[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 29, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H3927-H3962]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2020

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 7575) 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, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 7575

       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 2020''.
       (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. Budgetary treatment expansion and adjustment for the Harbor 
              Maintenance Trust Fund.
Sec. 102. Funding for navigation.
Sec. 103. Annual report to Congress on the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
              Fund.
Sec. 104. Additional measures at donor ports and energy transfer ports.
Sec. 105. Assumption of maintenance of a locally preferred plan.
Sec. 106. Coast Guard anchorages.
Sec. 107. State contribution of funds for certain operation and 
              maintenance costs.
Sec. 108. Inland waterway projects.
Sec. 109. Implementation of water resources principles and 
              requirements.
Sec. 110. Resiliency planning assistance.
Sec. 111. Project consultation.
Sec. 112. Review of resiliency assessments.
Sec. 113. Small flood control projects.
Sec. 114. Conforming amendment.
Sec. 115. Feasibility studies; review of natural and nature-based 
              features.
Sec. 116. Report on corrosion prevention activities.
Sec. 117. Quantification of benefits for flood risk management projects 
              in seismic zones.
Sec. 118. Federal interest determination.
Sec. 119. Economically disadvantaged community flood protection and 
              hurricane and storm damage reduction study pilot program.
Sec. 120. Permanent measures to reduce emergency flood fighting needs 
              for communities subject to repetitive flooding.
Sec. 121. Emergency response to natural disasters.
Sec. 122. Study on natural infrastructure at Corps of Engineers 
              projects.
Sec. 123. Review of Corps of Engineers assets.
Sec. 124. Sense of Congress on multipurpose projects.
Sec. 125. Beneficial reuse of dredged material; dredged material 
              management plans.
Sec. 126. Aquatic ecosystem restoration for anadromous fish.
Sec. 127. Annual report to Congress.
Sec. 128. Harmful algal bloom demonstration program.
Sec. 129. Update on Invasive Species Policy Guidance.
Sec. 130. Report on debris removal.
Sec. 131. Missouri River interception-rearing complex construction.
Sec. 132. Cost and benefit feasibility assessment.
Sec. 133. Materials, services, and funds for repair, restoration, or 
              rehabilitation of projects.
Sec. 134. Levee safety.
Sec. 135. National Dam Safety Program.
Sec. 136. Rehabilitation of Corps of Engineers constructed pump 
              stations.
Sec. 137. Non-Federal Project Implementation Pilot Program.
Sec. 138. Definition of economically disadvantaged community.
Sec. 139. Cost sharing provisions for territories and Indian Tribes.
Sec. 140. Flood control and other purposes.
Sec. 141. Review of contracting policies.
Sec. 142. Buy America.
Sec. 143. Annual report on status of feasibility studies.

                     TITLE II--STUDIES AND REPORTS

Sec. 201. Authorization of proposed feasibility studies.
Sec. 202. Expedited completions.
Sec. 203. Feasibility study modifications.
Sec. 204. Selma, Alabama.
Sec. 205. Comprehensive study of the Sacramento River, Yolo Bypass, 
              California.
Sec. 206. Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule, Florida.
Sec. 207. Great Lakes Coastal Resiliency Study.
Sec. 208. Rathbun Lake, Chariton River, Iowa.
Sec. 209. Report on the status of restoration in the Louisiana coastal 
              area.
Sec. 210. Lower Mississippi River comprehensive study.
Sec. 211. Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan.
Sec. 212. Lower Missouri Basin Flood Risk and Resiliency Study, Iowa, 
              Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri.
Sec. 213. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River and Rye Harbor, New 
              Hampshire.
Sec. 214. Cougar and Detroit Dams, Willamette River Basin, Oregon.
Sec. 215. Port Orford, Oregon.
Sec. 216. Wilson Creek and Sloan Creek, Fairview, Texas.
Sec. 217. GAO study on mitigation for water resources development 
              projects.
Sec. 218. GAO study on application of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 
              expenditures.
Sec. 219. GAO study on administration of environmental banks.
Sec. 220. Study on Corps of Engineers concessionaire agreements.
Sec. 221. Study on water supply and water conservation at water 
              resources development projects.
Sec. 222. PFAS review and inventory at Corps facilities.
Sec. 223. Report on recreational facilities.

             TITLE III--DEAUTHORIZATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS

Sec. 301. Deauthorization of inactive projects.
Sec. 302. Abandoned and inactive noncoal mine restoration.
Sec. 303. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 304. Lakes program.
Sec. 305. Watercraft inspection stations.
Sec. 306. Rehabilitation of Corps of Engineers constructed dams.
Sec. 307. Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection 
              Program.
Sec. 308. Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management 
              Program.
Sec. 309. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.
Sec. 310. Ouachita-Black River Navigation Project, Arkansas.
Sec. 311. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 312. Lake Isabella, California.
Sec. 313. Lower San Joaquin River flood control project.
Sec. 314. San Diego River and Mission Bay, San Diego County, 
              California.
Sec. 315. San Francisco, California, Waterfront Area.
Sec. 316. Western Pacific Interceptor Canal, Sacramento River, 
              California.
Sec. 317. Rio Grande Environmental Management Program, Colorado, New 
              Mexico, and Texas.
Sec. 318. New London Harbor Waterfront Channel, Connecticut.
Sec. 319. Washington Harbor, District of Columbia.
Sec. 320. Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation Water Conservation 
              Plan, Florida.
Sec. 321. Central Everglades, Florida.
Sec. 322. Miami River, Florida.
Sec. 323. Julian Keen, Jr. Lock and Dam, Moore Haven, Florida.
Sec. 324. Taylor Creek Reservoir and Levee L-73 (Section 1), Upper St. 
              Johns River Basin, Florida.
Sec. 325. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.
Sec. 326. San Juan-Chama project; Abiquiu Dam, New Mexico.
Sec. 327. Pawcatuck River, Little Narragansett Bay and Watch Hill Cove, 
              Rhode Island and Connecticut.
Sec. 328. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 329. Cap Sante Waterway, Washington.
Sec. 330. Regional sediment management.
Sec. 331. Additional assistance for critical projects.
Sec. 332. Project modification authorizations.
Sec. 333. Application of credit.
Sec. 334. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 335. Conveyances.
Sec. 336. Repeals.

                TITLE IV--WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE

Sec. 401. Project authorizations.
Sec. 402. Special rules.
Sec. 403. Authorization of projects based on feasibility studies 
              prepared by non-Federal interests.

                       TITLE V--BUDGETARY EFFECTS

Sec. 501. Determination of Budgetary Effects.

[[Page H3928]]

  


     SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.

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

                      TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 101. BUDGETARY TREATMENT EXPANSION AND ADJUSTMENT FOR 
                   THE HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND.

       (a) In General.--Section 14003 of division B of the CARES 
     Act (Public Law 116-136) is amended to read as follows:
       ``Sec. 14003.  Section 251(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       `` `(H) Harbor maintenance activities.--If, for any fiscal 
     year, appropriations for the Construction, Mississippi River 
     and Tributaries, and Operation and Maintenance accounts of 
     the Corps of Engineers are enacted that are derived from the 
     Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund established under section 
     9505(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and that the 
     Congress designates in statute as being for harbor operations 
     and maintenance activities, then the adjustment for that 
     fiscal year shall be the total of such appropriations that 
     are derived from such Fund and designated as being for harbor 
     operations and maintenance activities.'.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     CARES Act (Public Law 116-136).

     SEC. 102. FUNDING FOR NAVIGATION.

       (a) Funding for Navigation.--Section 210 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238) is 
     amended, in the section heading, by striking ``authorization 
     of appropriations'' and inserting ``funding for navigation''.
       (b) Operation and Maintenance of Harbor Projects.--Section 
     210(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 2238(c)) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--For each fiscal year, of the funds made 
     available under this section (including funds appropriated 
     from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund), the Secretary shall 
     make expenditures to pay for operation and maintenance costs 
     of the harbors and inland harbors referred to in subsection 
     (a)(2), using--
       ``(A) not less than 20 percent of such funds for emerging 
     harbor projects, to the extent there are identifiable 
     operations and maintenance needs, including eligible 
     breakwater and jetty needs, at such harbor projects;
       ``(B) not less than 12 percent of such funds for projects 
     that are located within the Great Lakes Navigation System;
       ``(C) 10 percent of such funds for expanded uses carried 
     out at donor ports, as such term is defined in section 2106 
     of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 
     U.S.C. 2238c); and
       ``(D) any remaining funds for operation and maintenance 
     costs of any harbor or inland harbor referred to in 
     subsection (a)(2) based on an equitable allocation of such 
     funds among such harbors and inland harbors.'';
       (2) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) Additional uses at emerging harbors.--
       ``(A) In general.--In each fiscal year, the Secretary may 
     use not more than $5,000,000 of funds designated for emerging 
     harbor projects under paragraph (1)(A) to pay for the costs 
     of up to 10 projects for maintenance dredging of a marina or 
     berthing area, in an emerging harbor, that includes an area 
     that is located adjacent to, or is accessible by, a Federal 
     navigation project, subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C) of 
     this paragraph.
       ``(B) Eligible emerging harbors.--The Secretary may use 
     funds as authorized under subparagraph (A) at an emerging 
     harbor that--
       ``(i) supports commercial activities, including commercial 
     fishing operations, commercial fish processing operations, 
     recreational and sport fishing, and commercial boat yards; or
       ``(ii) supports activities of the Secretary of the 
     department in which the Coast Guard is operating.
       ``(C) Cost-sharing requirements.--The Secretary shall 
     require a non-Federal interest to contribute not less than 25 
     percent of the costs for maintenance dredging of that portion 
     of a maintenance dredging project described in subparagraph 
     (A) that is located outside of the Federal navigation 
     project, which may be provided as an in-kind contribution, 
     including through the use of dredge equipment owned by non-
     Federal interest to carry out such activities.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Emergency expenditures.--Nothing in this subsection 
     prohibits the Secretary from making an expenditure to pay for 
     the operation and maintenance costs of a specific harbor or 
     inland harbor, including the transfer of funding from the 
     operation and maintenance of a separate project, if--
       ``(A) the Secretary determines that the action is necessary 
     to address the navigation needs of a harbor or inland harbor 
     where safe navigation has been severely restricted due to an 
     unforeseen event; and
       ``(B) the Secretary provides within 90 days of the action 
     notice and information on the need for the action to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives.''.
       (c) Prioritization.--Section 210 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238) is amended by 
     striking subsection (d) and redesignating subsections (e) and 
     (f) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively.
       (d) Assessment of Harbors and Inland Harbors.--Section 
     210(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (as so redesignated) is amended by striking ``expanded 
     uses at eligible harbors or inland harbors referred to in 
     subsection (d)(2)'' and inserting ``uses described in 
     paragraphs (1)(C) and (3) of subsection (c)''.
       (e) Definitions.--Section 210(e) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (as so redesignated) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (6) through (9);
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as 
     paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively;
       (3) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Emerging harbor.--The term `emerging harbor' means a 
     harbor or inland harbor referred to in subsection (a)(2) that 
     transits less than 1,000,000 tons of cargo annually.
       ``(3) Emerging harbor project.--The term `emerging harbor 
     project' means a project that is assigned to an emerging 
     harbor.''; and
       (4) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated), by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(C) An in-water improvement, if the improvement--
       ``(i) is for the seismic reinforcement of a wharf or other 
     berthing structure, or the repair or replacement of a 
     deteriorating wharf or other berthing structure, at a port 
     facility;
       ``(ii) benefits commercial navigation at the harbor; and
       ``(iii) is located in, or adjacent to, a berth that is 
     accessible to a Federal navigation project.
       ``(D) An activity to maintain slope stability at a berth in 
     a harbor that is accessible to a Federal navigation project 
     if such activity benefits commercial navigation at the 
     harbor.''.

     SEC. 103. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE HARBOR MAINTENANCE 
                   TRUST FUND.

       Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (26 U.S.C. 9505 note; 106 Stat. 4851) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``and annually thereafter,'' and inserting 
     ``and annually thereafter concurrent with the submission of 
     the President's annual budget request to Congress,''; and
       (B) by striking ``Public Works and Transportation'' and 
     inserting ``Transportation and Infrastructure''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1) by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(D) A description of the expected expenditures from the 
     trust fund to meet the needs of navigation for the fiscal 
     year of the budget request.''.

     SEC. 104. ADDITIONAL MEASURES AT DONOR PORTS AND ENERGY 
                   TRANSFER PORTS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 2106(a) of the Water Resources 
     Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2238c(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)(A)--
       (A) by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) at which the total amount of harbor maintenance 
     taxes collected (including the estimated taxes related to 
     domestic cargo and cruise passengers) comprise not less than 
     $15,000,000 annually of the total funding of the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund in each of the previous 3 fiscal 
     years;'';
       (B) in clause (iii), by inserting ``(including the 
     estimated taxes related to domestic cargo and cruise 
     passengers)'' after ``taxes collected''; and
       (C) in clause (iv), by striking ``fiscal year 2012'' and 
     inserting ``each of the previous 3 fiscal years'';
       (2) in paragraph (5)(B), by striking ``fiscal year 2012'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``each of the previous 3 
     fiscal years'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (9) and 
     inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) Harbor maintenance trust fund.--The term `Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund' means the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
     Fund established by section 9505 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.''; and
       (4) in paragraph (9), as so redesignated--
       (A) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) at which the total amount of harbor maintenance taxes 
     collected (including the estimated taxes related to domestic 
     cargo and cruise passengers) comprise annually more than 
     $5,000,000 but less than $15,000,000 of the total funding of 
     the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund in each of the previous 3 
     fiscal years;'';
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``(including the 
     estimated taxes related to domestic cargo and cruise 
     passengers)'' after ``taxes collected''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``fiscal year 2012'' 
     and inserting ``each of the previous 3 fiscal years''.
       (b) Report to Congress; Authorization of Appropriations.--
     Section 2106 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
     Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2238c) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (e) and redesignating 
     subsections (f) and (g) as subsections (e) and (f), 
     respectively; and
       (2) in subsection (e), as so redesignated--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2020'' and inserting 
     ``2030''; and

[[Page H3929]]

       (B) by striking paragraph (3).

     SEC. 105. ASSUMPTION OF MAINTENANCE OF A LOCALLY PREFERRED 
                   PLAN.

        Section 204(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232(f)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Operation and Maintenance.--
       ``(1) Assumption of maintenance.--Whenever a non-Federal 
     interest carries out improvements to a federally authorized 
     harbor or inland harbor, the Secretary shall be responsible 
     for operation and maintenance in accordance with section 
     101(b) if--
       ``(A) before construction of the improvements--
       ``(i) the Secretary determines that the improvements are 
     feasible and consistent with the purposes of this title; and
       ``(ii) the Secretary and the non-Federal interest execute a 
     written agreement relating to operation and maintenance of 
     the improvements;
       ``(B) the Secretary certifies that the project or separable 
     element of the project is constructed in accordance with 
     applicable permits and appropriate engineering and design 
     standards; and
       ``(C) the Secretary does not find that the project or 
     separable element is no longer feasible.
       ``(2) Federal financial participation in the costs of a 
     locally preferred plan.--In the case of improvements 
     determined by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)(i) 
     to deviate from the national economic development plan, the 
     Secretary shall be responsible for all operation and 
     maintenance costs of such improvements, as described in 
     section 101(b), including costs in excess of the costs of the 
     national economic development plan, if the Secretary 
     determines that the improvements satisfy the requirements of 
     paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 106. COAST GUARD ANCHORAGES.

       The Secretary is authorized to perform dredging at Federal 
     expense within and adjacent to anchorages on the Columbia 
     River established by the Coast Guard pursuant to section 7 of 
     the Act of March 14, 1915 (33 U.S.C. 471), to provide safe 
     anchorage for deep draft vessels commensurate with the 
     authorized Federal navigation channel depth, including 
     advanced maintenance.

     SEC. 107. STATE CONTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN OPERATION 
                   AND MAINTENANCE COSTS.

       In carrying out eligible operations and maintenance 
     activities within the Great Lakes Navigation System pursuant 
     to section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2238) in a State that has implemented any 
     additional State limitation on the disposal of dredged 
     material in the open waters of such State, the Secretary may, 
     pursuant to section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 
     701h), receive from such State, and expend, such funds as may 
     be contributed by the State to cover the additional costs for 
     operations and maintenance activities for a harbor or inland 
     harbor within such State that result from such limitation.

     SEC. 108. INLAND WATERWAY PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 102 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212), 35 
     percent of the costs of construction of any project for 
     navigation on the inland waterways shall be paid from amounts 
     appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund--
       (1) during each of fiscal years 2021 through 2027; and
       (2) for a project the construction of which is initiated 
     during such period, in each fiscal year until such 
     construction is complete.
       (b) Prioritization.--In selecting projects described in 
     subsection (a) for which to initiate construction during any 
     of fiscal years 2021 through 2027, the Secretary shall 
     prioritize projects that are included in the most recent 20-
     year program for making capital investments developed under 
     section 302(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2251(d)).

     SEC. 109. IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER RESOURCES PRINCIPLES AND 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue final 
     agency-specific procedures necessary to implement the 
     principles and requirements and the interagency guidelines.
       (b) Development of Future Water Resources Development 
     Projects.--The procedures required by subsection (a) shall 
     ensure that the Secretary, in the formulation of future water 
     resources development projects--
       (1) develops such projects in accordance with--
       (A) the guiding principles established by the principles 
     and requirements; and
       (B) the national water resources planning policy 
     established by section 2031(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 1962-3(a)); and
       (2) fully identifies and analyzes national economic 
     development benefits, regional economic development benefits, 
     environmental quality benefits, and other societal effects.
       (c) Review and Update.--Every 5 years, the Secretary shall 
     review and, where appropriate, revise the procedures required 
     by subsection (a).
       (d) Public Review, Notice, and Comment.--In issuing, 
     reviewing, and revising the procedures required by this 
     section, the Secretary shall--
       (1) provide notice to interested non-Federal stakeholders 
     of the Secretary's intent to revise the procedures;
       (2) provide opportunities for interested non-Federal 
     stakeholders to engage with, and provide input and 
     recommendations to, the Secretary on the revision of the 
     procedures; and
       (3) solicit and consider public and expert comments.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Interagency guidelines.--The term ``interagency 
     guidelines'' means the interagency guidelines contained in 
     the document finalized by the Council on Environmental 
     Quality pursuant to section 2031 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 1962-3) in December 2014, 
     to implement the principles and requirements.
       (2) Principles and requirements.--The term ``principles and 
     requirements'' means the principles and requirements 
     contained in the document prepared by the Council on 
     Environmental Quality pursuant to section 2031 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 1962-3), 
     entitled ``Principles and Requirements for Federal 
     Investments in Water Resources'', and dated March 2013.

     SEC. 110. RESILIENCY PLANNING ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 206(a) of the Flood Control Act of 
     1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a(a)) is amended by inserting ``, to avoid 
     repetitive flooding impacts, to anticipate, prepare, and 
     adapt to changing climatic conditions and extreme weather 
     events, and to withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly 
     from disruption due to the flood hazards'' after ``in 
     planning to ameliorate the flood hazard''.
       (b) Prioritizing Flood Risk Resiliency Technical Assistance 
     for Economically Disadvantaged Communities.--In carrying out 
     section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 
     709a), the Secretary shall prioritize the provision of 
     technical assistance to support flood risk resiliency 
     planning efforts of an economically disadvantaged community.

     SEC. 111. PROJECT CONSULTATION.

       (a) Reports Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit the 
     following reports:
       (1) The report required under section 1214 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3809).
       (2) The report required under section 1120(a)(3) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1643).
       (b) Consultation.--
       (1) Agencies and tribes.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     all covered community consultation policies, regulations, and 
     guidance of the Corps of Engineers continue to be 
     implemented, and that consultations with Federal and State 
     agencies and Indian Tribes required for a water resources 
     development project are carried out.
       (2) Communities.--The Secretary shall ensure that any 
     covered communities, including such communities identified in 
     the reports submitted under subsection (a), that are found to 
     be disproportionately or adversely affected are included in 
     consultation policies, regulations, and guidance of the Corps 
     of Engineers.
       (3) Project planning and construction.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that covered communities are consulted in the 
     development of water resources development project planning 
     and construction, for the purposes of achieving environmental 
     justice and addressing any disproportionate or adverse 
     effects on such communities.
       (c) Environmental Justice Updates.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall update any 
     policies, regulations, and guidance of the Corps of Engineers 
     related to achieving environmental justice for covered 
     communities.
       (2) Recommendations and consultation.--In carrying out 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
       (A) consult with a wide array of representatives of covered 
     communities; and
       (B) use the recommendations from the reports submitted 
     under subsection (a).
       (d) Community Engagement.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     in carrying out authorized water resources development 
     projects in, and all other activities of the Corps of 
     Engineers related to, covered communities, the Corps of 
     Engineers--
       (1) promotes the meaningful involvement of such communities 
     in the project development and implementation, enforcement 
     efforts, and other activities of the Corps of Engineers;
       (2) provides guidance and technical assistance to such 
     communities to increase understanding of the project 
     development and implementation activities, regulations, and 
     policies of the Corps of Engineers; and
       (3) cooperates with State, Tribal, and local governments 
     with respect to activities carried out pursuant to this 
     subsection.
       (e) Tribal Lands and Consultation.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that in carrying out authorized water resources 
     development projects and in all other activities of the Corps 
     of Engineers, that the Corps of Engineers--
       (1)(A) consults with Indian Tribes specifically on any 
     Tribal lands near or adjacent to any activities of the Corps 
     of Engineers, for purposes of identifying lands of ancestral, 
     cultural, or religious importance; and
       (B) cooperates with Indian Tribes to avoid, or otherwise 
     find alternate solutions with respect to, such lands; and
       (2)(A) consults with Indian Tribes specifically on any 
     Tribal areas near or adjacent to

[[Page H3930]]

     any activities of the Corps of Engineers, for purposes of 
     identifying lands, waters, and other resources critical to 
     the livelihood of the Indian Tribes; and
       (B) cooperates with Indian Tribes to avoid, or otherwise 
     find alternate solutions with respect to, such areas.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Community of color.--The term ``community of color'' 
     means a community of individuals who are--
       (A) American Indian or Alaska Native;
       (B) Asian or Pacific Islander;
       (C) Black, not of Hispanic origin; or
       (D) Hispanic.
       (2) Covered community.--The term ``covered community'' 
     means each of the following:
       (A) A community of color.
       (B) An economically disadvantaged community.
       (C) A rural community.
       (D) A Tribal or indigenous community.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, and each of the 
     commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 112. REVIEW OF RESILIENCY ASSESSMENTS.

       (a) Resiliency Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section, and in conjunction with the 
     development of procedures under section 109 of this Act, the 
     Secretary is directed to review, and where appropriate, 
     revise the existing planning guidance documents and 
     regulations on the assessment of the effects of sea level 
     rise on future water resources development projects to ensure 
     that such guidance documents and regulations are based on the 
     best available, peer-reviewed science and data on the current 
     and future effects of sea level rise on coastal communities.
       (2) Coordination.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) coordinate the review with the Engineer Research and 
     Development Center, other Federal and State agencies, and 
     other relevant entities; and
       (B) to the maximum extent practicable and where 
     appropriate, utilize data provided to the Secretary by such 
     agencies.
       (b) Assessment of Benefits of Sea Level Rise Resiliency in 
     Feasibility Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Upon the request of a non-Federal 
     interest, in carrying out a feasibility study for a project 
     for flood risk mitigation, hurricane and storm damage risk 
     reduction, or ecosystem restoration under section 905 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282), the 
     Secretary shall consider whether the need for the project is 
     predicated upon or exacerbated by conditions related to sea 
     level rise.
       (2) Sea level rise resiliency benefits.--To the maximum 
     extent practicable, in carrying out a study pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall document the potential 
     effects of sea level rise on the project, and benefits of the 
     project relating to sea level rise, during the 50-year period 
     after the date of completion of the project.

     SEC. 113. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.

       Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s) is amended by inserting ``, and projects that use 
     natural features or nature-based features (as those terms are 
     defined in section 1184(a) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a))),'' after ``nonstructural 
     projects''.

     SEC. 114. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Section 103(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Nonstructural 
     Flood Control Projects'' and inserting ``Projects Using 
     Nonstructural, Natural, or Nature-Based Features''; and
       (2) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``nonstructural flood control measures'' 
     and inserting ``a flood risk management or hurricane and 
     storm damage risk reduction measure using a nonstructural 
     feature, or a natural feature or nature-based feature (as 
     those terms are defined in section 1184(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a))),''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``cash during construction of the project'' 
     and inserting ``cash during construction for a nonstructural 
     feature if the costs of land, easements, rights-of-way, 
     dredged material disposal areas, and relocations for such 
     feature are estimated to exceed 35 percent''.

     SEC. 115. FEASIBILITY STUDIES; REVIEW OF NATURAL AND NATURE-
                   BASED FEATURES.

       (a) Technical Correction.--Section 1149(c) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 2282 note; 132 
     Stat. 3787) is amended by striking ``natural infrastructure 
     alternatives'' and inserting ``natural feature or nature-
     based feature alternatives (as such terms are defined in 
     section 1184 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 
     (32 U.S.C. 2289a))''.
       (b) Summary of Analysis.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable, the Secretary shall include in each feasibility 
     report developed under section 905 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282) for a project that 
     contains a flood risk management or hurricane and storm 
     damage risk reduction element, a summary of the natural 
     feature or nature-based feature alternatives that were 
     evaluated in the development of the feasibility report, and, 
     if such alternatives were not included in the recommended 
     plan, an explanation of why such alternatives were not 
     included into the recommended plan.

     SEC. 116. REPORT ON CORROSION PREVENTION ACTIVITIES.

       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, and make publicly available, a report 
     that describes--
       (1) the extent to which the Secretary has carried out 
     section 1033 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
     Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2350);
       (2) the extent to which the Secretary has incorporated 
     corrosion prevention activities (as defined in such section) 
     at water resources development projects constructed or 
     maintained by the Secretary since the date of enactment of 
     such section; and
       (3) in instances where the Secretary has not incorporated 
     corrosion prevention activities at such water resources 
     development projects since such date, an explanation as to 
     why such corrosion prevention activities have not been 
     incorporated.

     SEC. 117. QUANTIFICATION OF BENEFITS FOR FLOOD RISK 
                   MANAGEMENT PROJECTS IN SEISMIC ZONES.

       (a) In General.--Upon the request of the non-Federal 
     interest for a flood risk management project in a seismic 
     zone, the Secretary shall quantify the seismic hazard risk 
     reduction benefits for the project if the non-Federal 
     interest identifies, and the Secretary approves, an 
     acceptable methodology to quantify such benefits.
       (b) Applicability.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) include all associated seismic hazard risk reduction 
     benefits approved by the Secretary in the calculation of the 
     national economic development benefit-cost ratio for a flood 
     risk management project in a seismic hazard zone for purposes 
     of plan formulation pursuant to section 905 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986; and
       (2) seek to maximize the combination of flood risk 
     reduction and seismic hazard risk reduction benefits in the 
     formulation of the national economic development alternative 
     for such project.

     SEC. 118. FEDERAL INTEREST DETERMINATION.

       Section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2282) is amended by inserting after subsection (a) 
     the following:
       ``(b) Federal Interest Determination.--
       ``(1) In general.--In preparing a feasibility report under 
     subsection (a) for a study that will benefit an economically 
     disadvantaged community, upon request by the non-Federal 
     interest for the study, the Secretary shall first determine 
     the Federal interest in carrying out the study and the 
     projects that may be proposed in the study.
       ``(2) Cost share.--The costs of a determination under 
     paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) shall be at Federal expense; and
       ``(B) shall not exceed $200,000.
       ``(3) Deadline.--A determination under paragraph (1) shall 
     be completed by not later than 120 days after the date on 
     which funds are made available to the Secretary to carry out 
     the determination.
       ``(4) Treatment.--
       ``(A) Timing.--The period during which a determination is 
     being completed under paragraph (1) for a study shall not be 
     included for purposes of the deadline to complete a final 
     feasibility report under section 1001(a)(1) of the Water 
     Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 
     2282c(a)(1)).
       ``(B) Cost.--The cost of a determination under paragraph 
     (1) shall not be included for purposes of the maximum Federal 
     cost under section 1001(a)(2) of the Water Resources Reform 
     and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c(a)(2)).
       ``(5) Report to non-federal interest.--If, based on a 
     determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary determines 
     that a study or project is not in the Federal interest 
     because the project will not result, or is unlikely to 
     result, in a recommended plan that will produce national 
     economic development benefits greater than cost, but may 
     result in a technically sound and environmentally acceptable 
     plan that is otherwise consistent with section 904 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281), the 
     Secretary shall issue a report to the non-Federal interest 
     with recommendations on how the non-Federal interest might 
     modify the proposal such that the project could be in the 
     Federal interest and feasible.''.

     SEC. 119. ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY FLOOD 
                   PROTECTION AND HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE 
                   REDUCTION STUDY PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish and 
     implement a pilot program to evaluate opportunities to 
     address the flood risk management and hurricane and storm 
     damage risk reduction needs of economically disadvantaged 
     communities.
       (b) Participation in Pilot Program.--In carrying out 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
       (1) publish a notice in the Federal Register that requests 
     from non-Federal interests proposals for the potential 
     feasibility study of a flood risk management project or 
     hurricane and storm damage risk reduction project for an 
     economically disadvantaged community;

[[Page H3931]]

       (2) upon request of a non-Federal interest for such a 
     project, provide technical assistance to such non-Federal 
     interest in the formulation of a proposal for a potential 
     feasibility study to be submitted to the Secretary under the 
     pilot program; and
       (3) review such proposals and select 10 feasibility studies 
     for such projects to be carried out by the Secretary, in 
     coordination with the non-Federal interest, under this pilot 
     program.
       (c) Selection Criteria.--In selecting a feasibility study 
     under subsection (b)(3), the Secretary shall consider 
     whether--
       (1) the percentage of people living in poverty in the 
     county or counties (or county-equivalent entity or entities) 
     in which the project is located is above the percentage of 
     people living in poverty in the State, based on census bureau 
     data;
       (2) the percentage of families with income above the 
     poverty threshold but below the average household income in 
     the county or counties (or county-equivalent entity or 
     entities) in which the project is located is above the 
     percentage of the same for the State, based on census bureau 
     data;
       (3) the percentage of the population that identifies as 
     belonging to a minority or indigenous group in the county or 
     counties (or county-equivalent entity or entities) in which 
     the project is located is above the average percentage in the 
     State, based on census bureau data; and
       (4) the project is addressing flooding or hurricane or 
     storm damage effects that have a disproportionate impact on a 
     rural community or a community of color (as such term is 
     defined in section 111 of this Act), including Tribal or 
     indigenous peoples.
       (d) Administration.--Notwithstanding the requirements of 
     section 105(a)(1)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215), the Federal share of the cost of a 
     feasibility study carried out under the pilot program shall 
     be 100 percent.
       (e) Geographic Diversity.--When selecting feasibility 
     studies under subsection (b)(3), the Secretary shall consider 
     the geographic diversity among proposed projects.
       (f) Study Requirements.--Feasibility studies carried out 
     under this subsection shall, to the maximum extent practical, 
     incorporate natural features or nature-based features (as 
     such terms are defined in section 1184 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a)), or a combination 
     of such features and nonstructural features, that avoid or 
     reduce at least 50 percent of flood or storm damages in one 
     or more of the alternatives included in the final 
     alternatives evaluated.
       (g) Notification.--The Secretary shall notify the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate of the selection of each feasibility 
     study under the pilot program.
       (h) Completion.--Upon completion of a feasibility report 
     for a feasibility study selected to be carried out under this 
     section, the Secretary shall transmit the report to Congress 
     for authorization, and shall include the report in the next 
     annual report submitted under section 7001 of the Water 
     Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 
     2282d).
       (i) Sunset.--The authority to commence a feasibility study 
     under this section shall terminate on the date that is 10 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (j) Report.--Not later than 5 years and 10 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available, a 
     report detailing the results of the pilot program carried out 
     under this section, including--
       (1) a description of proposals received from non-Federal 
     interests pursuant to subsection (b)(1);
       (2) a description of technical assistance provided to non-
     Federal interests under subsection (b)(2); and
       (3) a description of proposals selected under subsection 
     (b)(3) and criteria used to select such proposals.
       (k) State Defined.--In this section, the term ``State'' 
     means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, 
     and each of the commonwealths, territories, and possessions 
     of the United States.

     SEC. 120. PERMANENT MEASURES TO REDUCE EMERGENCY FLOOD 
                   FIGHTING NEEDS FOR COMMUNITIES SUBJECT TO 
                   REPETITIVE FLOODING.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Affected community.--The term ``affected community'' 
     means a legally constituted public body (as that term is used 
     in section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
     1962d-5b(b))--
       (A) with jurisdiction over an area that has been subject to 
     flooding in two or more events in any 10-year period; and
       (B) that has received emergency flood-fighting assistance, 
     including construction of temporary barriers by the 
     Secretary, under section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 
     U.S.C. 701n) with respect to such flood events.
       (2) Natural feature; nature-based feature.--The terms 
     ``natural feature'' and ``nature-based feature'' have the 
     meanings given those terms in section 1184 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a).
       (b) Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out a 
     program to study, design, and construct water resources 
     development projects through measures involving, among other 
     things, strengthening, raising, extending, realigning, or 
     otherwise modifying existing flood control works, designing 
     new works, and incorporating natural features, nature-based 
     features, or nonstructural features, as appropriate to 
     provide flood and coastal storm risk management to affected 
     communities.
       (2) Considerations.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practical, review and, 
     where appropriate, incorporate natural features or nature-
     based features, or a combination of such features and 
     nonstructural features, that avoid or reduce at least 50 
     percent of flood or storm damages in one or more of the 
     alternatives included in the final alternatives evaluated.
       (3) Construction.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a project 
     described in paragraph (1) without further congressional 
     authorization if--
       (i) the Secretary determines that the project--

       (I) is advisable to reduce the risk of flooding for an 
     affected community; and
       (II) produces benefits that are in excess of the estimated 
     costs; and

       (ii) the Federal share of the cost of the construction does 
     not exceed $15,000,000.
       (B) Specific authorization.--If the Federal share of the 
     cost of a project described in paragraph (1) exceeds 
     $15,000,000, the Secretary shall submit the project 
     recommendation to Congress for authorization prior to 
     construction, and shall include the project recommendation in 
     the next annual report submitted under section 7001 of the 
     Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014.
       (C) Financing.--
       (i) Contributions.--If, based on a study carried out 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary determines that a 
     project described in paragraph (1) will not produce benefits 
     greater than cost, the Secretary shall allow the affected 
     community to pay, or provide contributions equal to, an 
     amount sufficient to make the remaining costs of design and 
     construction of the project equal to the estimated value of 
     the benefits of the project.
       (ii) Effect on non-federal share.--Amounts provided by an 
     affected community under clause (i) shall be in addition to 
     any payments or contributions the affected community is 
     required to provide toward the remaining costs of design and 
     construction of the project under section 103 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
       (4) Ability to pay.--
       (A) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement for a project 
     entered into pursuant to this section shall be subject to the 
     ability of the affected community to pay.
       (B) Determination.--The ability of any affected community 
     to pay shall be determined by the Secretary in accordance 
     with procedures established by the Secretary.
       (C) Effect of reduction.--Any reduction in the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of a project described in paragraph (1) as 
     a result of a determination under this paragraph shall not be 
     included in the Federal share for purposes of subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B) of paragraph (3).

     SEC. 121. EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO NATURAL DISASTERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 
     (33 U.S.C. 701n) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following--
       ``(5) Feasibility study.--
       ``(A) Determination.--Not later than 180 days after 
     receiving, from a non-Federal sponsor of a project to repair 
     or rehabilitate a flood control work described in paragraph 
     (1), a request to initiate a feasibility study to further 
     modify the relevant flood control work to provide for an 
     increased level of protection, the Secretary shall provide to 
     the non-Federal sponsor a written decision on whether the 
     Secretary has the authority under section 216 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a) to undertake the 
     requested feasibility study.
       ``(B) Recommendation.--If the Secretary determines under 
     subparagraph (B) that the Secretary does not have the 
     authority to undertake the requested feasibility study, the 
     Secretary shall include the request for a feasibility study 
     in the annual report submitted under section 7001 of the 
     Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014.'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Levee Owners 
     Manual'' and inserting ``Eligibility'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), in the heading, by striking ``In 
     general'' and inserting ``Levee owner's manual'';
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively, and inserting after paragraph (1) 
     the following:
       ``(2) Compliance.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding the status of compliance 
     of a non-Federal interest with the requirements of a levee 
     owner's manual described in paragraph (1), or with any other 
     eligibility requirement established by the Secretary related 
     to the maintenance and upkeep responsibilities of the non-
     Federal interest, the Secretary shall consider the non-
     Federal interest to be eligible for repair and rehabilitation 
     assistance under this section if the non-Federal interest--

[[Page H3932]]

       ``(i) enters into a written agreement with the Secretary 
     that identifies any items of deferred or inadequate 
     maintenance and upkeep identified by the Secretary prior to 
     the natural disaster; and
       ``(ii) pays, during performance of the repair and 
     rehabilitation work, all costs to address--

       ``(I) any items of deferred or inadequate maintenance and 
     upkeep identified by the Secretary; and
       ``(II) any repair or rehabilitation work necessary to 
     address damage the Secretary attributes to such deferred or 
     inadequate maintenance or upkeep.

       ``(B) Eligibility.--The Secretary may only enter into one 
     agreement under subparagraph (A) with any non-Federal 
     interest.
       ``(C) Sunset.--The authority of the Secretary to enter into 
     agreements under paragraph (2) shall terminate on the date 
     that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph.''; and
       (D) in paragraph (3) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``this subsection'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)''.

     SEC. 122. STUDY ON NATURAL INFRASTRUCTURE AT CORPS OF 
                   ENGINEERS PROJECTS.

       (a) Definition of Natural Feature and Nature-based 
     Feature.--In this section, the terms ``natural feature'' and 
     ``nature-based feature'' have the meanings given those terms 
     in section 1184(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a)).
       (b) Study.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct, and submit to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate, a report on the results of a study on 
     the consideration by the Secretary of natural infrastructure, 
     natural features, and nature-based features in the study of 
     the feasibility of projects for flood risk management, 
     hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and ecosystem 
     restoration.
       (c) Requirements.--The study under subsection (b) shall 
     include--
       (1) a description of guidance or instructions issued, and 
     other measures taken, by the Secretary to consider natural 
     infrastructure, natural features, and nature-based features 
     in project feasibility studies;
       (2) an assessment, based on information from relevant 
     Federal and non-Federal sources, of--
       (A) the costs, benefits, and effects associated with 
     natural infrastructure, natural features, and nature-based 
     features recommended by the Secretary for flood risk 
     management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and 
     ecosystem restoration; and
       (B) the effectiveness of natural infrastructure, natural 
     features, and nature-based features;
       (3) an analysis of projects for flood risk management, 
     hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and ecosystem 
     restoration that have incorporated natural infrastructure, 
     natural features, or nature-based features to identify best 
     practices, including for measuring project benefits and 
     costs;
       (4) a description of any statutory, fiscal, regulatory, or 
     other policy barriers to the appropriate consideration and 
     use of a full array of natural infrastructure, natural 
     features, and nature-based features in carrying out 
     feasibility studies and projects; and
       (5) any recommendations for changes to law, or to fiscal, 
     regulatory, or other policies, to improve the use of natural 
     infrastructure, natural features, and nature-based features 
     by the Corps of Engineers in carrying out feasibility studies 
     and projects.

     SEC. 123. REVIEW OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS ASSETS.

       Section 6002 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
     Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1349) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 6002. REVIEW OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS ASSETS.

       ``(a) Assessment.--The Secretary shall conduct an 
     assessment of projects constructed by the Secretary for which 
     the Secretary continues to have financial or operational 
     responsibility.
       ``(b) Inventory.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020, 
     the Secretary shall, based on the assessment carried out 
     under subsection (a), develop an inventory of projects or 
     portions of projects--
       ``(1) that are not needed for the missions of the Corps of 
     Engineers;
       ``(2) the modification of which, including though the use 
     of natural features or nature-based features (as those terms 
     are defined in section 1184(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a)), could improve 
     the sustainable operations of the project, or reduce 
     operation and maintenance costs for the project; or
       ``(3) that are no longer having project purposes adequately 
     met by the Corps of Engineers, because of deferment of 
     maintenance or other challenges, and the divestment of which 
     to a non-Federal entity could better meet the local and 
     regional needs for operation and maintenance.
       ``(c) Criteria.--In conducting the assessment under 
     subsection (a) and developing the inventory under subsection 
     (b), the Secretary shall use the following criteria:
       ``(1) The extent to which the project aligns with the 
     current missions of the Corps of Engineers.
       ``(2) The economic and environmental impacts of the project 
     on existing communities in the vicinity of the project.
       ``(3) The extent to which the divestment or modification of 
     the project could reduce operation and maintenance costs of 
     the Corps of Engineers.
       ``(4) The extent to which the divestment or modification of 
     the project is in the public interest.
       ``(5) The extent to which investment of additional Federal 
     resources in the project proposed for divestment or 
     modification, including investment needed to bring the 
     project to a good state of repair, is in the public interest.
       ``(6) The extent to which the authorized purpose of the 
     project is no longer being met.
       ``(d) Recommendations of Non-Federal Interests.--A non-
     Federal interest for a project may recommend that the 
     Secretary include such project in the assessment or inventory 
     required under this section.
       ``(e) Report to Congress.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon completion of the inventory 
     required by subsection (b), the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives, and make publicly available, a 
     report containing the findings of the Secretary with respect 
     to the assessment and inventory required under this section.
       ``(2) Inclusion.--The Secretary shall list in an appendix 
     any recommendation of a non-Federal interest made with 
     respect to a project under subsection (d) that the Secretary 
     determines not to include in the inventory developed under 
     subsection (b), based on the criteria in subsection (c), 
     including information about the request and the reasons for 
     the Secretary's determination.''.

     SEC. 124. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MULTIPURPOSE PROJECTS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary, in 
     coordination with non-Federal interests, should maximize the 
     development, evaluation, and recommendation of project 
     alternatives for future water resources development projects 
     that produce multiple project benefits, such as navigation, 
     flood risk management, and ecosystem restoration benefits, 
     including through the use of natural or nature-based features 
     and the beneficial reuse of dredged material.

     SEC. 125. BENEFICIAL REUSE OF DREDGED MATERIAL; DREDGED 
                   MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLANS.

       (a) National Policy on the Beneficial Reuse of Dredged 
     Material.--
       (1) In general.--It is the policy of the United States for 
     the Corps of Engineers to maximize the beneficial reuse, in 
     an environmentally acceptable manner, of suitable dredged 
     material obtained from the construction or operation and 
     maintenance of water resources development projects.
       (2) Placement of dredged materials.--
       (A) In general.--In evaluating the placement of dredged 
     material obtained from the construction or operation and 
     maintenance of water resources development projects, the 
     Secretary shall consider--
       (i) the suitability of the dredged material for a full 
     range of beneficial uses; and
       (ii) the economic and environmental benefits, efficiencies, 
     and impacts (including the effects on living coral) of using 
     the dredged material for beneficial uses, including, in the 
     case of beneficial reuse activities that involve more than 
     one water resources development project, the benefits, 
     efficiencies, and impacts that result from the combined 
     activities.
       (B) Calculation of federal standard.--The economic benefits 
     and efficiencies from the beneficial use of dredged material 
     considered by the Secretary under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     included in any determination relating to the ``Federal 
     standard'' by the Secretary under section 335.7 of title 33, 
     Code of Federal Regulations for the placement or disposal of 
     such material.
       (b) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material.--
       (1) Pilot program projects.--Section 1122 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``20'' and inserting 
     ``30''; and
       (B) in subsection (g), by striking ``20'' and inserting 
     ``30''.
       (2) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Secretary, in selecting projects for the beneficial reuse 
     of dredged materials under section 1122 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note), 
     should ensure the thorough evaluation of project submissions 
     from rural, small, and economically disadvantaged 
     communities.
       (c) Five-Year Regional Dredged Material Management Plans.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the District 
     Commander of each district of the Corps of Engineers that 
     obtains dredged material through the construction or 
     operation and maintenance of a water resources development 
     project shall, at Federal expense, develop and submit to the 
     Secretary a 5-year dredged material management plan in 
     coordination with relevant State agencies and stakeholders.
       (2) Scope.--Each plan developed under this subsection shall 
     include--
       (A) a dredged material budget for each watershed or 
     littoral system within the district;
       (B) an estimate of the amount of dredged material likely to 
     be obtained through the

[[Page H3933]]

     construction or operation and maintenance of all water 
     resources development projects projected to be carried out 
     within the district during the 5-year period following 
     submission of the plan, and the estimated timing for 
     obtaining such dredged material;
       (C) an identification of potential water resources 
     development projects projected to be carried out within the 
     district during such 5-year period that are suitable for, or 
     that require, the placement of dredged material, and an 
     estimate of the amount of dredged material placement capacity 
     of such projects;
       (D) an evaluation of--
       (i) the suitability of the dredged material for a full 
     range of beneficial uses; and
       (ii) the economic and environmental benefits, efficiencies, 
     and impacts (including the effects on living coral) of using 
     the dredged material for beneficial uses, including, in the 
     case of beneficial reuse activities that involve more than 
     one water resources development project, the benefits, 
     efficiencies, and impacts that result from the combined 
     activities; and
       (E) the district-wide goals for beneficial reuse of the 
     dredged material, including any expected cost savings from 
     aligning and coordinating multiple projects (including 
     projects across Corps districts) in the reuse of the dredged 
     material.
       (3) Public comment.--In developing each plan under this 
     subsection, each District Commander shall provide notice and 
     an opportunity for public comment.
       (4) Public availability.--Upon submission of each plan to 
     the Secretary under this subsection, each District Commander 
     shall make the plan publicly available, including on a 
     publicly available website.
       (d) Dredge Pilot Program.--
       (1) Revisions.--Section 1111 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``for the operation and 
     maintenance of harbors and inland harbors'' and all that 
     follows through the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``for the operation and maintenance of--
       ``(1) 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)); or
       ``(2) inland and intracoastal waterways of the United 
     States described in section 206 of the Inland Waterways 
     Revenue Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1804).''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``or inland harbors'' 
     and inserting ``, inland harbors, or inland or intracoastal 
     waterways''.
       (2) Coordination with existing authorities.--The Secretary 
     may carry out the dredge pilot program authorized by section 
     1111 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (33 
     U.S.C. 2326 note) in coordination with Federal regional 
     dredge demonstration programs in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 126. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FOR ANADROMOUS FISH.

       (a) Anadromous Fish Habitat and Passage.--Section 206 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Anadromous fish habitat and passage.--
       ``(A) Measures.--A project under this section may include 
     measures to improve habitat or passage for anadromous fish, 
     including--
       ``(i) installing fish bypass structures on small water 
     diversions;
       ``(ii) modifying tide gates; and
       ``(iii) restoring or reconnecting floodplains and wetlands 
     that are important for anadromous fish habitat or passage.
       ``(B) Benefits.--A project that includes measures under 
     this paragraph shall be formulated to maximize benefits for 
     the anadromous fish species benefitted by the project.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Prioritization.--The Secretary shall give projects 
     that include measures described in subsection (a)(3) equal 
     priority for implementation as other projects under this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 127. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Section 7001(c)(4)(B) of the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d(c)(4)(B)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); and
       (3) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
       ``(ii) the Secretary shall not include proposals in the 
     appendix of the annual report that otherwise meet the 
     criteria for inclusion in the annual report solely on the 
     basis that the proposals are for the purposes of navigation, 
     flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, or municipal or 
     agricultural water supply; and''.

     SEC. 128. HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
     demonstration program to determine the causes of, and 
     implement measures to effectively detect, prevent, treat, and 
     eliminate, harmful algal blooms associated with water 
     resources development projects.
       (b) Consultation; Use of Existing Data and Program 
     Authorities.--In carrying out the demonstration program under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
       (1) consult with the heads of appropriate Federal and State 
     agencies; and
       (2) make maximum use of existing Federal and State data and 
     ongoing programs and activities of Federal and State 
     agencies, including the activities of the Secretary carried 
     out through the Engineer Research and Development Center 
     pursuant to section 1109 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 610 note).
       (c) Focus Areas.--In carrying out the demonstration program 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall undertake program 
     activities related to harmful algal blooms in the Great 
     Lakes, the tidal and inland waters of the State of New 
     Jersey, the coastal and tidal waters of the State of 
     Louisiana, the waterways of the counties that comprise the 
     Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, and Lake 
     Okeechobee, Florida.

     SEC. 129. UPDATE ON INVASIVE SPECIES POLICY GUIDANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall periodically update 
     the Invasive Species Policy Guidance, developed under section 
     104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610) and 
     the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act 
     of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.), in accordance with the most 
     recent National Invasive Species Council Management Plan 
     developed pursuant to Executive Order 13112.
       (b) Inclusion.--The Secretary may include in the updated 
     guidance invasive species specific efforts at federally 
     authorized water resources development projects located in--
       (1) high-altitude lakes; and
       (2) the Tennessee and Cumberland River basins.

     SEC. 130. REPORT ON DEBRIS REMOVAL.

       Section 1210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 
     (132 Stat. 3808) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1210. REPORT ON DEBRIS REMOVAL.

       ``Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2020, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress and make publicly available a report 
     that describes--
       ``(1) the extent to which, during the 10 fiscal years prior 
     to such date of enactment, the Secretary has carried out 
     section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a);
       ``(2) how the Secretary has evaluated potential work to be 
     carried out under that section; and
       ``(3) the extent to which the Secretary plans to start, 
     continue, or complete debris removal activities in the 3 
     years following submission of the report.''.

     SEC. 131. MISSOURI RIVER INTERCEPTION-REARING COMPLEX 
                   CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     report on the effects of any interception-rearing complex 
     constructed on the Missouri River on--
       (1) flood risk management and navigation; and
       (2) the population recovery of the pallid sturgeon, 
     including baseline population counts.
       (b) No Additional IRC Construction.--The Secretary may not 
     authorize construction of an interception-rearing complex on 
     the Missouri River until the Secretary--
       (1) submits the report required by subsection (a);
       (2) acting through the Engineer Research and Development 
     Center, conducts further research on interception-rearing 
     complex design, including any effects on existing flows, 
     flood risk management, and navigation; and
       (3) develops a plan--
       (A) to repair dikes and revetments that are affecting flood 
     risk and bank erosion; and
       (B) to establish, repair, or improve water control 
     structures at the headworks of constructed shallow water 
     habitat side-channels.
       (c) Future IRC Construction.--
       (1) Public comment.--The Secretary shall provide an 
     opportunity for comment from the public and the Governor of 
     each affected State on any proposals to construct an 
     interception-rearing complex after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Period.--The public comment period required by 
     paragraph (1) shall be not less than 90 days for each 
     proposal to construct an interception-rearing complex on the 
     Missouri River.

     SEC. 132. COST AND BENEFIT FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 5(a)(2)(B) of the Act of August 
     18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(a)(2)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i)(I), by inserting ``, or provide 
     contributions equal to,'' after ``pay''; and
       (2) in clause (ii)--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``and contributions'' 
     after ``of payments'';
       (B) by inserting ``or contributions'' after ``Non-Federal 
     payments''; and
       (C) by inserting ``or contributions'' after ``non-Federal 
     payments''.
       (b) Continued Eligibility.--Section 1161(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 701n note) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking the ``three fiscal years preceding'' and 
     inserting ``five fiscal years preceding''; and
       (B) by striking ``last day of the third fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``last day of the fifth fiscal year'';

[[Page H3934]]

       (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, or provide 
     contributions equal to,'' before ``an amount sufficient''; 
     and
       (3) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) the Secretary determines that the damage to the 
     structure was not as a result of negligent operation or 
     maintenance.''.

     SEC. 133. MATERIALS, SERVICES, AND FUNDS FOR REPAIR, 
                   RESTORATION, OR REHABILITATION OF PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--In any area covered by an emergency or 
     major disaster declaration declared under the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Secretary is authorized to accept 
     and use materials, services, and funds, during the period the 
     declaration is in effect, from a non-Federal interest or 
     private entity to repair, restore, or rehabilitate a 
     federally authorized water resources development project, and 
     to provide reimbursement to such non-Federal interest or 
     private entity for such materials, services, and funds, in 
     the Secretary's sole discretion, and subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, if the Secretary determines 
     that reimbursement is in the public interest.
       (b) Additional Requirement.--The Secretary may only 
     reimburse for the use of materials or services accepted under 
     this section if such materials or services meet the 
     Secretary's specifications and comply with all applicable 
     laws and regulations that would apply if such materials and 
     services were acquired by the Secretary, including sections 
     3141 through 3148 and 3701 through 3708 of title 40, United 
     States Code, section 8302 of title 41, United States Code, 
     and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
       (c) Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Prior to the acceptance of materials, 
     services, or funds under this section, the Secretary and the 
     non-Federal interest or private entity shall enter into an 
     agreement that specifies--
       (A) the non-Federal interest or private entity shall hold 
     and save the United States free from any and all damages that 
     arise from use of materials or services of the non-Federal 
     interest or private entity, except for damages due to the 
     fault or negligence of the United States or its contractors;
       (B) the non-Federal interest or private entity shall 
     certify that the materials or services comply with all 
     applicable laws and regulations under subsection (b); and
       (C) any other term or condition required by the Secretary.
       (2) Exception.--If an agreement under paragraph (1) was not 
     entered prior to materials or services being contributed, a 
     non-Federal interest or private entity shall enter into an 
     agreement with the Secretary that--
       (A) specifies the value, as determined by the Secretary, of 
     those materials or services contributed and eligible for 
     reimbursement; and
       (B) ensures that the materials or services comply with 
     subsection (b) and paragraph (1).

     SEC. 134. LEVEE SAFETY.

       Section 9004 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 
     (33 U.S.C. 3303) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Identification of Deficiencies.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each levee included in an inventory 
     established under subsection (b) or for which the Secretary 
     has conducted a review under subsection (c), the Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(A) identify the specific engineering and maintenance 
     deficiencies, if any; and
       ``(B) describe the recommended remedies to correct each 
     deficiency identified under subparagraph (A), and, if 
     requested by owner of a non-Federal levee, the associated 
     costs of those remedies.
       ``(2) Consultation.--In identifying deficiencies and 
     describing remedies for a levee under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall consult with relevant non-Federal interests, 
     including by providing an opportunity for comment by those 
     non-Federal interests.''.

     SEC. 135. NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 2 of the National Dam Safety 
     Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking clause (iii) and inserting the following:
       ``(iii) has an emergency action plan that--

       ``(I) is approved by the relevant State dam safety agency; 
     or
       ``(II) is in conformance with State law and pending 
     approval by the relevant State dam safety agency;''; and

       (ii) by striking clause (iv) and inserting the following:
       ``(iv) fails to meet minimum dam safety standards of the 
     State in which the dam is located, as determined by the 
     State; and
       ``(v) poses an unacceptable risk to the public, as 
     determined by the Administrator, in consultation with the 
     Board.''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(i), by inserting ``under a 
     hydropower project with an authorized installed capacity of 
     greater than 1.5 megawatts'' after ``dam''; and
       (2) in paragraph (10)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Non-federal sponsor'' and 
     inserting ``Eligible subrecipient''; and
       (B) by striking ``The term `non-Federal sponsor' '' and 
     inserting ``The term `eligible subrecipient' ''.
       (b) Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dams.--
       (1) Establishment of program.--Section 8A(a) of the 
     National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f-2(a)) is 
     amended by striking ``to non-Federal sponsors'' and inserting 
     ``to States with dam safety programs''.
       (2) Eligible activities.--Section 8A(b) of the National Dam 
     Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f-2(b)) is amended, in the 
     matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``for a project 
     may be used for'' and inserting ``to a State may be used by 
     the State to award grants to eligible subrecipients for''.
       (3) Award of grants.--Section 8A(c) of the National Dam 
     Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f-2(c)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``non-Federal 
     sponsor'' and inserting ``State''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``an eligible high 
     hazard potential dam to a non-Federal sponsor'' and inserting 
     ``eligible high hazard potential dams to a State'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Project 
     grant'' and inserting ``Grant'';
       (II) by striking ``project grant agreement with the non-
     Federal sponsor'' and inserting ``grant agreement with the 
     State''; and
       (III) by striking ``project,'' and inserting ``projects for 
     which the grant is awarded,'';

       (iii) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) Grant assurance.--As part of a grant agreement under 
     subparagraph (B), the Administrator shall require that each 
     eligible subrecipient to which the State awards a grant under 
     this section provides an assurance, with respect to the dam 
     to be rehabilitated by the eligible subrecipient, that the 
     dam owner will carry out a plan for maintenance of the dam 
     during the expected life of the dam.''; and
       (iv) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``A grant provided 
     under this section shall not exceed'' and inserting ``A State 
     may not award a grant to an eligible subrecipient under this 
     section that exceeds, for any 1 dam,''.
       (4) Requirements.--Section 8A(d) of the National Dam Safety 
     Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f-2(d)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``to an eligible 
     subrecipient'' after ``this section'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Non-federal 
     sponsor'' and inserting ``Eligible subrecipient'';
       (ii) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``the non-Federal sponsor shall'' and inserting ``an eligible 
     subrecipient shall, with respect to the dam to be 
     rehabilitated by the eligible subrecipient'';
       (iii) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) demonstrate that the community in which the dam is 
     located participates in, and complies with, all applicable 
     Federal flood insurance programs, including demonstrating 
     that such community is participating in the National Flood 
     Insurance Program, and is not on probation, suspended, or 
     withdrawn from such Program;'';
       (iv) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``have'' and 
     inserting ``beginning not later than 2 years after the date 
     on which the Administrator publishes criteria for hazard 
     mitigation plans under paragraph (3), demonstrate that the 
     Tribal or local government with jurisdiction over the area in 
     which the dam is located has''; and
       (v) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``50-year period'' and 
     inserting ``expected life of the dam''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Hazard mitigation plan criteria.--Not later than 1 
     year after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the 
     Administrator, in consultation with the Board, shall publish 
     criteria for hazard mitigation plans required under paragraph 
     (2)(B).''.
       (5) Floodplain management plans.--Section 8A(e) of the 
     National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f-2(e)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``the non-Federal sponsor'' and inserting ``an eligible 
     subrecipient''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``1 year'' and 
     inserting ``2 years'' each place it appears; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Plan criteria and technical support.--The 
     Administrator, in consultation with the Board, shall provide 
     criteria, and may provide technical support, for the 
     development and implementation of floodplain management plans 
     prepared under this subsection.''.
       (6) Contractual requirements.--Section 8A(i)(1) of the 
     National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f-2(i)(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``a non-Federal sponsor'' and inserting 
     ``an eligible subrecipient''.

     SEC. 136. REHABILITATION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTED 
                   PUMP STATIONS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible pump station.--The term ``eligible pump 
     station'' means a pump station--
       (A) constructed, in whole or in part, by the Corps of 
     Engineers for flood risk management purposes;
       (B) that the Secretary has identified as having a major 
     deficiency; and
       (C) the failure of which the Secretary has determined would 
     impair the function of a flood risk management project 
     constructed by the Corps of Engineers.
       (2) Rehabilitation.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``rehabilitation'', with respect 
     to an eligible pump station, means to address a major 
     deficiency of

[[Page H3935]]

     the eligible pump station caused by long-term degradation of 
     the foundation, construction materials, or engineering 
     systems or components of the eligible pump station.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``rehabilitation'', with respect 
     to an eligible pump station, includes--
       (i) the incorporation into the eligible pump station of--

       (I) current design standards;
       (II) efficiency improvements; and
       (III) associated drainage; and

       (ii) increasing the capacity of the eligible pump station, 
     subject to the condition that the increase shall--

       (I) significantly decrease the risk of loss of life and 
     property damage; or
       (II) decrease total lifecycle rehabilitation costs for the 
     eligible pump station.

       (b) Authorization.--The Secretary may carry out 
     rehabilitation of an eligible pump station, if the Secretary 
     determines that the rehabilitation is feasible.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal interest for the 
     eligible pump station shall--
       (1) provide 35 percent of the cost of rehabilitation of an 
     eligible pump station carried out under this section; and
       (2) provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, and 
     necessary relocations associated with the rehabilitation 
     described in subparagraph (A), at no cost to the Federal 
     Government.
       (d) Agreement Required.--The rehabilitation of an eligible 
     pump station pursuant to this section shall be initiated only 
     after a non-Federal interest has entered into a binding 
     agreement with the Secretary--
       (1) to pay the non-Federal share of the costs of 
     rehabilitation under subsection (c); and
       (2) to pay 100 percent of the operation and maintenance 
     costs of the rehabilitated eligible pump station, in 
     accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary.
       (e) Treatment.--The rehabilitation of an eligible pump 
     station pursuant to this section shall not be considered to 
     be a separable element of the associated flood risk 
     management project constructed by the Corps of Engineers.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $60,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

     SEC. 137. NON-FEDERAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PILOT PROGRAM.

       Section 1043(b) of the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``the date that is 5 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2026'';
       (2) in paragraph (8), by striking ``2023'' and inserting 
     ``2026''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) Implementation guidance.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date 
     of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall issue 
     guidance for the implementation of the pilot program that, to 
     the extent practicable, identifies--
       ``(i) the metrics for measuring the success of the pilot 
     program;
       ``(ii) a process for identifying future projects to 
     participate in the pilot program;
       ``(iii) measures to address the risks of a non-Federal 
     interest constructing projects under the pilot program, 
     including which entity bears the risk for projects that fail 
     to meet the Corps of Engineers standards for design or 
     quality;
       ``(iv) the laws and regulations that a non-Federal interest 
     must follow in carrying out a project under the pilot 
     program; and
       ``(v) which entity bears the risk in the event that a 
     project carried out under the pilot program fails to be 
     carried out in accordance with the project authorization or 
     this subsection.
       ``(B) New project partnership agreements.--The Secretary 
     may not enter into a project partnership agreement under this 
     subsection during the period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph and ending on the date on which 
     the Secretary issues the guidance under subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 138. DEFINITION OF ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue guidance 
     defining the term ``economically disadvantaged community'' 
     for the purposes of this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act.
       (b) Considerations.--In defining the term ``economically 
     disadvantaged community'' under subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable, utilize the 
     criteria under paragraphs (1) or (2) of section 301(a) of the 
     Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 
     3161), to the extent that such criteria are applicable in 
     relation to the development of water resources development 
     projects.
       (c) Public Comment.--In developing the guidance under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide notice and an 
     opportunity for public comment.

     SEC. 139. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR TERRITORIES AND INDIAN 
                   TRIBES.

       Section 1156(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2310(b)) is amended by striking ``for 
     inflation'' and all that follows through the period at the 
     end and inserting ``on an annual basis for inflation.''.

     SEC. 140. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES.

       Section 103(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Except as'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Renegotiation of terms.--
       ``(A) In general.--At the request of a non-Federal 
     interest, the Secretary and the non-Federal interest may 
     renegotiate the terms and conditions of an eligible deferred 
     payment, including--
       ``(i) permitting the non-Federal contribution to be made 
     without interest, pursuant to paragraph (1);
       ``(ii) recalculation of the interest rate;
       ``(iii) full or partial forgiveness of interest accrued 
     during the period of construction; and
       ``(iv) a credit against construction interest for a non-
     Federal investment that benefits the completion or 
     performance of the project or separable element.
       ``(B) Eligible deferred payment.--An eligible deferred 
     payment agreement under subparagraph (A) is an agreement for 
     which--
       ``(i) the non-Federal contribution was made with interest;
       ``(ii) the period of project construction exceeds 10 years 
     from the execution of a project partnership agreement or 
     appropriation of funds; and
       ``(iii) the construction interest exceeds $45,000,000.
       ``(C) Credit for non-federal contribution.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to credit 
     any costs incurred by the non-Federal interest (including in-
     kind contributions) to remedy a design or construction 
     deficiency of a covered project or separable element toward 
     the non-Federal share of the cost of the covered project, if 
     the Secretary determines the remedy to be integral to the 
     completion or performance of the covered project.
       ``(ii) Credit of costs.--If the non-Federal interest incurs 
     costs or in-kind contributions for a project to remedy a 
     design or construction deficiency of a project or separable 
     element which has a 100 percent Federal cost share, and the 
     Secretary determines the remedy to be integral to the 
     completion or performance of the project, the Secretary is 
     authorized to credit such costs to any interest accrued on a 
     deferred non-Federal contribution.''.

     SEC. 141. REVIEW OF CONTRACTING POLICIES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall complete a 
     review of the policies, guidelines, and regulations of the 
     Corps of Engineers for the development of contractual 
     agreements between the Secretary and non-Federal interests 
     and utilities associated with the construction of water 
     resources development projects.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after completing the 
     review under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available, a 
     report that includes--
       (1) a summary of the results of the review; and
       (2) public guidance on best practices for non-Federal 
     interest to use when writing or developing contractual 
     agreements with the Secretary and utilities.
       (c) Provision of Guidance.--The Secretary shall provide the 
     best practices guidance included under subsection (b)(2) to 
     non-Federal interests prior to the development of contractual 
     agreements.

     SEC. 142. BUY AMERICA.

       With respect to all Corps of Engineers construction and 
     rehabilitation contracts to be awarded after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the steel components furnished and 
     delivered under such contracts shall be manufactured or 
     fabricated in whole or substantial part in the United States 
     with steel produced or made in the United States, its 
     territories, or possessions.

     SEC. 143. ANNUAL REPORT ON STATUS OF FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

       Concurrent with each report submitted under section 7001 of 
     the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 
     U.S.C. 2282d), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works a report that provides for an accounting of all 
     outstanding feasibility studies being conducted by the 
     Secretary, including, for each such study, its length, cost, 
     and expected completion date.

                     TITLE II--STUDIES AND REPORTS

     SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF PROPOSED FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to conduct a 
     feasibility study for the following projects for water 
     resources development and conservation and other purposes, as 
     identified in the reports titled ``Report to Congress on 
     Future Water Resources Development'' submitted to Congress 
     pursuant to section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d) or otherwise 
     reviewed by Congress:
       (1) Tonto creek, gila river, arizona.--Project for flood 
     risk management, Tonto Creek, Gila River, Arizona.
       (2) Sulphur river, arkansas and texas.--Project for 
     ecosystem restoration, Sulphur River, Arkansas and Texas.
       (3) Cable creek, california.--Project for flood risk 
     management, water supply, and related benefits, Cable Creek, 
     California.

[[Page H3936]]

       (4) Del mar bluffs, california.--Project for shoreline 
     stabilization, Del Mar Bluffs, San Diego County, California.
       (5) Redbank and fancher creeks, california.--Project for 
     water conservation and water supply, Redbank and Fancher 
     Creeks, California.
       (6) Rio hondo channel, california.--Project for ecosystem 
     restoration, Rio Hondo Channel, San Gabriel River, 
     California.
       (7) Southern california, california.--Project for coastal 
     storm damage reduction, Southern California.
       (8) Shingle creek and kissimmee river, florida.--Project 
     for ecosystem restoration and water storage, Shingle Creek 
     and Kissimmee River, Osceola County, Florida.
       (9) St. john's river and lake jesup, florida.--Project for 
     ecosystem restoration, St. John's River and Lake Jesup, 
     Florida.
       (10) Waimea river, hawaii.--Project for flood risk 
     management, Waimea River, Kauai, Hawaii.
       (11) Chicago area waterways system, illinois.--Project for 
     ecosystem restoration, recreation, and other purposes, 
     Illinois River, Chicago River, Calumet River, Grand Calumet 
     River, Little Calumet River, and other waterways in the 
     vicinity of Chicago, Illinois.
       (12) Fox river, illinois.--Project for flood risk 
     management, Fox River, Illinois.
       (13) Lower missouri river, kansas.--Project for bank 
     stabilization and navigation, Lower Missouri River, Sioux 
     City, Kansas.
       (14) Tangipahoa parish, louisiana.--Project for flood risk 
     management, Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana.
       (15) Kent narrows and chester river, maryland.--Project for 
     navigation, Kent Narrows and Chester River, Queen Anne's 
     County, Maryland.
       (16) Boston, massachusetts.--Project for hurricane and 
     storm damage risk reduction, Boston, Massachusetts, pursuant 
     to the comprehensive study authorized under the Disaster 
     Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-2).
       (17) Lower st. croix river, minnesota.--Project for flood 
     risk management, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, Lower 
     St. Croix River, Minnesota.
       (18) Escatawpa river basin, mississippi.--Project for flood 
     risk management and ecosystem restoration, Escatawpa River, 
     Jackson County, Mississippi.
       (19) Long beach, bay st. louis and mississippi sound, 
     mississippi.--Project for hurricane and storm damage risk 
     reduction and flood risk management, Long Beach, Bay St. 
     Louis and Mississippi Sound, Mississippi.
       (20) Pascagoula river basin, mississippi.--Project for 
     comprehensive watershed study, Pascagoula, Mississippi.
       (21) Tallahoma and tallahala creeks, mississippi.--Project 
     for flood risk management, Leaf River, Jones County, 
     Mississippi.
       (22) Lower osage river basin, missouri.--Project for 
     ecosystem restoration, Lower Osage River Basin, Missouri.
       (23) Upper basin and stony brook (green brook sub-basin), 
     raritan river basin, new jersey.--Reevaluation of the Upper 
     Basin and Stony Brook portions of the project for flood 
     control, Green Brook Sub-basin, Raritan River Basin, New 
     Jersey, authorized by section 401 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4119), including the 
     evaluation of nonstructural measures to achieve the project 
     purpose.
       (24) Lake ontario shoreline, new york.--Project for coastal 
     storm resiliency, Lake Ontario shoreline, New York.
       (25) Wading river creek, new york.--Project for hurricane 
     and storm damage risk reduction, flood risk management, 
     navigation, and ecosystem restoration, Wading River Creek, 
     New York.
       (26) Reel point preserve, new york.--Project for navigation 
     and shoreline stabilization, Reel Point Preserve, New York.
       (27) Goldsmith inlet, new york.--Project for navigation, 
     Goldsmith Inlet, New York.
       (28) Tuscarawas river basin, ohio.--Project for 
     comprehensive watershed study, Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio.
       (29) Lower columbia river basin (turning basin), oregon and 
     washington.--Project to improve and add turning basins for 
     the project for navigation, Columbia River Channel, Oregon 
     and Washington, authorized by section 101(b)(13) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 280).
       (30) Williamsport, pennsylvania.--Project for flood risk 
     management and levee rehabilitation, greater Williamsport, 
     Pennsylvania.
       (31) City of charleston, south carolina.--Project for 
     tidal- and inland-related flood risk management, Charleston, 
     South Carolina.
       (32) Tennessee and cumberland river basins, tennessee.--
     Project to deter, impede, or restrict the dispersal of 
     aquatic nuisance species in the Tennessee and Cumberland 
     River Basins, Tennessee.
       (33) Sabine pass to galveston bay, texas.--Modification of 
     the project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, 
     Port Arthur and Orange County, Texas, authorized by section 
     203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1184), and 
     authorized as a separable element of the project for Sabine 
     Pass to Galveston Bay, authorized by item 3 of section 
     1401(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 
     Stat. 3838), to reduce the risk of flooding through the 
     construction of improvements to interior drainage.
       (34) Port of victoria, texas.--Project for flood risk 
     management, Port of Victoria, Texas.
       (35) Lower fox river basin, wisconsin.--Project for 
     comprehensive watershed study, Lower Fox River Basin, 
     Wisconsin.
       (36) Upper fox river and wolf river, wisconsin.--Project 
     for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Upper 
     Fox River and Wolf River, Wisconsin.
       (b) Special Rule.--The Secretary shall consider any study 
     carried out by the Secretary to formulate the modifications 
     to the project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, 
     Port Arthur and Orange County, Texas, identified in 
     subsection (a)(33) to be a continuation of the study carried 
     out for Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas, authorized by a 
     resolution of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
     of the Senate, approved June 23, 2004, and funded by title IV 
     of division B of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, under the 
     heading ``Corps of Engineers--Civil--Department of the Army--
     Construction'' (Public Law 115-123; 132 Stat. 76).

     SEC. 202. EXPEDITED COMPLETIONS.

       (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 navigation, St. George Harbor, Alaska.
       (2) Project for shoreline stabilization, Aunu`u Harbor, 
     American Samoa.
       (3) Project for shoreline stabilization, Tutuila Island, 
     American Samoa.
       (4) Project for flood risk management, Lower Santa Cruz 
     River, Arizona.
       (5) Project for flood control, water conservation, and 
     related purposes, Coyote Valley Dam, California.
       (6) Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem 
     restoration, Del Rosa Channel, city of San Bernardino, 
     California.
       (7) Project for flood risk management, Lower Cache Creek, 
     California.
       (8) Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem 
     restoration, Mission-Zanja Channel, cities of San Bernardino 
     and Redlands, California.
       (9) Project for shoreline protection, Oceanside, 
     California, authorized pursuant to section 414 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2636; 121 Stat. 
     1176).
       (10) Project for flood risk management, Prado Basin, 
     California.
       (11) Project to modify the project for navigation, San 
     Francisco Bay to Stockton, California.
       (12) Project to modify the Seven Oaks Dam, California, 
     portion of the project for flood control, Santa Ana River 
     Mainstem, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113; 101 
     Stat. 1329-111; 104 Stat. 4611; 110 Stat. 3713; 121 Stat. 
     1115), to include water conservation as an authorized 
     purpose.
       (13) Project to modify the project for navigation, Delaware 
     River Mainstem and Channel Deepening, Delaware, New Jersey, 
     and Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(6) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802; 113 Stat. 
     300; 114 Stat. 2602), to include the construction of a 
     turning basin located near the Packer Avenue Marine Terminal.
       (14) Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and 
     Southern Florida Project Canal 111 (C-111), South Dade 
     County, Florida.
       (15) Project for comprehensive hurricane and storm damage 
     risk reduction and shoreline erosion protection, Chicago, 
     Illinois, authorized by section 101(a)(12) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664; 113 Stat. 
     302).
       (16) Project for flood risk management, Wheaton, DuPage 
     County, Illinois.
       (17) Project for flood damage reduction, ecosystem 
     restoration, and recreation, Blue River Basin, Kansas City, 
     Kansas, carried out pursuant to the resolution of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives adopted on September 24, 2008 (docket 
     number 2803).
       (18) Project for flood control, Amite River and Tributaries 
     east of the Mississippi River, Louisiana.
       (19) Project for coastal storm risk management, Upper 
     Barataria Basin, Louisiana.
       (20) Project to replace the Bourne and Sagamore Bridges, 
     Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
       (21) Project to deepen the project for navigation, Gulfport 
     Harbor, Mississippi, authorized by section 202(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4094).
       (22) Project for flood risk management, Rahway River Basin, 
     New Jersey.
       (23) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, 
     Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Highlands, New Jersey.
       (24) Project for navigation, Shark River, New Jersey.
       (25) Project for flood risk management, Rondout Creek-
     Wallkill River Watershed, New York, carried out pursuant to 
     the resolution of the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives adopted on May 
     2, 2007 (docket number 2776).
       (26) Project for ecosystem restoration and hurricane and 
     storm damage risk reduction, Spring Creek South (Howard 
     Beach), Queens, New York.
       (27) Project to resolve increased silting and shoaling 
     adjacent to the Federal channel, Port of Bandon, Coquille 
     River, Oregon.
       (28) Project for flood control, 42nd Street Levee, 
     Springfield, Oregon, being carried out

[[Page H3937]]

     under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s).
       (29) Project for ecosystem restoration, Hood River at the 
     confluence with the Columbia River, Oregon.
       (30) Project for flood risk management, Rio Culebrinas, 
     Puerto Rico.
       (31) Project for flood risk management, Rio Grande de 
     Manati, Puerto Rico.
       (32) Project for flood risk management, Rio Guayanilla, 
     Puerto Rico.
       (33) Project for flood risk management, Dorchester County, 
     South Carolina.
       (34) Project for navigation, Georgetown Harbor, South 
     Carolina.
       (35) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, 
     Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
       (36) Project to modify the projects for navigation and 
     other purposes, Old Hickory Lock and Dam and the Cordell Hull 
     Dam and Reservoir, Cumberland River, Tennessee, authorized by 
     the Act of July 24, 1946 (chapter 595, 60 Stat. 636), to add 
     flood risk management as an authorized purpose.
       (37) Project for flood risk management, ecosystem 
     restoration, water supply, and related purposes, Lower Rio 
     Grande River, Cameron County, Texas, carried out pursuant to 
     the resolution of the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives adopted on May 
     21, 2003 (docket number 2710).
       (38) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction 
     and shoreline erosion protection, Bolongo Bay, St. Thomas, 
     United States Virgin Islands.
       (39) Project for flood risk management, Savan Gut Phase II, 
     St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.
       (40) Project for flood risk management, Turpentine Run, St. 
     Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.
       (41) Project for navigation, North Landing Bridge, Atlantic 
     Intracoastal Waterway, Virginia.
       (b) Post-Authorization Change Reports.--The Secretary shall 
     expedite completion of a post-authorization change report for 
     the following projects:
       (1) Project for ecosystem restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona.
       (2) Project for flood control, San Luis Rey River, 
     California.
       (3) Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and Southern 
     Florida Project Canal 111 (C-111), South Dade County, 
     Florida.
       (4) Project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive 
     Everglades Restoration Plan, Caloosahatchee River C-43, West 
     Basin Storage Reservoir, Florida.
       (5) Project for flood risk management, Des Moines Levee 
     System, including Birdland Park Levee, Des Moines and Raccoon 
     Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa.
       (c) Watershed and River Basin Assessments.--The Secretary 
     shall expedite the completion of an assessment under section 
     729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2267a), for the following:
       (1) Kansas River Basin, Kansas.
       (2) Merrimack River Basin, Massachusetts.
       (d) Disposition Studies.--The Secretary shall expedite the 
     completion of a disposition study, carried out under section 
     216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a), for 
     the following:
       (1) The disposition of the project for Salinas Reservoir 
     (Santa Margarita Lake), California.
       (2) The partial disposition of the Upper St. Anthony Falls 
     Lock facility and surrounding real property, in accordance 
     with the requirements of section 2010 of the Water Resources 
     Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1270; 132 Stat. 
     3812).

     SEC. 203. FEASIBILITY STUDY MODIFICATIONS.

       (a) San Francisco Bay, California.--Section 142 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2930) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, and along the ocean shoreline of San 
     Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Counties,'' after 
     ``Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers'';
       (2) by inserting ``and, with respect to the bay and ocean 
     shorelines of San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Counties, 
     the feasibility of and the Federal interest in providing 
     measures to adapt to rising sea levels'' after ``tidal and 
     fluvial flooding'';
       (3) by striking ``investigation'' and inserting in its 
     place ``investigations''; and
       (4) by inserting after ``San Francisco Bay region'' the 
     following: ``and, with respect to the bay and ocean 
     shorelines and streams running to the bay and ocean 
     shorelines of San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Counties, 
     the effects of proposed measures or improvements on the local 
     economy; habitat restoration, enhancement, or expansion 
     efforts or opportunities; public infrastructure protection 
     and improvement; stormwater runoff capacity and control 
     measures, including those that may mitigate flooding; erosion 
     of beaches and coasts; and any other measures or improvements 
     relevant to adapting to rising sea levels''.
       (b) Sacramento River, Southern Sutter County, California.--
     The study for flood control and allied purposes for the 
     Sacramento River Basin, authorized by section 209 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to conduct a study for flood risk 
     management, southern Sutter County between the Sacramento 
     River and Sutter Bypass, California.
       (c) Salton Sea, California.--In carrying out the program to 
     implement projects to restore the Salton Sea, California, 
     authorized by section 3032 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1113; 130 Stat. 1677), the Secretary 
     is authorized to carry out a study for the construction of a 
     perimeter lake, or a northern or southern subset thereof, for 
     the Salton Sea, California.
       (d) New York and New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries, New 
     York and New Jersey.--The study for flood and storm damage 
     reduction for the New York and New Jersey Harbor and 
     Tributaries project, authorized by the Act of June 15, 1955 
     (chapter 140, 69 Stat. 132), and being carried out pursuant 
     to the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 
     113-2), is modified to require the Secretary to--
       (1) evaluate and address the impacts of low-frequency 
     precipitation and sea-level rise on the study area;
       (2) consult with affected communities; and
       (3) ensure the study is carried out in accordance with 
     section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
     Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c).

     SEC. 204. SELMA, ALABAMA.

       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 that--
       (1) provides an update on the study for flood risk 
     management and riverbank stabilization, Selma, Alabama, 
     authorized by resolutions of the Committees on Public Works 
     and Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives on 
     June 7, 1961, and April 28, 1936, respectively, the 
     completion of which the Secretary was required to expedite by 
     section 1203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 
     (132 Stat. 3803); and
       (2) identifies project alternatives necessary to--
       (A) assure the preservation of cultural and historic values 
     associated with national historic landmarks within the study 
     area; and
       (B) provide flood risk management for economically 
     disadvantaged communities within the study area.

     SEC. 205. COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE SACRAMENTO RIVER, YOLO 
                   BYPASS, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Comprehensive Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     comprehensive study of the Sacramento River in the vicinity 
     of the Yolo Bypass System, California, to identify actions to 
     be undertaken by the Secretary for the comprehensive 
     management of the Yolo Bypass System for the purposes of 
     flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, water supply, 
     hydropower, and recreation.
       (b) Consultation and Use of Existing Data.--
       (1) Consultation.--In conducting the comprehensive study 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with the 
     Governor of the State of California, applicable Federal, 
     State, and local agencies, non-Federal interests, the Yolo 
     Bypass and Cache Slough Partnership, and other stakeholders.
       (2) Use of existing data and prior studies.--To the maximum 
     extent practicable and where appropriate, the Secretary may--
       (A) make use of existing data provided to the Secretary by 
     the entities identified in paragraph (1); and
       (B) incorporate--
       (i) relevant information from prior studies and projects 
     carried out by the Secretary within the study area; and
       (ii) the latest technical data and scientific approaches to 
     changing hydrologic and climatic conditions.
       (c) Recommendations.--
       (1) In general.--In conducting the comprehensive study 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary may develop a 
     recommendation to Congress for--
       (A) the construction of a water resources development 
     project;
       (B) the structural or operational modification of an 
     existing water resources development project;
       (C) additional monitoring of, or adaptive management 
     measures to carry out with respect to, existing water 
     resources development projects, to respond to changing 
     hydrologic and climatic conditions; or
       (D) geographic areas within the Yolo Bypass System for 
     additional study by the Secretary.
       (2) Additional considerations.--Any feasibility study 
     carried out pursuant to a recommendation under paragraph 
     (1)(D) shall be considered to be a continuation of the 
     comprehensive study authorized under subsection (a).
       (d) Completion of Study; Report to Congress.--Not later 
     than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     report detailing--
       (1) the results of the comprehensive study conducted under 
     subsection (a), including any recommendations developed under 
     subsection (c);
       (2) any additional, site-specific areas within the Yolo 
     Bypass System where additional study for flood risk 
     management or ecosystem restoration projects is recommended 
     by the Secretary; and
       (3) any interim actions relating to existing water 
     resources development projects undertaken by the Secretary 
     during the study period.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Yolo bypass system.--The term ``Yolo Bypass System'' 
     means the system of weirs,

[[Page H3938]]

     levees, bypass structures, and other water resources 
     development projects in California's Sacramento River Valley, 
     extending from the Fremont Weir near Woodland, California, to 
     the Sacramento River near Rio Vista, California, authorized 
     pursuant to section 2 of the Act of March 1, 1917 (chapter 
     144; 39 Stat. 949).
       (2) Yolo bypass and cache clough partnership.--The term 
     ``Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Partnership'' means the group 
     of parties to the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Memorandum of 
     Understanding, effective May 2016, regarding collaboration 
     and cooperation in the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough region.

     SEC. 206. LAKE OKEECHOBEE REGULATION SCHEDULE, FLORIDA.

       (a) In General.--In carrying out the review of the Lake 
     Okeechobee regulation schedule pursuant to section 1106 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3773), 
     the Secretary shall--
       (1) evaluate the implications of prohibiting releases from 
     Lake Okeechobee through the S-308 and S-80 lock and dam 
     structures on the operation of the lake in accordance with 
     authorized purposes and seek to minimize unnecessary releases 
     to coastal estuaries; and
       (2) to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate with the 
     ongoing efforts of Federal and State agencies responsible for 
     monitoring, forecasting, and notification of cyanobacteria 
     levels in Lake Okeechobee.
       (b) Monthly Report.--Each month, the Secretary shall make 
     public a report, which may be based on the Water Management 
     Daily Operational Reports, disclosing the volumes of water 
     deliveries to or discharges from Lake Okeechobee & Vicinity, 
     Water Conservation Area I, Water Conservation Area II, Water 
     Conservation Area III, East Coast Canals, and the South Dade 
     Conveyance. Such report shall be aggregated and reported in a 
     format designed for the general public, using maps or other 
     widely understood communication tools.
       (c) Effect.--In carrying out the evaluation under 
     subsection (a)(1), nothing shall be construed to authorize 
     any new purpose for the management of Lake Okeechobee or 
     authorize the Secretary to affect any existing authorized 
     purpose, including flood protection and management of Lake 
     Okeechobee to provide water supply for all authorized users.

     SEC. 207. GREAT LAKES COASTAL RESILIENCY STUDY.

       (a) In General.--In carrying out the comprehensive 
     assessment of water resources needs for the Great Lakes 
     System under section 729 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a), as required by section 1219 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3811), 
     the Secretary shall--
       (1) taking into account recent high lake levels within the 
     Great Lakes, assess and make recommendations to Congress on--
       (A) coastal storm and flood risk management measures, 
     including measures that use natural features and nature-based 
     features, as those terms are defined in section 1184 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a);
       (B) operation and maintenance of the Great Lakes Navigation 
     System, as such term is defined in section 210 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238);
       (C) ecosystem protection and restoration;
       (D) the prevention and control of invasive species and the 
     effects of invasive species; and
       (E) recreation associated with water resources development 
     projects;
       (2) prioritize actions necessary to protect critical public 
     infrastructure, communities, and critical natural or cultural 
     resources; and
       (3) to the maximum extent practicable and where 
     appropriate, utilize existing data provided to the Secretary 
     by Federal and State agencies, Indian Tribes, and other 
     stakeholders, including data obtained through other Federal 
     programs.
       (b) Recommendations; Additional Study.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out the comprehensive 
     assessment described in subsection (a), the Secretary may 
     make a recommendation to Congress for--
       (A) the construction of a water resources development 
     project;
       (B) the structural or operational modification of an 
     existing water resources development project;
       (C) such additional monitoring of, or adaptive management 
     measures to carry out with respect to, existing water 
     resources development projects, to respond to changing 
     hydrologic and climatic conditions; or
       (D) geographic areas within the Great Lakes System for 
     additional study by the Secretary.
       (2) Additional considerations.--Any feasibility study 
     carried out pursuant to a recommendation under paragraph 
     (1)(D) shall be considered to be a continuation of the 
     comprehensive assessment described in subsection (a).
       (c) Exemption From Maximum Study Cost and Duration 
     Limitations.--Section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c) shall not apply to 
     any study recommended under subsection (b)(1)(D).

     SEC. 208. RATHBUN LAKE, CHARITON RIVER, IOWA.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate a report that evaluates--
       (1) the existing allocations of storage space for Rathbun 
     Lake, authorized pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1954 
     (68 Stat. 1262; 121 Stat. 1124), including the existing 
     allocation for municipal water supply;
       (2) the feasibility of expanding the existing allocation of 
     storage for municipal water supply; and
       (3) the affordability of future municipal water supply 
     allocations from Rathbun Lake, for residential users of such 
     future allocations, at projected future costs.

     SEC. 209. REPORT ON THE STATUS OF RESTORATION IN THE 
                   LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and 
     Restoration Task Force established by section 7004 of Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1272) shall 
     submit to Congress a report that summarizes the activities 
     and recommendations of the task force, including--
       (1) policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, and 
     activities undertaken for addressing conservation, 
     protection, restoration, and maintenance of the coastal 
     Louisiana ecosystem; and
       (2) financial participation by each agency represented on 
     the Task Force in conserving, protecting, restoring, and 
     maintaining the coastal Louisiana ecosystem.

     SEC. 210. LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.

       (a) Comprehensive Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     comprehensive study of the Lower Mississippi River basin, 
     from Cape Girardeau, Missouri, to the Gulf of Mexico, to 
     identify actions to be undertaken by the Secretary for the 
     comprehensive management of the basin for the purposes of 
     flood risk management, navigation, ecosystem restoration, 
     water supply, hydropower, and recreation.
       (2) Focus areas.--In conducting the comprehensive study 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall investigate 
     projects, including--
       (A) projects proposed in the comprehensive coastal 
     protection master plan entitled ``Louisiana Comprehensive 
     Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast'' prepared by the State 
     of Louisiana and accepted by the Louisiana Coastal Protection 
     and Restoration Authority (including any subsequent 
     amendments or revisions), including--
       (i) Ama sediment diversion;
       (ii) Union freshwater diversion;
       (iii) increase Atchafalaya flow to Terrebonne; and
       (iv) Manchac Landbridge diversion; and
       (B) natural features and nature-based features, including 
     levee setbacks and instream and floodplain restoration.
       (b) Consultation and Use of Existing Data.--In conducting 
     the comprehensive study under subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall consult with applicable Federal, State, and local 
     agencies, Indian Tribes, non-Federal interests, and other 
     stakeholders, and, to the maximum extent practicable and 
     where appropriate, make use of existing data provided to the 
     Secretary by such parties.
       (c) Recommendations.--
       (1) In general.--In conducting the comprehensive study 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary may develop a 
     recommendation to Congress for--
       (A) the construction of a water resources development 
     project;
       (B) the structural or operational modification of an 
     existing water resources development project;
       (C) such additional monitoring of, or adaptive management 
     measures to carry out with respect to, existing water 
     resources development projects, to respond to changing 
     conditions; or
       (D) geographic areas within the Lower Mississippi River 
     basin for additional study by the Secretary.
       (2) Additional considerations.--Any feasibility study 
     carried out pursuant to a recommendation under this 
     subsection shall be considered to be a continuation of the 
     comprehensive study required under subsection (a).
       (d) Completion of Study; Report to Congress.--Not later 
     than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     report detailing--
       (1) the results of the comprehensive study required by this 
     section, including any recommendations developed under 
     subsection (c); and
       (2) any interim actions relating to existing water 
     resources development projects undertaken by the Secretary 
     during the study period.

     SEC. 211. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

       (a) Assessment.--The Secretary shall conduct an assessment 
     of the water resources needs of the Upper Mississippi River 
     under section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a).
       (b) Requirements.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
     assessment under subsection (a) in accordance with the 
     requirements in section 1206(b) of Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1686).

[[Page H3939]]

  


     SEC. 212. LOWER MISSOURI BASIN FLOOD RISK AND RESILIENCY 
                   STUDY, IOWA, KANSAS, NEBRASKA, AND MISSOURI.

       (a) Additional Studies.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), upon 
     the request of the non-Federal interest for the Lower 
     Missouri Basin study, the Secretary shall expand the scope of 
     such study to investigate and provide recommendations 
     relating to--
       (A) modifications to projects in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, 
     and Missouri authorized under the Pick-Sloan Missouri River 
     Basin Program (authorized by section 9(b) of the Flood 
     Control Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 891)) 
     and the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation 
     project (authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 
     (chapter 19, 59 Stat. 19)), including modifications to the 
     authorized purposes of such projects to further flood risk 
     management and resiliency; and
       (B) modifications to non-Federal, publicly owned levees in 
     the Lower Missouri River Basin.
       (2) Exception.--If the Secretary determines that expanding 
     the scope of the Lower Missouri Basin study as provided in 
     paragraph (1) is not practicable, and the non-Federal 
     interest for such study concurs in such determination, the 
     Secretary shall carry out such additional studies as are 
     necessary to investigate the modifications described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Continuation of lower missouri basin study.--The 
     following studies shall be considered a continuation of the 
     Lower Missouri Basin study:
       (A) Any additional study carried out under paragraph (2).
       (B) Any study recommended to be carried out in a report 
     that the Chief of Engineers prepares for the Lower Missouri 
     Basin study.
       (C) Any study recommended to be carried out in a report 
     that the Chief of Engineers prepares for an additional study 
     carried out under paragraph (2).
       (D) Any study spun off from the Lower Missouri Basin study 
     before the completion of such study.
       (E) Any study spun off from an additional study carried out 
     under paragraph (2) before the completion of such additional 
     study.
       (4) Reliance on existing information.--In carrying out any 
     study described in or authorized by this section, the 
     Secretary, to the extent practicable, shall rely on existing 
     data and analysis, including data and analysis prepared under 
     section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 1962d-16).
       (5) Consideration; consultation.--In developing 
     recommendations under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
       (A) consider the use of--
       (i) structural and nonstructural measures, including the 
     setting back of levees and removing structures from areas of 
     recurring flood vulnerability, where advantageous, to reduce 
     flood risk and damages in the Lower Missouri River Basin; and
       (ii) where such features are locally acceptable, natural 
     features or nature-based features (as such terms are defined 
     in section 1184 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a); and
       (B) consult with applicable Federal and State agencies, 
     Indian Tribes, and other stakeholders within the Lower 
     Missouri River Basin and solicit public comment on such 
     recommendations.
       (6) Exemption from maximum study cost and duration 
     limitations.--Section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c) shall not apply to 
     the Lower Missouri Basin study or any study described in 
     paragraph (3).
       (7) Preconstruction, engineering, and design.--Upon 
     completion of a study authorized by this section, if the 
     Secretary determines that a recommended project, or 
     modification to a project described in paragraph (1), is 
     justified, the Secretary may proceed directly to 
     preconstruction planning, engineering, and design of the 
     project or modification.
       (8) Technical assistance.--
       (A) In general.--For the provision of technical assistance 
     to support small communities and economically disadvantaged 
     communities in the planning and design of flood risk 
     management and flood risk resiliency projects in the Lower 
     Missouri River Basin, for each of fiscal years 2021 through 
     2026, there are authorized to be appropriated--
       (i) $2,000,000 to carry out section 206 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a), in addition to amounts 
     otherwise authorized to carry out such section; and
       (ii) $2,000,000 to carry out section 22(a)(2) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-16), in 
     addition to amounts otherwise authorized to carry out such 
     section.
       (B) Conditions.--
       (i) Limitations not applicable.--The limitations on the use 
     of funds in section 206(d) of the Flood Control Act of 1960 
     and section 22(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1974 shall not apply to the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated by subparagraph (A).
       (ii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     restricts the authority of the Secretary to use any funds 
     otherwise appropriated to carry out section 206 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1960 or section 22(a)(2) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1974 to provide technical 
     assistance described in subparagraph (A).
       (9) Completion of study; report to congress.--Not later 
     than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     report detailing--
       (A) the results of the study authorized by this section;
       (B) any additional, site-specific areas within the Lower 
     Missouri River Basin for which additional study for flood 
     risk management projects is recommended by the Secretary; and
       (C) any interim actions relating to existing water 
     resources development projects undertaken by the Secretary 
     during the study period.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Lower missouri basin study.--The term ``Lower Missouri 
     Basin study'' means the Lower Missouri Basin Flood Risk and 
     Resiliency Study, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri, 
     authorized pursuant to section 216 of the Flood Control Act 
     of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a).
       (2) Small community.--The term ``small community'' means a 
     local government that serves a population of less than 
     15,000.

     SEC. 213. PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER AND RYE 
                   HARBOR, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a written status 
     update regarding--
       (1) efforts to address the impacts of shoaling affecting 
     the project for navigation, Rye Harbor, New Hampshire, 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 
     (74 Stat. 480); and
       (2) the project for navigation, Portsmouth Harbor and 
     Piscataqua River, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173), as required to be 
     expedited under section 1317 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-270).

     SEC. 214. COUGAR AND DETROIT DAMS, WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN, 
                   OREGON.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available, a 
     report providing an initial analysis of deauthorizing 
     hydropower as a project purpose at the Cougar and Detroit 
     Dams project.
       (b) Contents.--The Secretary shall include in the report 
     submitted under subsection (a)--
       (1) a description of the potential effects of deauthorizing 
     hydropower as a project purpose at the Cougar and Detroit 
     Dams project on--
       (A) the operation of the project, including with respect to 
     the other authorized purposes of the project;
       (B) compliance of the project with the Endangered Species 
     Act;
       (C) costs that would be attributed to other authorized 
     purposes of the project, including costs relating to 
     compliance with such Act; and
       (D) other ongoing studies in the Willamette River Basin; 
     and
       (2) identification of any further research needed.
       (c) Project Defined.--In this section, the terms ``Cougar 
     and Detroit Dams project'' and ``project'' mean the Cougar 
     Dam and Reservoir project and Detroit Dam and Reservoir 
     project, Willamette River Basin, Oregon, authorized by 
     section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 179).

     SEC. 215. PORT ORFORD, OREGON.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall, at Federal expense, 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 summary report on the research 
     completed and data gathered by the date of enactment of this 
     Act with regards to the configuration of a breakwater for the 
     project for navigation, Port Orford, Oregon, authorized by 
     section 117 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 
     1822; 106 Stat. 4809), for the purposes of addressing 
     shoaling issues to minimize long-term maintenance costs.

     SEC. 216. WILSON CREEK AND SLOAN CREEK, FAIRVIEW, TEXAS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     section, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a written 
     status update regarding efforts to address flooding along 
     Wilson Creek and Sloan Creek in the City of Fairview, Texas.

     SEC. 217. GAO STUDY ON MITIGATION FOR WATER RESOURCES 
                   DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

       Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall--
       (1) conduct a study on the mitigation of the impact of 
     water resources development projects, including the impact on 
     fish and wildlife, consistent with the requirements of 
     section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2283), section 307(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2317(a)), and section 
     2036(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 
     U.S.C. 2283a), including--
       (A) an evaluation of guidance or instructions issued, and 
     other measures taken, by the Secretary to ensure successful 
     mitigation of such impacts;

[[Page H3940]]

       (B) a review of the methods of mitigation, including the 
     use of in-lieu fees, mitigation banking, and permittee-
     responsible mitigation, and their long-term effectiveness of 
     restoring or mitigating ecosystem services impacted by such 
     projects;
       (C) a review of how the use of the different mitigation 
     methods for such projects varies across Corps of Engineers 
     districts;
       (D) an assessment of the backlog of mitigation projects, 
     including the number of mitigation projects pending 
     completion to address such impacts resulting from constructed 
     water resources development projects;
       (E) an evaluation of how the Secretary tracks compliance 
     with the mitigation requirements across Corps of Engineers 
     districts;
       (F) a review of how the mitigation requirements for water 
     resources development projects contributes to the resilience 
     of water resources in the United States;
       (G) an assessment of whether mitigation is being done prior 
     to or contemporaneously with the construction of projects, as 
     required by section 906 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283);
       (H) an evaluation of compliance with section 906(d) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) 
     for the development of specific mitigation plans for 
     projects, whether such plans were successful in mitigating 
     the designated impacts of the projects, and, in instances 
     where such plans were not successful, what actions the 
     Secretary is taking to modify the plans such that they will 
     be successful; and
       (I) an assessment of how the Secretary might take advantage 
     of natural infrastructure in mitigation planning to reduce 
     flood risks and flood recovery costs for some communities; 
     and
       (2) submit to Congress a report that--
       (A) describes the results of the study conducted under 
     paragraph (1);
       (B) includes recommendations to ensure compliance with and 
     successful implementation of mitigation requirements for 
     water resources development projects; and
       (C) includes recommendations to ensure existing programs 
     and authorities include the use, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, of natural infrastructure.

     SEC. 218. GAO STUDY ON APPLICATION OF HARBOR MAINTENANCE 
                   TRUST FUND EXPENDITURES.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study of the operation and maintenance 
     needs of federally authorized harbor and inland harbor 
     projects, including--
       (1) an inventory of all federally authorized harbor and 
     inland harbor projects;
       (2) an assessment of current uses of such projects (and, to 
     the extent practicable, the national, regional, and local 
     benefits of such uses), including the uses listed in section 
     210(d)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986;
       (3) an assessment of the annual operation and maintenance 
     needs associated with harbors and inland harbors referred to 
     in subsection (a)(2) of section 210 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238), including a 
     breakdown of such needs for each of the following types of 
     projects--
       (A) emerging harbor projects (as defined in such section);
       (B) moderate-use harbor projects (as defined in such 
     section on the day before the date of enactment of this Act);
       (C) high-use harbor projects (as defined in such section on 
     the day before the date of enactment of this Act); and
       (D) projects assigned to harbors and inland harbors within 
     the Great Lakes Navigation System (as defined in such 
     section);
       (4) an assessment of any deferred operation and maintenance 
     needs for such projects;
       (5) an assessment of the annual funding level trends for 
     moderate-use harbor projects (as defined in section 210 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 on the day before 
     the date of enactment of this Act) after the date of 
     enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2014 
     (Public Law 113-121), excluding funds awarded to donor ports, 
     medium-sized donor ports, and energy transfer ports (as such 
     terms are defined in section 2106 of the Water Resources 
     Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201));
       (6) an assessment of projected needs associated with donor 
     ports, medium-sized donor ports, and energy transfer ports 
     (as such terms are defined in section 2106 of the Water 
     Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 
     2201)); and
       (7) an itemization of expenditures provided to donor ports, 
     medium-sized donor ports, and energy transfer ports under 
     section 2106 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
     Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201).
       (b) Report to Congress.--Upon completion of the report 
     under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall submit 
     such report to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.

     SEC. 219. GAO STUDY ON ADMINISTRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BANKS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study and submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report that analyzes the 
     administration of section 309 of the Coastal Wetlands 
     Planning, Protection and Restoration Act to establish an 
     environmental bank (as defined in such section), such that 
     the Secretary--
       (1) achieves the objectives of the report of the Chief of 
     Engineers for ecosystem restoration in the Louisiana Coastal 
     Area or the objectives of the comprehensive coastal 
     protection master plan entitled ``Louisiana Comprehensive 
     Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast'' prepared by the State 
     of Louisiana and accepted by the Louisiana Coastal Protection 
     and Restoration Authority (including any subsequent 
     amendments or revisions);
       (2) promotes ridge restoration, barrier island restoration, 
     marsh creation, nonstructural risk management, or any other 
     projects authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be 
     authorized, funded, or undertaken, pursuant to such 
     comprehensive coastal protection master plan;
       (3) allows for proactive investment in projects by a public 
     or private entity seeking to generate credits to satisfy 
     responsibilities associated with environmental compliance;
       (4) allows for leveraging additional State, Parish, or 
     Federal funds; and
       (5) recommends methods for awarding additional credit for 
     high-priority projects listed in the report and plan 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (b) Consultation With Stakeholders.--In carrying out 
     subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall consult with the Secretary, the Louisiana Coastal 
     Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, the 
     Governor of Louisiana (or an appointee), and other 
     stakeholders, to the extent practicable.

     SEC. 220. STUDY ON CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONCESSIONAIRE 
                   AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct, and submit to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate a report on the results of, a study on 
     commercial concessionaires at Corps of Engineers recreational 
     facilities.
       (b) Requirements.--The study under subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) an analysis of Corps of Engineers policies as they 
     relate to the pricing of items sold by commercial 
     concessionaires at Corps of Engineers recreational 
     facilities, including commoditized goods such as fuel and 
     food items;
       (2) an assessment of the impact of gross revenue fees on--
       (A) the sales of items described in paragraph (1);
       (B) the total revenues collected by commercial 
     concessionaires at Corps of Engineers recreational 
     facilities; and
       (C) the amounts of the moneys paid by such concessionaires 
     to the United States--
       (i) amounts equivalent to which are appropriated to the 
     Corps of Engineers for operation and maintenance of 
     recreational facilities; or
       (ii) that are distributed to States and counties under 
     section 7 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701c-3);
       (3) an assessment of the potential impact of using a fixed 
     revenue fee on the sales, revenues, and amounts described in 
     paragraph (2);
       (4) an analysis of Corps of Engineers policies related to 
     the length of commercial concessionaire contracts;
       (5) an assessment of the impacts of changing the length of 
     commercial concessionaire contracts to a minimum of 25 years, 
     including assessment of--
       (A) the potential effects on monetary investment in Corps 
     of Engineers properties by commercial concessionaires, 
     including whether establishing such a minimum contract length 
     would lead to increased investment; and
       (B) whether establishing such a minimum contract length 
     would reduce competition, or result in commercial 
     concessionaires providing less value to the public or to 
     water resources development projects; and
       (6) an assessment of whether changes in the concessionaire 
     fee structure or the minimum length of a commercial 
     concessionaire contract is in the public interest.

     SEC. 221. STUDY ON WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION AT 
                   WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--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 the Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report that analyzes the 
     benefits and consequences of including municipal water supply 
     and water conservation as a primary mission of the Corps of 
     Engineers in carrying out water resources development 
     projects.
       (b) Inclusion.--The Secretary shall include in the report 
     submitted under subsection (a)--
       (1) a description of existing water resources development 
     projects with municipal water supply or water conservation as 
     authorized purposes, and the extent to which such projects 
     are utilized for such purposes;
       (2) a description of existing water resources development 
     projects with respect to which--
       (A) municipal water supply or water conservation could be 
     added as a project purpose, including those with respect to 
     which a

[[Page H3941]]

     non-Federal interest has expressed an interest in adding 
     municipal water supply or water conservation as a project 
     purpose; and
       (B) such a purpose could be accommodated while maintaining 
     existing authorized purposes;
       (3) a description of ongoing water resources development 
     project studies the authorizations for which include 
     authorization for the Secretary to study the feasibility of 
     carrying out the project with a purpose of municipal water 
     supply or water conservation;
       (4) an analysis of how adding municipal water supply and 
     water conservation as a primary mission of the Corps of 
     Engineers would affect the ability of the Secretary to carry 
     out future water resources development projects; and
       (5) any recommendations of the Secretary relating to 
     including municipal water supply and water conservation as a 
     primary mission of the Corps of Engineers.

     SEC. 222. PFAS REVIEW AND INVENTORY AT CORPS FACILITIES.

       (a) Inventory of PFAS at Corps Facilities.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this section, and annually thereafter the 
     Secretary shall complete an inventory of Corps of Engineers 
     civil works facilities that are or may be contaminated, or 
     could become contaminated, by PFAS.
       (2) Contents of inventory.--In carrying out this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall review and identify--
       (A) all facilities owned or operated by the Corps of 
     Engineers, for which there is a civil works function, that 
     are or may be contaminated, or could become contaminated, by 
     PFAS;
       (B) the nature and extent of any such contamination or 
     potential for contamination, including any potential pathways 
     for human exposure to PFAS;
       (C) response measures taken to monitor, control, remove, or 
     remediate PFAS, or otherwise reduce the risk of human 
     exposure to PFAS;
       (D) for facilities identified under subparagraph (A), the 
     extent to which such facilities (or any such contamination or 
     potential for contamination at such facilities) are related 
     to the civil works functions of the Corps of Engineers;
       (E) the extent to which the Secretary, or other entities, 
     may have responsibility for such contamination or potential 
     for contamination; and
       (F) for facilities identified under subparagraph (A), the 
     costs to remediate and reduce the risk of human exposure to 
     PFAS.
       (3) Coordination with other federal agencies.--To the 
     maximum extent practicable, the actions taken under this 
     subsection shall supplement and support work undertaken by 
     other Federal agencies, including actions taken pursuant to 
     the plan published by the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, titled ``EPA's Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl 
     Substances (PFAS) Action Plan'' and dated February 2019.
       (4) Report to congress.--Upon completion of the inventory 
     under paragraph (1), and annually thereafter concurrent with 
     the President's annual budget request to Congress, the 
     Secretary shall submit the inventory to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate.
       (b) PFAS Technology Research.--
       (1) Research support.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Hazardous Waste Research Center located at the Engineer 
     Research and Development Center, shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, support the efforts of other Federal agencies in 
     the development of innovative technologies and methodologies 
     for the detection, treatment, and cleanup of PFAS associated 
     with Federal facilities, including groundwater associated 
     with such facilities.
       (2) Duplication of efforts.--Nothing in this subsection is 
     intended to duplicate the activities undertaken by other 
     Federal agencies as identified in subsection (a)(3).
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``PFAS'' means a 
     perfluoroalkyl substance or polyfluoroalkyl substance with at 
     least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.

     SEC. 223. REPORT ON RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.

       No 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 that contains--
       (1) an inventory of all recreational infrastructure and 
     facilities associated with water resources development 
     projects;
       (2) an assessment of the annual operation and maintenance 
     needs associated with such infrastructure and facilities;
       (3) an assessment of deferred operation and maintenance 
     needs for such infrastructure and facilities to operate 
     safely at full capacity; and
       (4) an assessment of the economic benefits of recreation to 
     local and regional economies and benefits of sustaining and 
     improving public access at recreational infrastructure and 
     facilities.

             TITLE III--DEAUTHORIZATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS

     SEC. 301. DEAUTHORIZATION OF INACTIVE PROJECTS.

       (a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       (1) to identify 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) Proposed Deauthorization List.--
       (1) Preliminary list of projects.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a preliminary 
     list of each water resources development project, or 
     separable element of a project, authorized for construction 
     before 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 10 
     preceding fiscal years.
       (B) Use of comprehensive construction backlog and operation 
     and maintenance report.--The Secretary may develop the 
     preliminary list from the comprehensive construction backlog 
     and operation and maintenance reports developed pursuant to 
     section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a).
       (2) Preparation of proposed deauthorization list.--
       (A) Deauthorization amount.--The Secretary shall prepare a 
     proposed list of projects for deauthorization comprised of a 
     subset of projects and separable elements identified on the 
     preliminary list developed under paragraph (1) that have, in 
     the aggregate, an estimated Federal cost to complete that is 
     at least $10,000,000,000.
       (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.
       (C) Inclusion of deauthorization of antiquated projects.--
     The Secretary shall reduce the amount identified for 
     deauthorization under paragraph (2)(A) by an amount 
     equivalent to the estimated current value of each project, or 
     separable element of a project, that is deauthorized by 
     subsection (f).
       (3) Sequencing of projects.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall identify projects and 
     separable elements for inclusion on the proposed list of 
     projects for deauthorization under paragraph (2) according to 
     the order in which the projects and separable elements were 
     authorized, beginning with the earliest authorized projects 
     and separable elements and ending with the latest project or 
     separable element necessary to meet the aggregate amount 
     under paragraph (2)(A).
       (B) Factors to consider.--The Secretary may identify 
     projects and separable elements in an order other than that 
     established by subparagraph (A) if the Secretary determines, 
     on a case-by-case basis, that a project or separable element 
     is critical for interests of the United States, based on the 
     possible impact of the project or separable element on public 
     health and safety, the national economy, or the environment.
       (4) Public comment and consultation.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall solicit comments from 
     the public and the Governors of each applicable State on the 
     proposed deauthorization list prepared under paragraph 
     (2)(A).
       (B) Comment period.--The public comment period shall be 90 
     days.
       (5) Preparation of final deauthorization list.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall prepare a final 
     deauthorization list by--
       (i) considering any comments received under paragraph (4); 
     and
       (ii) revising the proposed deauthorization list prepared 
     under paragraph (2)(A) as the Secretary determines necessary 
     to respond to such comments.
       (B) Appendix.--The Secretary shall include as part of the 
     final deauthorization list an appendix that--
       (i) identifies each project or separable element on the 
     proposed deauthorization list that is not included on the 
     final deauthorization list; and
       (ii) describes the reasons why the project or separable 
     element is not included on the final deauthorization list.
       (c) Submission of Final Deauthorization List to Congress 
     for Congressional Review; Publication.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the close of the comment period under subsection (b)(4), the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) submit the final deauthorization list and appendix 
     prepared under subsection (b)(5) to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate; and

[[Page H3942]]

       (B) publish the final deauthorization list and appendix in 
     the Federal Register.
       (2) Exclusions.--The Secretary shall not include in the 
     final deauthorization list submitted under paragraph (1) any 
     project or separable element with respect to which Federal 
     funds for planning, design, or construction are obligated 
     after the development of the preliminary list under 
     subsection (b)(1)(A) but prior to the submission of the final 
     deauthorization list under paragraph (1)(A) of this 
     subsection.
       (d) Deauthorization; Congressional Review.--
       (1) In general.--After the expiration of the 2-year period 
     beginning on the date of publication of the final 
     deauthorization list and appendix under subsection (c)(1)(B), 
     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 2-year 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 (b)(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 Rules.--
       (1) Post-authorization studies.--A project or separable 
     element of a project may not be identified on the proposed 
     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 10 preceding fiscal years.
       (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 such modification.
       (f) Deauthorization of Antiquated Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Any water resources development project, 
     or separable element of a project, authorized for 
     construction prior to November 17, 1986, for which 
     construction has not been initiated prior to the date of 
     enactment of this Act, or for which funds have not been 
     obligated for construction in the 10-year period prior to the 
     date of enactment of this Act, is hereby deauthorized.
       (2) Identification.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report that identifies--
       (A) the name of each project, or separable element of a 
     project, deauthorized by paragraph (1); and
       (B) the estimated current value of each such project or 
     separable element of a project.
       (g) Economic and Environmental Review of Inactive Water 
     Resources Development Projects.--The Secretary or the non-
     Federal interest may not carry out any authorized water 
     resources development project, or separable element of such 
     project, for which construction has not been initiated in the 
     20-year period following the date of the authorization of 
     such project or separable element, until--
       (1) the Secretary provides to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate a post-authorization change report that 
     updates the economic and environmental analysis of the 
     project or separable element; and
       (2) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment 
     and Public Works of the Senate take appropriate action to 
     address any modifications to the economic and environmental 
     analysis for the project or separable element of the project 
     contained in the post-authorization change report.
       (h) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Post-authorization change report.--The term ``post-
     authorization change report'' has the meaning given such term 
     in section 1132(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2016 (33 U.S.C. 2282e).
       (2) Post-authorization study.--The term ``post-
     authorization study'' means--
       (A) a feasibility report developed under section 905 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282);
       (B) a feasibility study, as defined in section 105(d) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2215(d)); or
       (C) 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.
       (3) Water resources development project.--The term ``water 
     resources development project'' includes an environmental 
     infrastructure assistance project or program of the Corps of 
     Engineers.

     SEC. 302. ABANDONED AND INACTIVE NONCOAL MINE RESTORATION.

       Section 560(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (33 U.S.C. 2336(f)) is amended by striking 
     ``$20,000,000'' and inserting ``$30,000,000''.

     SEC. 303. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       Section 203(b)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269) is amended by striking ``$12,500,000'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``$15,000,000''.

     SEC. 304. LAKES PROGRAM.

       Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (Public Law 99-662, 100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 
     Stat. 295; 121 Stat. 1076) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (27), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (28), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(29) Ellis Pond and Guild Pond, Norwood, Massachusetts; 
     and
       ``(30) Memorial Pond, Walpole, Massachusetts.''.

     SEC. 305. WATERCRAFT INSPECTION STATIONS.

       Section 104(d)(1)(A) of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 
     (33 U.S.C. 610(d)(1)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (2) in clause (iii), by striking ``Arizona River Basins.'' 
     and inserting ``Arkansas River Basins; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) to protect the Russian River Basin, California.''.

     SEC. 306. 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 ``$40,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$60,000,000''; and
       (2) in subsection (f), by striking ``$40,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$60,000,000''.

     SEC. 307. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND 
                   PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 510 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-303, 110 Stat. 3759; 
     121 Stat. 1202; 128 Stat. 1317) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i) and 
     inserting after subsection (g) the following:
       ``(h) Project Cap.--The total cost of a project carried out 
     under this section may not exceed $15,000,000.''; and
       (2) in subsection (i) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``$40,000,000'' and inserting ``$60,000,000''.
       (b) Outreach and Training.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     public outreach and workshops for non-Federal interests to 
     provide information on the Chesapeake Bay environmental 
     restoration and protection program established under section 
     510 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, including 
     how to participate in the program.

     SEC. 308. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL 
                   MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

       Section 1103(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``$22,750,000'' and 
     inserting ``$40,000,000''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``$10,420,000'' and 
     inserting ``$15,000,000''.

     SEC. 309. MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM.

       Any Federal funds, regardless of the account from which the 
     funds were provided, used to carry out construction of the 
     modification to the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation 
     System, authorized in section 136 of the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (117 Stat. 1842), shall 
     be considered by the Secretary as initiating construction of 
     the project such that future funds will not require a new 
     investment decision.

     SEC. 310. OUACHITA-BLACK RIVER NAVIGATION PROJECT, ARKANSAS.

       The project for navigation, Ouachita-Black River, Arkansas, 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 
     (Public Law 86-645), is modified to include water supply as a 
     project purpose, subject to completion by the Secretary of a 
     feasibility study and any other review necessary for such 
     modification.

     SEC. 311. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA, CALIFORNIA.

        The portion of project for flood control, Sacramento 
     River, California, authorized by section 2 of the Act of 
     March 1, 1917 (chapter 144, 39 Stat. 949; 103 Stat. 649; 110 
     Stat. 3709; 112 Stat. 1841; 113 Stat. 299), consisting of a 
     riverbed gradient restoration facility at the Glenn-Colusa 
     Irrigation District Intake, is no longer authorized beginning 
     on the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 312. LAKE ISABELLA, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Secretary, when evaluating alternative locations for 
     construction

[[Page H3943]]

     of a permanent Isabella Lake Visitor Center by the Corps of 
     Engineers to replace the facility impacted by the Isabella 
     Dam safety modification project, should afford substantial 
     weight to the site preference of the local community.
       (b) Authority.--The Secretary may acquire such interests in 
     real property as the Secretary determines necessary or 
     advisable to support construction of the Isabella Dam safety 
     modification project.
       (c) Transfer.--The Secretary may transfer any real property 
     interests acquired under subsection (b) to any other Federal 
     agency or department without reimbursement.
       (d) Isabella Dam Safety Modification Project Defined.--In 
     this section, the term ``Isabella Dam safety modification 
     project'' means the dam safety modification project at the 
     Isabella Reservoir in the San Joaquin Valley, California 
     (authorized by Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 
     Stat. 901)), including the component of the project relating 
     to construction a visitor center facility.

     SEC. 313. LOWER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT.

       The Secretary shall align the schedules of, and maximize 
     complimentary efforts, minimize duplicative practices, and 
     ensure coordination and information sharing with respect to--
       (1) the project for flood risk management, Lower San 
     Joaquin River, authorized by section 1401(2) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3836); and
       (2) the second phase of the feasibility study for the Lower 
     San Joaquin River project for flood risk management, 
     authorized for expedited completion by section 1203(a)(7) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act 2018 (132 Stat. 3803).

     SEC. 314. SAN DIEGO RIVER AND MISSION BAY, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       The portion of the project for flood control and 
     navigation, San Diego River and Mission Bay, San Diego 
     County, California, authorized by the Act of July 24, 1946 
     (chapter 595, 60 Stat. 636), identified in the National Levee 
     Database established under section 9004 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303) as the San 
     Diego River 3 segment and consisting of a 785-foot-long 
     segment of the right bank levee from Station 209+41.75 to its 
     end at Station 217+26.75, as described in construction plans 
     dated August 30, 1951, is no longer authorized beginning on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 315. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WATERFRONT AREA.

       (a) In General.--Section 114 of the River and Harbor Act of 
     1968 (33 U.S.C. 59h) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 114. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WATERFRONT AREA.

       ``(a) Area To Be Declared Nonnavigable.--The following area 
     is declared to be nonnavigable waters of the United States: 
     All of that portion of the City and County of San Francisco, 
     California, lying shoreward of a line beginning at the 
     intersection of the southerly right of way line of Earl 
     Street prolongation with the Pierhead United States 
     Government Pierhead line, the Pierhead line as defined in the 
     State of California Harbor and Navigation Code Section 1770, 
     as amended in 1961; thence northerly along said Pierhead line 
     to its intersection with a line parallel with and distant 10 
     feet easterly from, the existing easterly boundary line of 
     Pier 30-32; thence northerly along said parallel line and its 
     northerly prolongation, to a point of intersection with a 
     line parallel with, and distant 10 feet northerly from, the 
     existing northerly boundary of Pier 30-32; thence westerly 
     along last said parallel line to its intersection with said 
     Pierhead line; thence northerly along said Pierhead line, to 
     the intersection of the easterly right of way line of Van 
     Ness Avenue, formerly Marlette Street, prolongation to the 
     Pierhead line.
       ``(b) Requirement That Area Be Improved.--The declaration 
     of nonnavigability under subsection (a) applies only to those 
     parts of the area described in subsection (a) that are or 
     will be bulkheaded, filled, or otherwise occupied or covered 
     by permanent structures and does not affect the applicability 
     of any Federal statute or regulation that relates to filling 
     of navigable waters or to other regulated activities within 
     the area described in subsection (a), including sections 9 
     and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401, 403), 
     section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and 
     the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
       ``(c) Inclusion of Embarcadero Historic District.--Congress 
     finds and declares that the area described in subsection (a) 
     contains the seawall, piers, and wharves that comprise the 
     Embarcadero Historic District listed on the National Register 
     of Historic Places on May 12, 2006.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5052 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 59h-1) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 316. WESTERN PACIFIC INTERCEPTOR CANAL, SACRAMENTO 
                   RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

       The portion of the project for flood protection on the 
     Sacramento River, authorized by section 2 of the of March 1, 
     1917 (chapter 144, 39 Stat. 949; 45 Stat. 539; 50 Stat. 877; 
     55 Stat. 647; 80 Stat. 1422), consisting of the portion of 
     the levee from GPS coordinate N2147673.584 E6690904.187 to 
     N2147908.413 E6689057.060 associated with the Western Pacific 
     Interceptor Canal, is no longer authorized beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 317. RIO GRANDE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, 
                   COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, AND TEXAS.

       Section 5056(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2007 (Public Law 110-114, 121 Stat. 1213; 128 Stat. 1314) is 
     amended by striking ``2019'' and inserting ``2029''.

     SEC. 318. NEW LONDON HARBOR WATERFRONT CHANNEL, CONNECTICUT.

       (a) In General.--The portion of the project for navigation, 
     New London Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first 
     section of the Act of June 13, 1902 (chapter 1079, 32 Stat. 
     333), described in subsection (b) is no longer authorized 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Area Described.--The area referred to in subsection (a) 
     is generally the portion between and around the 2 piers at 
     the State Pier in New London, specifically the area--
       (1) beginning at a point N691263.78, E1181259.26;
       (2) running N 3501'50.75'' W about 955.59 feet to a point 
     N692046.26, E1180710.74;
       (3) running N 5458'06.78'' E about 100.00 feet to a point 
     N692103.66, E1180792.62;
       (4) running S 3501'50.75'' E about 989.8 feet to a point 
     N691293.17, E1181360.78; and
       (5) running S 7351'15.45'' W about 105.69 feet to the 
     point described in paragraph (1).

     SEC. 319. WASHINGTON HARBOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the project 
     for navigation, Washington Harbor, District of Columbia, 
     authorized by the Act of August 30, 1935 (chapter 831, 49 
     Stat. 1031), is modified to reduce, in part, the authorized 
     dimensions of the project, such that the remaining authorized 
     dimensions are as follows:
       (1) A 200 foot wide, 15 foot deep channel with a center 
     line beginning at a point East 1,317,064.30 and North 
     440,373.32, thence to a point East 1,316,474.30 and North 
     440,028.31, thence to a point East 1,315,584.30 and North 
     439,388.30, thence to a point East 1,315,259.31 and North 
     438,908.30.
       (2) A transition area 200 foot wide to 300 foot wide, 15 
     foot deep, with a center line beginning at a point East 
     1,315,259.31 and North 438,908.30 to a point East 
     1,315,044.31 and North 438,748.30.
       (3) A 300 foot wide, 15 foot deep channel with a centerline 
     beginning a point East 1,315,044.31 and North 438,748.30, 
     thence to a point East 1,314,105.31 and North 438,124.79, 
     thence to a point East 1,311,973.30 and North 438,807.78, 
     thence to a point East 1,311,369.73 and North 438,577.42, 
     thence to a point East 1,311,015.73 and North 438,197.57, 
     thence to a point East 1,309,713.47 and North 435,678.91.
       (4) A transition area 300 foot wide to 400 foot wide, 15 
     foot deep to 24 foot deep, with a center line beginning at a 
     point East 1,309,713.47 and North 435,678.91 to a point East 
     1,307,709.33 and North 434,488.25.
       (5) A 400 foot wide, 24 foot deep channel with a centerline 
     beginning at a point East 1,307,709.33 and North 434,488.25, 
     thence to a point East 1,307,459.33 and North 434,173.25, 
     thence to a point East 1,306,476.82 and North 1,306,476.82, 
     thence to a point East 1,306,209.79 and North 431,460.21, 
     thence to a point at the end of the channel near Hains Point 
     East 1,305,997.63 and North 429,978.31.

     SEC. 320. BIG CYPRESS SEMINOLE INDIAN RESERVATION WATER 
                   CONSERVATION PLAN, FLORIDA.

       The project for ecosystem restoration, Big Cypress Seminole 
     Indian Reservation Water Conservation Plan, Florida, 
     authorized pursuant to section 528 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3767), is no longer 
     authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 321. CENTRAL EVERGLADES, FLORIDA.

       The project for ecosystem restoration, Central Everglades, 
     authorized by section 1401(4) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1713), is modified to 
     include the project for ecosystem restoration, Central and 
     Southern Florida, Everglades Agricultural Area, authorized by 
     section 1308 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 
     (132 Stat. 3819), and to authorize the Secretary to carry out 
     the project as so combined.

     SEC. 322. MIAMI RIVER, FLORIDA.

        The portion of the project for navigation, Miami River, 
     Florida, authorized by the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 925; 
     59 Stat. 16; 74 Stat. 481; 100 Stat. 4257), beginning at the 
     existing railroad bascule bridge and extending approximately 
     1,000 linear feet upstream to an existing salinity barrier 
     and flood control structure, is no longer authorized 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 323. JULIAN KEEN, JR. LOCK AND DAM, MOORE HAVEN, 
                   FLORIDA.

       (a) Designation.--The Moore Haven Lock and Dam, Moore 
     Haven, Florida, authorized pursuant to the Act of August 30, 
     1935 (chapter 831, 49 Stat. 1032), shall hereafter be known 
     and designated as the ``Julian Keen, Jr. Lock and Dam''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     Lock and Dam referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to 
     be a reference to the ``Julian Keen, Jr. Lock and Dam''.

     SEC. 324. TAYLOR CREEK RESERVOIR AND LEVEE L-73 (SECTION 1), 
                   UPPER ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA.

       The portions of the project for flood control and other 
     purposes, Central and Southern Florida, authorized by section 
     203 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1176), 
     consisting of the Taylor Creek Reservoir and Levee L-73, 
     Section 1, within the Upper St. Johns River Basin, Florida, 
     are no longer authorized beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

[[Page H3944]]

  


     SEC. 325. CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LOUISIANA.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate a report on plans to modify the Calcasieu 
     River and Pass Dredged Material Management Plan and 
     Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (December 16, 
     2010 DMMP/SEIS) to allow for the expansion of Dredged 
     Material Placement Facilities (DMPFs) 17, 19, 22, D, and E to 
     the lakeside foreshore rock boundaries during planned 
     rehabilitation of these facilities.

     SEC. 326. SAN JUAN-CHAMA PROJECT; ABIQUIU DAM, NEW MEXICO.

       (a) Abiquiu Reservoir.--Section 5(b) of Public Law 97-140 
     (43 U.S.C. 620a note) is amended by striking ``a total of two 
     hundred thousand acre-feet of''.
       (b) Water Storage at Abiquiu Dam, New Mexico.--Section 1 of 
     Public Law 100-522 (43 U.S.C. 620a note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``200,000 acre-feet of'';
       (2) by inserting ``and San Juan-Chama project'' after ``Rio 
     Grande system''; and
       (3) by striking ``, in lieu of the water storage authorized 
     by section 5 of Public Law 97-140, to the extent that 
     contracting entities under section 5 of Public Law 97-140 no 
     longer require such storage''.
       (c) Water Storage.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) store up to elevation 6230.00 NGVD29 at Abiquiu Dam, 
     New Mexico, to the extent that the necessary real property 
     interests have been acquired by any entity requesting such 
     storage; and
       (2) amend the March 20, 1986, contract between the United 
     States of America and the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water 
     Utility Authority (assigned by the City of Albuquerque, New 
     Mexico to the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility 
     Authority) for water storage space in Abiquiu Reservoir to 
     allow for storage by the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water 
     Utility Authority of San Juan-Chama project water or native 
     Rio Grande system water up to elevation 6230.00 NGVD29.
       (d) Storage Agreements With Users Other Than the 
     Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority.--The 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) retain or enter into new agreements with entities for a 
     proportionate allocation of 29,100 acre-feet of storage space 
     pursuant to section 5 of Public Law 97-140; and
       (2) amend or enter into new storage agreements for storage 
     of San Juan-Chama project water or native Rio Grande system 
     water up to the space allocated for each entity's 
     proportionate share of San Juan-Chama water.
       (e) Operations Documents.--The Secretary shall amend or 
     revise any existing operations documents, including the Water 
     Control Manual or operations plan for Abiquiu Reservoir, as 
     necessary to meet the requirements of this section.
       (f) Limitations.--In carrying out this section, the 
     following limitations shall apply:
       (1) The storage of native Rio Grande system water shall be 
     subject to the provisions of the Rio Grande Compact and the 
     resolutions of the Rio Grande Compact Commission.
       (2) The storage of native Rio Grande system water shall 
     only be authorized to the extent that the necessary water 
     ownership and storage rights have been acquired by the entity 
     requesting such storage.
       (3) The storage of native Rio Grande system water or San-
     Juan Chama project water shall not interfere with the 
     authorized purposes of the Abiquiu Dam and Reservoir project.
       (4) Each user of storage space, regardless of source of 
     water, shall pay for any increase in costs attributable to 
     storage of that user's water.

     SEC. 327. PAWCATUCK RIVER, LITTLE NARRAGANSETT BAY AND WATCH 
                   HILL COVE, RHODE ISLAND AND CONNECTICUT.

       Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, that 
     portion of the project for navigation, Pawcatuck River, 
     Little Narragansett Bay and Watch Hill Cove, Rhode Island and 
     Connecticut, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 
     1945 (chapter 19, 59 Stat. 13), consisting of a 10-foot deep, 
     16-acre anchorage area in Watch Hill Cove is no longer 
     authorized.

     SEC. 328. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

       Section 575 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3789) is repealed.

     SEC. 329. CAP SANTE WATERWAY, WASHINGTON.

       Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the project 
     for navigation, Cap Sante Waterway and Navigation Channel, 
     Skagit County, Washington, authorized by the Act of March 2, 
     1919 (chapter 95, 40 Stat. 1285), is modified to deauthorize 
     the portion of the project consisting of an approximately 
     334,434 foot area of the Federal channel within Anacortes 
     Harbor inside and directly adjacent to the Federal breakwater 
     and training wall structure, starting at a point with 
     coordinates N557015.552, E1210819.619, thence running S88 
     13'2.06''E approximately 200 feet to a point with coordinates 
     N557009.330, E1211019.522, thence running S01 46'58.08''W 
     approximately 578 feet to a point with coordinates 
     N556431.405, E1211001.534, thence running S49 49'50.23''W 
     approximately 69 feet to a point with coordinates 
     N556387.076, E1210949.002, thence running S51 53'0.25''E 
     approximately 35 feet to a point with coordinates 
     N556365.662, E1210976.316, thence running S49 38'58.48''W 
     approximately 112 feet to a point with coordinates 
     N556292.989, E1210890.775, thence running N88 13'1.87''W 
     approximately 109 feet to a point with coordinates 
     N556296.367, E1210782.226, thence running S46 46'58.97''W 
     approximately 141 feet to a point with coordinates 
     N556199.527, E1210679.164, thence running N88 13'1.77''W 
     approximately 700 feet to a point with coordinates 
     N556221.305, E1209979.502, thence running N01 46'58.08''E 
     approximately 250 feet to a point with coordinates 
     N556471.184, E1209987.280, thence running S88 13'1.77''E 
     approximately 815 feet to a point with coordinates 
     N556445.828, E1210801.886, thence running N01 46'58.08''E 
     approximately 570 feet to the point of origin.

     SEC. 330. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.

       The Secretary shall expedite the activities required to be 
     carried out under section 204 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) regarding the use of 
     improvement dredging of the Portsmouth Federal navigation 
     project in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, as a source of clean 
     beach fill material to reinforce the stone revetment at 
     Nantasket Beach, Hull, Massachusetts.

     SEC. 331. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS.

       (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) Sacramento area, california.--Section 219(f)(23) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 
     Stat. 336; 117 Stat. 1840) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(23) Sacramento area, california.--$45,000,000 for 
     regional water conservation, recycling, reliability, and 
     resiliency projects in Placer, El Dorado, and Sacramento 
     Counties and the San Juan Suburban Water District, 
     California.''.
       (2) South perris, california.--Section 219(f)(52) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 
     Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended by striking 
     ``$25,000,000'' and inserting ``$50,000,000''.
       (3) Madison and st. clair counties, illinois.--Section 
     219(f)(55) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 114 Stat. 2763A-221) is 
     amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$45,000,000''.
       (4) Southern and eastern kentucky.--Section 531 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3773; 113 
     Stat. 348; 117 Stat. 142; 121 Stat. 1226) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (g), by inserting ``Boyd, Carter, 
     Elliott, Lincoln,'' after ``Lee,''; and
       (B) in subsection (h), by striking ``$40,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$80,000,000''.
       (5) Desoto county, mississippi.--Section 219(f)(30) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 
     Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220; 119 Stat. 282; 119 Stat. 
     2257; 122 Stat. 1623) is amended by striking ``$75,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$130,000,000''.
       (6) Jackson county, mississippi.--Section 219(e)(1) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 
     Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 1494; 121 Stat. 1258) is amended by 
     striking ``$32,500,000'' and inserting ``$57,500,000''.
       (7) St. louis, missouri.--Section 219(f)(32) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 
     337; 121 Stat. 1233) is amended by striking ``$35,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$70,000,000''.
       (8) Midwest city, oklahoma.--Section 219(f)(231) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 
     Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1266) is amended by striking 
     ``$2,000,000'' and inserting ``$5,000,000''.
       (9) South central pennsylvania.--Section 313 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4845; 109 Stat. 
     407; 110 Stat. 3723; 113 Stat. 310; 117 Stat. 142; 121 Stat. 
     1146) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (g)(1), by striking ``$200,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$400,000,000''; and
       (B) in subsection (h)(2), by inserting ``Beaver, 
     Jefferson,'' after ``Washington,''.
       (10) Lakes marion and moultrie, south carolina.--Section 
     219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220; 117 
     Stat. 1838; 130 Stat. 1677; 132 Stat. 3818) is amended by 
     striking ``$89,550,000'' and inserting ``$110,000,000''.
       (11) El paso county, texas.--Section 219(f)(269) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 
     Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1268) is amended by striking 
     ``$25,000,000'' and inserting ``$75,000,000''.
       (12) Western rural water.--Section 595 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 383; 117 Stat. 
     139; 117 Stat. 142; 117 Stat. 1836; 118 Stat. 440; 121 Stat. 
     1219; 123 Stat. 2851; 128 Stat. 1316; 130 Stat. 1681) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking the section heading and inserting ``western 
     rural water.'';
       (B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Arizona,'' before 
     ``rural Idaho'';
       (C) in subsection (c), by inserting ``Arizona,'' before 
     ``Idaho''; and
       (D) in subsection (i), by striking ``for the period 
     beginning with fiscal year 2001, $435,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.'' and inserting the following: ``, 
     to remain available until expended--

[[Page H3945]]

       ``(1) for the period beginning with fiscal year 2001, 
     $435,000,000 for Idaho, Montana, rural Nevada, New Mexico, 
     rural Utah, and Wyoming; and
       ``(2) $150,000,000 for Arizona.''.
       (13) Central west virginia.--Section 571(h) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 371; 121 Stat. 
     1257) is amended by striking ``$20,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$40,000,000''.
       (14) Southern west virginia.--Section 340(g) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856; 110 Stat. 
     3727; 113 Stat. 320) is amended by striking ``$40,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$120,000,000''.
       (c) Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska.--Section 
     5032(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 
     (Public Law 110-114, 121 Stat. 1205) is amended by striking 
     ``15'' and inserting ``20''.

     SEC. 332. PROJECT MODIFICATION AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) Water Supply.--The following project modifications for 
     water supply, as identified in the report entitled ``Report 
     to Congress on Future Water Resources Development'' dated 
     February 2019, and submitted to Congress on June 3, 2019, 
     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 
     recommendations, included in such report pursuant to section 
     301(c) of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b(c)):
       (1) The project modification for the State of Missouri, 
     Clarence Cannon Dam and Mark Twain Lake Project Salt River, 
     Missouri.
       (2) The project modification for the City of Plattsburg, 
     Smithville Lake, Missouri.
       (3) The project modification for the City of Smithville, 
     Smithville Lake, Missouri.
       (b) Flood Risk Management.--The following project 
     modifications for flood risk management, as identified in a 
     report entitled ``Report to Congress on Future Water 
     Resources Development'', and submitted to Congress pursuant 
     to section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
     Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d) or otherwise reviewed by 
     Congress, are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary:
       (1) Modification of the project for flood risk management, 
     lower Mississippi River, authorized by the Act of May 15, 
     1928 (chapter 569, 45 Stat. 534), to incorporate the Wolf 
     River Backwater and Nonconnah Creek levee systems into the 
     project, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 
     (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1575; 50 Stat. 881), subject to the 
     determination of the Secretary that such systems meet all 
     requirements applicable to such project.
       (2) Modification of the project for flood risk management, 
     Red River below Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas, 
     authorized by the Act of June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 
     1219), to incorporate the Cherokee Park Levee into the 
     project, subject to the determination of the Secretary that 
     such levee meets all requirements applicable to such project.

     SEC. 333. APPLICATION OF CREDIT.

        Section 7007(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2007 (121 Stat. 1277; 128 Stat. 1226) is amended by inserting 
     ``, or may be applied to reduce the amounts required to be 
     paid by the non-Federal interest under the terms of the 
     deferred payment agreements entered into between the 
     Secretary and the non-Federal interest for the projects 
     authorized by section 7012(a)(1)'' before the period at the 
     end.

     SEC. 334. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Muddy river, massachusetts.--The separable elements for 
     ecosystem restoration of the project for flood damage 
     reduction and environmental restoration, Muddy River, 
     Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts, authorized by section 
     522 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
     2656), and deauthorized pursuant to section 6001 of the Water 
     Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 
     1345), are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary, 
     subject to subsection (b).
       (2) East chester creek, new york.--Notwithstanding section 
     1001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 579a), the project for navigation, East Chester Creek, 
     New York, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 164; 100 Stat. 4181), and deauthorized 
     pursuant to section 1001 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579(a)), is authorized to be carried 
     out by the Secretary, subject to subsection (b).
       (3) Christiansted harbor, united states virgin islands.--
     Notwithstanding section 1002 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4221), the portion of the 
     project for navigation, Christiansted Harbor, St. Croix, 
     United States Virgin Islands, authorized by section 101 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 167), and 
     deauthorized under section 1002 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4221), is authorized to be 
     carried out by the Secretary, subject to subsection (b).
       (4) Charlotte harbor, united states virgin islands.--
     Notwithstanding section 1002 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4221), the portion of the 
     project for navigation, Charlotte Amalie (St. Thomas) Harbor, 
     St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands, authorized by the 
     Act of August 26, 1937 (chapter 832, 50 Stat. 850), and 
     deauthorized under section 1002 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4221), is authorized to be 
     carried out by the Secretary, subject to subsection (b).
       (b) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall complete and 
     submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate a post-
     authorization change report (as such term is defined in 
     section 1132(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2016 (33 U.S.C. 2282e(d)) prior to carrying out a project 
     identified in subsection (a).

     SEC. 335. CONVEYANCES.

       (a) Generally Applicable Provisions.--
       (1) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage 
     and the legal description of any real property to be conveyed 
     under this section shall be determined by a survey that is 
     satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (2) Applicability of property screening provisions.--
     Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply 
     to any conveyance under this section.
       (3) Costs of conveyance.--An entity to which a conveyance 
     is made under this section shall be responsible for all 
     reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate 
     transaction and environmental documentation costs, associated 
     with the conveyance.
       (4) Liability.--An entity to which a conveyance is made 
     under this section shall hold the United States harmless from 
     any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or 
     after the date of the conveyance, on the real property 
     conveyed. The United States shall remain responsible for any 
     liability with respect to activities carried out, before such 
     date, on the real property conveyed.
       (5) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require that any conveyance under this section be subject to 
     such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     considers necessary and appropriate to protect the interests 
     of the United States.
       (b) Eufaula, Alabama.--
       (1) Conveyance authorized.--The Secretary shall convey to 
     the City of Eufaula, Alabama, all right, title, and interest 
     of the United States in and to the real property described in 
     the Department of the Army Lease No. DACW01-2-17-0747, 
     containing 56.76 acres, more or less, and being a part of 
     Tracts L-1268 (26.12 acres), L-1273 (13.71 acres), L-1278 
     (6.75 acres), and L1279 (10.36 acres) of the Walter F. George 
     Lock and Dam and Lake project.
       (2) Deed.--The Secretary shall convey the property under 
     this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect 
     the interests of the United States.
       (3) Consideration.--The City of Eufaula, Alabama, shall pay 
     to the Secretary an amount that is not less than the fair 
     market value of the property conveyed under this subsection, 
     as determined by the Secretary.
       (c) Montgomery, Alabama.--
       (1) Conveyance authorized.--The Secretary shall convey to 
     the City of Montgomery, Alabama, all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the real property 
     described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Property.--The property to be conveyed is the 62.38 
     acres of land and water under the primary jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary in the R.E. ``Bob'' Woodruff Project Area that is 
     covered by lease number DACW01-1-05-0037, including the 
     parcels and structure known as ``Powder Magazine''.
       (3) Deed.--The Secretary shall convey the property under 
     this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect 
     the interests of the United States, to include retaining the 
     right to inundate with water any land transferred under this 
     subsection.
       (4) Consideration.--The City of Montgomery, Alabama, shall 
     pay to the Secretary an amount that is not less than the fair 
     market value of the property conveyed under this subsection, 
     as determined by the Secretary.
       (d) Ohio River Lock and Dam Number 52, Massac County, 
     Illinois.--
       (1) Conveyance authorized.--The Secretary shall convey to 
     the Massac-Metropolis Port District, Illinois, all right, 
     title, and interest of the United States in and to any real 
     property located north of the south bank of the Ohio River in 
     Massac County, Illinois, that is associated with the Ohio 
     River Lock and Dam 52.
       (2) Deed.--The Secretary shall convey the property under 
     this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect 
     the interests of the United States.
       (3) Consideration.--The Massac-Metropolis Port District, 
     Illinois, shall pay to the Secretary an amount that is not 
     less than fair market value of the property conveyed under 
     this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.
       (e) Clinton, Missouri.--
       (1) Conveyance authorized.--The Secretary shall convey to 
     the City of Clinton, Missouri, without consideration, all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     real property described in paragraph (2).
       (4) Property.--The property to be conveyed is a tract of 
     land situated in the S \1/2\ of Section 12 and the N \1/2\ of 
     Section 13, Township 41 North, Range 26 West of the Fifth 
     Principal Meridian, Henry County, Missouri, more particularly 
     described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection 
     of the north line of said S \1/2\ of Section 12 and the 
     easterly right-of-way of State Highway No. 13; thence 
     easterly along the north line of said S \1/2\ to the 
     northeast corner of the W \1/2\ NW \1/4\ NE \1/4\ SW \1/4\ of 
     said Section

[[Page H3946]]

     12; thence southerly along the east line of said W \1/2\ NW 
     \1/4\ NE \1/4\ SW \1/4\ to the southeast corner thereof; 
     thence easterly along the north line of the S \1/2\ NE \1/4\ 
     SW \1/4\ of said Section 12 to the southwest corner of the W 
     \1/2\ NW \1/4\ NW \1/4\ SE \1/4\ of said Section 12; thence 
     in a northeasterly direction to the northeast corner of said 
     W \1/2\ NW \1/4\ NW \1/4\ SE \1/4\ ; thence easterly along 
     the north line of said S \1/2\ to the westerly right-of-way 
     of the County Road; thence in a southeasterly and southerly 
     direction along the westerly right-of-way of said County Road 
     approximately 2500 feet to the center of Deer Creek; thence 
     in a southwesterly direction along the center of said Deer 
     Creek, approximately 3900 feet to the south line of said N 
     \1/2\ of Section 13; thence westerly along the south line of 
     said N \1/2\ to the easterly right-of-way line of the St. 
     Louis-San Francisco Railroad; thence in a northwesterly 
     direction along the easterly right-of-way of said railroad to 
     the easterly right-of-way of said State Highway No. 13; 
     thence in a northeasterly direction along the easterly right-
     of-way of said State Highway No. 13 to the point of the 
     beginning; and including a roadway easement for ingress and 
     egress, described as a strip of land 80 feet in width, lying 
     40 feet on each side of the following described line, the 
     initial extremities of the following described strip being 
     extended or reduced as required to exactly adjoin the 
     boundary lines which they meet, situated in the S \1/2\ of 
     Section 12, Township 41 North Range 26 West of the Fifth 
     Principal Meridian, Henry County, Missouri, more particularly 
     described as follows: Commencing at the center of said 
     Section 12, thence Sl24'56''W, 1265.52 feet to a point, 
     thence N8829'02''W, 483.97 feet to the point of beginning of 
     the strip of land herein described; thence in a northeasterly 
     direction along a curve to the right, said curve having an 
     initial tangent bearing of N344'4l''E, a radius of 238.73 
     feet and an interior angle of 6129'26'', an arc distance of 
     256.21 feet to a point; thence N6514'07''E 218.58 feet to a 
     point; thence in a northeasterly direction along a curve to 
     the left, having a radius of 674.07 feet and an interior 
     angle of 3600'01'', an arc distance of 423.53 feet to a 
     point; thence N2914'07''E, 417.87 feet to a point; thence 
     northeasterly along a curve to the right, having a radius of 
     818.51 feet and an interior angle of 1430'01'', an arc 
     distance of 207.15 feet to a point; thence N4344'07''E, 
     57.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of a county 
     road, containing 2,948 acres, more or less; Excluding 
     therefrom a tract of land situated in the S \1/2\ of said 
     Section 12, said Township and Range, described as commencing 
     at the center of said Section 12; thence S124'56''W, 1265.52 
     feet to the point of beginning of the tract of land herein 
     described; thence N8829'02"W, 1122.50 feet; thence 
     S143'26"W, 872.62 feet; thence S8829'02''E, 1337.36 feet; 
     thence Nl43'26''E, 872.62 feet; thence N8829'02''W, 214.86 
     feet to the point of beginning, containing 26.79 acres, more 
     or less. The above described tract contains, in the 
     aggregate, 177.69 acres, more or less.
       (2) Deed.--The Secretary shall convey the property under 
     this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect 
     the interests of the United States.
       (3) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     property conveyed under this subsection is not being used for 
     a public purpose, all right, title, and interest in and to 
     the property shall revert, at the discretion of the 
     Secretary, to the United States.
       (f) City of Clinton, Old Orchard Addition, Missouri.--
       (1) Conveyance authorized.--The Secretary shall convey to 
     the City of Clinton, Missouri, all right, title, and interest 
     of the United States in and to the real property described in 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Property.--The property to be conveyed is Lot 28 in Old 
     Orchard Addition, a subdivision of the City of Clinton, Henry 
     County, Missouri, containing 0.36 acres, more or less, 
     including any improvements thereon.
       (3) Deed.--The Secretary shall convey the property under 
     this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect 
     the interests of the United States, including such 
     reservations, terms, and conditions as the Secretary 
     determines necessary to allow the United States to operate 
     and maintain the Harry S. Truman Reservoir Project.
       (4) Consideration.--The City of Clinton, Missouri, shall 
     pay to the Secretary an amount that is not less than the fair 
     market value of the property conveyed under this subsection, 
     as determined by the Secretary.
       (g) Tri-County Levee District, Missouri.--
       (1) Conveyance authorized.--The Secretary shall convey to 
     the Tri-County Levee District, Missouri, all right, title, 
     and interest of the United States in and to the real property 
     described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Property.--The property to be conveyed is the part of 
     Sections 1 and 12 Township 45 North Range 6 West of the 5th 
     P.M. in Montgomery County, Missouri, described as follows: A 
     tract of land being 60' wide and lying South and East of and 
     adjoining the centerline of the existing levee and being 
     described as follows: Commencing at the NW corner of Section 
     12, thence S 87 52' 35'' E 587.4', thence S 01 29' 25'' W 
     453.68' to the point of the beginning; said point being in 
     the center of the levee, thence with the centerline of the 
     levee N 77 01' 30'' E 164.92', thence N 74 26' 55'' E 
     250.0', thence N 72 27' 55'' E 270.0', thence N 69 06' 10'' 
     E 300.0', thence N 66 42' 15'' E 500.0', thence N 64 14' 
     30'' E 270.0', thence N 61 09' 10'' E 800.0', thence N 60 
     58' 15'' E 1724.45', thence leaving the centerline S 01 10' 
     35'' W 69.43', thence parallel with the above described 
     centerline S 60 58' 15'' W 1689.62', thence S 61 09' 10'' W 
     801.71', thence S 64 14' 30'' W 272.91', thence S 66 42' 
     15'' W 502.55', thence S 69 06' 10'' W 303.02', thence S 72 
     27' 55'' W 272.8', thence S 74 26' 55'' W 252.39', thence S 
     77 01' 30'' W 181.75', thence leaving the South side of the 
     levee N 01 26' 25'' E 61.96' to the point of beginning and 
     containing 5.89 acres more or less.
       (3) Deed.--The Secretary shall convey the property under 
     this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect 
     the interests of the United States.
       (4) Consideration.--The Tri-County Levee District, 
     Missouri, shall pay to the Secretary an amount that is not 
     less than the fair market value of the property conveyed 
     under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.
       (h) Judge Joseph Barker, Jr., House, Ohio.--
       (1) Non-federal entity.--In this subsection, the term 
     ``non-Federal entity'' means the Friends of Joseph Barker, 
     Jr., House, a nonprofit organization in the State of Ohio.
       (2) Conveyance authorized.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (6), the Secretary 
     shall convey to the non-Federal entity, without 
     consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to the property described in paragraph (3)(A).
       (B) Easement.--Upon conveyance of the property under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall provide to the non-
     Federal entity, without consideration, an easement over the 
     property described in paragraph (3)(B) for access to the 
     conveyed property for as long as the non-Federal entity is in 
     legal possession of the conveyed property.
       (3) Descriptions of property.--
       (A) In general.--The property referred to in paragraph 
     (2)(A) is the following (as in existence on the date of 
     enactment of this Act):
       (i) Judge joseph barker, jr., house.--The tract of land 
     situated in the State of Ohio, Washington County, on the Ohio 
     River, and being particularly bounded and described as 
     follows: Beginning at a point located on the southern right-
     of-way line of Ohio Route 7, a new corner to the land now or 
     formerly owned by the United States of America; thence, 
     leaving the right-of-way of said Route 7 and severing the 
     land of said United States of America parallel to and 
     approximately 10 feet easterly of the toe of the existing 
     dredge disposal berm, southeasterly approximately 326 feet to 
     a point prior to the current Corps of Engineers access to the 
     dredging spoil area; thence, northeasterly approximately 480 
     feet paralleling the top of the slope to the riverbank side 
     of the house and approximately 25 feet northerly therefrom; 
     thence, northwest approximately 302 feet to a point in the 
     southern right-of-way of Ohio Route 7; thence with the right-
     of-way of said Route 7, southwesterly approximately 485 feet 
     to the point of beginning, containing approximately 3.51 
     acres.
       (ii) Road tract.--The tract of land situated in the State 
     of Ohio, Washington County, on the Ohio River, and being 
     particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a 
     point located on the southern right-of-way line of Ohio Route 
     7, a new corner to the land now or formerly owned by the 
     United States of America; thence, leaving the right-of-way of 
     said Route 7 and severing the land of said United States of 
     America and with the House Parcel southeasterly 25 feet; 
     thence, northeast, running parallel to said Route 7 right-of-
     way, approximately 994 feet to a point of deflection; thence 
     northeasterly 368 feet to a point beyond the existing fence 
     corner; thence, east 140 feet to the edge of the existing 
     Willow Island access road; thence with said access road, 
     northwesterly approximately 62 feet to a point in the 
     southern right-of-way of Ohio Route 7; thence with the right-
     of-way of said Route 7, southwesterly approximately 1,491 
     feet to the point of beginning, containing approximately 1 
     acre.
       (B) Easement.--The property referred to in paragraph (2)(B) 
     is the following: The tract of land situated in the State of 
     Ohio, Washington County, on the Ohio River, and being 
     particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a 
     point at the intersection of the southern right-of-way of 
     Ohio Route 7 and the northeast side of the existing Willow 
     Island access road, a new corner to the land now or formerly 
     owned by the United States of America; thence, southwest, 
     running with said Route 7 right-of-way, approximately 30 feet 
     to a point on the southwest side of the existing access road, 
     and corner to the road tract; thence with said access road 
     and the line of the road parcel, southeasterly approximately 
     62 feet to a point; thence leaving the road parcel and 
     crossing the existing access road northeasterly approximately 
     30 feet to a point located on the northeast side of the 
     existing access road; thence, northwesterly approximately 62 
     feet, to the point of beginning, containing approximately 
     0.04 acre.
       (4) Deed.--The Secretary shall convey the property under 
     this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect 
     the interests of the United States.
       (5) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     property conveyed under this

[[Page H3947]]

     subsection is not being used by the non-Federal entity for a 
     public purpose, all right, title, and interest in and to the 
     property shall revert, at the discretion of the Secretary, to 
     the United States.
       (6) Requirements.--
       (A) Improvements.--The Secretary shall make such 
     improvements and alterations to the property described in 
     paragraph (3)(A)(i) as the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the non-Federal entity and relevant stakeholders, determines 
     to be appropriate to facilitate conveyance of the property 
     and provision of the easement under this subsection, subject 
     to the condition that the total cost of those improvements 
     and alterations undertaken by the Secretary shall be not more 
     than $120,000.
       (B) Environmental assessment.--Before making a conveyance 
     under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall--
       (i) conduct, with respect to the property to be conveyed, 
     an assessment of the environmental condition of the property, 
     including an investigation of any potential hazardous, toxic, 
     or radioactive waste present on such property; and
       (ii) submit to the non-Federal entity a report describing 
     the results of such assessment.
       (C) Refusal by non-federal entity.--
       (i) In general.--Upon review by the non-Federal entity of 
     the report under subparagraph (B), the non-Federal entity may 
     elect to refuse the conveyance under this subsection.
       (ii) Election.--An election under clause (i)--

       (I) shall be at the sole discretion of the non-Federal 
     entity; and
       (II) shall be made by the non-Federal entity by not later 
     than the date that is 30 days after the date of submission of 
     the report under subparagraph (B)(ii).

       (D) Dredged material placement activities.--The Secretary 
     shall--
       (i) notify and coordinate with the non-Federal entity and 
     relevant stakeholders before carrying out any dredged 
     material placement activities associated with the property 
     described in paragraph (3)(A) after the date on which such 
     property is conveyed under this subsection; and
       (ii) in carrying out a dredged material placement activity 
     under clause (i), act in accordance with Engineer Manual EM 
     1110-2-5025 (or a subsequent version of that manual).
       (7) Reservation of rights.--The Secretary may reserve and 
     retain from any conveyance under this subsection a right-of-
     way or any other right that the Secretary determines to be 
     necessary for the operation and maintenance of the authorized 
     Federal channel along the Ohio River.
       (8) Treatment.--Conveyance to the non-Federal entity under 
     this subsection of property described in paragraph (3)(A)(i) 
     shall satisfy all obligations of the Secretary with respect 
     to such property under--
       (A) section 306101 of title 54, United States Code; and
       (B) section 306108 of title 54, United States Code, with 
     respect to the effects on the property of dredged material 
     placement activities carried out by the Secretary after the 
     date of the conveyances.
       (9) Inapplicability.--Subtitle I of title 40, and chapter 4 
     of title 41, United States Code shall not apply to any 
     conveyance or easement provided under this subsection.
       (i) Leaburg Fish Hatchery, Lane County, Oregon.--
       (1) Conveyance authorized.--Subject to the provisions of 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall convey, without 
     consideration, to the State of Oregon, acting through the 
     Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the real property 
     comprising the Leaburg Fish Hatchery, consisting of 
     approximately 21.55 acres, identified as tracts Q-1500, Q-
     1501E, and 300E-1 and described in Department of the Army 
     Lease No. DACW57-1-18-0009, together with any improvements on 
     the property.
       (2) Water rights.--The Secretary may transfer to the State 
     of Oregon, acting through the Oregon Department of Fish and 
     Wildlife, any water rights held by the United States that are 
     appurtenant to the property conveyed under this subsection.
       (3) Deed.--The Secretary shall convey the property under 
     this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect 
     the interests of the United States, including a condition 
     that all of the property conveyed under this subsection be 
     used and maintained by the State of Oregon for the purpose of 
     operating a fish hatchery in perpetuity.
       (4) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     property conveyed under this subsection is not being used or 
     maintained by the State of Oregon for the purpose of 
     operating a fish hatchery in perpetuity, all or any portion 
     of the property, including any water rights transferred under 
     this subsection, shall, at the option of the Secretary, 
     revert to the United States.
       (5) Savings clause.--If the State of Oregon does not accept 
     the conveyance under this subsection, the Secretary may 
     dispose of the property, including appurtenant water rights, 
     under subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 40, United States 
     Code.
       (j) Willamette Falls Locks, Willamette River, Oregon.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this section:
       (A) Real estate appendix.--The term ``real estate 
     appendix'' means Appendix A of the document published by the 
     District Commander of the Portland District of the Corps of 
     Engineers, titled ``Willamette Falls Locks Willamette River 
     Oregon Section 216 Disposition Study with Integrated 
     Environmental Assessment''.
       (B) Receiving entity.--The term ``receiving entity'' means 
     an entity identified by the State of Oregon, in consultation 
     with the Willamette Falls Locks Commission, to receive the 
     conveyance under paragraph (2).
       (C) Willamette falls locks project.--The term ``Willamette 
     Falls Locks project'' means the project for navigation, 
     Willamette Falls Locks, Willamette River, Oregon, authorized 
     by the Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 664, chapter 382).
       (D) Willamette falls locks report.--The term ``Willamette 
     Falls Locks report'' means the memorandum of the Director of 
     Civil Works with the subject ``Willamette Falls Locks (WFL), 
     Willamette River Oregon Section 216 Disposition Study with 
     Integrated Environmental Assessment (Study)'', dated July 11, 
     2019.
       (2) Conveyance authorized.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     convey to the receiving entity, without consideration, all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to any 
     land in which the Federal Government has a property interest 
     for the Willamette Falls Locks project, together with any 
     improvements on the land, subject to the requirements of this 
     subsection and in accordance with the Willamette Falls Locks 
     report.
       (3) Deed.--The Secretary shall convey the property under 
     this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect 
     the interests of the United States.
       (4) Subject to existing easements and other interests.--The 
     conveyance of property under paragraph (2) shall be subject 
     to all existing deed reservations, easements, rights-of-way, 
     and leases that are in effect as of the date of the 
     conveyance.
       (5) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     property conveyed under this subsection cease to be held in 
     public ownership, all right, title, and interest in and to 
     the property shall revert, at the discretion of the 
     Secretary, to the United States.
       (6) Requirements before conveyance.--
       (A) Perpetual road easement.--Before making the conveyance 
     under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall acquire a perpetual 
     road easement from an adjacent property owner for use of an 
     access road, which easement shall convey with the property 
     conveyed under such paragraph.
       (B) Environmental compliance.--Before making the conveyance 
     under paragraph (2), in accordance with the real estate 
     appendix, the Secretary shall complete a Phase 1 
     Environmental Site Assessment pursuant to the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).
       (C) Historic preservation.--The Secretary may enter into a 
     memorandum of agreement with the Oregon State Historic 
     Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic 
     Preservation that identifies actions the Secretary shall take 
     before making the conveyance under paragraph (2).
       (D) Repairs.--Before making the conveyance under paragraph 
     (2), the Secretary shall carry out repairs to address primary 
     seismic and safety risks in accordance with the 
     recommendations approved in the Willamette Falls Locks 
     report.
       (7) Deauthorization.--Beginning on the date on which the 
     Secretary makes the conveyance under paragraph (2), the 
     Willamette Falls Locks project is no longer authorized.

     SEC. 336. REPEALS.

       (a) Section 710 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2264) is repealed.
       (b) Section 1001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
       (2) by striking subsection (c).
       (c) Section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Notwithstanding the 
     requirements of subsection (c), the Secretary'' and inserting 
     ``The Secretary'';
       (B) by striking ``subsections (a) and (c)'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``subsection (a)''; and
       (C) by striking paragraph (4); and
       (2) by striking subsection (c) and redesignating 
     subsections (d) through (g) as subsections (c) through (f), 
     respectively.
       (d) Section 6003 of the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 579c), and the item 
     relating to such section in the table of contents, are 
     repealed.
       (e) Section 1301 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2016 (33 U.S.C. 579d), and the item relating to such section 
     in the table of contents, are repealed.
       (f) Section 1302 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2016 (33 U.S.C. 579c-1), and the item relating to such 
     section in the table of contents, are repealed.
       (g) Section 1301 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2018 (33 U.S.C. 579d-1), and the item relating to such 
     section in the table of contents, are repealed.
       (h) Section 1302 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2018 (33 U.S.C. 579c-2), and the item relating to such 
     section in the table of contents, are repealed.

[[Page H3948]]

  


                TITLE IV--WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE

     SEC. 401. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
                                Report of
A. State       B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. AK     Port of Nome        May 29, 2020   Federal: $368,173,000
           Modifications                     Non-Federal: $122,746,000
                                             Total: $490,919,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. AK     Unalaska (Dutch     February 7,    Federal: $26,202,750
           Harbor) Channels    2020          Non-Federal: $8,734,250
                                             Total: $34,937,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. CT      New Haven Harbor   May 7, 2020    Federal: $53,489,000
           Navigation                        Non-Federal: $18,822,000
           Improvement                       Total: $72,311,000
           Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. NY,    New York and New    April 23,      Federal: $18,940,000
 NJ        Jersey Harbor       2020          Non-Federal: $6,310,000
           Anchorages                        Total: $25,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. TX     Gulf Intracoastal   October 23,    Total: $409,777,000, to be
           Waterway, Brazos    2019           derived \1/2\ from the
           River Floodgates                   general fund of the
           and Colorado                       Treasury and \1/2\ from
           River Locks                        the Inland Waterways Trust
                                              Fund.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. TX     Houston Ship        April 23,      Federal: $462,803,000
           Channel Expansion   2020          Non-Federal: $414,045,000
           Channel                           Total: $876,848,000
           Improvement
           Project, Harris,
           Chambers, and
           Galveston
           Counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. TX     Matagorda Ship      November 15,   Federal: $138,660,000
           Channel             2019          Non-Federal: $79,664,000
           Improvement                       Total: $218,324,000
           Project, Port
           Lavaca
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (2) Flood risk management.--


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
                                Report of
A. State       B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. AZ     Little Colorado     December 14,   Federal: $52,462,000
           River at Winslow,   2018          Non-Federal: $28,249,000
           Navajo County                     Total: $80,711,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CA     Westminster, East   July 9, 2020   Federal: $314,506,000
           Garden Grove,                     Non-Federal: $910,092,000
           California Flood                  Total: $1,224,598,000
           Risk Management
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. CT,    Westchester County  May 7, 2020    Federal: $14,702,500
 NY        Streams, Byram                    Non-Federal: $14,702,500
           River Basin,                      Total: $29,405,000
           Fairfield County,
           Connecticut, and
           Westchester
           County, New York
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. ND     Souris River Basin  April 16,      Federal: $58,041,750
           Flood Risk          2019          Non-Federal: $31,253,250
           Management                        Total: $89,295,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. NJ     Peckman River       April 29,      Federal: $95,022,000
           Basin               2020          Non-Federal: $51,166,000
                                             Total: $146,188,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. NM     Middle Rio Grande   March 13,      Federal: $190,538,000
           Flood Protection,   2020          Non-Federal: $102,598,000
           Bernalillo to                     Total: $293,136,000
           Belen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. OK     Tulsa and West-     April 23,      Federal: $86,780,000
           Tulsa Levee         2020          Non-Federal: $46,728,000
           System, Tulsa                     Total: $133,508,000
           County
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


[[Page H3949]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
                                Report of
A. State       B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. DE     Delaware            March 6, 2020  Initial Federal:
           Beneficial Use of                  $53,220,000
           Dredged Material                  Initial Non-Federal:
           for the Delaware                   $28,660,000
           River                             Total: $81,880,000
                                             Renourishment Federal:
                                              $116,380,000
                                             Renourishment Non-Federal:
                                              $116,380,000
                                             Renourishment Total:
                                              $232,760,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. NJ     New Jersey          April 8, 2020  Initial Federal:
           Beneficial Use of                  $80,780,000
           Dredged Material                  Initial Non-Federal:
           for the Delaware                   $43,500,000
           River                             Total: $124,280,000
                                             Renourishment Federal:
                                              $82,140,000
                                             Renourishment Non-Federal:
                                              $82,140,000
                                             Renourishment Total:
                                              $164,280,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. NJ     Rahway River        June 9, 2020   Federal: $46,754,000
           Basin, New Jersey                 Non-Federal: $25,175,000
           Coastal Storm                      Total: $71,929,000
           Risk Management
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. NY     East Rockaway       August 22,     Initial Federal:
           Inlet to Rockaway   2019           $604,203,000
           Inlet and Jamaica                 Initial Non-Federal: $0
           Bay, Atlantic                     Total: $604,203,000
           Coast of New York                 Renourishment Federal:
                                              $189,763,000
                                             Renourishment Non-Federal:
                                              $189,763,000
                                             Renourishment Total:
                                              $379,526,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. NY     Hashamomuck Cove    December 9,    Initial Federal:
           Coastal Storm       2019           $11,549,000
           Risk Management                   Initial Non-Federal:
                                              $6,218,000
                                             Total: $17,767,000
                                             Renourishment Federal:
                                              $23,481,500
                                             Renourishment Non-Federal:
                                              $23,481,500
                                             Renourishment Total:
                                              $46,963,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. RI     Pawcatuck River     December 19,   Federal: $37,848,000
           Coastal Storm       2018           Non-Federal: $20,379,000
           Risk Management                   Total: $58,227,000
           Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. VA     Norfolk Coastal     February 5,    Federal: $909,040,000
           Storm Risk          2019          Non-Federal: $489,480,000
           Management                         Total: $1,398,520,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
                                Report of
A. State       B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CO     South Platte River  July 29, 2019  Federal: $334,412,000
           and Tributaries,                  Non-Federal: $200,406,000
           Adams and Denver                  Total: $534,818,000
           Counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. NY     Fire Island Inlet   July 9, 2020   Initial Federal:
           to Montauk Point,                  $1,541,981,000
           New York                          Initial Non-Federal: $0
           Reformulation                     Total: $1,541,981,000
                                             Renourishment Federal:
                                              $742,926,500
                                             Renourishment Non-Federal:
                                              $742,926,500
                                             Renourishment Total:
                                              $1,485,853,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (5) Ecosystem restoration.--


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
                                Report of
A. State       B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CA     Delta Islands and    December 18,  Federal: $16,746,395
           Levees              2018          Non-Federal: $9,016,736
                                             Total: $25,763,131
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CA     Yuba River          June 20, 2019  Federal: $65,014,326
           Ecosystem                         Non-Federal: $35,008,268
           Restoration                       Total: $100,022,594
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. FL     Comprehensive       April 8, 2020  Federal: $372,232,000
           Everglades                        Non-Federal: $368,528,000
           Restoration Plan,                 Total: $740,760,000
           Loxahatchee River
           Watershed
           Restoration
           Project, Martin
           and Palm Beach
           Counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

[[Page H3950]]

 
4. IL     The Great Lakes     May 23, 2019   Federal: $690,643,200
           and Mississippi                   Non-Federal: $172,660,800
           River Interbasin                  Total: $863,304,000
           Study - Brandon
           Road, Will County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. IL     South Fork of the   July 9, 2020   Federal: $11,657,000
           South Branch of                   Non-Federal: $6,277,000
           the Chicago                       Total: $17,934,000
           River, Bubbly
           Creek, Ecosystem
           Restoration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. MD     Anacostia           December 19,   Federal: $23,171,000
           Watershed           2018          Non-Federal: $12,476,000
           Restoration,                      Total: $35,647,000
           Prince George's
           County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. MO     St. Louis           November 1,    Federal: $60,124,000
           Riverfront-         2019          Non-Federal: $32,375,000
           Meramec River                     Total: $92,499,000
           Basin Ecosystem
           Restoration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. NM     Rio Grande,         August 5,      Federal: $16,163,000
           Environmental       2019          Non-Federal: $8,703,000
           Management                        Total: $24,866,000
           Program, Sandia
           Pueblo to Isleta
           Pueblo, New
           Mexico Ecosystem
           Restoration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. NY,    Hudson-Raritan      May 26, 2020   Federal: $265,320,000
 NJ        Estuary Ecosystem                 Non-Federal: $142,864,000
           Restoration                       Total: $408,184,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. TX    Jefferson County    September 12,  Federal: $37,615,000
           Ecosystem           2019          Non-Federal: $20,254,000
           Restoration                       Total: $57,869,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (6) Water supply.--


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
                                Report of
A. State       B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. OR     Willamette River    December 18,   Federal: $0
           Basin Review        2019          Non-Federal: $0
           Reallocation,                     Total: $0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (7) Modifications and other projects.--


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
A. State       B.  Name          Decision        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                 Document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. FL     Caloosahatchee      July 24, 2020  Federal: $503,466,500
           River West Basin                  Non-Federal: $503,466,500
           Storage Reservoir                 Total: $1,006,933,000
           (C-43 WBSR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. KY     Kentucky Lock       June 9, 2020   Total: $1,152,769,000 (to
                                              be derived \1/2\ from the
                                              general fund of the
                                              Treasury and \1/2\ from
                                              the Inland Waterways Trust
                                              Fund)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. NC     Carolina Beach      June 16, 2020  Federal: $24,205,000
           Integrated Beach                  Non-Federal: $24,205,000
           Renourishment                     Total: $48,410,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. NC     Wrightsville Beach  July 2, 2020   Federal: $53,788,000
                                             Non-Federal: $22,329,000
                                             Total: $76,117,000
                                             Renourishment Federal:
                                              $14,553,000
                                             Renourishment Non-Federal:
                                              $14,553,000
                                             Renourishment Total:
                                              $29,106,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. TX     Corpus Christi      May 4, 2020    Federal: $403,000,000
           Ship Channel,                     Non-Federal: $273,010,000
           Deepening and                     Total: $676,010,000
           Widening and
           Barge Shelves
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     SEC. 402. SPECIAL RULES.

       (a) Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Project, 
     Brandon Road, Will County, Illinois.--The Secretary shall 
     carry out the project for ecosystem restoration, Great Lakes 
     and Mississippi River Interbasin project, Brandon Road, Will 
     County, Illinois, authorized by section 401 of this Act, 
     substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions 
     described in the Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 
     23, 2019, with the following modifications:
       (1) The Federal share of the cost of construction shall be 
     80 percent.
       (2) The Secretary may include the addition or substitution 
     of technologies or measures not described in the report, as 
     the Secretary determines to be advisable.
       (b) Willamette River Basin Review Reallocation Study.--The 
     Secretary shall carry out the project for water supply, 
     Willamette River Basin Review Reallocation, Oregon, 
     authorized by section 401 of this Act, substantially in 
     accordance with the terms and conditions described in the 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 18, 2019, 
     with the following modifications:
       (1) The Secretary shall meet the obligations of the Corps 
     of Engineers under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 by 
     complying

[[Page H3951]]

     with the June 2019 NMFS Willamette Basin Review Study 
     Biological Opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alternative until 
     such time, if any, as it is modified or replaced, in whole or 
     in part, through the consultation process under section 7(a) 
     of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
       (2) The Secretary may reallocate not more than 10 percent 
     of overall storage in the joint conservation pool, as 
     authorized by this Act and without further congressional 
     action, if such reallocation is consistent with the ongoing 
     consultation under section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act 
     of 1973 related to Willamette Valley System operations.
       (3) The Secretary shall ensure that the revised 
     reallocation is not reallocated from a single storage use, 
     does not seriously affect authorized project purposes, and 
     does not otherwise involve major operational changes to the 
     project.
       (c) Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico.--Section 5127 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 
     1242) is amended by striking ``$150,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$232,430,000''.

     SEC. 403. AUTHORIZATION OF PROJECTS BASED ON FEASIBILITY 
                   STUDIES PREPARED BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     the following projects for water resources development and 
     conservation and other purposes, subject to subsection (b):
       (1) Fort pierce, st. lucie county, florida.--The project 
     for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Fort Pierce, St. 
     Lucie County, Florida, as described in the review assessment 
     of the Secretary, titled ``Review Assessment of St. Lucie 
     County, Florida Fort Pierce Shore Protection Project Section 
     203 Integrated Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment 
     (June 2018)'' and dated July 2018, at a total cost of 
     $33,107,639, and at an estimated total cost of $97,958,972 
     for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the 
     project.
       (2) Baptiste collette bayou, louisiana.--The project for 
     navigation, Baptiste Collette Bayou, Louisiana, as described 
     in the review assessment of the Secretary, titled ``Review 
     Assessment of Plaquemines Parish Government's Section 203 
     Study Baptiste Collette Bayou Navigation Channel Deepening 
     Project Integrated Feasibility Study and Environmental 
     Assessment (January 2017, Amended April 2018)'' and dated 
     June 2018, at a total cost of $44,920,000.
       (3) Houma navigation canal, louisiana.--The project for 
     navigation, Houma Navigation Canal, Louisiana, as described 
     in the review assessment of the Secretary, titled ``Review 
     Assessment of Houma Navigation Canal Deepening Project 
     Section 203 Integrated Feasibility Report and DRAFT 
     Environmental Impact Statement (June 2018)'' and dated July 
     2018, at a total cost of $253,458,000.
       (4) Port fourchon belle pass channel, louisiana.--The 
     project for navigation, Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel, 
     Louisiana, as described in the review assessment of the 
     Secretary, titled ``Review Assessment of Port Fourchon Belle 
     Pass Channel Deepening Project Section 203 Feasibility Study 
     (January 2019, revised January 2020)'' and dated April 2020, 
     at a total cost of $95,483,000.
       (5) Wilmington harbor, north carolina.--The project for 
     navigation, Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina, as described 
     in the review assessment of the Secretary, titled ``Review 
     Assessment of Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina Navigation 
     Improvement Project Integrated Section 203 Study & 
     Environmental Report (February 2020)'' and dated May 2020, at 
     a total cost of $834,093,000.
       (6) Chacon creek, texas.--The project for flood risk 
     management, ecosystem restoration, and other purposes, Chacon 
     Creek, Texas, as described in the review assessment of the 
     Secretary, titled ``Review Assessment of Chacon Creek, Texas 
     Section 203 Integrated Feasibility Report and DRAFT 
     Environmental Assessment (August 2018)'' and dated September 
     2018, at a total cost of $51,973,000.
       (b) Requirements.--The Secretary may only carry out a 
     project authorized under subsection (a)--
       (1) substantially in accordance with the applicable review 
     assessment for the project submitted by the Secretary under 
     section 203(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986, as identified in subsection (a) of this section, and 
     subject to such modifications or conditions as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate and identifies in a final assessment 
     that addresses the concerns, recommendations, and conditions 
     identified by the Secretary in the applicable review 
     assessment; and
       (2) after the Secretary transmits to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate such final assessment.
       (c) Technical Correction.--Section 203(c)(1) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231(c)(1)) is 
     amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by 
     striking ``a report'' and inserting ``an assessment''.

                       TITLE V--BUDGETARY EFFECTS

     SEC. 501. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Graves) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.

                              {time}  1415


                             General Leave

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 7575, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we continue the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee tradition by considering the fourth consecutive bipartisan 
Water Resources Development Act since 2014, a tradition started by my 
friend and predecessor, Bill Shuster. It is a great tradition, and it 
is an incredible service to our Nation.
  I am proud to be joined by Ranking Member Sam Graves, Subcommittee 
Chair Napolitano, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Bruce Westerman in 
sponsoring the Water Resources Development Act of 2020.
  The bill under consideration today was developed in a bipartisan 
manner with input from both sides of the aisle. The legislation was 
considered in committee and favorably reported by voice vote.
  H.R. 7575 includes projects and policy provisions that impact 
communities across the Nation. It authorizes construction of 34 
projects studied and approved by the chief of engineers since WRDA 2018 
was signed into law.
  It authorizes 36 new Corps of Engineers feasibility studies and 
directs the Corps to expedite the completion of 41 ongoing studies, 
which were submitted to the Corps by local sponsors willing to share 
the costs of these project studies.
  H.R. 7575 continues our work to ensure the full utilization of the 
harbor maintenance trust fund by unlocking nearly $10 billion. This is 
$10 billion under an initiative started by Ronald Reagan of taxes 
collected from shippers that are ultimately paid by consumers in the 
United States. So, for years, we have been taking money under false 
pretenses and not spending that money on its designated purpose.
  This bill will finally rectify that problem. There is ample need to 
invest that $10 billion in our ports and harbors around the country.
  The legislation also directs the Secretary of the Army to equitably 
allocate maintenance funds to pay for harbor operation maintenance 
needs, while addressing the ongoing needs of the Nation's largest 
ports, the Great Lakes harbors, its emerging harbors.
  This is especially important in communities like my district along 
Oregon's southwest coast, where the difference between life and death 
for those who both recreate or fish commercially is in the conditions 
of our harbors, jetties, and breakwaters. It is literally life and 
death in very cold water. So, this is incredibly important.
  Before earmarks were banned, I used to get my harbors dredged by 
earmarking. Since that was banned when the Republicans took over in 
2010, I managed in the first WRDA bill in 2014 to get a 10 percent set-
aside for small and emerging harbors. That has provided the critical 
dredging for my district and many, many harbors around the United 
States of America.
  This bill, because we will have a lot more money, will provide 
actually 20 percent to small and emerging harbors. We have delayed and 
deferred projects all around the country.
  This bill also recognizes the important role that inland waterways 
play in our Nation and provides a cost-share shift to help in 
completing construction of much-needed projects. I would give a shout-
out to Conor Lamb from Pennsylvania as being a tireless advocate on 
that, as well as other Members.
  WRDA 2020 also includes specific policies that focus on climate 
change,

[[Page H3952]]

natural infrastructure solutions, and affordability, and provisions 
that assist minority, Tribal, and rural communities.
  The bill recognizes the important role of resiliency in helping 
communities meet the current and future challenges of changing 
hydrologic conditions and repetitive and more frequent flooding events. 
I am glad to include provisions in this bill that will ensure taxpayer 
dollars are spent on infrastructure that will be resilient and will 
contribute to the resiliency of communities across the country.
  It also ensures that all communities, especially communities with 
socioeconomic challenges, have a path forward in getting the tools they 
need for flood protection and ecosystem restoration. H.R. 7575 
continues this tradition with a 2-year extension of the process.
  We accommodated many, many Member requests from both sides of the 
aisle in this bill. There are some provisions in this bill, however, 
that will need further review. This legislation continues in 
conference.
  For example, H.R. 7575 authorizes six projects where the studies were 
developed by the non-Federal interest under section 203 of WRDA-86.
  The committee has received letters of concern about whether these 
projects have undergone sufficient environmental review, which would 
include public input of an equivalent level to studies developed by the 
Corps of Engineers. These are valid questions, and they may require 
changes to the 203 process as we go to conference with the Senate.
  I would like to recognize a few individual members on the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure for their valuable contributions 
to this bill: Chairwoman Grace Napolitano, for her dogged support in 
addressing the maintenance needs of our largest ports, particularly 
southern California, and for meeting future water supply needs of arid 
regions around the Nation, and the dedication of some of the newest 
members of my committee.
  The vice chairwoman of the subcommittee is Ms. Mucarsel-Powell from 
Florida, and her dedication to getting provisions to protect and 
restore the national treasure that is the Everglades was tireless.
  I also recognize the work of the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. 
Fletcher) for her incredibly strong advocacy for the Port of Houston 
and their needs, and for the protection and sustainability of the 
businesses and communities along the Texas Gulf Coast that depend upon 
that navigable area.

  I also recognize the new Member, the gentlewoman from Iowa (Ms. 
Finkenauer), for her advocacy in addressing flooding risks of rural and 
economically disadvantaged communities within the Mississippi River 
Valley.
  As I mentioned before, Conor Lamb contributed. Angie Craig, Mr. 
Pappas from New Hampshire, Representative Delgado, Harley Rouda, and 
Sharice Davids, they were all instrumental in bringing important issues 
to the committee and contributed to the formation of WRDA 2020.
  The Water Resources Development Act is essential to communities 
throughout the country that depend upon the safe and affordable uses of 
their ports, harbors, and inland waterways. Our economy, safety, and 
environment will benefit from passage of WRDA 2020.
  I am proud of our work on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join 
me in support of this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
                                         House of Representatives,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2020.
     Hon. Peter A. DeFazio,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman DeFazio: I write to confirm our mutual 
     understanding regarding H.R. 7575, the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2020. H.R. 7575 contains provisions that 
     fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
     Budget. However, in order to expedite floor consideration of 
     this important legislation, the Committee agrees to waive 
     formal consideration of the bill.
       The Committee on the Budget takes this action with the 
     mutual understanding that, in doing so, we do not waive any 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or 
     similar legislation, and that the Committee will be 
     appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar 
     legislation moves forward so that we may address any 
     remaining issues within our jurisdiction. The Committee also 
     reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate 
     conference convened on this legislation or similar 
     legislation and requests your support if such a request is 
     made.
       Thank you for agreeing to include our exchange of letters 
     in the Congressional Record. I appreciate your cooperation 
     regarding this legislation and look forward to continuing to 
     work with you as this measure moves through the legislative 
     process.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John A. Yarmuth,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2020.
     Hon. John Yarmuth,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Yarmuth: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R 
     7575, the Water Resources Development Act of 2020. I 
     appreciate your decision to waive formal consideration of the 
     bill.
       I agree that the Committee on the Budget has valid 
     jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
     legislation, and I further agree that by forgoing formal 
     consideration of the bill, the Committee on the Budget is not 
     waiving any jurisdiction over any relevant subject matter. 
     Additionally, I will support the appointment of conferees 
     from the Committee on the Budget should a House-Senate 
     conference be convened on this legislation. Finally, this 
     exchange of letters will be included in the Congressional 
     Record when the bill is considered on the floor.
       Thank you again and I look forward to continuing to work 
     collaboratively with the Committee on the Budget on this 
     important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Peter A. DeFazio,
                                                            Chair.

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7575, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2020, or WRDA 2020.
  Two weeks ago, we advanced this bipartisan legislation out of 
committee by voice vote. In taking up this bill, as the chairman 
pointed out, we are maintaining Congress' consideration of WRDA 
legislation on a 2-year cycle, something that we have done for some 
time now, since 2014.
  We are also demonstrating that when we work in partnership instead of 
partisanship, we can accomplish great things for the infrastructure and 
for the American people.
  I want to thank all the members of the committee and staff, 
especially the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, for 
their hard work and their willingness to work together on this 
important piece of legislation.
  WRDA authorizes 39 critical projects across the country that 
originate at the local level but provide far-reaching benefits 
throughout their regions and the national economy.
  WRDA is going to strengthen our American competitiveness. It is going 
to provide greater safeguards and peace of mind to our constituencies 
and help create jobs. Importantly, this bill supports the Nation's 
inland waterway networks and flood protection infrastructure.
  In my home State of Missouri, we experienced devastating high water 
in 2019. Record flooding along the Missouri River destroyed homes, 
farms, and businesses in communities like Big Lake and Craig, Missouri, 
and many of those affected are still recovering to this day.
  The threat of flooding remains for many Americans, and this bill 
authorizes some bold new plans to evaluate flood risk reduction in many 
of the major river basins.
  This is a good first step to providing greater protections for the 
lives and property of the folks in the Lower Missouri River Basin. My 
district also borders the Mississippi River, with local communities 
facing very similar challenges with flood control and navigation.
  To address these issues, WRDA provides new authority for the 
construction of permanent flood control structures in communities that 
experience repetitive losses as a result of flood events. We simply 
have to stop rebuilding back to the same inadequate standards in 
repeatedly flooded communities like mine in north Missouri.
  This bill also streamlines the Public Law 84-99 program to ensure 
critical projects under this program can be done more efficiently and 
more effectively.

[[Page H3953]]

  It has been more than a year since floods devastated parts of my 
district, and I am still getting calls from levee districts and 
communities on both the Mississippi and the Missouri Rivers about 
issues they are having with this program. Under this bill, some of that 
is going to be alleviated.
  The bill also delays construction and requires further evaluation of 
interception-rearing complexes, or IRCs. These expensive and unproven 
projects are supposedly designed to save the pallid sturgeon, but we 
don't know if they will actually do that. What we do know is that they 
are disastrous for navigation and disastrous for flood control along 
the Missouri River.
  This bill recognizes the Corps should not build any more IRCs until 
it is proven that they won't negatively impact navigation and flood 
protection for many of our towns, farms, and businesses along the 
river.
  Additionally, this legislation provides important new tools and 
funding set-asides for rural communities. It ensures that major 
construction and rehabilitation efforts on the inland waterway system 
are completed more quickly, and it offsets new project authorizations 
with deauthorizations of old, out-of-date projects to ensure fiscal 
responsibility.
  This is a commonsense, bipartisan bill, and I want to thank Chairman 
DeFazio, Chairwoman Napolitano, and Ranking Member Westerman for their 
partnership in this bipartisan effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 7575, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Water Resources 
Development Act.
  This bill, which was artfully and carefully drafted by Chairman 
DeFazio and the chair of the Water Resources and Environment 
Subcommittee, Congresswoman Napolitano, enjoys broad bipartisan 
support.
  In particular, this bill includes provisions that will protect the 
Great Lakes, which contain 90 percent of North America's fresh surface 
water.
  It includes a specific authorization of the invasive species control 
system at Brandon Road Lock and Dam. Once completed, Brandon Road will 
prevent Asian carp and other invasive species from entering the Great 
Lakes.
  The Great Lakes delegation has fought for that authorization for 
nearly a decade. Since 2010, when Congress authorized the Great Lakes 
interbasin study, our delegation has worked for a long-term and basin-
wide solution to the threat posed by the Asian carp.
  Today's authorization is not the end, but it sends a bipartisan and 
clear message to our Nation that we take the protection of America's 
greatest $7 billion recreational, fishery, and freshwater system 
seriously.
  In addition to the bill's commitment to the Brandon Road project, I 
also commend the committee and its chair for taking important steps 
updating requirements for resiliency, embedding beneficial reuse into 
the Corps' project development process, and investing and rebuilding 
the Nation's water infrastructure for the 21st century, all of which 
will create good jobs across this Nation.
  Let me applaud Chairman DeFazio and the ranking member for their 
careful work to develop a bipartisan bill. The Water Resources 
Development Act of 2020 enjoys broad support and will ensure our 
Nation's continued prosperity.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), who is on the Water Resources 
and Environment Subcommittee.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Republican leader and our 
ranking member, Mr. Graves from Missouri, for their continued 
leadership on the consideration of the Water Resource Development Acts, 
or WRDAs.
  Today I rise in strong support of H.R. 7575, WRDA 2020. H.R. 7575 
strengthens our Nation's ability to withstand severe weather and flood 
events. It authorizes the construction of key water infrastructure 
projects, creates jobs here at home, and directly contributes to our 
economic growth and competitiveness.
  The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, where I have the 
honor of serving as ranking member, has jurisdiction over the water 
resources development missions of the U.S. Corps of Engineers. H.R. 
7575 authorizes vital Corps projects for navigation; flood control; 
shoreline protection; recreation; water supply; environmental 
protection, restoration, and enhancement; and fish and wildlife 
management.
  This WRDA bill focuses on supporting more resilient infrastructure, 
increasing rural flood protection, addressing the maintenance backlogs 
at our Nation's ports and harbors, and prioritizes our Nation's inland 
waterways.
  This bill will help key projects in my home State of Arkansas that 
will spur economic development and prevent further environmental 
degradation. It advances the long-stalled MKARNS deepening project, 
protects the water supply for users of the Ouachita-Black system, and 
begins the process of preventing bank destabilization of the Sulphur 
River.
  Our committee passed this bill 2 weeks ago by a voice vote, 
continuing the strong bipartisan support and the WRDA tradition.
  H.R. 7575 is fiscally responsible, with new project authorizations 
fully offset by deauthorizations of projects that are outdated or no 
longer viable.
  Above all, this legislation represents the continued bipartisan 
commitment to regular order for consideration of water resources 
projects. Regularly overseeing the improvement of our Nation's 
infrastructure is one of Congress' most important responsibilities.
  This is a good, commonsense bill, and I want to thank Chair DeFazio 
and especially Chair Napolitano for her leadership on our Water 
Resources and Environment Subcommittee, and both of them for working 
across the aisle with us.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the incredible staff work 
on both sides of the aisle, but, in particular, the Republican staff, 
which includes Ian Bennitt, Jon Pawlow, and Victor Sarmiento. I also 
want to recognize Jefferson Deming on my staff for his work.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 7575.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I included in the Record a letter from 
Chairman   John Yarmuth from the House Committee on the Budget agreeing 
to waive consideration of H.R. 7575, as amended, as well as my response 
to Chairman Yarmuth expressing appreciation for his willingness to work 
cooperatively on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record several letters of support 
from organizations and stakeholders in support of H.R. 7575.
                                                    July 28, 2020.
       Dear Members of the U.S. House of Representatives,
       The farmers, ranchers, food and beverage manufacturers, 
     processors, package suppliers and agricultural product 
     marketers that comprise our memberships are dedicated to 
     providing the safe, abundant and affordable food, fiber and 
     feed required to ensure our country stays healthy and fed.
       Because American agriculture's competitive advantage 
     largely depends upon the quality, reliability, accessibility 
     and cost-effectiveness of the national transportation system, 
     our organizations commend Congress for consistently examining 
     water infrastructure projects every two years and write today 
     to urge your support of H.R. 7575, the Water Resources 
     Development Act (WRDA) of 2020.
       As you know, agricultural commodities move via truck, rail, 
     barge and ocean-going vessels. Consistent and timely focus on 
     the U.S. inland waterways transportation network is vital to 
     agricultural stakeholders because 20 percent of a farmer's 
     income depends on exports. Inland waterway barge 
     transportation is the least expensive, most efficient and 
     most environmentally friendly mode, and U.S. locks and dams 
     help relieve congestion and wear-and-tear on highways as well 
     as discipline rail rates.
       With respect to U.S. port and inland waterways 
     infrastructure, H.R. 7575 includes two notable provisions we 
     wish to highlight. Both Section 101 concerning the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) and Section 108 pertaining to 
     inland waterways projects would positively affect the ability 
     of our organizations' members to fulfill their role in the 
     agricultural value chain to serve American farmers and 
     domestic and global customers.
       As you know, the intent of Section 101 of H.R. 7575 is to 
     ``unlock'' the more than $9 billion that's been collected and 
     deposited in the HMTF by those that pay the 0.125 percent ad 
     valorem tax based upon the value of

[[Page H3954]]

     cargo imports. The inability thus far to access and spend 
     those dollars on much-needed port dredging further has eroded 
     the United States' comparative transportation advantage and 
     contributed to lost export opportunities to the detriment of 
     U.S. economic growth. Our organizations strongly support 
     Section 101, which would provide critical and overdue access 
     to the existing balance in the HMTF so that these funds can 
     be spent on dredging as intended.
       In addition, we believe that adjusting the cost-share 
     formula for inland waterway construction and major 
     rehabilitation of navigation projects, as proposed in Section 
     108 of H.R. 7575, is a prudent policy that would help address 
     a critical problem facing our inland waterways transportation 
     system. As you know, the majority of U.S. locks and dams are 
     operating on borrowed time, having long outlived their 50-
     year design life. Further, most are not of sufficient 
     capacity to handle modem 1,200-foot barge tows, and others 
     require more maintenance. Each of these factors costs 
     shippers valuable time and resources.
       Section 108 amends the cost-share formula for the 
     construction and major rehabilitation of each inland 
     waterways navigation project from the current 50 percent 
     general revenue and 50 percent Inland Waterways Trust Fund 
     (IWTF) funding to 65 percent general revenue and 35 percent 
     IWTF. The policy is a step in the right direction that would 
     expedite completion of such projects and help bring the U.S. 
     inland waterways transportation system into the 21st century. 
     For these reasons, we support making permanent the cost share 
     formula adjustment in H.R. 7575 to provide certainty for 
     these projects, which reduces construction costs.
       Our organizations strongly support passage of H.R. 7575 
     because Section 101 and Section 108 would enhance U.S. 
     agriculture's competitiveness, contribute to the overall 
     efficiency of the U.S. transportation system, and promote 
     overall U.S. economic growth and job creation. We urge you to 
     support and approve this critical infrastructure bill so that 
     negotiations can proceed with the Senate with the goal of 
     enacting a new WRDA law in 2020.
           Sincerely,
       Agricultural and Food Transporters Conference, Agricultural 
     Retailers Association, Agriculture Transportation Coalition, 
     American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean 
     Association, American Sugar Cane League, Corn Refiners 
     Association, Farm Credit Council, Florida Sugar Cane League, 
     Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, National Aquaculture 
     Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National 
     Cattlemen's Beef Association.
       National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, 
     National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Grain and 
     Feed Association, National Milk Producers Federation, 
     National Oilseed Processors Association, North American 
     Millers' Association, North American Renderers Association, 
     Specialty Soya & Grains Alliance, The Fertilizer Institute, 
     United Fresh Produce Association, USA Rice, Waterways 
     Council, Inc., Western Growers.
                                  ____

                                              American Association


                                           of Port Authorites,

                                                    July 15, 2020.
     Hon. Peter DeFazio,
     Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sam Graves,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
     Re Water Resources Development Act of 2020.

       Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves: The 
     American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) supports 
     passage of H.R. 7575, the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2020 through the House of Representatives. On behalf of our 
     78 United States member ports, AAPA appreciates that this 
     legislation expands the budget cap adjustment to all the 
     Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund revenues for the U.S. Army 
     Corps of Engineers (Corps) which would unlock approximately 
     $10 billion from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. We are 
     pleased to see that the legislation recognizes the needs of 
     donor ports, emerging harbors and Great Lakes navigation 
     projects and look forward to working with you prior to 
     enactment on these provisions.
       The legislation also authorizes new navigation channel 
     improvement studies as well as authorizing projects to 
     proceed to construction. The legislation continues to improve 
     the efficiency and cost effectiveness of Corps study efforts 
     and product delivery. These efforts are essential for our 
     Nation's future economic growth as well as providing family 
     supporting jobs.
       I thank you for your work on these issues and others 
     related to maritime infrastructure, both included in this 
     bill and otherwise. Our Association looks forward to working 
     with you, your Committee staff, and the rest of Congress on 
     passage of this legislation.
           Respectfully,
                                            Christopher J. Connor,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                 The Construction Association,

                                                    July 28, 2020.
     Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Re H.R. 7575, the Water Resources Development Act of 2020.

       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy: On behalf 
     of the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC)--the 
     leading association in the construction industry representing 
     more than 27,000 firms, including America's leading general 
     contractors, specialty-contracting firms, service providers, 
     and suppliers--I urge you to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 7575, the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2020, which is expected to 
     be considered by the U.S. House of Representatives under the 
     suspension of the rules this week.
       H.R. 7575 is an essential step forward as Congress works to 
     continue the biennial process of passing legislation that 
     invests in our nation's water resources infrastructure. The 
     predictability of the biennial passage of water resources 
     development acts is critical for all stakeholders invoked in 
     the planning and execution of water resources projects. 
     Through these investments, H.R. 7575 will create jobs, 
     improve the quality of life for all Americans, protect our 
     communities, facilitate waterborne commerce, restore 
     environmentally sensitive areas of the country, and help grow 
     our economy.
       AGC appreciates that the bill will help ensure that the 
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Civil Works Program is 
     appropriately responsive to the water resources needs 
     identified by local communities. Specifically, the bill 
     authorizes more than 30 pending Corps Chief's Reports, which 
     will facilitate important water resources projects across the 
     country, authorizes dozens of new feasibility studies, and 
     expedites the completion of many existing feasibility 
     studies. In addition, AGC supports the provisions of H.R. 
     7575 that ensure funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 
     go towards their intended uses, extend a pilot program that 
     allows non-federal interests to carry out feasibility studies 
     and projects, and modify the cost share of projects funded by 
     the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, among others.
       AGC applauds the bipartisan process used to develop H.R. 
     7575 and is hopeful that the House and U.S. Senate will reach 
     an agreement between their respective legislative proposals 
     this year. Again, AGC urges you to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 7575 
     and looks forward to working with the Congress as the 
     legislative process continues.
           Sincerely,
                                            James V. Christianson,
     Vice President, Government Relations.
                                  ____


                                                          The Port


                                               of Los Angeles,

                                                    July 16, 2020.
     Hon. Peter DeFazio,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Garret Graves,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Grace Napolitano,
     Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bruce Westerman,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
         Environment, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman DeFazio, Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking 
     Member Graves, and Ranking Member Westerman: On behalf of the 
     Port of Los Angeles, I am writing to thank you for your 
     leadership in advancing the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2020 and to express our strong support for its swift 
     enactment.
       Combined, the San Pedro Bay ports of Los Angeles and Long 
     Beach handle more than one third of the nation's 
     containerized imports and exports. In fact, every single 
     Congressional district in the nation is reached by the goods 
     moving through the San Pedro bay, so maintaining the in-water 
     infrastructure at these ports is essential for American 
     competitiveness in the global economy.
       In previous communications we noted that historically the 
     San Pedro Bay ports receive a disproportionately low return 
     of Harbor Maintenance Trust (HMT) revenues, and what we do 
     receive cannot be used for vital infrastructure maintenance. 
     We are grateful that you have recognized the importance of 
     equity for donor ports in your legislation and addressed 
     these priorities:
       Fair share of HMT funding for donor ports.
       Expanded uses for emerging harbors and donor ports.
       Extension of the 2106 program for donor and energy transfer 
     ports.
       A robust and healthy port industry is vital to our nation's 
     economy. Donor ports, such as the Port of Los Angeles, play a 
     fundamental role in supporting the national freight system 
     and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Full spend of HMT 
     revenues (including the trust fund balance), and fair and 
     equitable allocations, will ensure that this important 
     funding is used to enhance our nation's competitiveness.
       Language in the recently passed CARES Act includes ``full-
     spend'' to be implemented with either the passage of WRDA 
     reauthorization or in January 2021. This makes addressing 
     donor equity and expanded uses extremely urgent and I am 
     grateful for your work to address these vital issues and am 
     happy to express my strong support for this bi-partisan 
     legislation.
       We applaud your efforts to address this vital 
     infrastructure need and hope to work

[[Page H3955]]

     with you as this bill moves forward to address the unique 
     requirements of our nation's ports.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Eugene D. Seroka,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____


         [From the National Wildlife Federation, July 15, 2020]

Water Resources Development Act Includes Wins for Wildlife, Communities

       Washington, DC--The Water Resources Development Act of 
     2020, which is being marked up by the House Transportation 
     and Infrastructure Committee, includes numerous provisions to 
     advance ecosystem restoration and strengthen climate 
     resilience. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 
     reported out a related bill, America's Water Infrastructure 
     Act of 2020, earlier this year.
       ``Nature has long been an underutilized tool in the Army 
     Corps' toolbox. This bill takes important steps to remedy 
     this, with a suite of reforms that remove barriers to using 
     healthy rivers, floodplains, wetlands and shorelines to 
     protect communities from hurricanes and floods,'' said 
     Melissa Samet, senior water resources counsel at the National 
     Wildlife Federation. ``The National Wildlife Federation is 
     grateful for the strong leadership of Chairman DeFazio, 
     Subcommittee Chair Napolitano, Ranking Member Sam Graves and 
     Subcommittee Ranking Member Westerman for their bipartisan 
     efforts to advance important provisions to protect frontline 
     communities and vital ecosystems including the Everglades, 
     Mississippi River Delta, and Great Lakes.''
       The National Wildlife Federation supports many important 
     provisions of this bill, including:
       Provisions that remove barriers to, and drive use of 
     natural infrastructure, including by ensuring that natural 
     infrastructure solutions will benefit from the same cost-
     share requirements as non-structural measures.
       Careful evaluation of natural infrastructure solutions to 
     protect communities from storms and floods, including a 
     robust pilot program that provides full federal funding for 
     flood and storm risk reduction studies for economically 
     disadvantaged communities and ensures robust evaluation of 
     natural infrastructure solutions.
       Implementation of the Water Resources Principles, 
     Requirements and Guidelines (PR&G) by the Corps, including 
     fully engaging the public in that effort. Effective 
     implementation of the PR&G will bring the Corps' water 
     resources planning process in line with 21st Century water 
     resources management principles, and improve water resources 
     planning across the board.
       Comprehensive review of the Corps' mitigation record by the 
     Government Accountability Office. Ensuring full compliance 
     with mitigation requirements is critical for fish and 
     wildlife and for the communities and economies that rely on 
     these vital resources.
                                  ____

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                                    July 14, 2020.
     Hon. Peter DeFazio,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sam Graves,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves: The U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce applauds the bipartisan approach taken by 
     your Committee in advance of tomorrow's markup of the Water 
     Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2020. Reauthorization of 
     America's water resources programs is critical to economic 
     growth and environmental stewardship, and we support this 
     legislation.
       WRDA would ensure the viability of the U.S. Army Corps of 
     Engineers' Civil Works programs including navigation, flood 
     risk management, recreation, and associated environmental 
     infrastructure. Enactment of this bill would provide critical 
     economic and environmental benefits to the United States.
       Reauthorizing these programs prior to their September 30 
     expiration would provide the certainty of federal commitment 
     needed to allow state, local, and private partners to move 
     forward with needed planning and construction of modern, 
     resilient infrastructure. These important water projects 
     would bring economic benefits to both rural and urban 
     regions.
       The Chamber also applauds the inclusion of 34 new project 
     authorizations, additional provisions to ensure modern, 
     resilient infrastructure, improvements in water supply 
     delivery, and increased investment from the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund, a long-time priority of both your 
     Committee and the Chamber.
       With less than three months until the current authorization 
     expires, the Chamber is pleased that House leadership 
     anticipates floor consideration of the bill later this month. 
     We appreciate your Committee moving promptly to ensure timely 
     action on these critical issues.
           Sincerely,
     Neil L. Bradley.
                                  ____



                                      Waterways Council, Inc.,

                                    Washington, DC, July 28, 2020.
     Hon. Peter DeFazio,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sam Graves,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves: The 
     members of Waterways Council, Inc. (WCI) thank you for your 
     leadership and commitment to the Water Resources and 
     Development Act (WRDA) biennial process.
       America's inland waterways system includes 12,000 miles of 
     commercially operated and maintained navigable channels that 
     directly affect 38 states. The inland waterways system is 
     tasked with transporting the nation's bulk commodities that 
     keep America competitive in the most energy-efficient and 
     environmentally friendly way. In 2016, 558 million tons of 
     commodities valued at $300 billion transited the waterways, 
     supporting 541,000 American jobs.
       WCI thanks you for Section 108. This section adjusts the 
     cost-share formula for the construction and major 
     rehabilitation of inland waterways navigation projects from 
     the current 50 percent general revenue and 50 percent Inland 
     Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) to 65 percent general revenue and 
     35 percent IWTF for seven years. The policy is a step in the 
     right direction and will help expedite the completion of 
     inland waterways construction and major rehabilitation 
     projects during the applicable years. WCI looks forward to 
     working with the Committee as they proceed to conference on 
     making the cost-share permanent.
       Passing this legislation in regular order is critical to 
     ensuring waterways reliability in order to keep America 
     competitive. WCI offers its support of passing WRDA 2020.
           Sincerely,

                                                    Tracy Zea,

                                                President and CEO,
     Waterways Council, Inc.
                                  ____


                         WRDA 2020 Support List

       American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, 
     Agricultural Working Group, American Association of Port 
     Authorities (AAPA), American Society of Civil Engineers, 
     Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), Association 
     of California Water Agencies, Association of Marina 
     Industries, BOAT US, Earthjustice, Future Ports, Great Lakes 
     Metro Chambers Coalition (GLMCC), Healing Our Waters-Great 
     Lakes Coalition, Laborers International Union of North 
     America (LIUNA), Lake Carriers' Association, Marine Retailers 
     Association of America.
       National Association of Counties (NACo), National Audubon 
     Society, National Grain and Feed Association, National Marine 
     Manufacturers Association, National Parks Conservation 
     Association (NPCA), National Water Supply Alliance, National 
     Wildlife Federation (NWF), Port of Los Angeles, Resources 
     Legacy Fund/Open Rivers Fund, Rise to Resilience and 
     Waterfront Alliance, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 
     Partnership, The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce, Waterways Council, Inc.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who is a member of the committee.
  Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2020 and commend the leadership of 
Chairman DeFazio and Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment 
Chair Napolitano.
  I hail from Chicago and the Nation's Gold Coast along Lake Michigan, 
and we know how important a healthy Great Lakes system is. Lake 
Michigan is not only Chicago's primary drinking water source, it is 
part of the largest freshwater source in the world--our beloved Great 
Lakes.
  Lake Michigan is a tremendous recreational resource and economic 
asset, and it needs to be protected. This legislation authorizes 
projects important to my constituents.
  First, the Brandon Road Lock and Dam project must be completed to 
prevent Asian carp, an invasive species, from migrating into Lake 
Michigan.
  We must also restore Bubbly Creek, a degraded waterway that was 
polluted by Chicago's meatpacking industry in the early 1900s and made 
famous by Upton Sinclair's ``The Jungle.'' Restoring the waterway will 
create a healthy ecosystem and benefit neighborhoods like McKinley 
Park, Bridgeport, and Pilsen.
  Managing storm water systems can be challenging in Chicago because it 
is heavily urbanized. This bill promotes more natural infrastructure 
and studies for Chicago area rivers and the Great Lakes river basins to 
make sure future projects preserve our drinking water, protect people's 
homes and businesses from flooding, and restore our environment so that 
all communities benefit from our rivers and Great Lakes.
  I am proud of the bipartisan effort developing and passing this 
legislation through the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

[[Page H3956]]

  I also want to give a shout-out to my incredible Brookings 
Institution fellow, Christine Gallagher, who has done tremendous work 
for my office on transportation and water issues. This is her last week 
before she returns to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, and I congratulate her.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).
  Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I rise also, today, in support of the Water 
Resources and Development Act of 2020. This piece of legislation is a 
top priority for my constituents in south Florida on the Treasure Coast 
because it is critical to our public health, our environment, and our 
economy.
  Now, I am smiling because this legislation includes a number of 
provisions that I was proud to write to protect Florida's waterways, 
including accelerating construction of the EAA reservoir, reducing 
discharges from Lake Okeechobee to the St. Lucie Estuary, and to combat 
harmful algal blooms--all yeomen's work.
  Now, demanding that the Army Corps of Engineers must seek to reduce 
discharges into our coastal estuaries is a huge victory that everybody 
in our community should be proud of.
  However, I ask my colleagues this: If their constituents were being, 
literally, poisoned by the Federal Government, would they fight for 
anything less than a complete stop to that poisoning?
  That is why I am going to continue to be in this fight with 
everything that I have got, build on this momentum to eliminate all 
toxic discharges into my community and send more water south into 
Florida's Everglades.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb), who is a member of the committee and who was 
key in getting the additional investments in the inland waterways.
  Mr. LAMB. Mr. Speaker, others before me have said why it matters that 
we have working locks and dams. It has always mattered.
  The United States has more miles of navigable rivers, lakes, and 
canals than anywhere else in the world. It made us who we are as a 
nation. We could move iron ore to make steel faster, cheaper, and 
easier than all of our competitors because of our water, but especially 
because of our locks and dams that control the water. So we need to fix 
them, and this bill will help.
  I hope that America will take note of something else here today, 
which is that this Congress still works. It might not be as well as 
people would want every single day, but this is a major bill. This is a 
major infrastructure bill, and this is a major infrastructure bill that 
has been bipartisan from the very beginning and, hopefully, will end 
bipartisan when our friends in the Senate work with us to get this 
done.
  I want to give a special thanks to my Republican friend and colleague 
from Texas (Mr. Babin). Together, we led a big group of Members from 
both parties in support of a better way to fund these locks and dams.
  I especially want to thank Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member 
Graves, who agreed. Now we have a better chance to rebuild the locks 
and dams and to deliver on the promise we made to the American people.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), who is the ranking member of the 
Aviation Subcommittee.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend 
Republicans and Democrats for coming together. This bill is a 
bipartisan bill. It doesn't mean it is perfect, but it means that we 
all came together and we worked together to ensure that we are 
advancing our Nation's water resources.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does everything from ecological restoration, 
to our navigation channels, to flood control, to hurricane protection.
  This is about the resilience and sustainability of our community and 
the resilience and sustainability of our ecosystem and our economy. 
These are projects that we need to be working together on.
  I want to thank my friend, the chairman, Mr. DeFazio; the ranking 
member, Sam Graves; as well as the subcommittee--friends--chairman and 
ranking member, Grace Napolitano and Bruce Westerman.

  Mr. Speaker, this bill advances important priorities like ensuring 
section 1043 can be expanded to allow our State and non-Federal 
sponsors to be a partner with the Corps of Engineers--a true partner--
and lead some sections of the projects; allowing our continuing 
authorities programs to be expanded; incorporating tools like natural 
infrastructure into the toolbox of achieving these objectives that we 
all share; ensuring that we attack--and I want to thank my friend from 
Florida (Mr. Mast) for leading on this--the harmful algal blooms off 
the coast of Louisiana, which I represent, largest dead zone in this 
Nation on a national basis; and importantly, ensuring that we maintain 
and take a different sustainable approach to the authorized depth of 
the Mississippi River system, which is America's commerce superhighway, 
connecting 31 States with the least expensive and lowest emissions form 
of transportation; putting shipments on barges and on oceangoing 
vessels so America can compete globally with the great products that we 
develop here.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the great staff who worked on this, 
including Ian Bennitt, Victor Sarmiento, Ryan Seiger, Maggie Ayrea, 
Paul Sawyer, and all the folks who helped put this bill together. I 
urge adoption.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ruiz).
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, the Water Resources Development Act contains 
important language to help prevent a public health crisis at the Salton 
Sea, California's largest lake, which is in my district.
  The Salton Sea's shoreline is rapidly receding, exposing thousands of 
acres of lake bed and sending dust loaded with selenium and pesticides 
into the air and into the lungs of residents in my district.
  My provision will authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to take the 
next steps and study the construction of a northern perimeter lake 
project at the sea, which is the next major project under the State of 
California's Salton Sea Management Program, and it will strengthen the 
Federal-State partnership.
  Later this week, we will pass the Energy and Water Development 
appropriations bill, which contains another one of my provisions which 
will prioritize the Army Corps' efforts at the Salton Sea.
  I would like to thank Chairman DeFazio, Congressman Vargas, and 
Congresswoman Napolitano for their partnership on this pressing and 
important issue, and I urge support for this legislation.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), who is the ranking member 
on the Highways and Transit Subcommittee.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member 
Graves for his leadership on this issue and also the ranking member of 
the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, a good friend, Mr. 
Westerman, along with Chairman DeFazio and Chair Napolitano of the 
Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.
  This is a great day. This is a continuation of what was started in 
2014 under Chairman Shuster at the time, and it was with bipartisan 
success that we began getting the water resource development bills 
passed on a 2-year basis. This is another shining example of what 
bipartisan work can do. We are here to talk about the successes of 
authorizing all of the Corps of Engineers' programs, which is extremely 
important to my district, which is surrounded by the inland waterway 
system.
  If we don't do our job in this institution in the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee to pass a Water Resources Development Act on a 
biannual basis, then what happens is we put the effectiveness of our 
farmers and our manufacturers from getting their products from their 
manufacturing facilities or their fields into the inland waterway 
system and out into the global marketplace in a cost-effective way and 
in a way that is going to allow them to continue to provide jobs in my 
district.
  One aspect of this bill I am particularly grateful for is the cost 
share adjustment in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. This is a big deal 
for us to

[[Page H3957]]

upgrade our antiquated lock and dam system along the Illinois and 
Mississippi Rivers. This is a success story.
  I thank Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves. I do also want to 
thank the staff of the Transportation and Infrastructure committee. 
They worked hard. All of them deserve a round of thanks, and I 
appreciate the efforts on not just this bill, but every other piece of 
legislation that goes through that great committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I am glad to see 
the process is working today.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Barragan).
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman DeFazio for working in a 
bipartisan manner, and subcommittee Chairwoman Napolitano, to make sure 
this bill got through on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud that two policy changes that I led the fight 
for have been included in this legislation. Flooding disproportionately 
impacts low-economic communities and people of color.
  Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago, a severe storm in my district flooded the 
streets of Compton and shut down parts of the 710 freeway. Many 
communities lack the money to pay for studies to plan and develop 
projects that can reduce damage from flooding and storms. As part of a 
new program funded by this bill, the Federal Government will now cover 
100 percent of the cost of these studies for a select number of 
disadvantaged communities.
  This bill also makes it less costly for communities to restore nature 
in ways that will reduce the risk of flooding and help provide cleaner 
air and water.
  For example, it will be easier to restore areas where water covers 
the soil, known as wetlands, such as the Dominguez Gap Wetlands along 
the Los Angeles River. Or we can more easily afford planting street 
trees and trees in local parks to absorb flood water, cool the 
community, and clean the air.
  In short, this bill will make our communities stronger, built to 
last, and better prepared for the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2020.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2020. I appreciate the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure bringing us a strong bipartisan product, of which you 
have heard. This meets the water management needs across our country.
  The Third District of Nebraska was heavily impacted by unprecedented 
flooding last year. These floods ravaged farmland, destroyed essential 
infrastructure, like highways, water treatment plants, and levees that 
had withstood the test of time for decades. The Army Corps of Engineers 
has worked within their authority to address these water management 
issues around our State; however, they have not been able to address 
every concern.
  I appreciate the chairman and ranking member working with me to 
ensure inactive levees have an opportunity to receive assistance from 
the Army Corps of Engineers if they meet certain criteria. Peru, 
Nebraska, is one of the many communities that could be helped by this 
legislative language.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
bipartisan bill.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member 
Graves and their staff for the wonderful work that they did for putting 
this bipartisan bill together, and also Chairwoman Grace Napolitano.
  Mr. Speaker, for the last 14 years, I have been working in Congress 
to advocate for the full authorized funding of Laredo, Texas' Chacon 
Creek Restoration Project.
  The Army Corps now, once we get this done, can carry out the flood 
risk management and ecosystem project totaling about $52 million. The 
flood mitigation component will evacuate 250 homes from the floodplain, 
from Lake Casa Blanca all the way down to the Rio Grande along the 
Chacon Creek.
  This ecosystem restoration component will also include 417 acres of 
wetland and riparian restoration. This is a natural treasure that we 
have in Laredo, Texas, and it will provide hundreds of acres of new 
recreational and educational parklands.
  Mr. Speaker, the Chacon Creek is a tremendous natural resource in 
Laredo, and I thank the ranking member and committee staff for doing 
this great work.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Graves and Chairman 
DeFazio.
  Mr. Speaker, Southeast Texas is the global leader in creating 
reliable, affordable energy that powers America and, quite frankly, 
much of the world. But we can't do that without modernizing and 
improving our water infrastructure, which it is my honor to have 
achieved in this bill for the people of the 36th Congressional District 
of Texas, and by extension, all American families.
  My district has four ports, including the main port terminal of the 
Port of Houston. The Houston Ship Channel is the busiest U.S. deep-
draft waterway, and it is the top exporting port in the Nation.
  This bill turns years of advocacy to dredge, widen, and improve two-
way traffic on the Houston Ship Channel into real results. This will 
allow for a more efficient, safe, and productive waterway for all. But 
I also recognize that there is still much work to be done. It is not an 
exaggeration to say that by spending $1 million today on hurricane and 
flood prevention infrastructure, we can save a billion dollars in 
damages down the road from another storm like Hurricane Harvey, which 
dumped 60 inches of rain on my district--a North American rainfall 
record, by the way.
  Thankfully, this bill contains numerous provisions for me and my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle that work to address these 
critical needs. It is a great honor to serve the people of Southeast 
Texas in Congress in producing legislation like this bipartisanly--one 
of the biggest reasons why.
  Mr. Speaker, I again thank the bipartisan work of the chairman, the 
ranking member, and also the staff and the subcommittee chair.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Washington State (Ms. Schrier).
  Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in Washington State, we are blessed with an abundance of 
rivers and lakes that support fish and wildlife. Right now, projects 
like modifying tide gates and restoring or reconnecting floodplains and 
wetlands are not getting the priority they need to protect these 
important ecosystems.
  I am so pleased that the bill I introduced with Congressman Rick 
Larsen was included in WRDA. By prioritizing rivers with the greatest 
chance of recovery, we have the best shot at protecting these waterways 
and achieving the largest return on our investments.
  Healthy rivers mean clean water for fish, wildlife, and communities, 
and healthy salmon runs help us meet our treaty rights obligations, 
ensure thriving local economies and recreational opportunities, and 
protect our endangered salmon and orca populations.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member 
Graves.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this year's bipartisan Water 
Resources Development Act.
  Our country was built on an elaborate system of inland waterways, 
ports, and harbors to facilitate trade and transportation. And nearly 
every community in our country relies on open waterways to move their 
products.
  My district is no exception. We are home to the Port of Huntington 
Tri-State on the Ohio River. This interconnected water system creates 
jobs and ensures that Appalachia remains a competitive region of 
economic growth.

[[Page H3958]]

  As we rethink and reform America's supply chains post-COVID, we must 
continue to open, update, and modernize key water infrastructure to 
maintain safety and efficiency. WRDA investments secure this mission.
  WRDA also delivers protection from hurricanes and flooding. In my 
district in southern West Virginia, we saw disaster strike in 2016 when 
our dams overflowed, and our rivers tore through many vibrant 
communities. As we recover and rebuild, we must also prepare for the 
future.
  If we pass this bill, we can double the funding for flood protection 
in central West Virginia and triple the funding in southern West 
Virginia. The vast majority of American communities lie along key U.S. 
waterways. And while I work for my district, countless others will also 
see increased protections.
  Mr. Speaker, for the good of our country, I implore my colleagues to 
vote ``yes.''
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Panetta).
  Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 2020 Water Resources 
Development Act, a bill that includes language that I fought for to 
ensure that the Federal Government not just supports and funds flood 
control projects, but also supports those projects in economically 
disadvantaged communities.
  For too long, the Army Corps has relied on an outdated metric when 
making decisions whether or not to invest. Unfortunately, it is a 
metric that doesn't always capture the project's full value, including 
the potential loss of valuable agricultural land, like that in the 
Pajaro Valley in my district on the central coast of California.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say, though, with continued pressure by me and 
many other stakeholders, I am proud that the 2020 WRDA contains 
language that directs the Army Corps when they re-scope projects to 
take into account non-Federal interests, especially in economically 
disadvantaged communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair and ranking member for their 
leadership on WRDA, and I look forward to working with them to reach a 
final compromise with the Senate that maintains this language to 
properly invest in all communities, not just to save money, but to save 
lives.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman DeFazio and 
Ranking Member Graves for including my request to fund Section 531, the 
program for Southern and Eastern Kentucky.
  In the region that I serve, we are still fighting for clean water and 
reliable wastewater systems for our families, our schools, and our 
businesses. Many of our folks, like those in Martin County, are often 
forced to boil water because lines are failing, and believe it or not, 
we are still finding straight pipes dumping raw sewage into some of our 
beautiful streams.
  Thanks to Section 531, some 35,000 families in Southern and Eastern 
Kentucky now have their own septic system or access to a reliable 
wastewater system, and over 90 percent of my rural region now has 
access to clean water.
  But it should be 100 percent in every part of America. Anything less 
is shameful. And that is why this funding increase and this bill are so 
critical.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Graves, and Chairman 
DeFazio for bringing a great bill out, and I urge its support.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman DeFazio and Ranking 
Member Graves for answering the plea of so many of us in relation to 
our districts. I thank subcommittee chairwoman, Mrs. Napolitano, and 
Ranking Member Westerman.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad for all these years I have been working on 
issues dealing collectively with our Houston port or bayous and the 
flooding crisis that we have in Houston, Texas, Harris County.
  I am glad that this legislation authorizes the Houston Ship Channel 
Expansion Improvement Project, part of my district, the Federal 
contribution to which is approximately $463 million. I remember 
standing at the edge of our port looking at the mud collecting and 
impeding the going and coming of those vessels.

  It authorizes the construction of all 34 pending Corps Chief's 
Reports received since the enactment of WRDA;
  Authorizes 35 feasibility studies for water resources development 
projects;
  And directs the Corps, which we have worked with, to expedite the 
completion of 41 feasibility studies currently underway, including the 
Houston Regional Watershed Assessment, Flood Risk Management 
feasibility study, which I have introduced over and over again. It is 
now going to move.
  It fully unlocks the approximately $10 billion currently held in the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
  It helps bayous in my district, Greens Bayou, White Oak Bayou, 
Hunting Bayou; and, of course, it recognizes that Hurricane Harvey--we 
had 21 trillion gallons of water, losing housing, 203,000 homes were 
damaged and 12,700 were destroyed.
  Finally, what is so important, the bill directs the secretary to 
issue final agency procedures for its Principles, Requirements, and 
Guidelines to ensure that future water resources development projects 
will maximize sustainable development and affordably address the needs 
of economically disadvantaged communities.
  The bill authorizes the Corps to study, design, and construct water 
resources.
  Mr. Speaker, the most disadvantaged persons are the ones that suffer 
the most. I am grateful for this bill, and I ask support for this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of H.R. 7575, 
the Water Resources Development Act for 2020, which strengthens 
America's competitive edge by investing in our ports, harbors and 
inland waterways, builds more resilient communities, and creates 
additional flexibility for the Corps to address the water resources 
needs of economically disadvantaged communities, communities of color, 
and rural communities.
  I thank Congressman DeFazio and Congressman Graves of Missouri, the 
Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructue, and Congresswoman Napolitano and Congressman Westerman, 
the Water Development Resources Subcommittee Chair and Ranking Member, 
respectively, for their work in shepherding this important bipartisan 
legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this bipartisan legislation because it:
  1. Authorizes the Houston Ship Channel Expansion Channel Improvement 
Project, the federal contribution to which is approximately $463 
million.
  2. Authorizes the construction of all 34 pending Corps Chief's 
Reports received since the enactment of WRDA 2018.
  3. Authorizes 35 feasibility studies for water resources development 
projects, those identified through the public review process 
established by section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act of 2014.
  4. Directs the Corps to expedite the completion of 41 feasibility 
studies currently underway, including the Houston Regional Watershed 
Assessment Flood Risk Management Feasibility study, which is certainly 
needed given the frequency and severity of historic-level flood events 
in recent years in and around the Houston metropolitan area.
  5. Fully unlocks the approximately $10 billion currently held in the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) by providing the authority to 
appropriate additional funds for harbor maintenance needs from the 
existing balance in the Trust Fund.
  Mr. Speaker, these water development projects managed by the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers in consultation with local partners are key to 
preserving our Nation's economy, to protecting our communities, and to 
maintaining our quality of life.
  The Army Corps of Engineers has been working with the Harris County 
Flood Control District since 1937 to reduce the risk of flooding within 
Harris County.
  Current projects include 6 federal flood risk management projects:
  1. Sims Bayou;
  2. Greens Bayou;
  3. Brays Bayou;
  4. White Oak Bayou;
  5. Hunting Bayou; and
  6. Clear Creek.
  In addition to these ongoing projects, the Army Corps of Engineers 
operates and maintains the Addicks and Barker (A&B) Detention Dams in 
northwest Harris County.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation because it is 
essential in minimizing the risk of flood damage to Houston and Harris

[[Page H3959]]

County metropolitan area, the nation's fourth largest, is a matter of 
national significance because the region is one of the Nation's major 
technology, energy, finance, export and medical centers:
  1. The Port of Houston is the largest bulk port in the world;
  2. Texas Medical Center is a world renowned teaching, research and 
treatment center;
  3. Houston is home to the largest conglomeration of foreign bank 
representation and second only to New York City as home to the most 
Fortune 500 companies; and
  4. The Houston Watershed Assessment study area sits within major 
Hurricane Evacuation arteries for the larger Galveston Gulf Coast 
region.
  At its peak on September 1, 2017, one-third of Houston was underwater 
due to Hurricane Harvey flooding.
  There were over 41,500 square miles of land mass impacted by 
Hurricane Harvey and the subsequent flooding that covered an area 
larger than the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
Rhode Island and Vermont combined.
  Hurricane Harvey dropped 21 trillion gallons of rainfall on Texas and 
Louisiana, most of it on the Houston Metroplex.
  In September 2017, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory reported that 
Hurricane Harvey's rainfall created 275 trillion pounds of water, which 
caused the crust in and around Houston to deform and sink nearly 1 inch 
because of the weight.
  Over 300,000 structures flooded in southeastern Texas, where extreme 
rainfall hit many areas that are densely populated.
  Hurricane Harvey is the largest housing disaster to strike the U.S. 
in our Nation's history.
  Hurricane Harvey damaged 203,000 homes, of which 12,700 were 
destroyed.
  Texas flood control districts are still struggling to recover from 
this record breaking flood event.
  Nineteen trillion gallons of flood waters poured into the Houston 
Ship Channel from area rivers and bayous on the way to the Gulf of 
Mexico.
  As a consequence, tens of millions of tons of sediment and debris 
flowed through the biggest waterway in the nation.
  The Port of Houston produces 27 percent of the nation's gasoline and 
about 60 percent of the U.S. aviation fuel.
  Investments in all aspects of our Nation's water infrastructure pays 
dividends in the form of economic activity.
  The Houston Ship Channel generates $617 billion in the U.S. with $265 
billion of that in Texas representing 16 percent of the state of 
Texas's GDP.
  The Port of Houston sustains 2.7 million jobs nationally with 1.2 
million of them within the state of Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, let me list a few of the provisions in this bill that 
will benefit my communities I represent.
  The bill directs the Secretary to issue final agency procedures for 
its Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) to ensure that 
future water resources development projects will maximize sustainable 
development and affordably address the needs of economically 
disadvantaged communities.
  The bill authorizes the Corps to study, design and construct water 
resources projects for communities that have been subjected to 
repetitive flooding events and have received emergency flood 
assistance, including construction of temporary barriers.
  This authority will help repetitive loss communities, especially 
those in economically-disadvantaged communities, obtain critical flood 
protection.
  The legislation requires the Corps to undertake an inventory of water 
resources development projects and associated properties that are or 
may be contaminated with PFAS, and to develop a plan to remediate and 
limit potential human exposure to the contamination.
  The bill requires the Corps to complete its review on minority 
community and tribal consultation, as well as update Corps' policies on 
environmental justice considerations and community engagement and 
consultation.
  Finally, the legislation authorizes and creates additional 
flexibility for the Corps to address the water resources needs of 
economically disadvantaged communities, communities of color, and rural 
communities, such as authorizing the Corps of Engineers to provide 
technical assistance for resiliency planning, with priority given to 
economically disadvantaged communities.
  I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 7575, the bipartisan 
Water Resources Development Act of 2020.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the 
remaining time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has 12\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oregon has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).
  Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of representing the First 
Congressional District of New York, located on the East End of Long 
Island, a district almost completely surrounded by water. We were hit 
really hard by Superstorm Sandy, and the widespread devastation 
emphasized the dire need to ensure our communities were better prepared 
for the future.
  Working hard with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Colonel 
Thomas Asbery of the Army Corps, and their entire hardworking team, 
this bill prioritizes local projects that are vital to my congressional 
district.
  That includes the Fire Island to Montauk Point project, which 
includes essential dredging and shoreline projects over 83 miles of 
coastline.
  Coastal storm risk management for Hashamomuck Cove in Southold is 
included, where right now local residents, businesses, and first 
responders are paralyzed even during a severe thunderstorm.
  Equally as important, this legislation continues to build on these 
victories, jump-starting movement on projects at Reel Point Reserve and 
Shelter Island, Goldsmith's Inlet in Southold, and Wading River Creek 
in Riverhead through authorizing feasibility studies.
  The Water Resources Development Act is great news for our shorelines 
on Long Island and across the country, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez).
  Mr. GONZALEZ of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman 
DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves for the opportunity to briefly speak 
on the bipartisan 2020 Water Resources Development Act.
  I am pleased that this bill includes my legislation, the Tuscarawas 
River Flooding Study Act, which authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers to conduct a comprehensive feasibility study on the 
Tuscarawas River watershed.
  Northeast Ohio is justifiably proud of our historical heritage 
regarding the Ohio and Erie Canal. From the Portage Lakes to Canal 
Fulton, this heritage is embedded throughout my district. However, this 
legacy also means that cities and villages often encounter recurring 
flooding events because of the historical building patterns from the 
19th century.
  Just last summer, southwest Summit County saw significant flooding 
throughout the Tuscarawas River basin. This study will serve as a first 
step toward beginning to find solutions to address these challenges.
  I would like to thank the Huntington District of the Army Corps for 
their extensive work with my office on this issue and Muskingum 
Watershed Conservancy District for their knowledge and guidance.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight an issue in my 
district that I have been working tirelessly on, and that is to 
preserve the pool at the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam.
  I am extremely disappointed this legislation was brought before the 
House with no opportunity to amend the bill before negotiations began 
with the Senate.
  The lock and dam, and the pool it creates, is critical to the Augusta 
community and is utilized for municipal and industrial water supply as 
well as recreation.
  The Corps of Engineers recently selected a rock weir as an 
alternative to replace the lock and dam, a design that drops the pool 
level and was demonstrated last year with disastrous results. Not only 
does this plan not meet the requirements of the WIIN Act, but local 
stakeholders have expressed serious concerns with the Corps of 
Engineers' proposal. This option does not meet the intent of Congress 
and maintain the pool.

[[Page H3960]]

  Moving forward with the rock weir is unacceptable, and I thank my 
colleagues from Georgia for their bipartisan effort to champion this 
issue in the recent committee markup.
  I urge the committee to work with me to include language in the final 
bill that will repair and maintain the lock and dam and the pool, while 
still accommodating the mitigation project. It is essential.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon), who understands 
water issues.
  Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 
this bill that includes language for flood control in Puerto Rico. We 
are now in the hurricane season, and today, it is announced a tropical 
storm between today and tomorrow.
  The flood control projects included in the bill are Rio Guayanilla, 
Rio Manati in Ciales, and Rio Culebrinas on the northwestern part of 
the island, as well as important provisions to study flood damage, 
provide resiliency planning assistance, and evaluate seismic risks.
  I am also most proud to have secured in this bill an increase to the 
authorization cost for the Cano Martin Pena project, $232.4 million, as 
established during the feasibility phase in 2016, fixing a discrepancy 
in WRDA 2007. This increase ensures updated costs are considered as the 
project moves forward, which is especially critical for the development 
of eight communities in the San Juan area.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, WRDA 2020 is a good bipartisan piece of 
legislation that is going to improve flood control infrastructure and 
improve ports, harbors, and inland waterways across the country.
  This is infrastructure that is critical to protecting our communities 
and our farms and businesses in north Missouri and the rest of America. 
It is essential to the efficient movement of goods, products, 
commodities, and resources nationwide.
  Again, I want to thank the many cosponsors and the members of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their hard work on 
this very important bill.
  Also, committee staff on both sides put a lot of work into this piece 
of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank them all for their 
hard work. Specifically, from the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment, the Republican staff, I want to thank Ian Bennitt, Jon 
Pawlow, and Victor Sarmiento. From the Democrat staff, I want to thank 
Ryan Seiger, Navis Bermudez, Camille Touton, and Alexa Williams. From 
the Republican full committee staff, I want to thank Paul Sass, Jack 
Ruddy, Corey Cooke, Tara Hupman, Abby Camp, Nick Christensen, Justin 
Harclerode, Tyler Micheletti, Jamie Hopkins, and Shawn Bloch. In 
addition, I very much want to thank Kathy Dedrick, Mohsin Syed, and the 
rest of the Democrat full committee staff.
  WRDA is a perfect example of Republicans and Democrats working 
together to address America's infrastructure needs, as this committee 
is meant to do. I would urge all Members to support this legislation.
  I want to add, too, Mr. Speaker, the gracious work of and being able 
to work with Chairman DeFazio. When we work together, it actually works 
quite well, and I want to thank him for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words. We find many 
opportunities to work together. There are times when we have 
significant policy differences, and we get through it. And we will keep 
plugging.
  This bill is great for our Nation. On a daily basis, of our Nation's 
58 largest ports, they only have about 40 percent of their capability 
due to deferred dredging.
  We have jetties failing around the Nation. We heard from Conor Lamb 
from Pennsylvania. We did great engineering work in the 1800s and early 
1900s. I viewed a lock in his district built in the early 1900s, but 
these things do have a lifetime.
  The increase in cost share for inland waterways is going to make a 
great difference. We are finally going to spend the $10 billion that 
the American people have put into an account for harbor maintenance on 
harbor maintenance. Things take a long time in Washington, D.C. I 
started on that with Bud Shuster in 1996, but finally, we are going to 
get there.
  This money can and will be very productively spent. It will put 
people to work, and it will make our Nation more competitive.
  We had, for quite some time, a dispute among the various ports, 
large, small, and in between. We worked all of that out. It is easier 
to do when there is more money. So, this bill is going to be good for 
large, medium, and small ports, and emerging harbors. And just to be 
parochial, it is going to be great for my district.
  We have many, many dangerous bar entrances. Fishers, particularly 
commercial, sometimes recreational, die there. The dredging needs are 
always going to be there. Also, we have failing jetties that need 
replacement, so the additional cost share there will help.
  Then an additional cost share by statute for the Great Lakes, 
although I did talk with Ms. Kaptur, and she feels that we didn't quite 
get it right. We will work on that in conference.
  I would like to thank staff: Ryan Seiger, who is chief counsel on the 
subcommittee; Camille Touton; Alexa Williams; Navis Bermudez; Joe 
Sheehy, who works for Grace Napolitano, who couldn't be here today; and 
legislative counsel Kakuti Lin. Legislative counsel has been fabulous. 
Then, the other side of the aisle: Ian Bennitt, Victor Sarmiento, Jon 
Pawlow. Again, thanks to my friend and colleague, the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7575, the Water 
Resources Development Act for 2020. This legislation is the result of 
bipartisan work and leadership of Committee Chairman DeFazio and 
Ranking Member Graves and many others. It deserves to be passed by the 
this House as a vital contribution to improving and maintaining our 
Nation's ports system, inland waterways, dams, levees, aids to 
navigation, flood control, and the many critical support and 
operational functions of our U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in support of 
national, state and local water resources development needs.
  Alaska's 33,904 miles of shoreline dwarf the Lower 48 and with fewer 
miles of paved road than Rhode Island, Alaska's rivers are our highways 
and our ports are the lifeblood of our state's communities. The 
Committee continues to make incremental progress on embracing the 
unique challenges Alaskan communities face with respect to port and 
harbor improvements, inland waterway navigation, flood and storm 
protection and other water resource infrastructure overseen by the Army 
Corps of Engineers.
  The Army Corps Alaska District is an integral partner to Alaska's 
communities managing significant project demand with limited resources. 
However, need continues to outpace available appropriations and Corps 
resources to get projects completed. The reforms to the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund included in this bill is a step in the right 
direction and I will continue to advocate for greater federal 
investment for our nation's water infrastructure.
  I am particularly pleased that WRDA 2020 contains an authorization 
for improvements to the Port of Nome, Alaska as well as other 
provisions for ports and harbors in Alaska. It is rewarding to see that 
a majority of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in this House 
and in the other body, have come to recognize, along with the 
Administration, the essential and indispensable strategic, national 
defense and commercial importance of the Arctic for our Nation's 
future.
  The authorization of $490,919,000 for the Arctic Deep Draft Port 
project in Nome included in this bill has been a long time coming, and 
it is a positive step forward for Alaska and the country. The Port of 
Nome, due to its geographic location, is a strategic transportation hub 
that meets the needs of U.S. Arctic Policy by strengthening U.S. 
present in the region. The Port of Nome expansion is critical to ensure 
more effective search and rescue and environmental response activities 
as vessel traffic increases throughout the Arctic. The port will serve 
the country's National interests and support Coast Guard and Navy 
operations. It will also expand an existing logistics

[[Page H3961]]

hub for more than 50 Alaskan coastal communities to help reduce the 
cost of living and create economic opportunity throughout Alaska and 
the Pacific Northwest.
  I want to commend the Army Corp's Alaska District, General Semonite 
and Assistant Secretary James for all their hard work to get the Chiefs 
report done in time for this bill. As a former tugboat captain in 
Alaska, I know how important it is to have good ports, and I would like 
to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for including this 
provision in the bill.
  The bill also provides for the authorization of two other much needed 
projects to benefit Alaskan harbors. The bill authorizes a $34,937,000 
dredging project for Unalaska Dutch Harbor. Dutch Harbor is one of the 
nation's top fishing ports measured by catch volume and value and is 
essential to the Alaska fishing economy and the nation's food supply. 
The project will dredge the entrance channel of the harbor to 58 feet 
improving the ability of commercial, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, U.S. 
military assets and ships from allied nations to utilize the harbor.
  The bill also includes language to include the authorization for St. 
George's navigation improvements project pending the timely release of 
a positive Chiefs Report from the Army Corps. The project will provide 
for the operability, safety and reliability of the St. George Harbor as 
promised by the federal government to aid the transition of the economy 
of the Pribilof Islands away from fur seals to commercial fishing.
  Importantly, the bill makes an improvement to the Tribal Partnership 
Program by increasing the per project federal cost share cap to $15 
million dollars from $12.5 million. This improvement is a step in the 
right direction and the increase begins to take into account the 
challenges Alaska faces with higher project costs. In forthcoming WRDA 
bills, I will continue to work with my colleagues and the Committee to 
ensure that Corps policies regarding benefit-cost ratios, existing 
authorities and cost share requirements treat Alaska fairly and take 
into account all the unique environmental challenges present in Alaska.
  As this bill moves into the Conference process, I will continue 
working with my colleagues to include language, present in the Senate's 
draft bill, that will protect nonfederal project sponsors from 
shouldering cost liabilities incurred by the Army Corps through no 
fault of their own. This language is needed for Project Cooperation 
Agreement in instances where the Army Corps has been assessed a large 
adverse judgment by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals or 
another court of competent jurisdiction.
  In December 2018, the Aleutians East Borough was notified by the Army 
Corps that the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals had awarded 
Kelly-Ryan, Inc. a $20,000,000 judgement for a procurement dispute 
arising in 2006-09 over the construction of a breakwater and other 
general navigation features in False Pass, Alaska. The standard Project 
Cooperation Agreement between a non-federal project sponsor and the 
Corps for any Civil Works project sets out the specific cost-sharing 
requirements applicable to the project. The Agreement includes a 
definition of ``total costs of construction of the general navigation 
features''. This definition includes ``the Government's costs of 
contract dispute settlements or awards''. The costs of disputes, 
claims, and equitable adjustments are added to the final cost of a 
project and allocated between the non-federal and USACE based on the 
cost-share formula.
  The Army Corps has verbally informed the Borough that 20 percent of 
this judgement ($4 million) may be allocated to the Borough's financial 
share of the project in the future. Notably, the dispute had nothing to 
do with the project's design, engineering, or construction. The dispute 
was instead focused on the manner in which the USACE's contracting 
officer sought to comply with a congressional directive changing the 
manner in which the Corps funded continuing contracts. Non-federal 
sponsors, especially smaller rural communities, should not be required 
to carry a significant share of the financial burden when there is a 
violation of procurement law peripheral to the actual design, 
engineering, and construction of the project itself.
  As many know one of my mottos is ``Alaska to the future.'' Looking 
ahead, as the only ``Arctic State'' in the Union, Alaska will play the 
central role in hosting future arctic infrastructure including as 
``System of Ports'' and safe harbors as national security, government 
and commercial activities inevitably increase in and around the Arctic 
in the coming years. The Army Corp's Alaska Deep-Draft Arctic Port 
System Study and recent Defense Department and U.S. Coast Guard 
strategic studies have shown that, U.S. strategic interests will 
benefit from increased arctic infrastructure including port 
infrastructure to cover Alaska's vast arctic land mass.
  What is needed, and what has been called for, is a ``System of U.S. 
Arctic Ports'' whereby the improvements at Nome should be the first in 
a series of needed improvements at other key Alaska locations that will 
provide the United States with the breadth of assets including a 
specialized Ports System for coverage and access to the Arctic.
  One location that should warrant due consideration for future 
improvements in an Arctic Ports System is Port Clarence/Point Spencer 
located immediately adjacent to the Bering Strait. Today's U.S. year-
round ice free ``Arctic'' ports are in Dutch Harbor, Adak, and St. 
Paul, Alaska which play important roles because of their locations. As 
ice navigability improves the natural and protected deep-water port of 
Port Clarence can serve as a year-round potential forward service 
center and port of refuge close to, and directly adjacent to the key 
``choke point'' of the Bering Strait.
  The following is a brief overview of key information about this 
strategically located natural deep-water port in the Arctic:
  Port Clarence is north-northwest of Nome (70 miles), on the Seward 
Peninsula, and is a protected natural deep-water harbor. It is 
sheltered by a long isthmus called Point Spencer. Most recently, the 
U.S. Coast Guard based a LORAN facility at Point Spencer with 
associated power and an 8,000-foot airstrip (4,500 feet of paved runway 
and 3,500 feet of extended gravel-covered runway).
  Port Clarence's protected harbor served Indigenous people of the 
region before contact with European cultures.
  Port Clarence served as a port of refuge for whaling vessels in the 
mid-1850s while Alaska was under Russian sovereignty. It still serves 
as the Port of Refuge from storms for vessels, including U.S. Coast 
Guard vessels and other government and commercial vessels travelling 
through the Bering Strait or docked temporarily in Nome.
  From 1866 to 1867, Port Clarence served as the forward operating base 
for the Western Union Telegraph Expedition in the attempt to link the 
continents with an undersea telegraph cable.
  Around 1884 it became the central summer refitting port for the 
Arctic fleet, which usually arrived in July and headed south around 
September (unless they elected to overwinter there).
  The Port of Nome project and potential development Port Clarence/
Point Spencer is positioned to become a key part of America's deep-
water Arctic Ports System, ready to receive and assist vessels moving 
to and from Arctic destinations, trans-Arctic shipping, or Navy and 
Coast Guard vessels and aircraft undertaking a wide variety of missions 
from those dealing with national security to economic development, 
search and rescue, shipping safety, oil spill prevention, response and 
clean up, arctic research, maritime law enforcement on the Bering Sea, 
the Chukchi Sea, and the Arctic Ocean.
  The Congress authorized the transfer of certain tracts of land at 
Point Spencer to Bering Straits Native Corporation (BSNC) while 
providing the opportunity for retention of certain tracts by the USCG 
and the State of Alaska should the USCG and the State wish to retain 
those tracts. Port development at Point Spencer-Port Clarence should 
proceed as a cooperative effort among the State, the Federal 
government, and BSNC in coordination with the enhancements of the Port 
of Nome.
  Port Clarence has, historically been and will continue to be a 
valuable ``Port of Refuge'' because of its naturally deep waters and 
naturally protected harbor--as shipping vessel traffic continues to 
increase in the Arctic.
  BSNC is working now with U.S. Corps of Engineers to place 30-ton and 
60-ton industrial grade mooring system buoys at Port Clarence to serve 
maritime safety needs for the entire Bering Strait Region.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues Chairman DeFazio and Ranking 
Member Graves for their leadership in this unusually challenging time 
in the Congress and for our nation by bringing this bipartisan Water 
Resources Development Act legislation to the House Floor. I look 
forward to the positive impact that WRDA 2020 will have on our nation's 
water resources development for decades to come.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my support of the 
Water Resources Development Act. This strong, bipartisan bill will help 
assure that our nation's ports, harbors, and waterways are developed 
and maintained to enhance economic and environmental vitality.
  I am particularly pleased with the commitment to beneficial reuse of 
dredged material from Corps water resources projects. Dredged material 
is a valuable resource that can help restore impacted shorelines and 
ecosystems and that can create resilient coastlines and estuaries. 
Environmental groups in California have emphasized the importance of 
beneficial reuse, specifically because the dredged material can play a 
vital role in restoring and preserving shallow water habitats such as 
tidal marshes and mudflats. The beneficial use pilot program, first 
authorized in WRDA 2016, was so successful that H.R. 7575 increases the

[[Page H3962]]

number of eligible projects. Notably, our own San Francisco Bay estuary 
faces a number of issues associated with resiliency and sustainability, 
and the reuse of dredged material can be enormously helpful in 
addressing these critical issues around the Bay. In its report for WRDA 
2020, the Committee highlighted Richmond Outer Harbor, Pinole Shoal, 
and the San Francisco Bay as priorities for consideration in the next 
round of pilot projects.
  This year's bill also highlights the role and value of alternative 
dredging methods and equipment to beneficial reuse of dredged material. 
Specifically, I am encouraged that the Committee clarifies that the use 
of alternative dredging methods and equipment must be part of the 
overall beneficial use program. This is important as, too often, we 
find that the old ways utilized by the Corps for maintaining navigation 
channels will not meet modem day demands to protect our natural 
resources and build a resilient future through reliable strategic 
management plans that allow annual dredging.
  This bill will go a long way toward improving our environment, 
providing much-needed direction to the Army Corps, and supporting 
California's 11th District.
  Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
7575, the Water Resources Development Act of 2020. I would like to 
thank Chairman DeFazio and my fellow colleagues on the House 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their diligent work to 
produce this much needed water resources bill. Everyone is the U.S. is 
impacted by the need for clean water and I believe this bill takes a 
giant step forward to ensuring this becomes a reality for every 
American.
  Within my district, The City of Dallas is appreciative to the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for their funding of the Dallas 
Floodway, Dallas Floodway Extension flood risk management projects and 
Lewisville Dam repairs and their continued efforts to complete these 
projects quickly. I look forward to continuing to hear good reports on 
the progress of these projects. I am pleased that the Corps is moving 
forward with these projects.
  Please allow me to note that it is helpful for the Corps to accept 
input from non-federal sponsors in the development of WRDA guidance. 
The Corps, working with local non-federal sponsors instead of 
developing guidance independently, will result in more resilient 
projects with multiple benefits. The role of resiliency in the 
construction, operation and maintenance of projects carried out by the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) must continue to be a priority.
  The Dallas area falls within the Southwestern Division of the Army 
Corps of Engineers. Flooding and flood control continue to be issues 
that are ever-present on the minds of residents along the Trinity 
River. I have held several meetings on flooding in the Dallas area to 
address this issue and hope to continue to work with the Corps to 
combat flooding in Dallas.
  Other parts of North Texas have also benefited from projects included 
in previous versions of WRDA legislation. The projects addressing pump 
stations and levy heights in Dallas, along with bridge projects in Ft. 
Worth would not be where they are today without the Corps and this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex is growing at a quite 
rapid pace and this updated legislation will help to provide adequate 
water and wastewater infrastructure to meet the demands, given the 
rapid pace of growth and development in our area. Furthermore, the bill 
will help in addressing maintenance needs, replacing aging 
infrastructure, and help in accounting for human behavior in all 
aspects of our water system--from sewer overflows, to promoting water 
conservation through drought tolerant outdoor landscaping.
  Lastly, I want to thank the committee for working with me to include 
language in the bill regarding the embankment of Lake Waco, on which 
Lake Shore Drive is located, so that we may keep the public safe from 
danger. I understand that there is also language in the Senate bill on 
the Lakeshore Drive issue that may be more direct. As we move through 
completion of this bill in conference, I hope to continue to work with 
the committee to ensure that Lakeshore Drive is not a safety hazard.
  Mr. Speaker, the projects I just mentioned are a tiny piece of the 
multitude of projects the Army Corps of Engineers works on to help 
address the water needs of the United States and its residents. Every 
American is impacted by this legislation and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 7575, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________