.

SEC. 105. REHABILITATION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTED
DAMS.

Section 1177 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016
(33 U.S.C. 467f-2 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (e), by striking ``$10,000,000'' and
inserting ``$40,000,000''; and
(2) in subsection (f), by striking ``$10,000,000'' and
inserting ``$40,000,000''.

SEC. 106. FORECAST-INFORMED RESERVOIR OPERATIONS.

(a) Report on Forecast-Informed Reservoir Operations.--Not
later than one year after the date of completion of the
forecast-informed reservoir operations research study pilot
program at Coyote Valley Dam, Russian River Basin, California
(authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat.
177)), the Secretary shall issue a report to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate on the results of the study pilot
program.
(b) Contents of Report.--The Secretary shall include in the
report issued under subsection (a)--
(1) an analysis of the use of forecast-informed reservoir
operations at Coyote Valley Dam, California;
(2) an assessment of the viability of using forecast-
informed reservoir operations at other dams owned or operated
by the Secretary;
(3) an identification of other dams owned or operated by
the Secretary where forecast-informed reservoir operations
may assist the Secretary in the optimization of future
reservoir operations; and
(4) any additional areas for future study of forecast-
informed reservoir operations.

SEC. 107. IDENTIFICATION OF NONPOWERED DAMS FOR HYDROPOWER
DEVELOPMENT.

(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall develop a list
of existing nonpowered dams owned and operated by the Corps
of Engineers that have the greatest potential for hydropower
development.
(b) Considerations.--In developing the list under
subsection (a), the Secretary may consider the following:
(1) The compatibility of hydropower generation with
existing purposes of the dam.
(2) The proximity of the dam to existing transmission
resources.
(3) The existence of studies to characterize environmental,
cultural, and historic resources relating to the dam.
(4) Whether hydropower is an authorized purpose of the dam.
(c) Availability.--The Secretary shall provide the list
developed under subsection (a) to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate, and make such list available to the
public.

SEC. 108. EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO NATURAL DISASTERS.

(a) In General.--Section 5(a)(1) of the Act of August 18,
1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(a)(1)) is amended in the first
sentence--
(1) by striking ``strengthening, raising, extending, or
other modification thereof'' and inserting ``strengthening,
raising, extending, realigning, or other modification
thereof''; and
(2) by striking ``structure or project damaged or destroyed
by wind, wave, or water action of other than an ordinary
nature to the design level of protection when, in the
discretion of the Chief of Engineers,'' and inserting
``structure or project damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or
water action of other than an ordinary nature to either the
pre-storm level or the design level of protection, whichever
provides greater protection, when, in the discretion of the
Chief of Engineers,''.
(b) Duration.--Section 156(e) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5f(e)) is amended by
striking ``6 years'' and inserting ``9 years''.

SEC. 109. INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES PLANNING.

In carrying out a water resources development feasibility
study, the Secretary shall consult with local governments in
the watershed covered by such study to determine if local
water management plans exist, or are under development, for
the purposes of stormwater management, water quality
improvement, aquifer recharge, or water reuse.

SEC. 110. MITIGATION BANKS.

(a) Definition of Mitigation Bank.--In this section, the
term ``mitigation bank'' has the meaning given that term in
section 332.2 of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations.
(b) Guidance.--The Secretary shall issue guidance on the
use of mitigation banks to meet requirements for water
resources development projects in order to update mitigation
bank credit release schedules to--
(1) support the goal of achieving efficient permitting and
maintaining appropriate environmental protections; and
(2) promote increased transparency in the use of mitigation
banks.
(c) Requirements.--The guidance issued under subsection (b)
shall--
(1) be consistent with--
(A) part 230 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations;
(B) section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283);
(C) part 332 of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations; and
(D) section 314(b) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136; 33 U.S.C. 1344
note); and
(2) provide for--
(A) the mitigation bank sponsor to provide sufficient
financial assurances to ensure a high level of confidence
that the compensatory mitigation project will be successfully
completed, in accordance with applicable performance
standards, under section 332.3(n) of title 33, Code of
Federal Regulations;
(B) the mitigation bank sponsor to reserve the share of
mitigation bank credits required to ensure ecological
performance of the mitigation bank, in accordance with
section 332.8(o) of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations;
and
(C) all credits except for the share reserved under
subparagraph (B) to be available upon completion of the
construction of the mitigation bank.

SEC. 111. INDIAN TRIBES.

(a) Cost Sharing Provisions for the Territories and Indian
Tribes.--Section 1156(a)(2) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2310(a)(2)) is amended by
striking ``section 102 of the Federally Recognized Indian

[[Page H4806]]

Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 5130)'' and inserting
``section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304(e))''.
(b) Written Agreement Requirement for Water Resources
Projects.--Section 221(b)(1) of the Flood Control Act of 1970
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``a
federally recognized Indian tribe and, as defined in section
3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C.
1602), a Native village, Regional Corporation, and Village
Corporation'' and inserting ``an Indian tribe, as defined in
section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304(e))''.

SEC. 112. COLUMBIA RIVER.

(a) Bonneville Dam, Oregon.--Section 1178(c)(1)(A) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1675) is
amended by striking ``may provide assistance'' and inserting
``may provide assistance, which may include housing and
related improvements,''.
(b) John Day Dam, Washington and Oregon.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act, and in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, conduct a
study to determine the extent to which Indian Tribes have
been displaced as a result of the construction of the John
Day Dam, Columbia River, Washington and Oregon, as authorized
by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat.
179), including an assessment of effects related to housing
and related improvements.
(2) Additional actions.--If the Secretary determines, based
on the study under paragraph (1), that assistance is
required, the Secretary may use all existing authorities of
the Secretary to provide assistance, which may include
housing and related improvements, to Indian Tribes displaced
as a result of the construction of the John Day Dam, Columbia
River, Washington and Oregon.
(3) Repeal.--Section 1178(c)(2) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1675) is repealed.
(c) The Dalles Dam, Washington and Oregon.--The Secretary,
in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall
complete a village development plan for any Indian Tribe
displaced as a result of the construction of the Dalles Dam,
Columbia River, Washington and Oregon, as authorized by
section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 179).

SEC. 113. DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Congress plays a central role in identifying,
prioritizing, and authorizing vital water resources
infrastructure activities throughout the United States.
(2) The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014
(Public Law 113-121) established a new and transparent
process to review and prioritize the water resources
development activities of the Corps of Engineers with strong
congressional oversight.
(3) Section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d) requires the
Secretary to develop and submit to Congress each year a
Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development and,
as part of the annual report process, to--
(A) publish a notice in the Federal Register that requests
from non-Federal interests proposed feasibility studies and
proposed modifications to authorized water resources
development projects and feasibility studies for inclusion in
the report; and
(B) review the proposals submitted and include in the
report those proposed feasibility studies and proposed
modifications that meet the criteria for inclusion
established under such section 7001.
(4) Congress will use the information provided in the
annual Report to Congress on Future Water Resources
Development to determine authorization needs and priorities
for purposes of water resources development legislation.
(5) To ensure that Congress can gain a thorough
understanding of the water resources development needs and
priorities of the United States, it is important that the
Secretary take sufficient steps to ensure that non-Federal
interests are made aware of the new annual report process,
including the need for non-Federal interests to submit
proposals during the Secretary's annual request for proposals
in order for such proposals to be eligible for consideration
by Congress.
(b) Dissemination of Process Information.--The Secretary
shall develop, support, and implement education and awareness
efforts for non-Federal interests with respect to the annual
Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development
required under section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d), including efforts
to--
(1) develop and disseminate technical assistance materials,
seminars, and guidance on the annual process as it relates to
non-Federal interests;
(2) provide written notice to local elected officials and
previous and potential non-Federal interests on the annual
process and on opportunities to address local water resources
challenges through the missions and authorities of the Corps
of Engineers;
(3) issue guidance for non-Federal interests to assist such
interests in developing proposals for water resources
development projects that satisfy the requirements of such
section 7001; and
(4) provide, at the request of a non-Federal interest,
assistance with researching and identifying existing project
authorizations and Corps of Engineers decision documents.

SEC. 114. NON-FEDERAL ENGAGEMENT AND REVIEW.

(a) Public Notice.--
(1) In general.--Prior to developing and issuing any new or
revised implementation guidance for a covered water resources
development law, the Secretary shall issue a public notice
that--
(A) informs potentially interested non-Federal stakeholders
of the Secretary's intent to develop and issue such guidance;
and
(B) provides an opportunity for interested non-Federal
stakeholders to engage with, and provide input and
recommendations to, the Secretary on the development and
issuance of such guidance.
(2) Issuance of notice.--The Secretary shall issue the
notice under paragraph (1) through a posting on a publicly
accessible website dedicated to providing notice on the
development and issuance of implementation guidance for a
covered water resources development law.
(b) Stakeholder Engagement.--
(1) Input.--The Secretary shall allow a minimum of 60 days
after issuance of the public notice under subsection (a) for
non-Federal stakeholders to provide input and recommendations
to the Secretary, prior to finalizing implementation guidance
for a covered water resources development law.
(2) Outreach.--The Secretary may, as appropriate (as
determined by the Secretary), reach out to non-Federal
stakeholders and circulate drafts of implementation guidance
for a covered water resources development law for informal
feedback and recommendations.
(c) Development of Guidance.--When developing
implementation guidance for a covered water resources
development law, the Secretary shall take into consideration
the input and recommendations received from non-Federal
stakeholders, and make the final guidance available to the
public on-line on a publicly accessible website.
(d) Covered Water Resources Development Law.--In this
section, the term ``covered water resources development law''
means--
(1) the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014;
(2) the Water Resources Development Act of 2016;
(3) this Act; and
(4) any Federal water resources development law enacted
after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 115. COMPREHENSIVE BACKLOG REPORT.

Section 1001(b)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(4)) is amended--
(1) in the header, by inserting ``and operation and
maintenance'' after ``backlog'';
(2) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall compile and
publish--
``(i) a complete list of all projects and separable
elements of projects of the Corps of Engineers that are
authorized for construction but have not been completed; and
``(ii) a list of major Federal operation and maintenance
needs of projects and properties under the control of the
Corps of Engineers.'';
(3) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) in the heading, by inserting ``backlog'' before
``information''; and
(B) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking
``subparagraph (A)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A)(i)'';
(4) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D)
and inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) Required operation and maintenance information.--The
Secretary shall include on the list developed under
subparagraph (A)(ii), for each project and property under the
control of the Corps of Engineers on that list--
``(i) the authority under which the project was authorized
or the property was acquired by the Corps of Engineers;
``(ii) a brief description of the project or property;
``(iii) an estimate of the Federal costs to meet the major
operation and maintenance needs at the project or property;
and
``(iv) an estimate of unmet or deferred operation and
maintenance needs at the project or property.''; and
(5) in subparagraph (D), as so redesignated--
(A) in clause (i), in the matter preceding subclause (I),
by striking ``Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall submit a
copy of the list'' and inserting ``For fiscal year 2019, and
biennially thereafter, in conjunction with the President's
annual budget submission to Congress under section 1105(a) of
title 31, United States Code, the Secretary shall submit a
copy of the lists''; and
(B) in clause (ii), by striking ``list'' and inserting
``lists''.

SEC. 116. STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED BY SECRETARY.

Section 14 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 408) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Work Defined.--For the purposes of this section, the
term `work' shall not include unimproved real estate owned or
operated by the Secretary as part of a water resources
development project if the Secretary determines that
modification of such real estate would not affect the
function and usefulness of the project.''.

SEC. 117. TRANSPARENCY IN ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

Section 1012(b)(1) of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2315a(b)(1)) is amended by
striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``Not later than 1
year after the date of enactment of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2018, the Secretary''.

SEC. 118. STUDY OF THE FUTURE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with the National Academy

[[Page H4807]]

of Sciences to convene a committee of experts to carry out a
comprehensive study on--
(1) the ability of the Corps of Engineers to carry out its
statutory missions and responsibilities, and the potential
effects of transferring the functions (including regulatory
obligations), personnel, assets, and civilian staff
responsibilities of the Secretary relating to civil works
from the Department of Defense to a new or existing agency or
subagency of the Federal Government, including how such a
transfer might affect the Federal Government's ability to
meet the current statutory missions and responsibilities of
the Corps of Engineers; and
(2) improving the Corps of Engineers' project delivery
processes, including recommendations for such improvements,
taking into account factors including--
(A) the effect of the annual appropriations process on the
ability of the Corps of Engineers to efficiently secure and
carry out contracts for water resources projects and perform
regulatory obligations;
(B) the effect that the current Corps of Engineers
leadership and geographic structure at the division and
district levels has on its ability to carry out its missions
in a cost-effective manner; and
(C) the effect of the frequency of rotations of senior
leaders of the Corps of Engineers and how such frequency
affects the function of the district.
(b) Considerations.--The study carried out under subsection
(a) shall include consideration of--
(1) effects on the national security of the United States;
(2) the ability of the Corps of Engineers to maintain
sufficient engineering capability and capacity to assist
ongoing and future operations of the United States armed
services; and
(3) emergency and natural disaster response obligations of
the Federal Government that are carried out by the Corps of
Engineers.
(c) Consultation.--The agreement entered into under
subsection (a) shall require the National Academy to, in
carrying out the study, consult with--
(1) the Department of Defense, including the Secretary of
the Army and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works;
(2) the Department of Transportation;
(3) the Environmental Protection Agency;
(4) the Department of Homeland Security;
(5) the Office of Management and Budget;
(6) other appropriate Federal agencies;
(7) professional and nongovernmental organizations; and
(8) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate.
(d) Submission to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit the
final report of the National Academy containing the findings
of the study carried out under subsection (a) to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 119. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CREDIT.

Section 7007(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2007 (121 Stat. 1277; 128 Stat. 1226) is amended by adding at
the end the following: ``Notwithstanding section
221(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5b(a)(4)(C)(i)), the Secretary may provide credit for
work carried out during the period beginning on November 8,
2007, and ending on the date of enactment of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2018 by the non-Federal interest
for a project under this title if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the project and was carried out
in accordance with the laws specified in section
5014(i)(2)(A) of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1331) and all other applicable Federal
laws.''.

SEC. 120. NON-FEDERAL IMPLEMENTATION PILOT PROGRAM.

Section 1043(b)(8) of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note(b)(8)) is
amended by striking ``2015 through 2019'' and inserting
``2019 through 2023''.

SEC. 121. STUDY OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS BY
NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.

Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2231) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``federally
authorized'' before ``feasibility study'';
(2) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Submission to Congress.--
``(1) Review and submission of studies to congress.--Not
later than 180 days after the date of receipt of a
feasibility study of a project under subsection (a)(1), the
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a report that describes--
``(A) the results of the Secretary's review of the study
under subsection (b), including a determination of whether
the project is feasible;
``(B) any recommendations the Secretary may have concerning
the plan or design of the project; and
``(C) any conditions the Secretary may require for
construction of the project.
``(2) Limitation.--The completion of the review by the
Secretary of a feasibility study that has been submitted
under subsection (a)(1) may not be delayed as a result of
consideration being given to changes in policy or priority
with respect to project consideration.''; and
(3) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
``(e) Review and Technical Assistance.--
``(1) Review.--The Secretary may accept and expend funds
provided by non-Federal interests to undertake reviews,
inspections, certifications, and other activities that are
the responsibility of the Secretary in carrying out this
section.
``(2) Technical assistance.--At the request of a non-
Federal interest, the Secretary shall provide to the non-
Federal interest technical assistance relating to any aspect
of a feasibility study if the non-Federal interest contracts
with the Secretary to pay all costs of providing such
technical assistance.
``(3) Limitation.--Funds provided by non-Federal interests
under this subsection shall not be eligible for credit under
subsection (d) or reimbursement.
``(4) Impartial decisionmaking.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary shall ensure that the use of funds
accepted from a non-Federal interest will not affect the
impartial decisionmaking of the Secretary, either
substantively or procedurally.''.

SEC. 122. CONSTRUCTION OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.

Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2232) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by inserting ``federally authorized'' before ``water
resources development project'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``, except as
provided in paragraph (3)'' before the semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Permit exception.--
``(A) In general.--For a project described in subsection
(a)(1) or subsection (a)(3), or a separable element thereof,
with respect to which a written agreement described in
subparagraph (B) has been entered into, a non-Federal
interest that carries out a project under this section shall
not be required to obtain any Federal permits or approvals
that would not be required if the Secretary carried out the
project or separable element unless significant new
circumstances or information relevant to environmental
concerns or compliance have arisen since development of the
project recommendation.
``(B) Written agreement.--For purposes of this paragraph, a
written agreement shall provide that the non-Federal interest
shall comply with the same legal and technical requirements
that would apply if the project or separable element were
carried out by the Secretary, including all mitigation
required to offset environmental impacts of the project or
separable element as determined by the Secretary.
``(C) Certifications.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if
a non-Federal interest carrying out a project under this
section would, in the absence of a written agreement entered
into under this paragraph, be required to obtain a
certification from a State under Federal law to carry out the
project, such certification shall still be required if a
written agreement is entered into with respect to the project
under this paragraph.''; and
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a semicolon;
(ii) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) in the case of reimbursement, appropriations are
provided by Congress for such purpose.''; and
(B) in paragraph (5)--
(i) by striking ``flood damage reduction'' each place it
appears and inserting ``water resources development'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``for a discrete
segment of a'' and inserting ``for carrying out a discrete
segment of a federally authorized''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (D), in the matter preceding clause
(i), by inserting ``to be carried out'' after ``project''.

SEC. 123. ADVANCED FUNDS FOR WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
STUDIES AND PROJECTS.

(a) Contributions by States and Political Subdivisions for
Immediate Use on Authorized Flood-Control Work; Repayment.--
The Act of October 15, 1940 (54 Stat. 1176; 33 U.S.C. 701h-1)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``a flood-control project duly adopted and
authorized by law'' and inserting ``a federally authorized
water resources development project,'';
(2) by striking ``such work'' and inserting ``such
project'';
(3) by striking ``from appropriations which may be provided
by Congress for flood-control work'' and inserting ``if
appropriations are provided by Congress for such purpose'';
and
(4) by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of
this Act, the term `State' means the several States, the
District of Columbia, the commonwealths, territories, and
possessions of the United States, and Indian tribes (as
defined in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304(e))).''.
(b) No Adverse Effect on Processes.--In implementing any
provision of law that authorizes a non-Federal interest to
provide, advance, or contribute funds to the Secretary for
the development or implementation of a water resources
development project (including sections 203 and 204 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231,
2232), section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C.
701h), and the Act of October 15, 1940 (33 U.S.C. 701h-1)),
the Secretary shall ensure, to the maximum extent
practicable, that the use by a non-Federal interest of such
authorities does not adversely affect--
(1) the process or timeline for development and
implementation of other water resources development projects
by other non-Federal entities that do not use such
authorities; or

[[Page H4808]]

(2) the process for including such projects in the
President's annual budget submission to Congress under
section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code.
(c) Advances by Private Parties; Repayment.--Section 11 of
the Act of March 3, 1925 (Chapter 467; 33 U.S.C. 561) is
repealed.

SEC. 124. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

Section 214(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (33 U.S.C. 2352(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``10 years'' and
inserting ``12 years''; and
(2) in paragraph (5)--
(A) by striking ``4 years after the date of enactment of
this paragraph'' and inserting ``December 31, 2022''; and
(B) by striking ``carry out a study'' and inserting ``carry
out a followup study''.

SEC. 125. STUDY ON ECONOMIC AND BUDGETARY ANALYSES.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to--
(1) carry out a study on the economic principles and
analytical methodologies currently used by or applied to the
Corps of Engineers to formulate, evaluate, and budget for
water resources development projects; and
(2) make recommendations to Congress on potential changes
to such principles and methodologies to improve transparency,
return on Federal investment, cost savings, and
prioritization, in the formulation, evaluation, and budgeting
of such projects.
(b) Considerations.--The study under subsection (a) shall
include--
(1) an analysis of the current economic principles and
analytical methodologies used by or applied to the Corps of
Engineers in determining the total benefits and total costs
during the formulation of, and plan selection for, a water
resources development project;
(2) an analysis of improvements or alternatives to how the
Corps of Engineers utilizes the National Economic
Development, Regional Economic Development, Environmental
Quality, and Other Social Effects accounts developed by the
Institute for Water Resources of the Corps of Engineers in
the formulation of, and plan selection for, such projects;
(3) an analysis of whether such principles and
methodologies fully account for all of the potential benefits
of project alternatives, including any reasonably associated
benefits of such alternatives that are not contrary to law,
Federal policy, or sound water resources management;
(4) an analysis of whether such principles and
methodologies fully account for all of the costs of project
alternatives, including potential societal costs, such as
lost ecosystem services, and full lifecycle costs for such
alternatives; and
(5) an analysis of the methodologies utilized by the
Federal Government in setting and applying discount rates for
benefit-cost analyses used in the formulation, evaluation,
and budgeting of Corps of Engineers water resources
development projects.
(c) Publication.--The agreement entered into under
subsection (a) shall require the National Academy of Sciences
to, not later than 30 days after the completion of the
study--
(1) submit a report containing the results of the study and
the recommendations to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives; and
(2) make a copy of such report available on a publicly
accessible website.
(d) Sense of Congress on Budgetary Evaluation Metrics and
Transparency.--It is the sense of Congress that the
President, in the formulation of the annual budget request
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works), should
submit to Congress a budget that--
(1) aligns the assessment of the potential benefit-cost
ratio for budgeting water resources development projects with
that used by the Corps of Engineers during project plan
formulation and evaluation pursuant to section 80 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-17);
and
(2) demonstrates the transparent criteria and metrics
utilized by the President in the evaluation and selection of
water resources development projects included in the budget
request.

SEC. 126. STUDY OF CORROSION MANAGEMENT AT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a
study of corrosion management efforts at projects and
properties under the control of the Corps of Engineers.
(b) Requirements.--The study under subsection (a) shall
include--
(1) an analysis of--
(A) asset management protocols that are utilized by the
Corps of Engineers, including protocols that examine both
asset integrity and the integration of corrosion management
efforts within the asset lifecycle, which includes the stages
of design, manufacturing and construction, operation and
maintenance, and decommissioning;
(B) available corrosion prevention technologies that may be
used at projects and properties under the control of the
Corps of Engineers;
(C) corrosion-related asset failures and the management
protocols of the Corps of Engineers to incorporate lessons
learned from such failures into work and management
practices;
(D) training of Corps of Engineers employees with respect
to, and best practices for, identifying and preventing
corrosion at projects and properties under the control of the
Corps of Engineers; and
(E) the estimated costs and anticipated benefits, including
safety benefits, associated with the integration of corrosion
management efforts within the asset lifecycle; and
(2) a description of Corps of Engineers, stakeholder, and
expert perspectives on the effectiveness of corrosion
management efforts to reduce the incidence of corrosion at
projects and properties under the control of the Corps of
Engineers.

SEC. 127. COSTS IN EXCESS OF FEDERAL PARTICIPATION LIMIT.

Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C.
701r) is amended by inserting ``, and if such amount is not
sufficient to cover the costs included in the Federal cost
share for a project, as determined by the Secretary, the non-
Federal interest shall be responsible for any such costs that
exceed such amount'' before the period at the end.

SEC. 128. REPORT ON INNOVATIVE MATERIALS.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that
describes activities conducted by the Corps of Engineers at
centers of expertise, technology centers, technical centers,
research and development centers, and similar facilities and
organizations relating to the testing, research, development,
identification, and recommended uses for innovative materials
in water resources development projects.

SEC. 129. STUDY ON CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to Congress a report that--
(1) describes the capacity and preparedness of the Corps of
Engineers workforce, including challenges related to
diversity, recruitment, retention, retirements,
credentialing, professional development, on-the-job training,
and other readiness-related gaps in ensuring a fully prepared
21st century Corps of Engineers workforce; and
(2) contains an assessment of the existing technology used
by the Corps of Engineers, the effects of inefficiencies in
the Corps' current technology usage, and recommendations for
improved technology or tools to accomplish its missions and
responsibilities.

SEC. 130. GAO STUDY.

(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a study of the consideration by the Corps of
Engineers of natural features and nature-based features in
the study of the feasibility of projects for flood risk
management, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and
ecosystem restoration.
(b) Considerations.--The study under subsection (a) shall
include--
(1) a description of guidance or instructions issued, and
other measures taken, by the Secretary and the Chief of
Engineers to consider natural features and nature-based
features in project feasibility studies;
(2) an assessment of the costs, benefits, impacts, and
trade-offs associated with natural features and nature-based
features recommended by the Secretary for flood risk
reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and
ecosystem restoration projects, and the effectiveness of
those natural features and nature-based features;
(3) a description of any statutory, fiscal, regulatory, or
other policy barriers to the appropriate consideration and
use of a full array of natural features and nature-based
features; and
(4) any recommendations for changes to statutory, fiscal,
regulatory, or other policies to improve the use of natural
features and nature-based features by the Corps of Engineers.
(c) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``natural
feature'' and ``nature-based feature'' have the meanings
given such terms in section 1184 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a).

SEC. 131. GAO REPORT ON ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE RELOCATION
EFFORTS DUE TO FLOODING AND EROSION THREATS.

(a) Definition of Alaska Native Village.--In this section,
the term ``Alaska Native village'' means a Native village
that has a Village Corporation (as those terms are defined in
section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43
U.S.C. 1602)).
(b) Report.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall submit to Congress a report on efforts to relocate
Alaska Native villages due to flooding and erosion threats
that updates the report of the Comptroller General entitled
``Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on
Relocating Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion'',
dated June 2009.
(c) Inclusions.--The report under subsection (b) shall
include--
(1) a summary of flooding and erosion threats to Alaska
Native villages throughout the State of Alaska, based on
information from--
(A) the Corps of Engineers;
(B) the Denali Commission; and
(C) any other relevant sources of information as the
Comptroller General determines to be appropriate;
(2) the status of efforts to relocate Alaska Native
villages due to flooding and erosion threats; and
(3) any other issues relating to flooding and erosion
threats to, or relocation of, Alaska Native villages, as the
Comptroller General determines to be appropriate.

SEC. 132. STUDY AND REPORT ON EXPEDITING CERTAIN WAIVER
PROCESSES.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall complete

[[Page H4809]]

and submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works
of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report based
on the results of a study on the best options available to
the Secretary to implement the waiver process for the non-
Federal cost share under section 116 of the Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010
(Public Law 111-85; 123 Stat. 2851).

SEC. 133. CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM.

Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
577) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``$50,000,000'' and
inserting ``$62,500,000''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``$10,000,000'' and
inserting ``$12,500,000''.

SEC. 134. CREDIT IN LIEU OF REIMBURSEMENT.

Section 1022 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2225) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 1022. CREDIT IN LIEU OF REIMBURSEMENT.

``(a) Requests for Credits.--With respect to an authorized
flood damage reduction project, or separable element thereof,
that has been constructed by a non-Federal interest under
section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(33 U.S.C. 701b-13), or an authorized coastal navigation
project that has been constructed by the Corps of Engineers
pursuant to section 11 of the Act of March 3, 1925, before
the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2018, the Secretary may provide to the non-Federal
interest, at the request of the non-Federal interest, a
credit in an amount equal to the estimated Federal share of
the cost of the project or separable element, in lieu of
providing to the non-Federal interest a reimbursement in that
amount.
``(b) Application of Credits.--At the request of the non-
Federal interest, the Secretary may apply such credit to the
share of the cost of the non-Federal interest of carrying out
other flood damage reduction and coastal navigation projects
or studies.''.

SEC. 135. LAKE OKEECHOBEE REGULATION SCHEDULE REVIEW.

The Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall
expedite completion of the Lake Okeechobee regulation
schedule to coincide with the completion of the Herbert
Hoover Dike project, and may consider all relevant aspects of
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan described in
section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2680).

SEC. 136. MISSOURI RIVER.

(a) IRC Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report regarding the impacts of
interception-rearing complex construction on the navigation,
flood control, and other authorized purposes set forth in the
Missouri River Master Manual, and on the population recovery
of the pallid sturgeon.
(b) No Additional IRC Construction.--Until the report under
subsection (a) is submitted, no additional interception-
rearing complex construction is authorized.

SEC. 137. ACCESS TO REAL ESTATE DATA.

(a) In General.--As soon as is practicable, using available
funds, the Secretary shall make publicly available, including
on a publicly accessible website, information relating to all
real property with respect to which the Corps of Engineers
holds an interest. The information shall include standardized
real estate plat descriptions and geospatial information.
(b) Limitation.--Nothing in this section may be construed
to compel or authorize the disclosure of data or other
information determined by the Secretary to be confidential,
privileged, national security, or personal information, or
information the disclosure of which is otherwise prohibited
by law.

SEC. 138. AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES RESEARCH.

(a) In General.--As part of the ongoing activities of the
Engineer Research and Development Center to address the
spread and impacts of aquatic invasive species, the Secretary
shall undertake research on the management and eradication of
aquatic invasive species, including Asian carp and zebra
mussels.
(b) Locations.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall work with Corps of Engineers district offices
representing diverse geographical regions of the continental
United States that are impacted by aquatic invasive species,
such as the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts and the Great
Lakes.
(c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report recommending a plan to
address the spread and impacts of aquatic invasive species.

SEC. 139. HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Engineer
Research and Development Center of the Chief of Engineers,
shall implement a 5-year harmful algal bloom technology
development demonstration under the Aquatic Nuisance Research
Program. To the extent practicable, the Corps of Engineers
shall support research that will identify and develop
improved strategies for early detection, prevention, and
management techniques and procedures to reduce the occurrence
and effects of harmful algal blooms in the Nation's water
resources.
(b) Scalability Requirement.--The Secretary shall ensure
that technologies identified, tested, and deployed under the
harmful algal bloom program technology development
demonstration have the ability to scale up to meet the needs
of harmful-algal-bloom-related events.

SEC. 140. BUBBLY CREEK, CHICAGO ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

The Secretary shall enter into a memorandum of
understanding with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to facilitate ecosystem restoration
activities at the South Fork of the South Branch of the
Chicago River (commonly known as Bubbly Creek).

SEC. 141. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION AND
HYDROELECTRIC FACILITIES.

(a) In General.--Section 314 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2321) is amended--
(1) in the heading by inserting ``navigation and'' before
``hydroelectric facilities'';
(2) in the first sentence, by striking ``Activities
currently performed'' and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--Activities currently performed'';
(3) in subsection (a) (as designated by paragraph (2)), by
inserting ``navigation or'' before ``hydroelectric'';
(4) in the second sentence, by striking ``This section''
and inserting the following:
``(b) Major Maintenance Contracts Allowed.--This section'';
and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Exclusion.--This section does not--
``(1) apply to a navigation facility that was under
contract on or before the date of enactment of this
subsection with a non-Federal interest to perform operations
or maintenance; and
``(2) prohibit the Secretary from contracting out
commercial activities after the date of enactment of this
subsection at a navigation facility.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents contained in
section 1(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(104 Stat. 4604) is amended by striking the item relating to
section 314 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 314. Operation and maintenance of navigation and hydroelectric
facilities.''.

SEC. 142. HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION.

Section 156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5f) is amended in subsection (b)--
(1) by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Timing.--The 15 additional years under paragraph (1)
shall begin on the date of initiation of construction of
congressionally authorized nourishment.''.

SEC. 143. POST-DISASTER WATERSHED ASSESSMENTS IN THE
TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES.

Section 3025 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2267b) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(e) Assessments in the Territories of the United
States.--
``(1) In general.--For any major disaster declared in the
territories of the United States before the date of enactment
of this subsection, all activities in the territory carried
out or undertaken pursuant to the authorities described under
this section shall be conducted at full Federal expense
unless the President determines that the territory has the
ability to pay the cost share for an assessment under this
section without the use of non-Federal funds or loans.
``(2) Territories defined.--In this subsection, the term
`territories of the United States' means those insular areas
specified in section 1156(a)(1) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2310(a)(1)).''.

TITLE II--STUDIES

SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF PROPOSED FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

The Secretary is authorized to conduct a feasibility study
for the following projects for water resources development
and conservation and other purposes, as identified in the
reports titled ``Report to Congress on Future Water Resources
Development'' submitted to Congress on March 17, 2017, and
February 5, 2018, respectively, pursuant to section 7001 of
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33
U.S.C. 2282d) or otherwise reviewed by Congress:
(1) Cave buttes dam, arizona.--Project for flood risk
management, Phoenix, Arizona.
(2) San diego river, california.--Project for flood risk
management, navigation, and ecosystem restoration, San Diego,
California.
(3) J. bennett johnston waterway, louisiana.--Project for
navigation, J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.
(4) Northshore, louisiana.--Project for flood risk
management, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
(5) Ouachita-black rivers, louisiana.--Project for
navigation, Little River, Louisiana.
(6) Chautauqua lake, new york.--Project for ecosystem
restoration and flood risk management, Chautauqua, New York.
(7) Trinity river and tributaries, texas.--Project for
navigation, Liberty, Texas.
(8) West cell levee, texas.--Project for flood risk
management, Irving, Texas.
(9) Coastal virginia, virginia.--Project for flood risk
management, ecosystem restoration, and navigation, Coastal
Virginia.
(10) Tangier island, virginia.--Project for flood risk
management and ecosystem restoration, Tangier Island,
Virginia.

SEC. 202. ADDITIONAL STUDIES.

(a) Lower Mississippi River; Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee,
Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out
studies to determine the feasibility

[[Page H4810]]

of habitat restoration for each of the eight reaches
identified as priorities in the report prepared by the
Secretary pursuant to section 402 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000, titled ``Lower Mississippi River
Resource Assessment; Final Assessment In Response to Section
402 of WRDA 2000'' and dated July 2015.
(2) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with the
Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee during each
feasibility study carried out under paragraph (1).
(b) St. Louis Riverfront, Meramec River Basin, Missouri and
Illinois.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out
studies to determine the feasibility of a project for
ecosystem restoration and flood risk management in Madison,
St. Clair, and Monroe Counties, Illinois, St. Louis City, and
St. Louis, Jefferson, Franklin, Gasconade, Maries, Phelps,
Crawford, Dent, Washington, Iron, St. Francois, St.
Genevieve, Osage, Reynolds, and Texas Counties, Missouri.
(2) Continuation of existing study.--Any study carried out
under paragraph (1) shall be considered a continuation of the
study being carried out under Committee Resolution 2642 of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives, adopted June 21, 2000.

SEC. 203. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS FOR CERTAIN
PROJECTS.

(a) Feasibility Reports.--The Secretary shall expedite the
completion of a feasibility study for each of the following
projects, and if the Secretary determines that the project is
justified in a completed report, may proceed directly to
preconstruction planning, engineering, and design of the
project:
(1) Project for riverbank stabilization, Selma, Alabama.
(2) Project for ecosystem restoration, Three Mile Creek,
Alabama.
(3) Project for navigation, Nome, Alaska.
(4) Project for flood diversion, Seward, Alaska.
(5) Project for navigation, Three Rivers, Arkansas.
(6) Project for flood control, water conservation, and
related purposes, Coyote Valley Dam, California.
(7) Project for flood risk management, Lower Cache Creek,
California.
(8) Project for flood risk management, Lower San Joaquin
River, California, as described in section 1322(b)(2)(F) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1707)
(second phase of feasibility study).
(9) Project for flood risk management, South San Francisco,
California.
(10) Project for flood risk management and ecosystem
restoration, Tijuana River, California.
(11) Project for flood risk management in East Hartford,
Connecticut.
(12) Project for flood risk management in Hartford,
Connecticut.
(13) Projects under the Comprehensive Flood Mitigation
Study for the Delaware River Basin.
(14) Project for ecosystem restoration, Lake Apopka,
Florida.
(15) Project for ecosystem restoration, Kansas River Weir,
Kansas.
(16) Project for water resource improvements, Willamette
River Basin, Fern Ridge, Oregon.
(17) Project for ecosystem restoration, Resacas at
Brownsville, Texas.
(18) Project for navigation, Norfolk Harbor, Virginia.
(19) Project for coastal storm risk management, Norfolk,
Virginia.
(20) Project for navigation, Tacoma Harbor, Washington.
(b) Lower San Joaquin River, California.--In expediting
completion of the second phase of the Lower San Joaquin River
feasibility study under subsection (a)(8), the Secretary
shall review and give priority to any plans and designs
requested by non-Federal interests and incorporate such plans
and designs into the Federal study if the Secretary
determines that such plans and designs are consistent with
Federal standards.
(c) Post-authorization Change Reports.--The Secretary shall
expedite completion of a post-authorization change report for
the following projects:
(1) Project for flood risk management, San Luis Rey River
Flood Control Protection Project, California.
(2) Project for flood risk management, Success Reservoir
Enlargement Project, California.
(3) Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir, Central
Everglades Planning Project, Florida.
(4) Project for navigation, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan.
(d) Upper Mississippi River Protection.--Section 2010 of
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128
Stat. 1270) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Considerations.--In carrying out a disposition study
with respect to the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam,
including a disposition study under section 216 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a), the Secretary may not
complete such study until the Secretary considers, and issues
a report to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate on--
``(1) the feasibility of carrying out modifications to the
Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam to--
``(A) preserve and enhance recreational opportunities and
the health of the ecosystem; and
``(B) maintain the benefits to the natural ecosystem and
human environment; and
``(2) the preservation of any portion of the Upper St.
Anthony Falls Lock and Dam necessary to maintain flood
control.''.

TITLE III--DEAUTHORIZATIONS, MODIFICATIONS, AND RELATED PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. DEAUTHORIZATION OF INACTIVE PROJECTS.

(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(1) to identify $3,000,000,000 in water resources
development projects authorized by Congress that are no
longer viable for construction due to--
(A) a lack of local support;
(B) a lack of available Federal or non-Federal resources;
or
(C) an authorizing purpose that is no longer relevant or
feasible;
(2) to create an expedited and definitive process for
Congress to deauthorize water resources development projects
that are no longer viable for construction; and
(3) to allow the continued authorization of water resources
development projects that are viable for construction.
(b) Interim Deauthorization List.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop an interim
deauthorization list that identifies--
(A) each water resources development project, or separable
element of a project, authorized for construction before
November 8, 2007, for which--
(i) planning, design, or construction was not initiated
before the date of enactment of this Act; or
(ii) planning, design, or construction was initiated before
the date of enactment of this Act, but for which no funds,
Federal or non-Federal, were obligated for planning, design,
or construction of the project or separable element of the
project during the current fiscal year or any of the 6
preceding fiscal years;
(B) each project or separable element identified and
included on a list to Congress for deauthorization pursuant
to section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)); and
(C) any project or separable element for which the non-
Federal sponsor of such project or separable element submits
a request for inclusion on the list.
(2) Public comment and consultation.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall solicit comments from
the public and the Governors of each applicable State on the
interim deauthorization list developed under paragraph (1).
(B) Comment period.--The public comment period shall be 90
days.
(3) Submission to congress; publication.--Not later than 90
days after the date of the close of the comment period under
paragraph (2), the Secretary shall--
(A) submit a revised interim deauthorization list to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives; and
(B) publish the revised interim deauthorization list in the
Federal Register.
(c) Final Deauthorization List.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a final
deauthorization list of water resources development projects,
or separable elements of projects, from the revised interim
deauthorization list described in subsection (b)(3).
(2) Deauthorization amount.--
(A) Proposed final list.--The Secretary shall prepare a
proposed final deauthorization list of projects and separable
elements of projects that have, in the aggregate, an
estimated Federal cost to complete that is at least
$3,000,000,000.
(B) Determination of federal cost to complete.--For
purposes of subparagraph (A), the Federal cost to complete
shall take into account any allowances authorized by section
902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2280), as applied to the most recent project schedule and
cost estimate.
(3) Identification of projects.--
(A) Sequencing of projects.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary shall identify projects and
separable elements of projects for inclusion on the proposed
final deauthorization list according to the order in which
the projects and separable elements of the projects were
authorized, beginning with the earliest authorized projects
and separable elements of projects and ending with the latest
project or separable element of a project necessary to meet
the aggregate amount under paragraph (2)(A).
(ii) Factors to consider.--The Secretary may identify
projects and separable elements of projects in an order other
than that established by clause (i) if the Secretary
determines, on a case-by-case basis, that a project or
separable element of a project is critical for interests of
the United States, based on the possible impact of the
project or separable element of the project on public health
and safety, the national economy, or the environment.
(iii) Consideration of public comments.--In making
determinations under clause (ii), the Secretary shall
consider any comments received under subsection (b)(2).
(B) Appendix.--The Secretary shall include as part of the
proposed final deauthorization list an appendix that--
(i) identifies each project or separable element of a
project on the interim deauthorization list developed under
subsection (b) that is not included on the proposed final
deauthorization list; and
(ii) describes the reasons why the project or separable
element is not included on the proposed final list.
(4) Public comment and consultation.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall solicit comments from
the public and the Governor of each applicable State on the
proposed final deauthorization list and appendix developed
under paragraphs (2) and (3).
(B) Comment period.--The public comment period shall be 90
days.
(5) Submission of final list to congress; publication.--Not
later than 120 days after the date of the close of the
comment period under paragraph (4), the Secretary shall--

[[Page H4811]]

(A) submit a final deauthorization list and an appendix to
the final deauthorization list in a report to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives; and
(B) publish the final deauthorization list and the appendix
to the final deauthorization list in the Federal Register.
(d) Deauthorization; Congressional Review.--
(1) In general.--After the expiration of the 180-day period
beginning on the date of submission of the final
deauthorization list and appendix under subsection (c), a
project or separable element of a project identified in the
final deauthorization list is hereby deauthorized, unless
Congress passes a joint resolution disapproving the final
deauthorization list prior to the end of such period.
(2) Non-federal contributions.--
(A) In general.--A project or separable element of a
project identified in the final deauthorization list under
subsection (c) shall not be deauthorized under this
subsection if, before the expiration of the 180-day period
referred to in paragraph (1), the non-Federal interest for
the project or separable element of the project provides
sufficient funds to complete the project or separable element
of the project.
(B) Treatment of projects.--Notwithstanding subparagraph
(A), each project and separable element of a project
identified in the final deauthorization list shall be treated
as deauthorized for purposes of the aggregate deauthorization
amount specified in subsection (c)(2)(A).
(3) Projects identified in appendix.--A project or
separable element of a project identified in the appendix to
the final deauthorization list shall remain subject to future
deauthorization by Congress.
(e) Special Rule for Projects Receiving Funds for Post-
authorization Study.--A project or separable element of a
project may not be identified on the interim deauthorization
list developed under subsection (b), or the final
deauthorization list developed under subsection (c), if the
project or separable element received funding for a post-
authorization study during the current fiscal year or any of
the 6 preceding fiscal years.
(f) General Provisions.--
(1) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(A) Post-authorization study.--The term ``post-
authorization study'' means--
(i) a feasibility report developed under section 905 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282);
(ii) a feasibility study, as defined in section 105(d) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2215(d)); or
(iii) a review conducted under section 216 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a), including an initial
appraisal that--

(I) demonstrates a Federal interest; and
(II) requires additional analysis for the project or
separable element.

(B) Water resources development project.--The term ``water
resources development project'' includes an environmental
infrastructure assistance project or program of the Corps of
Engineers.
(2) Treatment of project modifications.--For purposes of
this section, if an authorized water resources development
project or separable element of the project has been modified
by an Act of Congress, the date of the authorization of the
project or separable element shall be deemed to be the date
of the most recent modification.

SEC. 302. BACKLOG PREVENTION.

(a) Project Deauthorization.--
(1) In general.--A water resources development project, or
separable element of such a project, authorized for
construction by this Act shall not be authorized after the
last day of the 10-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act unless--
(A) funds have been obligated for construction of, or a
post-authorization study for, such project or separable
element during that period; or
(B) the authorization contained in this Act has been
modified by a subsequent Act of Congress.
(2) Identification of projects.--Not later than 60 days
after the expiration of the 10-year period referred to in
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a report that identifies the projects
deauthorized under paragraph (1).
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the
expiration of the 12-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives, and make available to the public, a
report that contains--
(1) a list of any water resources development projects
authorized by this Act for which construction has not been
completed during that period;
(2) a description of the reasons the projects were not
completed;
(3) a schedule for the completion of the projects based on
expected levels of appropriations; and
(4) a 5-year and 10-year projection of construction backlog
and any recommendations to Congress regarding how to mitigate
current problems and the backlog.
(c) Clarification.--Section 6003(a) of the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 579c(a)) is
amended by striking ``7-year'' each place it appears and
inserting ``10-year''.

SEC. 303. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.

(a) Consistency With Reports.--Congress finds that the
project modifications described in this section are in
accordance with the reports submitted to Congress by the
Secretary under section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform
and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d), titled
``Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development'',
or have otherwise been reviewed by Congress.
(b) Modifications.--
(1) Harbor/South bay, california.--Section 219(f)(43) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (113 Stat. 337;
114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended by striking ``$35,000,000''
and inserting ``$70,000,000''.
(2) Lakes marion and moultrie, south carolina.--Section
219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220; 117 Stat. 1838; 130
Stat. 1677) is amended by striking ``$60,000,000'' and
inserting ``$89,550,000''.

SEC. 304. MILWAUKEE HARBOR, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN.

The portion of the project for navigation, Milwaukee
Harbor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, authorized by the first section
of the Act of March 3, 1843 (5 Stat. 619; chapter 85),
consisting of the navigation channel within the Menomonee
River that extends from the 16th Street Bridge upstream to
the upper limit of the authorized navigation channel and
described as follows is no longer authorized beginning on the
date of enactment of this Act:
(1) Beginning at a point in the channel just downstream of
the 16th Street Bridge, N383219.703, E2521152.527.
(2) Thence running westerly along the channel about 2,530.2
feet to a point, N383161.314, E2518620.712.
(3) Thence running westerly by southwesterly along the
channel about 591.7 feet to a point at the upstream limit of
the existing project, N383080.126, E2518036.371.
(4) Thence running northerly along the upstream limit of
the existing project about 80.5 feet to a point, N383159.359,
E2518025.363.
(5) Thence running easterly by northeasterly along the
channel about 551.2 feet to a point, N383235.185,
E2518571.108.
(6) Thence running easterly along the channel about 2,578.9
feet to a point, N383294.677, E2521150.798.
(7) Thence running southerly across the channel about 74.3
feet to the point of origin.

SEC. 305. BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.

That portion of the project for navigation, Bridgeport
Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the Act of June 18, 1878
(20 Stat. 158), and modified by the Act of August 11, 1888
(25 Stat. 401), the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1122), the
Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 633), and the Act of July 3,
1930 (46 Stat. 919), and lying upstream of a line commencing
at point N627942.09, E879709.18 thence running southwesterly
about 125 feet to a point N627832.03, E879649.91 is no longer
authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 306. CONVEYANCES.

(a) Cheatham County, Tennessee.--
(1) Conveyance authorized.--The Secretary may convey to
Cheatham County, Tennessee (in this subsection referred to as
the ``Grantee''), all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the real property in Cheatham County,
Tennessee, consisting of approximately 9.19 acres, identified
as portions of tracts E-514-1, E-514-2, E-518-1, E-518-2, E-
519-1, E-537-1, and E-538, all being part of the Cheatham
Lock and Dam project at CRM 158.5, including any improvements
thereon.
(2) Deed.--The conveyance of property under this subsection
shall be accomplished using a quitclaim deed and upon such
terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate
to protect the interests of the United States, to include
retaining the right to inundate with water any land
transferred under this subsection.
(3) Consideration.--The Grantee shall pay to the Secretary
an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the
land conveyed under this subsection, as determined by the
Secretary.
(4) Subject to existing easements and other interests.--The
conveyance of property under this section shall be subject to
all existing easements, rights-of-way, and leases that are in
effect as of the date of the conveyance.
(b) Nashville, Tennessee.--
(1) Conveyance authorized.--The Secretary may convey,
without consideration, to the City of Nashville, Tennessee
(in this subsection referred to as the ``City''), all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to the real
property covered by Lease No. DACW62-1-84-149, including any
improvements thereon, at the Riverfront Park Recreational
Development, consisting of approximately 5 acres, subject to
the right of the Secretary to retain any required easements
in the property.
(2) Conveyance agreement.--A quit claim deed shall be used
to convey real property under this subsection upon the terms
and conditions mutually satisfactory to the Secretary and the
City. The deed shall provide that in the event the City, its
successors, or assigns cease to maintain improvements for
recreation included in the conveyance or otherwise utilize
the real property conveyed for purposes other than recreation
and compatible flood risk management, the City, its
successor, or assign shall repay to the United States the
Federal share of the cost of constructing the improvements
for recreation under the agreement between the United States
and the City dated December 8, 1981, increased as necessary
to account for inflation.
(c) Generally Applicable Provisions.--
(1) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage
and the legal description of

[[Page H4812]]

any real property to be conveyed under this section shall be
determined by a survey that is satisfactory to the Secretary.
(2) Applicability of property screening provisions.--
Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply
to any conveyance under this section.
(3) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may
require that any conveyance under this section be subject to
such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary
considers necessary and appropriate to protect the interests
of the United States.
(4) Costs of conveyance.--An entity to which a conveyance
is made under this section shall be responsible for all
reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate
transaction and environmental documentation costs, associated
with the conveyance.
(5) Liability.--An entity to which a conveyance is made
under this section shall hold the United States harmless from
any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or
after the date of the conveyance, on real property conveyed.
The United States shall remain responsible for any liability
with respect to activities carried out, before such date, on
the real property conveyed.

SEC. 307. CLATSOP COUNTY, OREGON.

The portions of the project for raising and improving
existing levees of Clatsop County Diking District No. 13, in
Clatsop County, Oregon, authorized by section 5 of the Act of
June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1590), that are referred to as
Christensen No. 1 Dike No. 42 and Christensen No. 2 Levee No.
43 are no longer authorized beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 308. KISSIMMEE RIVER RESTORATION, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN
FLORIDA.

Subject to a determination by the Secretary that the costs
are reasonable and allowable and that the work for which
credit is requested was carried out in accordance with the
laws specified in section 5014(i)(2)(A) of the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1331)
and all other applicable Federal laws, the Secretary may
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
Kissimmee River project, authorized in section 101(8) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802), the
value of in-kind contributions made by the non-Federal
interest with respect to the six following actions, as
described in the final report of the Director of Civil Works
on the Central and Southern Florida Project, Kissimmee River
Restoration Project, dated April 27, 2018:
(1) Shady Oaks Fish Camp land preparation.
(2) Rocks Fish Camp land preparation.
(3) Levee breaching of Sparks Candler and Bronson Levees.
(4) Packingham Slough construction related to land
acquisition.
(5) Engineering analysis of River Acres engineering
solution.
(6) Small local levee modifications.

SEC. 309. LYTLE AND CAJON CREEKS, CALIFORNIA.

That portion of the channel improvement project, Lytle and
Cajon Creeks, California, authorized to be carried out as a
part of the project for the Santa Ana River Basin,
California, by the Act of December 22, 1944 (Chapter 665; 58
Stat. 900) that consists of five earth-filled groins commonly
referred to as ``the Riverside Avenue groins'' is no longer
authorized as a Federal project beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 310. YUBA RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

(a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction,
Yuba River Basin, California, authorized by section
101(a)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 275) is modified to allow a non-Federal interest
to construct a new levee to connect the existing levee with
high ground.
(b) Project Description.--The levee to be constructed shall
tie into the existing levee at a point Northing 2186189.2438,
Easting 6703908.8657, thence running east and south along a
path to be determined to a point Northing 2187849.4328,
Easting 6719262.0164.
(c) Cooperation Agreement.--The Secretary shall execute a
conforming amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding
Respecting the Sacramento River Flood Control Project with
the State of California dated November 30, 1953, that is
limited to changing the description of the project to reflect
the modification.
(d) No Federal Cost.--
(1) Review costs.--Before construction of the levee
described in subsection (b), the Secretary may accept and
expend funds received from a non-Federal interest to review
the planning, engineering, and design of the levee described
in subsection (b) to ensure that such planning, engineering,
and design complies with Federal standards.
(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of constructing the levee shall be 100 percent.

TITLE IV--WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE

SEC. 401. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

The following projects for water resources development and
conservation and other purposes, as identified in the reports
titled ``Report to Congress on Future Water Resources
Development'' submitted to Congress on March 17, 2017, and
February 5, 2018, respectively, pursuant to section 7001 of
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33
U.S.C. 2282d) or otherwise reviewed by Congress are
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially
in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions,
described in the respective reports or decision documents
designated in this section:
(1) Navigation.--

------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
Report of
A. State B. Name Chief of D. Estimated Costs
Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TX Galveston Harbor Aug. 8, 2017 Federal: $10,046,000
Channel Extension Non-Federal: $3,349,000
Project, Houston- Total: $13,395,000
Galveston
Navigation
Channels
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Flood risk management.--

------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
Report of
A. State B. Name Chief of D. Estimated Costs
Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. NY Mamaroneck- Dec. 14, 2017 Federal: $53,500,000
Sheldrake Rivers Non-Federal: $28,750,000
Total: $82,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. HI Ala Wai Canal Dec. 21, 2017 Federal: $198,962,000;
Non-Federal: $107,133,000
Total: $306,095,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Hurricane and storm damage risk reduction.--

------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
Report of D. Estimated Initial
A. State B. Name Chief of Costs and Estimated
Engineers Renourishment Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. FL St. Johns County Aug. 8, 2017 Initial Federal: $5,712,000
Initial Non-Federal:
$19,122,000
Initial Total: $24,834,000
Renourishment Federal:
$9,484,000
Renourishment Non-Federal:
$44,099,000
Renourishment Total:
$53,583,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page H4813]]

2. TX Sabine Pass to Dec. 7, 2017 Initial Federal:
Galveston Bay $2,157,202,000
Initial Non-Federal:
$1,161,570,000
Initial Total:
$3,318,772,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. FL St. Lucie County Dec. 15, Initial Federal: $7,097,000
2017 Initial Non-Federal:
$13,179,000
Initial Total: $20,276,000
Renourishment Federal:
$8,915,000
Renourishment Non-Federal:
$24,105,000
Renourishment Total:
$33,020,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) Flood risk management and ecosystem restoration.--

(5) Modifications and other projects.--

------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
A. State B. Name Decision D. Estimated Costs
Document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. GA Savannah Harbor Dec. 5, 2016 Federal: $677,613,600
Expansion Project Non-Federal: $295,829,400
Total: $973,443,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. KY Kentucky River April 20, Federal: $0
Locks and Dams - 2018 Non-Federal: $0
1, 2, 3, and 4 Total: $0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, is in
order except those printed in part A of House Report 115-711. Each such
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Shuster

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 23, line 12, strike ``note(b)(8))'' and insert
``note)''.
At the end of title I, add the following:

SEC. 144. OLD RIVER CONTROL STRUCTURE, LOUISIANA.

(a)In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report on the structure and
operations plan for the Old River control structure
authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1258)
based on the best available science, improved monitoring
capabilities, and other factors as determined by the
Secretary, including consideration of--
(1) flood control;
(2) navigational conditions;
(3) water supply; and
(4) ecosystem restoration and ecological productivity.
(b)Public Participation.--In developing the report required
by subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide opportunity
for public input and stakeholder engagement, including public
meetings.

SEC. 145. DREDGE PILOT PROGRAM.

(a)In General.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out a
pilot program to award contracts with a duration of up to
five years for the operation and maintenance of harbors and
inland harbors referred to in section 210(a)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238(a)(2)).
(b)Scope.--In carrying out the pilot program under
subsection (a), the Secretary may award a contract described
in such subsection, which may address one or more harbors or
inland harbors in a geographical region, if the Secretary
determines that the contract provides cost savings compared
to the awarding of such work on an annual basis.
(c)Report to Congress.--Not later than one year after the
date on which the first contract is awarded pursuant to the
pilot program carried out under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report evaluating, with respect to
the pilot program and any contracts awarded under the pilot
program--
(1) cost effectiveness;
(2) reliability and performance;
(3) cost savings attributable to mobilization and
demobilization of dredge equipment; and
(4) response times to address navigational impediments.
(d)Sunset.--The authority of the Secretary to enter into
contracts pursuant to the pilot program carried out under
subsection (a) shall expire on the date that is 10 years
after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 146. DISPOSITION OF PROJECTS.

(a)In General.--In carrying out a disposition study for a
project of the Corps of Engineers, or a separable element of
such a project, including a disposition study under section
216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a), the
Secretary shall consider modifications that would improve the
overall quality of the environment in the public interest,
including removal of the project or separable element of a
project.
(b)Disposition Study Transparency.--The Secretary shall
carry out disposition studies described in subsection (a) in
a transparent manner, including by--
(1) providing opportunities for public input; and
(2) publishing the final disposition studies.
(c)Removal of Infrastructure.--For disposition studies
described in subsection (a) in which the Secretary determines
that a Federal interest no longer exists, and makes a
recommendation of removal of the project or separable element
of a project, the Secretary is authorized to pursue removal
of the project or separable element of a project using--
(1) existing authorities, as considered appropriate by the
Secretary; or

[[Page H4814]]

(2) partnerships with other Federal agencies and non-
Federal entities with appropriate capabilities to undertake
infrastructure removal.
Page 52, after line 24, insert the following:
(21) Project for flood damage reduction, Westminster-East
Garden Grove, California.
(22) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction
and ecosystem restoration, Southwest Coastal Louisiana,
Louisiana, authorized by section 1401(8) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat.1715).
(23) Project for navigation and channel deepening, Baptiste
Collette Bayou, Louisiana, under section 203 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231).
(24) Project for navigation and channel deepening, Houma
Navigation Canal, Louisiana, under section 203 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231).
(25) Project for navigation and channel deepening, Bayou
Lafourche, Louisiana, under section 203 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231).
Strike section 308 and insert the following:

SEC. 308. KISSIMMEE RIVER RESTORATION, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN
FLORIDA.

Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate a report on the total estimated value of
in-kind contributions made by the non-Federal interest with
respect to the following six actions, as described in the
final report of the Director of Civil Works on the Central
and Southern Florida Project, Kissimmee River Restoration
Project, dated April 27, 2018:
(1) Shady Oaks Fish Camp land preparation.
(2) Rocks Fish Camp land preparation.
(3) Levee breaching of Sparks Candler and Bronson Levees.
(4) Packingham Slough construction related to land
acquisition.
(5) Engineering analysis of River Acres engineering
solution.
(6) Small local levee modifications.
At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 311. BOSTON HARBOR RESERVED CHANNEL DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

(a)40-foot Reserved Channel.--
(1)In general.--The portions of the project for navigation,
Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized by the first section
of the Act of October 17, 1940 (54 Stat. 1198, chapter 895)
and modified by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of
1958 (72 Stat. 297), section 101(a)(13) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607), and
section 7002(1) of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1365) described in paragraph (2) are
no longer authorized beginning on the date of enactment of
this Act.
(2)Areas described.--
(A)First area.--The first areas described in this paragraph
are--
(i) beginning at a point N. 2950154.45, E. 785995.64;
(ii) running southwesterly about 1451.63 feet to a point N.
2950113.83, E. 784544.58;
(iii) running southeasterly about 54.00 feet to a point N.
2950059.85, E. 784546.09;
(iv) running southwesterly about 1335.82 feet to a point N.
2950022.48, E. 783210.79;
(v) running northwesterly about 83.00 feet to a point N.
2950105.44, E. 783208.47;
(vi) running northeasterly about 2787.45 feet to a point N.
2950183.44, E. 785994.83; and
(vii) running southeasterly about 29.00 feet to the point
described in clause (i).
(B)Second area.--The second areas described in this
paragraph are--
(i) beginning at a point N. 2950502.86, E. 785540.84;
(ii) running northeasterly about 46.11 feet to a point
N2950504.16, E785586.94;
(iii) running southwesterly about 25.67 feet to a point N.
2950480.84, E. 785576.18;
(iv) running southwesterly to a point N. 2950414.32, E.
783199.83;
(v) running northwesterly about 8.00 feet to a point N.
2950422.32, E. 783199.60;
(vi) running northeasterly about 2342.58 feet to a point N.
2950487.87, E. 785541.26; and
(vii) running northwesterly about 15.00 feet to the point
described in clause (i).
(b)35-foot Reserved Channel.--
(1)In general.--The portions of the project for navigation,
Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized by the first section
of the Act of October 17, 1940 (54 Stat. 1198, chapter 895)
and modified by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of
1958 (72 Stat. 297) described in paragraph (2) are no longer
authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
(2)Areas described.--
(A)First area.--The first areas described in this paragraph
are--
(i) beginning at a point N. 2950143.44, E. 787532.14;
(ii) running southeasterly about 22.21 feet to a point N.
2950128.91, E. 787548.93;
(iii) running southwesterly about 4,339.42 feet to a point
N. 2950007.48, E. 783211.21;
(iv) running northwesterly about 15.00 feet to a point N.
2950022.48, E. 783210.79; and
(v) running northeasterly about 4,323.05 feet to the point
described in clause (i).
(B)Second area.--The second areas described in this
paragraph are--
(i) beginning at a point N. 2950502.86, E. 785540.84;
(ii) running southeasterly about 15.00 feet to a point N.
2950487.87, E. 785541.26;
(iii) running southwesterly about 2342.58 feet to a point
N. 2950422.32, E. 783199.60;
(iv) running southeasterly about 8.00 feet to a point N.
2950414.32, E. 783199.83;
(v) running southwesterly about 1339.12 feet to a point N.
2950376.85, E. 781861.23;
(vi) running northwesterly about 23.00 feet to a point N.
2950399.84, E. 781860.59; and
(vii) running northeasterly about 3681.70 feet to the point
described in clause (i).

SEC. 312. CONTINUED AUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN PROJECTS.

Notwithstanding the third sentence of section 1001(b)(2) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
579a(b)(2)), projects and separable elements of projects
identified in the fiscal year 2017 report prepared in
accordance with such section and submitted to Congress on
December 15, 2016, shall not be deauthorized unless such
projects and separable elements meet the requirements of
section 1301(b)(1)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2016 (130 Stat. 1687).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The manager's amendment we are offering makes technical and
conforming changes to the Rules Committee Print and adds important
provisions that we worked out with the minority. This amendment
includes a provision that establishes a regional long-term contract
pilot program in order to drive efficiency and cost savings for our
Nation's dredging responsibilities.
It also contains a provision that the Secretary deliver a report to
Congress on the current status of the Old River control structure on
the Mississippi River.
This amendment corrects a provision that would have created direct
spending authority for certain Everglades projects. It expedites five
project studies for critical water resource projects. Lastly, this
amendment de-authorizes a project in Boston Harbor.
Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, although I support the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I ask all Members to support the amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, wouldn't it be in order just to move along?
If people aren't responsible enough to be here, they don't get to offer
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in part A of
House Report 115-711.
Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman did not respond to my previous inquiry.
There were 53 amendments offered. The Rules Committee didn't give us
en bloc authority. We need to expedite this. If people aren't here, we
need to move along.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3.
The Chair will query for the next amendment.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in part A of
House Report 115-711.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in part A of
House Report 115-711.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Shuster

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from
Florida, I offer amendment No. 6.

[[Page H4815]]

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 27, line 14, strike ``and''.
Page 27, after line 14, insert the following (and
redesignate the subsequent paragraph accordingly):
(2) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Studies and Engineering.--
``(1) In general.--When requested by an appropriate non-
Federal interest, the Secretary shall undertake all necessary
studies, engineering, and technical assistance on
construction for any project to be undertaken under
subsection (b), and provide technical assistance in obtaining
all necessary permits for the construction, if the non-
Federal interest contracts with the Secretary to furnish the
United States funds for the studies, engineering, or
technical assistance on construction in the period during
which the studies, engineering, or technical assistance on
construction are being conducted.
``(2) No waiver.--Nothing in this section may be construed
to waive any requirement of section 3142 of title 40, United
States Code.
``(3) Limitation.--Funds provided by non-Federal interests
under this subsection shall not be eligible for credit or
reimbursement under subsection (d).
``(4) Impartial decisionmaking.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary shall ensure that the use of funds
accepted from a non-Federal interest will not affect the
impartial decisionmaking of the Secretary, either
substantively or procedurally.''; and

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, this amendment should help projects be
executed more quickly, and I appreciate my colleagues who worked on
this: Mr. Posey, Mr. Mast, Mr. Hastings, and Ms. Wilson.
I ask all my colleagues to support this. I think it is a good
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in part A of
House Report 115-711.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Graves of Louisiana) having assumed the chair, Mr. Harper, Acting Chair
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 8)
to provide for improvements to the rivers and harbors of the United
States, to provide for the conservation and development of water and
related resources, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.

____________________