Congressional Record, Volume 168 Issue 97 (Tuesday, June 7, 2022)

[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 97 (Tuesday, June 7, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H5262-H5296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2022

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 7776) 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. 7776

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 2022''.
(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. Federal breakwaters and jetties.
Sec. 102. Emergency response to natural disasters.
Sec. 103. Shoreline and riverine restoration.
Sec. 104. Tidal river, bay, and estuarine flood risk reduction.
Sec. 105. Removal of manmade obstruction to aquatic ecosystem
restoration projects.
Sec. 106. National coastal mapping study.
Sec. 107. Public recreational amenities in ecosystem restoration
projects.
Sec. 108. Preliminary analysis.
Sec. 109. Technical assistance.
Sec. 110. Corps of Engineers support for underserved communities;
outreach.

[[Page H5263]]

Sec. 111. Project planning assistance.
Sec. 112. Managed aquifer recharge study and working group.
Sec. 113. Flood easement database.
Sec. 114. Assessment of Corps of Engineers levees.
Sec. 115. Technical assistance for levee inspections.
Sec. 116. Assessment of Corps of Engineers dams.
Sec. 117. National low-head dam inventory.
Sec. 118. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 119. Tribal Liaison.
Sec. 120. Tribal assistance.
Sec. 121. Cost sharing provisions for the territories and Indian
Tribes.
Sec. 122. Sense of Congress on COVID-19 impacts to coastal and inland
navigation.
Sec. 123. Assessment of regional confined aquatic disposal facilities.
Sec. 124. Strategic plan on beneficial use of dredged material.
Sec. 125. Funding to review mitigation banking proposals from non-
Federal public entities.
Sec. 126. Environmental dredging.
Sec. 127. Reserve component training at water resources development
projects.
Sec. 128. Payment of pay and allowances of certain officers from
appropriation for improvements.
Sec. 129. Civil works research, development, testing, and evaluation.
Sec. 130. Support of Army civil works program.
Sec. 131. Contracts with institutions of higher education to provide
assistance.
Sec. 132. Records regarding members and employees of the Corps of
Engineers who perform duty at Lake Okeechobee, Florida,
during a harmful algal bloom.
Sec. 133. Sense of Congress on the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet,
Louisiana.
Sec. 134. Water infrastructure public-private partnership pilot
program.
Sec. 135. Applicability.

TITLE II--STUDIES AND REPORTS

Sec. 201. Authorization of proposed feasibility studies.
Sec. 202. Expedited completion.
Sec. 203. Expedited modifications of existing feasibility studies.
Sec. 204. Corps of Engineers reservoir sedimentation assessment.
Sec. 205. Assessment of impacts from changing operation and maintenance
responsibilities.
Sec. 206. Report and recommendations on dredge capacity.
Sec. 207. Maintenance dredging data.
Sec. 208. Report to Congress on economic valuation of preservation of
open space, recreational areas, and habitat associated
with project lands.
Sec. 209. Ouachita River watershed, Arkansas and Louisiana.
Sec. 210. Report on Santa Barbara streams, Lower Mission Creek,
California.
Sec. 211. Disposition study on Salinas Dam and Reservoir, California.
Sec. 212. Excess lands report for Whittier Narrows Dam, California.
Sec. 213. Colebrook River Reservoir, Connecticut.
Sec. 214. Comprehensive central and southern Florida study.
Sec. 215. Study on shellfish habitat and seagrass, Florida Central Gulf
Coast.
Sec. 216. Northern estuaries ecosystem restoration, Florida.
Sec. 217. Report on South Florida ecosystem restoration plan
implementation.
Sec. 218. Review of recreational hazards at Buford Dam, Lake Sidney
Lanier, Georgia.
Sec. 219. Review of recreational hazards at the banks of the
Mississippi River, Louisiana.
Sec. 220. Hydraulic evaluation of Upper Mississippi River and Illinois
River.
Sec. 221. Disposition study on hydropower in the Willamette Valley,
Oregon.
Sec. 222. Houston Ship Channel Expansion Channel Improvement Project,
Texas.
Sec. 223. Sabine-Neches waterway navigation improvement project, Texas.
Sec. 224. Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia.
Sec. 225. Coastal Virginia, Virginia.
Sec. 226. Western infrastructure study.
Sec. 227. Report on socially and economically disadvantaged small
business concerns.
Sec. 228. Report on solar energy opportunities.
Sec. 229. Assessment of coastal flooding mitigation modeling and
testing capacity.
Sec. 230. Report to Congress on easements related to water resources
development projects.
Sec. 231. Assessment of forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration
services on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers.
Sec. 232. Electronic preparation and submission of applications.
Sec. 233. Report on corrosion prevention activities.
Sec. 234. GAO Studies on mitigation.
Sec. 235. GAO Study on waterborne statistics.
Sec. 236. GAO study on the integration of information into the national
levee database.

TITLE III--DEAUTHORIZATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS

Sec. 301. Deauthorization of inactive projects.
Sec. 302. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 303. Forecast-informed reservoir operations.
Sec. 304. Lakes program.
Sec. 305. Invasive species.
Sec. 306. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 307. St. Francis Lake Control Structure.
Sec. 308. Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge, Alameda, California.
Sec. 309. Los Angeles County, California.
Sec. 310. Deauthorization of designated portions of the Los Angeles
County Drainage Area, California.
Sec. 311. Murrieta Creek, California.
Sec. 312. Sacramento River, California.
Sec. 313. San Diego River and Mission Bay, San Diego County,
California.
Sec. 314. San Francisco Bay, California.
Sec. 315. Columbia River Basin.
Sec. 316. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Florida.
Sec. 317. Port Everglades, Florida.
Sec. 318. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force.
Sec. 319. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho.
Sec. 320. Chicago shoreline protection.
Sec. 321. Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin project, Brandon
Road, Will County, Illinois.
Sec. 322. Southeast Des Moines levee system, Iowa.
Sec. 323. Lower Mississippi River comprehensive management study.
Sec. 324. Lower Missouri River streambank erosion control evaluation
and demonstration projects.
Sec. 325. Missouri River interception-rearing complexes.
Sec. 326. Argentine, East Bottoms, Fairfax-Jersey Creek, and North
Kansas Levees units, Missouri River and tributaries at
Kansas Cities, Missouri and Kansas.
Sec. 327. Missouri River mitigation project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa,
and Nebraska.
Sec. 328. Northern Missouri.
Sec. 329. Israel River, Lancaster, New Hampshire.
Sec. 330. Middle Rio Grande flood protection, Bernalillo to Belen, New
Mexico.
Sec. 331. Special rule for certain coastal storm risk management
projects.
Sec. 332. Southwestern Oregon.
Sec. 333. John P. Murtha Locks and Dam.
Sec. 334. Wolf River Harbor, Tennessee.
Sec. 335. Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, Texas.
Sec. 336. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas.
Sec. 337. Central West Virginia.
Sec. 338. Puget Sound, Washington.
Sec. 339. Water level management pilot project on the Upper Mississippi
River and Illinois Waterway System.
Sec. 340. Upper Mississippi River protection.
Sec. 341. Treatment of certain benefits and costs.
Sec. 342. Debris removal.
Sec. 343. General reauthorizations.
Sec. 344. Conveyances.
Sec. 345. Environmental infrastructure.
Sec. 346. Additional assistance for critical projects.
Sec. 347. Sense of Congress on lease agreement.
Sec. 348. Flood control and other purposes.

TITLE IV--WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE

Sec. 401. Project authorizations.

TITLE V--COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN RESTORATION

Sec. 501. Definitions.
Sec. 502. Columbia River Basin Trust.
Sec. 503. Columbia River Basin Task Force.
Sec. 504. Administration.

TITLE VI--DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS

Sec. 601. Determination of budgetary effects.

SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.

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

TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 101. FEDERAL BREAKWATERS AND JETTIES.

(a) In General.--In carrying out repair or maintenance
activity of a Federal jetty or breakwater associated with an
authorized navigation project, the Secretary shall,
notwithstanding the authorized dimensions of the jetty or
breakwater, ensure that such repair or maintenance activity
is sufficient to meet the authorized purpose of such project,
including ensuring that any harbor or inland harbor
associated with the project is protected from projected
changes in wave action or height (including changes that
result from relative sea level change over the useful life of
the project).
(b) Classification of Activity.--The Secretary may not
classify any repair or maintenance activity of a Federal
jetty or breakwater carried out under subsection (a) as major
rehabilitation of such jetty or breakwater--

[[Page H5264]]

(1) if the Secretary determines that--
(A) projected changes in wave action or height, including
changes that result from relative sea level change, will
diminish the functionality of the jetty or breakwater to meet
the authorized purpose of the project; and
(B) such repair or maintenance activity is necessary to
restore such functionality; or
(2) if--
(A) the Secretary has not carried out regular and routine
Federal maintenance activity at the jetty or breakwater; and
(B) the structural integrity of the jetty or breakwater is
degraded as a result of a lack of such regular and routine
Federal maintenance activity.

SEC. 102. EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO NATURAL DISASTERS.

Section 5(a)(1) of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C.
701n(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``in the repair and
restoration of any federally authorized hurricane or shore
protective structure'' and all that follows through ``non-
Federal sponsor.'' and inserting ``in the repair and
restoration of any federally authorized hurricane or shore
protective structure or project damaged or destroyed by wind,
wave, or water action of other than an ordinary nature to the
pre-storm level of protection, to the design level of
protection, or, notwithstanding the authorized dimensions of
the structure or project, to a level sufficient to meet the
authorized purpose of such structure or project, whichever
provides greater protection, when, in the discretion of the
Chief of Engineers, such repair and restoration is warranted
for the adequate functioning of the structure or project for
hurricane or shore protection, including to ensure the
structure or project is functioning adequately to protect
against projected changes in wave action or height or storm
surge (including changes that result from relative sea level
change over the useful life of the structure or project),
subject to the condition that the Chief of Engineers may
include modifications to the structure or project to address
major deficiencies or implement nonstructural alternatives to
the repair or restoration of the structure if requested by
the non-Federal sponsor.''.

SEC. 103. SHORELINE AND RIVERINE RESTORATION.

(a) In General.--Section 212 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``flood mitigation
and riverine restoration program'' and inserting ``shoreline
and riverine protection and restoration'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``undertake a program for the purpose of
conducting'' and inserting ``carry out'';
(B) by striking ``to reduce flood hazards'' and inserting
``to reduce flood and hurricane and storm damage hazards
(including erosion)''; and
(C) by inserting ``and shorelines'' after ``rivers'';
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``In carrying out the program, the'' and
inserting ``The'';
(ii) by inserting ``and hurricane and storm'' after
``flood''; and
(iii) by inserting ``erosion mitigation,'' after
``reduction,'';
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``flood damages'' and
inserting ``flood and hurricane and storm damages, including
the use of natural features and nature-based features, as
defined in section 1184(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a))''; and
(C) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by inserting ``and hurricane and storm'' after
``flood'';
(ii) by inserting ``, shoreline,'' after ``riverine''; and
(iii) by inserting ``and coastal barriers'' after
``floodplains'';
(4) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``flood
control''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or hurricane and
storm damage reduction'' after ``flood control''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``or hurricane
and storm damage reduction'' after ``flood control''; and
(ii) by inserting ``or hurricane and storm damage
reduction'' after ``flood control'';
(5) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:--
``(d) Project Justification.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law or requirement for economic justification
established under section 209 of the Flood Control Act of
1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2), the Secretary may implement a
project under this section if the Secretary determines that
the project--
``(1) will significantly reduce potential flood, hurricane
and storm, or erosion damages;
``(2) will improve the quality of the environment; and
``(3) is justified considering all costs and beneficial
outputs of the project.'';
(6) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (32), by striking ``; and'' and inserting
a semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (33), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(34) City of Southport, North Carolina; and
``(35) Maumee River, Ohio.''; and
(7) by striking subsections (f) through (i) and inserting
the following:
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000, to
remain available until expended.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
Stat. 269) is amended by striking the item relating to
section 212 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 212. Shoreline and riverine protection and restoration.''.

SEC. 104. TIDAL RIVER, BAY, AND ESTUARINE FLOOD RISK
REDUCTION.

At the request of a non-Federal interest, the Secretary is
authorized, as part of an authorized feasibility study for a
project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, to
investigate measures to reduce the risk of flooding
associated with tidally influenced portions of rivers, bays,
and estuaries that are hydrologically connected to the
coastal water body and located within the geographic scope of
the study.

SEC. 105. REMOVAL OF MANMADE OBSTRUCTION TO AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--In carrying out an aquatic ecosystem
restoration project, at the request of a non-Federal interest
and with the consent of the owner of a manmade obstruction,
the Secretary shall determine whether the removal of such
obstruction from the aquatic environment within the
geographic scope of the project is necessary to meet the
aquatic ecosystem restoration goals of the project.
(b) Removal Costs.--If the Secretary determines under
subsection (a) that removal of an obstruction is necessary,
the Secretary shall consider the removal of such obstruction
to be a project feature and the cost of such removal shall be
shared between the Secretary and non-Federal interest as a
construction cost.
(c) Applicability.--The requirements of subsection (a)
shall apply to any project for ecosystem restoration
authorized on or after June 10, 2014.
(d) Savings Clause.--The authority contained in this
section shall not apply to the Ice Harbor Lock and Dam, the
Little Goose Lock and Dam, the Lower Granite Lock and Dam,
and the Lower Monumental Lock and Dam on Snake River,
authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (chapter
19, 59 Stat. 21).

SEC. 106. NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING STUDY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Director
of the Engineer Research and Development Center, is
authorized to carry out a study of coastal geographic land
changes, with recurring national coastal mapping technology,
along the coastal zone of the United States to support Corps
of Engineers missions.
(b) Study.--In carrying out the study under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall identify--
(1) new or advanced geospatial information and remote
sensing tools for coastal mapping;
(2) best practices for coastal change mapping;
(3) how to most effectively--
(A) collect and analyze such advanced geospatial
information;
(B) disseminate such geospatial information to relevant
offices of the Corps of Engineers, other Federal agencies,
States, Tribes, and local governments; and
(C) make such geospatial information available to other
stakeholders.
(c) Demonstration Project.--
(1) Project area.--In carrying out the study under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall carry out a demonstration
project in the coastal region covering the North Carolina
coastal waters, connected bays, estuaries, rivers, streams,
and creeks, to their tidally influenced extent inland.
(2) Scope.--In carrying out the demonstration project, the
Secretary shall--
(A) identify and study potential hazards, such as debris,
sedimentation, dredging effects, and flood areas;
(B) identify best practices described in subsection (b)(2),
including best practices relating to geographical coverage
and frequency of mapping;
(C) evaluate and demonstrate relevant mapping technologies
to identify which are the most effective for regional mapping
of the transitional areas between the open coast and inland
waters; and
(D) demonstrate remote sensing tools for coastal mapping.
(d) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall coordinate with other Federal and State
agencies that are responsible for authoritative data and
academic institutions and other entities with relevant
expertise.
(e) Panel.--
(1) Establishment.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall establish a panel of senior leaders from the
Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies that are
stakeholders in the coastal mapping program carried out
through the Engineer Research and Development Center.
(2) Duties.--The panel established under this subsection
shall--
(A) coordinate the collection of data under the study
carried out under this section;
(B) coordinate the use of geospatial information and remote
sensing tools, and the application of the best practices
identified under the study, by Federal agencies; and

[[Page H5265]]

(C) identify technical topics and challenges that require
multiagency collaborative research and development.
(f) Use of Existing Information.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary shall consider any relevant
information developed under section 516(g) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326b(g)).
(g) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report that describes--
(1) the results of the study carried out under this
section; and
(2) any geographical areas recommended for additional
study.
(h) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

SEC. 107. PUBLIC RECREATIONAL AMENITIES IN ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION PROJECTS.

At the request of a non-Federal interest, the Secretary is
authorized to study the incorporation of public recreational
amenities, including facilities for hiking, biking, walking,
and waterborne recreation, into a project for ecosystem
restoration, including a project carried out under section
206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C.
2330), if the incorporation of such amenities would be
consistent with the ecosystem restoration purposes of the
project.

SEC. 108. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS.

(a) In General.--Section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform
and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c) is amended by
striking subsections (e) and (f) and inserting the following:
``(e) Preliminary Analysis.--
``(1) In general.--At the request of a non-Federal
interest, the Secretary shall, prior to executing a cost-
sharing agreement for a feasibility study described in
subsection (a), carry out a preliminary analysis of the water
resources problem that is the subject of the feasibility
study in order to identify potential alternatives to address
such problem.
``(2) Considerations.--In carrying out a preliminary
analysis under this subsection, the Secretary shall include
in such analysis--
``(A) a preliminary analysis of the Federal interest,
costs, benefits, and environmental impacts of the project;
``(B) an estimate of the costs of, and duration for,
preparing the feasibility study; and
``(C) for a flood risk management or hurricane and storm
risk reduction project, at the request of the non-Federal
interest, the identification of any opportunities to
incorporate natural features or nature-based features into
the project.
``(3) Deadline.--The Secretary shall complete a preliminary
analysis carried out under this subsection by not later than
180 days after the date on which funds are made available to
the Secretary to carry out the preliminary analysis.
``(4) Cost share.--The cost of a preliminary analysis
carried out under this subsection--
``(A) shall be at Federal expense; and
``(B) shall not exceed $200,000.
``(5) Treatment.--
``(A) Timing.--The period during which a preliminary
analysis is carried out under this subsection shall not be
included for the purposes of the deadline to complete a final
feasibility report under subsection (a)(1).
``(B) Cost.--The cost of a preliminary analysis carried out
under this subsection shall not be included for the purposes
of the maximum Federal cost under subsection (a)(2).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 905(a)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(a)(2)) is
amended by striking ``a preliminary analysis'' and inserting
``an analysis''.

SEC. 109. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

(a) Planning Assistance to States.--Section 22 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-16) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by inserting ``local government,'' after ``State or
group of States,''; and
(B) by inserting ``local government,'' after ``such State,
interest,'';
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``$15,000,000'' and
inserting ``$30,000,000''; and
(3) in subsection (f)--
(A) by striking ``The cost-share for assistance'' and
inserting the following:
``(1) Tribes and territories.--The cost-share for
assistance''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Economically disadvantaged communities.--
Notwithstanding subsection (b)(1) and the limitation in
section 1156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986,
as applicable pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection,
the Secretary is authorized to waive the collection of fees
for any local government to which assistance is provided
under subsection (a) that the Secretary determines is an
economically disadvantaged community, as defined by the
Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note).''.
(b) Watershed Planning and Technical Assistance.--In
providing assistance under section 22 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-16) or pursuant to
section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
709a), the Secretary shall, upon request, provide such
assistance at a watershed scale.

SEC. 110. CORPS OF ENGINEERS SUPPORT FOR UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES; OUTREACH.

(a) In General.--It is the policy of the United States for
the Corps of Engineers to strive to understand and
accommodate and, in coordination with non-Federal interests,
seek to address the water resources development needs of all
communities in the United States, including Indian Tribes and
urban and rural economically disadvantaged communities (as
defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)).
(b) Outreach and Access.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop, support, and
implement public awareness, education, and regular outreach
and engagement efforts for potential non-Federal interests
with respect to the water resources development authorities
of the Secretary, with particular emphasis on--
(A) technical service programs, including the authorities
under--
(i) section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
709a);
(ii) section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-16); and
(iii) section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269); and
(B) continuing authority programs, as such term is defined
in section 7001(c)(1)(D) of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d).
(2) Implementation.--In carrying out this subsection, the
Secretary shall--
(A) develop and make publicly available (including on a
publicly available website), technical assistance materials,
guidance, and other information with respect to the water
resources development authorities of the Secretary;
(B) establish and make publicly available (including on a
publicly available website), an appropriate point of contact
at each district and division office of the Corps of
Engineers for inquiries from potential non-Federal interests
relating to the water resources development authorities of
the Secretary;
(C) conduct regular outreach and engagement, including
through hosting seminars and community information sessions,
with local elected officials, community organizations, and
previous and potential non-Federal interests, on
opportunities to address local water resources challenges
through the water resources development authorities of the
Secretary;
(D) issue guidance for, and provide technical assistance
through technical service programs to, non-Federal interests
to assist such interests in pursuing technical services and
developing proposals for water resources development
projects; and
(E) provide, at the request of a non-Federal interest,
assistance with researching and identifying existing project
authorizations or authorities to address local water
resources challenges.
(3) Prioritization.--In carrying out this subsection, the
Secretary shall prioritize awareness, education, and outreach
and engagement efforts for urban and rural economically
disadvantaged communities and Indian Tribes.

SEC. 111. PROJECT PLANNING ASSISTANCE.

Section 118 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020
(33 U.S.C. 2201 note)--
(1) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``publish'' and
inserting ``annually publish''; and
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``select'' and
inserting ``, subject to the availability of appropriations,
annually select''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2), in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A), by striking ``projects'' and inserting
``projects annually''.

SEC. 112. MANAGED AQUIFER RECHARGE STUDY AND WORKING GROUP.

(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, in consultation with
applicable non-Federal interests, conduct a study at Federal
expense to determine the feasibility of carrying out managed
aquifer recharge projects to address drought, water
resiliency, and aquifer depletion.
(2) Requirements.--In carrying out the study under this
subsection, the Secretary shall--
(A) assess and identify opportunities to support non-
Federal interests, including Tribal communities, in carrying
out managed aquifer recharge projects;
(B) identify opportunities to carry out managed aquifer
recharge projects in areas that are experiencing, or have
recently experienced, prolonged drought conditions, aquifer
depletion, or water supply scarcity; and
(C) assess preliminarily local hydrogeologic conditions
relevant to carrying out managed aquifer recharge projects.
(3) Coordination.--In carrying out the study under this
subsection, the Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate,
with the heads of other Federal agencies, States, regional
governmental agencies, units of local government, experts in
managed aquifer recharge, and Tribes.
(b) Working Group.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment, the Secretary shall establish a managed aquifer
recharge working group within the Corps of Engineers.
(2) Composition.--In establishing the working group under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ensure that members of the
working group have expertise working with--

[[Page H5266]]

(A) projects providing water supply storage to meet
regional water supply demand, particularly in regions
experiencing drought;
(B) protection of groundwater supply, including promoting
infiltration and increased recharge in groundwater basins,
and groundwater quality;
(C) aquifer storage, recharge, and recovery wells;
(D) dams that provide recharge enhancement benefits;
(E) groundwater hydrology;
(F) conjunctive use water systems; and
(G) agricultural water resources, including the use of
aquifers for irrigation purposes.
(3) Duties.--The working group established under this
subsection shall--
(A) advise and assist in the development and execution of
the feasibility study under subsection (a);
(B) coordinate Corps of Engineers expertise on managed
aquifer recharge;
(C) share Corps of Engineers-wide communications on the
successes and failures, questions and answers, and
conclusions and recommendations with respect to managed
aquifer recharge projects;
(D) assist Corps of Engineers offices at the headquarter,
division, and district levels with raising awareness to non-
Federal interests on the potential benefits of carrying out
managed aquifer recharge projects; and
(E) develop the report required to be submitted under
subsection (c).
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report on managed aquifer
recharge that includes--
(1) the results of the study conducted under subsection
(a), including data collected under such study and any
recommendations on managed aquifer recharge opportunities for
non-Federal interests, States, local governments, and Tribes;
(2) a status update on the implementation of the
recommendations included in the report of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Institute for Water Resources entitled ``Managed
Aquifer Recharge and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Water
Security through Resilience'', published in April 2020 (2020-
WP-01); and
(3) an evaluation of the benefits of creating a new or
modifying an existing planning center of expertise for
managed aquifer recharge, and identify potential locations
for such a center of expertise, if feasible.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Managed aquifer recharge.--The term ``managed aquifer
recharge'' means the intentional banking and treatment of
water in aquifers for storage and future use.
(2) Managed aquifer recharge project.--The term ``managed
aquifer recharge project'' means a project to incorporate
managed aquifer recharge features into a water resources
development project.

SEC. 113. FLOOD EASEMENT DATABASE.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish and
maintain a database containing an inventory of--
(1) all floodplain and flowage easements held by the Corps
of Engineers; and
(2) other federally held floodplain and flowage easements
with respect to which other Federal agencies submit
information to the Secretary.
(b) Contents.--The Secretary shall include in the database
established under subsection (a)--
(1) with respect to each floodplain and flowage easement
included in the database--
(A) the location of the land subject to the easement
(including geographic information system information);
(B) a brief description of such land, including the acreage
and ecosystem type covered by the easement;
(C) the Federal agency that holds the easement;
(D) any conditions of the easement, including--
(i) the amount of flooding, timing of flooding, or area of
flooding covered by the easement;
(ii) any conservation requirements; and
(iii) any restoration requirements;
(E) the date on which the easement was acquired; and
(F) whether the easement is permanent or temporary, and if
the easement is temporary, the date on which the easement
expires; and
(2) any other information that the Secretary determines
appropriate.
(c) Availability of Information.--The Secretary shall make
the full database established under subsection (a) available
to the public in searchable form, including on the internet.
(d) Other Federal Easements.--The Secretary shall request
information from other Federal agencies to incorporate other
federally held floodplain and flowage easements into the
database established under subsection (a).

SEC. 114. ASSESSMENT OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS LEVEES.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall, at Federal expense,
periodically conduct an assessment of levees constructed by
the Secretary or for which the Secretary has financial or
operational responsibility, to identify opportunities for the
modification (including realignment or incorporation of
natural and nature-based features) of levee systems to--
(1) increase the flood risk reduction benefits of such
systems;
(2) achieve greater flood resiliency; and
(3) restore hydrological and ecological connections with
adjacent floodplains that achieve greater environmental
benefits without undermining the objectives of paragraphs (1)
and (2).
(b) Assessment.--
(1) Considerations.--In conducting an assessment under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider and identify,
with respect to each levee--
(A) an estimate of the number of structures and population
at risk and protected by the levee that would be adversely
impacted if the levee fails or water levels exceed the height
of the levee (which may be the applicable estimate included
in the levee database established under section 9004 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303), if
available);
(B) the number of times the non-Federal interest has
received emergency flood-fighting or repair assistance under
section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n) for
the levee, and the total expenditures on postflood repairs
over the life of the levee;
(C) the functionality of the levee with regard to higher
precipitation levels, including due to changing climatic
conditions and extreme weather events; and
(D) the potential costs and benefits (including
environmental benefits and implications for levee-protected
communities located in a Special Flood Hazard Area) from
modifying the applicable levee system to restore connections
with adjacent floodplains.
(2) Prioritization.--In conducting an assessment under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall prioritize levees--
(A) associated with an area that has been subject to
flooding in two or more events in any 10-year period; and
(B) for which the non-Federal interest has received
emergency flood-fighting or repair assistance under section 5
of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n) with respect
to such flood events.
(3) Coordination.--In conducting an assessment under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall coordinate with any non-
Federal interest that has financial or operational
responsibility for a levee being assessed.
(c) Flood Plain Management Services.--In conducting an
assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider
information on floods and flood damages compiled under
section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
709a).
(d) Report to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this section, and periodically 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 results of the assessment conducted under
subsection (a).
(2) Inclusion.--The Secretary shall include in each report
submitted under paragraph (1)--
(A) identification of any levee for which the Secretary has
conducted an assessment under subsection (a);
(B) a description of any opportunities identified under
such subsection for the modification (including realignment
or incorporation of natural and nature-based features) of a
levee system, including the potential benefits of such
modification for the purposes identified under such
subsection; and
(C) a summary of the information considered and identified
under subsection (b)(1).
(e) Incorporation of Information.--The Secretary shall
include in the levee database established under section 9004
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C.
3303) the information included in each report submitted under
subsection (d), and make such information publicly available,
including on the internet.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

SEC. 115. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR LEVEE INSPECTIONS.

In any instance where the Secretary requires, as a
condition of eligibility for Federal assistance under section
5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n), that a non-
Federal sponsor of a flood control project undertake an
electronic inspection of the portion of such project that is
under normal circumstances submerged, the Secretary shall
provide to the non-Federal sponsor credit or reimbursement
for the cost of carrying out such inspection against the non-
Federal share of the cost of repair or restoration of such
project carried out under such section.

SEC. 116. ASSESSMENT OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS DAMS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct an assessment
of dams constructed by the Secretary or for which the
Secretary has financial or operational responsibility, to
identify--
(1) any dam that is meeting its authorized purposes and
that may be a priority for rehabilitation, environmental
performance enhancements, or retrofits to add or replace
power generation (at a powered or nonpowered dam), and the
recommendations of the Secretary for addressing each such
dam; and
(2) any dam that does not meet its authorized purposes, has
been abandoned or inadequately maintained, or has otherwise
reached the end of its useful life, and the recommendations
of the Secretary for addressing each such dam, which may
include a recommendation to remove the dam.

[[Page H5267]]

(b) National Dam Inventory and Assessment.--The Secretary
shall include in the inventory of dams required by section 6
of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467d) any
information and recommendations resulting from the assessment
of dams conducted under subsection (a).
(c) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of the
assessment of dams conducted under subsection (a).

SEC. 117. NATIONAL LOW-HEAD DAM INVENTORY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
heads of appropriate Federal and State agencies, shall--
(1) establish and maintain a database containing an
inventory of low-head dams in the United States that
includes--
(A) the location (including global information system
information), ownership, description, current use condition,
height, and length of each low-head dam;
(B) any information on public safety conditions, including
signage, at each low-head dam;
(C) public safety information on the dangers of low-head
dams; and
(D) any other relevant information concerning low-head
dams; and
(2) include in the inventory of dams required by section 6
of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467d) the
information described in paragraph (1).
(b) Inclusion of Information.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary shall include in the database
information described in subsection (a)(1) that is provided
to the Secretary by Federal and State agencies pursuant to
subsection (a).
(c) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall make the
database established under subsection (a) publicly available,
including on a publicly available website.
(d) Low-Head Dam Defined.--In this section, the term ``low-
head dam'' means a manmade structure, built in a river or
stream channel, that is designed and built such that water
flows continuously over all, or nearly all, of the crest from
bank to bank.

SEC. 118. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(33 U.S.C. 2269) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D);
and
(iii) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) technical assistance to an Indian tribe, including--
``(i) assistance for planning to ameliorate flood hazards,
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 flood hazards; and
``(ii) the provision of, and integration into planning of,
hydrologic, economic, and environmental data and analyses;
and''; and
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``$18,500,000'' each
place it appears and inserting ``$23,500,000'';
(2) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Technical assistance.--The Federal share of the cost
of activities described in subsection (b)(2)(C) shall be 100
percent.''; and
(3) in subsection (e), by striking ``2024'' and inserting
``2026''.

SEC. 119. TRIBAL LIAISON.

(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, for each Corps of Engineers district
that contains a Tribal community, the Secretary shall
establish a permanent position of Tribal Liaison to--
(1) serve as a direct line of communication between the
Secretary and the applicable Tribal communities; and
(2) ensure consistency in government-to-government
relations.
(b) Duties.--Each Tribal Liaison shall make recommendations
to the Secretary regarding, and be responsible for--
(1) removing barriers to access to, and participation in,
Corps of Engineers programs for Tribal communities, including
by improving implementation of section 103(m) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m));
(2) improving outreach to, and engagement with, Tribal
communities about relevant Corps of Engineers programs and
services;
(3) identifying and engaging with Tribal communities
suffering from water resources challenges;
(4) improving, expanding, and facilitating government-to-
government consultation between Tribal communities and the
Corps of Engineers;
(5) coordinating and implementing all relevant Tribal
consultation policies and associated guidelines, including
the requirements of section 112 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2356);
(6) training and tools to facilitate the ability of Corps
of Engineers staff to effectively engage with Tribal
communities in a culturally competent manner, especially in
regards to lands of ancestral, historic, or cultural
significance to a Tribal community, including burial sites;
and
(7) such other issues identified by the Secretary.
(c) Uniformity.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall finalize
guidelines for--
(1) the duties of Tribal Liaisons under subsection (b); and
(2) required qualifications for Tribal Liaisons, including
experience and expertise relating to Tribal communities and
water resource issues, and the ability to carry out such
duties.
(d) Funding.--Funding for the position of Tribal Liaison
shall be allocated from the budget line item provided for the
expenses necessary for the supervision and general
administration of the civil works program, and filling the
position shall not be dependent on any increase in this
budget line item.
(e) Tribal Community Defined.--In this section, the term
``Tribal community'' means a community of people who are
recognized and defined under Federal law as indigenous people
of the United States.

SEC. 120. TRIBAL ASSISTANCE.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Bonneville dam.--The term ``Bonneville Dam'' means the
Bonneville Dam, Columbia River, Oregon, authorized by the
first section of the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1038)
and the first section and section 2(a) of the Act of August
20, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832, 832(a)).
(2) Dalles dam.--The term ``Dalles Dam'' means the Dalles
Dam, Columbia River, Washington and Oregon, authorized by
section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 179).
(3) John day dam.--The term ``John Day Dam'' means the John
Day Dam, Columbia River, Washington and Oregon, authorized by
section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 179).
(4) Village development plan.--The term ``village
development plan'' means the village development plan
required by section 1133(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3782).
(b) Clarification of Existing Authority.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
heads of relevant Federal agencies, the Confederated Tribes
of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated
Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe,
and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation, shall revise and carry out the village
development plan for the Dalles Dam to provide replacement
villages for each Indian village submerged as a result of the
construction of the Bonneville Dam and the John Day Dam.
(2) Examination.--Before revising and carrying out the
village development plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall conduct an examination and assessment of the extent to
which Indian villages, housing sites, and related structures
were displaced by the construction of the Bonneville Dam and
the John Day Dam.
(3) Requirements.--In revising the village development plan
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include, at a
minimum--
(A) an evaluation of sites on both sides of the Columbia
River;
(B) an assessment of suitable private, State, and Federal
lands; and
(C) an estimated cost and tentative schedule for the
construction of each replacement village.
(c) Provision of Assistance on Federal Land.--In carrying
out subsection (b)(1), the Secretary may construct housing or
provide related assistance on land owned by the United
States.
(d) Acquisition and Disposal of Land.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (b)(1), the
Secretary may acquire land or interests in land for the
purpose of providing housing and related assistance.
(2) Advance acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire land or
interests in land under paragraph (1) before completing all
required documentation and receiving all required clearances
for the construction of housing or related improvements on
the land.
(3) Disposal of unsuitable land.--In the event the
Secretary determines that land or an interest in land
acquired by the Secretary under paragraph (2) is unsuitable
for the purpose for which it was acquired, the Secretary is
authorized to dispose of the land or interest in land by sale
and credit the proceeds to the appropriation, fund, or
account used to purchase the land or interest in land.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1178(c) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1675; 132 Stat.
3781) is repealed.

SEC. 121. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR THE TERRITORIES AND
INDIAN TRIBES.

Section 1156(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2310(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and'' ; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) for any organization that--
``(A) is composed primarily of people who are--
``(i) recognized and defined under Federal law as
indigenous people of the United States; and
``(ii) from a specific community; and
``(B) assists in the social, cultural, and educational
development of such people in that community.''.

[[Page H5268]]

SEC. 122. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON COVID-19 IMPACTS TO COASTAL
AND INLAND NAVIGATION.

It is the sense of Congress that, for fiscal years 2023 and
2024, the Secretary should, to the maximum extent
practicable, seek to maintain the eligibility of a donor
port, energy transfer port, or medium-sized donor port, as
defined in section 2106(a) of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2238c(a)), that received
funding under section 2106 of such Act in fiscal year 2020,
but that the Secretary determines would no longer be eligible
for such funding as a result of a demonstrable impact on the
calculations required by the definitions of a donor port,
energy transfer port, or medium-sized donor port contained in
such section due to a reduction in domestic cargo shipments
related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

SEC. 123. ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL CONFINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL
FACILITIES.

(a) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to conduct
assessments of the availability of confined aquatic disposal
facilities for the disposal of contaminated dredged material.
(b) Information and Comment.--In conducting an assessment
under this section, the Secretary shall--
(1) solicit information from stakeholders on potential
projects that may require disposal of contaminated sediments
in a confined aquatic disposal facility;
(2) solicit information from the applicable division of the
Corps of Engineers on the need for confined aquatic disposal
facilities; and
(3) provide an opportunity for public comment.
(c) North Atlantic Division Region Assessment.--In carrying
out subsection (a), the Secretary shall prioritize conducting
an assessment of the availability of confined aquatic
disposal facilities in the North Atlantic Division region for
the disposal of contaminated dredged material in such region.
(d) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of any
assessments conducted under this section, including any
recommendations of the Secretary for the construction of new
confined aquatic disposal facilities or expanded capacity for
confined aquatic disposal facilities.
(e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``North Atlantic
Division region'' means the area located within the
boundaries of the North Atlantic Division of the Corps of
Engineers.

SEC. 124. STRATEGIC PLAN ON BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED
MATERIAL.

(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months 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 strategic plan that identifies
opportunities and challenges relating to furthering the
policy of the United States to maximize the beneficial use of
suitable dredged material obtained from the construction or
operation and maintenance of water resources development
projects, as described in section 125(a)(1) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2326g).
(b) Consultation.--In developing the strategic plan under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
(1) consult with relevant Federal agencies involved in the
beneficial use of dredged material;
(2) solicit and consider input from State and local
governments and Indian Tribes, while seeking to ensure a
geographic diversity of input from the various Corps of
Engineers divisions; and
(3) consider input received from other stakeholders
involved in beneficial use of dredged material.
(c) Inclusion.--The Secretary shall include in the
strategic plan developed under subsection (a)--
(1) identification of any specific barriers and conflicts
that the Secretary determines impede the maximization of
beneficial use of dredged material at the Federal, State, and
local level, and any recommendations of the Secretary to
address such barriers and conflicts;
(2) identification of specific measures to improve
interagency and Federal, State, local, and Tribal
communications and coordination to improve implementation of
section 125(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020
(33 U.S.C. 2326g); and
(3) identification of methods to prioritize the use of
dredged material to benefit water resources development
projects in areas experiencing vulnerabilities to coastal
land loss.

SEC. 125. FUNDING TO REVIEW MITIGATION BANKING PROPOSALS FROM
NON-FEDERAL PUBLIC ENTITIES.

Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(33 U.S.C. 2352) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``and review
proposals'' after ``permits'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f) and
inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Funding To Review Mitigation Bank Proposals.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection, the terms
`mitigation bank' and `mitigation bank instrument' have the
meanings given those terms in section 230.91 of title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation).
``(2) Proposal review.--The Secretary, after public notice,
may accept and expend funds contributed by a non-Federal
public entity to expedite the review of a proposal for a
mitigation bank for which the non-Federal public entity is
the sponsor, without regard to whether the entity plans to
sell a portion of the credits generated by a mitigation bank
instrument of the entity to other public or private entities,
if the entity enters into an agreement with the Secretary
that requires the entity to use for a public purpose any
funds obtained from the sale of such credits.
``(3) Effect on other entities.--To the maximum extent
practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that expediting the
review of a proposal for a mitigation bank through the use of
funds accepted and expended under this subsection does not
adversely affect the timeline for review (in the Corps of
Engineers district in which the mitigation bank is to be
located) of such proposals of other entities that have not
contributed funds under this subsection.
``(4) Effect on review.--In carrying out this subsection,
the Secretary shall ensure that the use of funds accepted
under paragraph (1) will not impact impartial decisionmaking
with respect to proposals for mitigation banks, either
substantively or procedurally.
``(5) Public availability.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that all
final decisions regarding proposals for mitigation banks
carried out using funds authorized under this subsection are
made available to the public in a common format, including on
the internet, and in a manner that distinguishes final
decisions under this subsection from other final actions of
the Secretary.
``(B) Decision document.--The Secretary shall--
``(i) use a standard decision document for reviewing all
proposals using funds accepted under this subsection; and
``(ii) make the standard decision document, along with all
final decisions regarding proposals for mitigation banks,
available to the public, including on the internet.''; and
(3) in paragraph (1) of subsection (f), as so
redesignated--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a semicolon; and
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D)
and inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) a comprehensive list of the proposals for mitigation
banks reviewed and approved using funds accepted under
subsection (e) during the previous fiscal year, including a
description of any effects of such subsection on the
timelines for review of proposals of other entities that have
not contributed funds under such subsection; and''.

SEC. 126. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, other
Federal and State agencies, and the applicable non-Federal
interest, shall coordinate efforts to remove or remediate
contaminated sediments and legacy high-phosphorous sediments
associated with the following water resources development
projects:
(1) The project for ecosystem restoration, South Fork of
the South Branch of the Chicago River, Bubbly Creek,
Illinois, authorized by section 401(5) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2740).
(2) the project for navigation, Columbia and Lower
Willamette Rivers, Oregon and Washington, in the vicinity of
the Albina Turning Basin, River Mile 10, and the Post Office
Bar, Portland Harbor, River Mile 2.
(3) The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mahoning
River, Ohio, being carried out under section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
(4) The project for navigation, South Branch of the Chicago
River, Cook County, Illinois, in the vicinity of Collateral
Channel.
(5) The project for ecosystem restoration, Central and
Southern Florida Project, Central Everglades Restoration
Plan, Florida, in the vicinity of Lake Okeechobee.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this section, the Secretary and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall
jointly 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 efforts to remove or remediate contaminated
sediments associated with the projects identified in
subsection (a), including, if applicable, any specific
recommendations for actions or agreements necessary to
undertake such work.

SEC. 127. RESERVE COMPONENT TRAINING AT WATER RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

In carrying out military training activities or otherwise
fulfilling military training requirements, units or members
of a reserve component of the Armed Forces may perform
services and furnish supplies in support of a water resources
development project or program of the Corps of Engineers
without reimbursement.

[[Page H5269]]

SEC. 128. PAYMENT OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF CERTAIN OFFICERS
FROM APPROPRIATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS.

Section 36 of the Act of August 10, 1956 (33 U.S.C. 583a),
is amended--
(1) by striking ``Regular officers of the Corps of
Engineers of the Army, and reserve officers of the Army who
are assigned to the Corps of Engineers,'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) In General.--The personnel described in subsection
(b)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Personnel Described.--The personnel referred to in
subsection (a) are the following:
``(1) Regular officers of the Corps of Engineers of the
Army.
``(2) The following members of the Army who are assigned to
the Corps of Engineers:
``(A) Reserve component officers.
``(B) Warrant officers (whether regular or reserve
component).
``(C) Enlisted members (whether regular or reserve
component).''.

SEC. 129. CIVIL WORKS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TESTING, AND
EVALUATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out
basic, applied, and advanced research needs as required to
aid in the planning, design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of water resources development projects and to
support the missions and authorities of the Corps of
Engineers.
(b) Demonstration Projects.--In carrying out subsection
(a), the Secretary is authorized to test and apply
technology, tools, techniques, and materials developed
pursuant to such subsection at authorized water resources
development projects, in consultation with the non-Federal
interests for such projects.
(c) Other Transactional Authority.--
(1) Authority.--In carrying out subsection (a), and
pursuant to the authority under section 4022 of title 10,
United States Code, the Secretary is authorized to enter into
a transaction to carry out prototype projects to support
basic, applied, and advanced research needs that are directly
relevant to the civil works missions and authorities of the
Corps of Engineers.
(2) Notification.--Not later than 30 days before the
Secretary enters into a transaction under paragraph (1), 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--
(A) the dollar amount of the transaction; and
(B) the entity carrying out the prototype project that is
the subject of the transaction.
(3) Report.--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 describing the use of the
authority under this subsection.
(4) Termination of authority.--The authority provided under
this subsection shall terminate 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(d) Coordination and Consultation.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary may coordinate and consult with
Federal agencies, State and local agencies, Indian Tribes,
universities, consortiums, councils, and other relevant
entities that will aid in the planning, design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of water resources development
projects.
(e) Establishment of Account.--The Secretary, in
consultation with the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget, shall establish a separate appropriations account
for administering funds made available to carry out this
section.
(f) Sense of Congress on Focus Areas.--It is the sense of
Congress that the Secretary should prioritize using amounts
made available to carry out this section for the research,
development, testing, and evaluation of technology, tools,
techniques, and materials that will--
(1) advance the use of natural features and nature-based
features, as defined in section 1184(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a));
(2) improve the reliability and accuracy of technologies
related to water supply;
(3) improve the management of reservoirs owned and operated
by the Corps of Engineers; and
(4) lead to future cost savings and advance project
delivery timelines.

SEC. 130. SUPPORT OF ARMY CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM.

Notwithstanding section 4141 of title 10, United States
Code, the Secretary may provide assistance through contracts,
cooperative agreements, and grants to--
(1) the University of Missouri to conduct economic analyses
and other academic research to improve water management,
enhance flood resiliency, and preserve water resources for
the State of Missouri, the Lower Missouri River Basin, and
Upper Mississippi River Basin; and
(2) Oregon State University to conduct a study on the
associated impacts of wildfire on water resource ecology,
water supply, quality, and distribution in the Willamette
River Basin and to develop a water resource assessment and
management platform for the Willamette River Basin.

SEC. 131. CONTRACTS WITH INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION TO
PROVIDE ASSISTANCE.

Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
709a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Capacity To Provide Assistance.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary may work with or contract with an
institution of higher education, as determined appropriate by
the Secretary.''.

SEC. 132. RECORDS REGARDING MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS WHO PERFORM DUTY AT LAKE
OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA, DURING A HARMFUL ALGAL
BLOOM.

(a) Service Records.--The Secretary shall indicate in the
service record of a member or employee of the Corps of
Engineers who performs covered duty that such member or
employee was exposed to microcystin in the line of duty.
(b) Covered Duty Defined.--In this section, the term
``covered duty'' means duty performed--
(1) during a period when the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection has determined that there is a
concentration of microcystin of greater than 8 parts per
billion in the waters of Lake Okeechobee resulting from a
harmful algal bloom in such lake; and
(2) at or near any of the following structures:
(A) S-77.
(B) S-78.
(C) S-79.
(D) S-80.
(E) S-308.

SEC. 133. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF
OUTLET, LOUISIANA.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) sections 7012(b) and 7013 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1280), together with the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the
Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public
Law 109-234), authorize and direct the Secretary to close and
restore the ecosystem adversely affected by the construction
and operation of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet,
Louisiana, at full Federal expense; and
(2) the Secretary should quickly begin construction of such
project using existing authorities.

SEC. 134. WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
PILOT PROGRAM.

Section 5014 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``aquatic''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ``ecosystem
restoration,'' after ``flood damage reduction,''.

SEC. 135. APPLICABILITY.

None of the funds appropriated by title III of division J
of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law
117-58) may be used to carry out this Act, or any amendments
made by this Act.

TITLE II--STUDIES AND REPORTS

SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF PROPOSED FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

(a) New Projects.--The Secretary is authorized to conduct a
feasibility study for the following projects for water
resources development and conservation and other purposes, as
identified in the reports titled ``Report to Congress on
Future Water Resources Development'' submitted to Congress
pursuant to section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d) or otherwise
reviewed by Congress:
(1) Dudleyville, arizona.--Project for flood risk
management, Dudleyville, Arizona.
(2) Conn creek dam, california.--Project for flood risk
management, Conn Creek Dam, California.
(3) City of huntington beach, california.--Project for
hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, including sea
level rise, and shoreline stabilization, City of Huntington
Beach, California.
(4) Napa river, california.--Project for navigation,
Federal Channel of Napa River, California.
(5) Petaluma river wetlands, california.--Project for
ecosystem restoration, City of Petaluma, California.
(6) City of rialto, california.--Project for ecosystem
restoration and flood risk management, City of Rialto and
vicinity, California.
(7) North richmond, california.--Project for hurricane and
storm damage risk reduction, including sea level rise, and
ecosystem restoration, North Richmond, California.
(8) Stratford, connecticut.--Project for hurricane and
storm damage risk reduction and flood risk management,
Stratford, Connecticut.
(9) Woodbridge, connecticut.--Project for flood risk
management, Woodbridge, Connecticut.
(10) Federal triangle area, washington, district of
columbia.--Project for flood risk management, Federal
Triangle Area, Washington, District of Columbia, including
construction of improvements to interior drainage.
(11) Potomac and anacostia rivers, washington, district of
columbia.--Project for recreational access, including
enclosed swimming areas, Potomac and Anacostia Rivers,
District of Columbia.

[[Page H5270]]

(12) Washington metropolitan area, washington, district of
columbia, maryland, and virginia.--Project for water supply,
including the identification of a secondary water source and
additional water storage capability for the Washington
Metropolitan Area, Washington, District of Columbia,
Maryland, and Virginia.
(13) Duval county, florida.--Project for periodic beach
nourishment for the project for hurricane and storm damage
risk reduction, Duval County shoreline, Florida, authorized
by the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1092; 90 Stat.
2933), for an additional period of 50 years, Duval County
Shoreline, Florida.
(14) Town of longboat key, florida.--Project for whole
island hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Town of
Longboat Key, Florida.
(15) Lake runnymede, florida.--Project for ecosystem
restoration, Lake Runnymede, Florida.
(16) Tampa back bay, florida.--Project for flood risk
management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction,
including the use of natural features and nature-based
features for protection and recreation, Tampa Back Bay,
Florida.
(17) Port tampa bay and mckay bay, florida.--Project for
hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Port Tampa Bay,
Florida, including McKay Bay.
(18) Lake tohopekaliga, florida.--Project for ecosystem
restoration and flood risk management, Lake Tohopekaliga,
Florida.
(19) City of albany, georgia.--Project for flood risk
management, City of Albany, Georgia.
(20) City of east point, georgia.--Project for flood risk
management, City of East Point, Georgia.
(21) Flint river basin headwaters, clayton county,
georgia.--Project for flood risk management and ecosystem
restoration, Flint River Basin Headwaters, Clayton County,
Georgia.
(22) Tybee island, georgia.--Project for periodic beach
nourishment for the project for hurricane and storm damage
risk reduction, Tybee Island, Georgia, authorized by section
201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5), for
an additional period of 50 years, Tybee Island, Georgia.
(23) Waikiki, hawaii.--Project for ecosystem restoration
and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Waikiki,
Hawaii.
(24) Kentucky river and north fork kentucky river,
kentucky.--Project for flood risk management on the Kentucky
River and North Fork Kentucky River near Beattyville and
Jackson, Kentucky.
(25) Assawompset pond complex, massachusetts.--Project for
ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and water
supply, Assawompset Pond Complex, Massachusetts.
(26) Charles river, massachusetts.--Project for flood risk
management and ecosystem restoration, Charles River,
Massachusetts.
(27) Chelsea creek and mill creek, massachusetts.--Project
for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration,
including bank stabilization, City of Chelsea, Massachusetts.
(28) Connecticut river streambank erosion, massachusetts,
vermont, and new hampshire.--Project for streambank erosion,
Connecticut River, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire.
(29) Deerfield river, massachusetts.--Project for flood
risk management and ecosystem restoration, Deerfield River,
Massachusetts.
(30) Town of north attleborough, massachusetts.--Project
for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management between
Whiting's and Falls ponds, North Attleborough, Massachusetts.
(31) Town of hull, massachusetts.--Project for flood risk
management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction,
Hull, Massachusetts.
(32) City of revere, massachusetts.--Project for flood risk
management and marsh ecosystem restoration, City of Revere,
Massachusetts.
(33) Lower east side, detroit, michigan.--Project for flood
risk management, Lower East Side Detroit, Michigan.
(34) Elijah root dam, michigan.--Project for dam removal,
by carrying out a disposition study under section 216 of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a), Elijah Root Dam,
Michigan.
(35) Grosse pointe shores and grosse pointe farms,
michigan.--Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk
management, Grosse Pointe Shores and Grosse Pointe Farms,
Michigan.
(36) Southeast michigan, michigan.--Project for flood risk
management, Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties, Michigan.
(37) Tittabawassee river watershed, michigan.--Project for
flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and related
conservation benefits, Tittabawassee River, Chippewa River,
Pine River, and Tobacco River, Midland County, Michigan.
(38) Southwest mississippi, mississippi.--Project for
ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Wilkinson,
Adams, Warren, Claiborne, Franklin, Amite, and Jefferson
Counties, Mississippi.
(39) Camden and gloucester county, new jersey.--Project for
tidal and riverine flood risk management, Camden and
Gloucester Counties, New Jersey.
(40) Edgewater, new jersey.--Project for flood risk
management, Edgewater, New Jersey.
(41) Maurice river, new jersey.--Project for navigation and
for beneficial use of dredged materials for hurricane and
storm damage risk reduction and ecosystem restoration,
Maurice River, New Jersey.
(42) Northern new jersey inland flooding, new jersey.--
Project for inland flood risk management in Hudson, Essex,
Union, Bergen, Hunterdon, Morris, Somerset, Warren, Passaic,
and Sussex Counties, New Jersey.
(43) Riser ditch, new jersey.--Project for flood risk
management, including channel improvements, and other related
water resource needs related to Riser Ditch in the
communities of South Hackensack, Hasbrouck Heights, Little
Ferry, Teterboro, and Moonachie, New Jersey.
(44) Rockaway river, new jersey.--Project for flood risk
management and ecosystem restoration, including bank
stabilization, Rockaway River, New Jersey.
(45) Tenakill brook, new jersey.--Project for flood risk
management, Tenakill Brook, New Jersey.
(46) Verona, cedar grove, and west caldwell, new jersey.--
Project for flood risk management along the Peckman River
Basin in the townships of Verona (and surrounding area),
Cedar Grove, and West Caldwell, New Jersey.
(47) Whippany river watershed, new jersey.--Project for
flood risk management, Morris County, New Jersey.
(48) Lake farmington dam, new mexico.--Project for water
supply, Lake Farmington Dam, New Mexico.
(49) Mcclure dam, new mexico.--Project for dam safety
improvements and flood risk management, McClure Dam, City of
Santa Fe, New Mexico.
(50) Brooklyn navy yard, new york.--Project for flood risk
management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction,
Brooklyn Navy Yard, New York.
(51) Upper east river and flushing bay, new york.--Project
for ecosystem restoration, Upper East River and Flushing Bay,
New York.
(52) Hutchinson river, new york.--Project for flood risk
management and ecosystem restoration, Hutchinson River, New
York.
(53) Mohawk river basin, new york.--Project for flood risk
management, navigation, and environmental restoration, Mohawk
River Basin, New York.
(54) Newtown creek, new york.--Project for ecosystem
restoration, Newtown Creek, New York.
(55) Saw mill river, new york.--Project for flood risk
management and ecosystem restoration to address areas in the
City of Yonkers and the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson within
the 100-year flood zone, Saw Mill River, New York.
(56) Mineral ridge dam, ohio.--Project for dam safety
improvements and rehabilitation, Mineral Ridge Dam, Ohio.
(57) Brodhead creek watershed, pennsylvania.--Project for
ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Brodhead
Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania.
(58) Chartiers creek watershed, pennsylvania.--Project for
flood risk management, Chartiers Creek Watershed,
Pennsylvania.
(59) Coplay creek, pennsylvania.--Project for flood risk
management, Coplay Creek, Pennsylvania.
(60) Berkeley county, south carolina.--Project for
ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Berkeley
County, South Carolina.
(61) Big sioux river, south dakota.--Project for flood risk
management, City of Watertown and vicinity, South Dakota.
(62) Tennessee-tombigbee river basins, tennessee.--Project
to deter, impede, or restrict the dispersal of aquatic
nuisance species in the Tennessee-Tombigbee River Basins,
Tennessee.
(63) El paso county, texas.--Project for flood risk
management for economically disadvantaged communities, as
defined by the Secretary pursuant to section 160 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note),
along the United States-Mexico border, El Paso County, Texas.
(64) Gulf intracoastal waterway-channel to palacios,
texas.--Project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway-
Channel to Palacios, Texas.
(65) Sikes lake, texas.--Project for ecosystem restoration
and flood risk management, Sikes Lake, Texas.
(66) Southwest border region, texas.--Project for flood
risk management for economically disadvantaged communities,
as defined by the Secretary pursuant to section 160 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201
note), along the United States-Mexico border in Webb, Zapata,
and Starr Counties, Texas.
(67) Lower clear creek and dickinson bayou, texas.--Project
for flood risk management, Lower Clear Creek and Dickinson
Bayou, Texas.
(68) Cedar island, virginia.--Project for ecosystem
restoration, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and
navigation, Cedar Island, Virginia.
(69) Ballinger creek, washington.--Project for ecosystem
restoration, City of Shoreline, Washington.
(70) City of north bend, washington.--Project for water
supply, City of North Bend, Washington.
(71) Taneum creek, washington.--Project for ecosystem
restoration, Taneum Creek, Washington.

[[Page H5271]]

(72) City of huntington, west virginia.--Project for flood
risk management, Huntington, West Virginia.
(b) Project Modifications.--The Secretary is authorized to
conduct a feasibility study for the following project
modifications:
(1) Shingle creek and kissimmee river, florida.--
Modifications to the project for ecosystem restoration and
water storage, Shingle Creek and Kissimmee River, Florida,
authorized by section 201(a)(5) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2670), for flood risk
management.
(2) Jacksonville harbor, florida.--Modifications to the
project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida,
authorized by section 7002 of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1364), for outer channel
improvements.
(3) Savannah harbor, georgia.--Modifications to the project
for navigation, Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, Georgia,
authorized by section 7002(1) of the Water Resources Reform
and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1364; 132 Stat. 3839),
without evaluation of additional deepening.
(4) Cedar river, cedar rapids, iowa.--Modifications to the
project for flood risk management, Cedar River, Cedar Rapids,
Iowa, authorized by section 7002(2) of the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1366),
consistent with the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Cedar River
Flood Control System Master Plan.
(5) Yabucoa harbor, puerto rico.--Modification to the
project for navigation, Yabucoa Harbor, Puerto Rico,
authorized by section 3 of the Act of August 30, 1935
(chapter 831, 49 Stat. 1048), for assumption of operations
and maintenance.
(6) Salem river, salem county, new jersey.--Modifications
to the project for navigation, Salem River, Salem County, New
Jersey, authorized by section 1 of the Act of March 2, 1907
(chapter 2509, 34 Stat. 1080), to increase the authorized
depth.
(7) Everett harbor and snohomish river, washington.--
Modifications to the project for navigation, Everett Harbor
and Snohomish River, Washington, authorized by section 101 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 732), for the Boat
Launch Connector Channel.
(8) Hiram m. chittenden locks, lake washington ship canal,
washington.--Modifications to the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks
(also known as Ballard Locks), Lake Washington Ship Canal,
Washington, authorized by the Act of June 25, 1910 (chapter
382, 36 Stat. 666), for the construction of fish ladder
improvements, including efforts to address elevated
temperature and low dissolved oxygen levels in the Canal.
(9) Port townsend, washington.--Modifications to the
project for navigation, Port Townsend, Washington, authorized
by section 110 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat.
169), for the Boat Haven Marina Breakwater.

SEC. 202. EXPEDITED COMPLETION.

(a) Feasibility Studies.--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, Branford Harbor and Stony Creek
Channel, Connecticut.
(2) Project for navigation, Guilford Harbor and Sluice
Channel, Connecticut.
(3) Project for ecosystem restoration, Western Everglades,
Florida.
(4) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction,
Miami, Dade County, Florida.
(5) 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, authorized by
section 201(a)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2020 (134 Stat. 2670).
(6) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction,
Chicago Shoreline, Illinois, authorized by section 101(a)(12)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3664; 128 Stat. 1372).
(7) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction,
South Central Coastal Louisiana, Louisiana.
(8) Modifications to the project for navigation, Baltimore
Harbor and Channels-Seagirt Loop Deepening, Maryland,
including to a depth of 50 feet.
(9) Project for New York and New Jersey Harbor Channel
Deepening Improvements, New York and New Jersey.
(10) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction,
South Shore of Staten Island, New York.
(11) Project for flood risk management, Rio Grande de
Loiza, Puerto Rico.
(12) Project for flood risk management, Rio Guanajibo,
Puerto Rico.
(13) Project for flood risk management, Rio Nigua, Salinas,
Puerto Rico.
(14) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction,
Charleston Peninsula, South Carolina.
(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,
authorized by section 101(b)(4) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577).
(2) Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and Southern
Florida, Indian River Lagoon, Florida, authorized by section
1001(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121
Stat. 1051).
(c) Great Lakes Coastal Resiliency Study.--The Secretary
shall expedite the completion of 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; 134 Stat.
2683).
(d) Maintenance of Navigation Channels.--The Secretary
shall expedite the completion of a determination of the
feasibility of improvements proposed by a non-Federal
interest under section 204(f)(1)(A)(i) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232(f)(1)(A)(i)), for the
following:
(1) Deepening and widening of the navigation project for
Coos Bay, Oregon, authorized by the Act of March 3, 1879
(chapter 181, 20 Stat. 370).
(2) Improvements to segment 1B of the navigation project
for Houston Ship Channel Expansion Channel Improvement
Project, Harris, Chambers, and Galveston Counties, Texas,
authorized by section 401(1)(7) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2734).

SEC. 203. EXPEDITED MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING FEASIBILITY
STUDIES.

The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the
following feasibility studies, as modified by this section,
and if the Secretary determines that a project that is the
subject of the feasibility study is justified in the
completed report, may proceed directly to preconstruction
planning, engineering, and design of the project:
(1) Mare island strait, california.--The study for
navigation, Mare Island Strait channel, authorized by section
406 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
323), is modified to authorize the Secretary to consider the
economic and national security benefits from recent proposals
for utilization of the channel for Department of Defense
shipbuilding and vessel repair.
(2) Lake pontchartrain and vicinity, louisiana.--The study
for flood risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk
reduction, Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Louisiana,
authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965
(79 Stat. 1077), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
investigate increasing the scope of the project to provide
protection against a 200-year storm event.
(3) Blackstone river valley, rhode island and
massachusetts.--
(A) In general.--The study for ecosystem restoration,
Blackstone River Valley, Rhode Island and Massachusetts,
authorized by section 569 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3788), is modified to authorize the
Secretary to conduct a study for water supply, water flow,
and wetland restoration and protection within the scope of
the study.
(B) Incorporation of existing data.--In carrying out the
study described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use,
to the extent practicable, any existing data for the project
prepared under the authority of section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
(4) Lower saddle river, new jersey.--The study for flood
control, Lower Saddle River, New Jersey, authorized by
section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4119), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
review the previously authorized study and take into
consideration changes in hydraulic and hydrologic
circumstances and local economic development since the study
was initially authorized.

SEC. 204. CORPS OF ENGINEERS RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION
ASSESSMENT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, at Federal expense, shall
conduct an assessment of sediment in reservoirs owned and
operated by the Secretary.
(b) Contents.--For each reservoir for which the Secretary
carries out an assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall include in the assessment--
(1) an estimation of the volume of sediment in the
reservoir;
(2) an evaluation of the effects of such sediment on
reservoir storage capacity, including a quantification of
lost reservoir storage capacity due to the sediment and an
evaluation of how such lost reservoir storage capacity
affects the allocated storage space for authorized purposes
within the reservoir (including, where applicable,
allocations for dead storage, inactive storage, active
conservation, joint use, and flood surcharge);
(3) the identification of any additional effects of
sediment on the operations of the reservoir or the ability of
the reservoir to meet its authorized purposes;
(4) the identification of any potential effects of the
sediment over the 10-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act on the areas immediately upstream and
downstream of the reservoir;
(5) the identification of any existing sediment monitoring
and management plans associated with the reservoir;
(6) for any reservoir that does not have a sediment
monitoring and management plan--
(A) an identification of whether a sediment management plan
for the reservoir is under development; or
(B) an assessment of whether a sediment management plan for
the reservoir would be useful in the long-term operation and
maintenance of the reservoir for its authorized purposes; and

[[Page H5272]]

(7) any opportunities for beneficial use of the sediment in
the vicinity of the reservoir.
(c) Report to Congress; Public Availability.--Not later
than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress, and make publicly
available (including on a publicly available website), a
report describing the results of the assessment carried out
under subsection (a).
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

SEC. 205. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS FROM CHANGING OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out an
assessment of the consequences of amending section 101(b) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2211(b)) to authorize the operation and maintenance of
navigation projects for a harbor or inland harbor constructed
by the Secretary at 100-percent Federal cost to a depth of 55
feet.
(b) Contents.--In carrying out the assessment under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
(1) describe all existing Federal navigation projects that
are authorized or constructed to a depth of 55 feet or
greater;
(2) describe any Federal navigation project that is likely
to seek authorization or modification to a depth of 55 feet
or greater during the 10-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of this section;
(3) estimate--
(A) the potential annual increase in Federal costs that
would result from authorizing operation and maintenance of a
navigation project to a depth of 55 feet at Federal expense;
and
(B) the potential cumulative increase in such Federal costs
during the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment
of this section; and
(4) assess the potential effect of authorizing operation
and maintenance of a navigation project to a depth of 55 feet
at Federal expense on other Federal navigation operation and
maintenance activities, including the potential impact on
activities at donor ports, energy transfer ports, emerging
harbor projects, and projects carried out in the Great Lakes
Navigation System, as such terms are defined in section
102(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33
U.S.C. 2238 note).
(c) Report.--Not later than 18 months 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, and make publicly available
(including on a publicly available website), a report
describing the results of the assessment carried out under
subsection (a).

SEC. 206. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON DREDGE CAPACITY.

(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available
(including on a publicly available website), a report that
includes--
(1) a quantification of the expected hopper and pipeline
dredging needs of authorized water resources development
projects for the 10 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, including--
(A) the dredging needs to--
(i) construct deepenings or widenings at authorized but not
constructed projects and the associated operations and
maintenance needs of such projects; and
(ii) operate and maintain existing Federal navigation
channels;
(B) the amount of dredging to be carried out by the Corps
of Engineers for other Federal agencies;
(C) the dredging needs associated with authorized hurricane
and storm damage risk reduction projects (including periodic
renourishment); and
(D) the dredging needs associated with projects for the
beneficial use of dredged material authorized by section 1122
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C.
2326 note);
(2) an identification of the Federal appropriations for
dredging projects and expenditures from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund for fiscal year 2015 and each fiscal
year thereafter;
(3) an identification of the dredging capacity of the
domestic hopper and pipeline dredge fleet, including publicly
owned and privately owned vessels, in each of the 10 years
preceding the date of enactment of this Act;
(4) an analysis of the ability of the domestic hopper and
pipeline dredge fleet to meet the expected dredging needs
identified under paragraph (1), including an analysis of such
ability in each of the following regions--
(A) the east coast region;
(B) the west coast region, including the States of Alaska
and Hawaii;
(C) the gulf coast region; and
(D) the Great Lakes region;
(5) an identification of the dredging capacity of domestic
hopper and pipeline dredge vessels that are under contract
for construction and intended to be used at water resources
development projects;
(6) an identification of any hopper or pipeline dredge
vessel expected to be retired or become unavailable during
the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this
section;
(7) an identification of the potential costs of using
either public or private dredging to carry out authorized
water resources development projects; and
(8) any recommendations of the Secretary for adding
additional domestic hopper and pipeline dredging capacity,
including adding public and private dredging vessels to the
domestic hopper and pipeline dredge fleet to efficiently
service water resources development projects.
(b) Opportunity for Participation.--In carrying out
subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide interested
stakeholders, including representatives from the commercial
dredging industry, with an opportunity to submit comments to
the Secretary.
(c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Corps of Engineers should add additional dredging
capacity if the addition of such capacity would--
(1) enable the Corps of Engineers to carry out water
resources development projects in an efficient and cost-
effective manner; and
(2) be in the best interests of the United States.

SEC. 207. MAINTENANCE DREDGING DATA.

Section 1133(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2326f(b)(3)) is amended by inserting ``,
including a separate line item for all Federal costs
associated with the disposal of dredged material'' before the
semicolon.

SEC. 208. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON ECONOMIC VALUATION OF
PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE, RECREATIONAL AREAS,
AND HABITAT ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT LANDS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a review of
the existing statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements
related to the determination of the economic value of lands
that--
(1) may be provided by the non-Federal interest, as
necessary, for the construction of a project for flood risk
reduction or hurricane and storm risk reduction in accordance
with section 103(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(i));
(2) are being maintained for open space, recreational
areas, or preservation of fish and wildlife habitat; and
(3) will continue to be so maintained as part of the
project.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this section, 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 containing the results of
the review conducted under subsection (a), including--
(1) a summary of the existing statutory, regulatory, and
policy requirements described in such subsection;
(2) a description of the requirements and process the
Secretary uses to place an economic value on the lands
described in such subsection;
(3) an assessment of whether such requirements and process
affect the ability of a non-Federal interest to provide such
lands for the construction of a project described in such
subsection;
(4) an assessment of whether such requirements and process
directly or indirectly encourage the selection of developed
lands for the construction of a project, or have the
potential to affect the total cost of a project; and
(5) the identification of alternative measures for
determining the economic value of such lands that could
provide incentives for the preservation of open space,
recreational areas, and habitat in association with the
construction of a project.

SEC. 209. OUACHITA RIVER WATERSHED, ARKANSAS AND LOUISIANA.

The Secretary shall conduct a review of projects in the
Ouachita River watershed, Arkansas and Louisiana, under
section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C.
549a).

SEC. 210. REPORT ON SANTA BARBARA STREAMS, LOWER MISSION
CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

Not later than 1 year 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, and make publicly available (including
on a publicly available website), a report that provides an
updated economic review of the remaining portions of the
project for flood damage reduction, Santa Barbara streams,
Lower Mission Creek, California, authorized by section 101(b)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
2577), taking into consideration work already completed by
the non-Federal interest.

SEC. 211. DISPOSITION STUDY ON SALINAS DAM AND RESERVOIR,
CALIFORNIA.

In carrying out the disposition study for the project for
Salinas Dam (Santa Margarita Lake), California, pursuant to
section 202(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020
(134 Stat. 2675), the Secretary shall--
(1) ensure that the County of San Luis Obispo is provided
right of first refusal for any potential conveyance of the
project; and
(2) ensure that the study addresses any potential repairs
or modifications to the project necessary to meet Federal and
State dam safety requirements prior to transferring the
project.

[[Page H5273]]

SEC. 212. EXCESS LANDS REPORT FOR WHITTIER NARROWS DAM,
CALIFORNIA.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year 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 that identifies any real
property associated with the Whittier Narrows Dam element of
the Los Angeles County Drainage Area project that the
Secretary determines--
(1) is not needed to carry out the authorized purposes of
the Whittier Narrows Dam element of such project; and
(2) could be transferred to the City of Pico Rivera,
California, for the replacement of recreational facilities
located in such city that were adversely impacted by dam
safety construction activities associated with the Whittier
Narrows Dam element of such project.
(b) Los Angeles County Drainage Area Project Defined.--In
this section, the term ``Los Angeles County Drainage Area
project'' means the project for flood control, Los Angeles
County Drainage Area, California, authorized by section
101(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104
Stat. 4611; 130 Stat. 1690).

SEC. 213. COLEBROOK RIVER RESERVOIR, CONNECTICUT.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report that summarizes the benefits, costs, and
other effects of terminating the contract described in
subsection (b) between the United States and the Metropolitan
District, Hartford, Connecticut, relating to reservoir water
storage space, including--
(1) a description of entities that currently use (or have
expressed an interest in using) the water provided pursuant
to the contract;
(2) an accounting of the current annual costs, including
annual operations and maintenance costs, owed by the
Metropolitan District to use the water provided pursuant to
the contract;
(3) an accounting of any unrecovered capital or operation
and maintenance costs incurred by the Federal Government in
constructing or maintaining the reservoir to accommodate
water supply storage as an authorized purpose of the
reservoir;
(4) an accounting of any potential transfer or increase in
costs to the Federal Government, to the Metropolitan
District, or to any water users that could result from the
termination of the contract; and
(5) any additional information that the Secretary
determines appropriate for consideration of termination of
the contract.
(b) Contract.--The contract referred to in subsection (a)
is the contract between the United States and the
Metropolitan District, Hartford, Connecticut, for the use of
water supply storage space in the Colebrook River Reservoir,
entered into on February 11, 1965, and modified on October
28, 1975, and titled Contract DA-19-016-CIVENG-65-203.

SEC. 214. COMPREHENSIVE CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA STUDY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out a
feasibility study for resiliency and comprehensive
improvements or modifications to existing water resources
development projects in the central and southern Florida
area, for the purposes of flood risk management, water
supply, ecosystem restoration (including preventing saltwater
intrusion), recreation, and related purposes.
(b) Requirements.--In carrying out the feasibility study
under subsection (a), the Secretary--
(1) is authorized to--
(A) review the report of the Chief of Engineers on central
and southern Florida, published as House Document 643, 80th
Congress, 2d Session, and other related reports of the
Secretary; and
(B) recommend cost-effective structural and nonstructural
projects for implementation that provide a systemwide
approach for the purposes described in subsection (a); and
(2) shall ensure the study and any projects recommended
under paragraph (2) will not interfere with the efforts
undertaken to carry out the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan pursuant to section 601 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680; 132 Stat.
3786).

SEC. 215. STUDY ON SHELLFISH HABITAT AND SEAGRASS, FLORIDA
CENTRAL GULF COAST.

(a) In General.--Not later than 24 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry out a study,
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 projects and activities carried out through the
Engineer Research and Development Center to restore shellfish
habitat and seagrass in coastal estuaries in the Florida
Central Gulf Coast.
(b) Requirements.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall--
(1) consult with independent expert scientists and other
regional stakeholders with relevant expertise and experience;
and
(2) coordinate with Federal, State, and local agencies
providing oversight for both short- and long-term monitoring
of the projects and activities described in subsection (a).
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

SEC. 216. NORTHERN ESTUARIES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FLORIDA.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Central and southern florida project.--The term
``Central and Southern Florida Project'' has the meaning
given that term in section 601 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000.
(2) Northern estuaries.--The term ``northern estuaries''
means the Caloosahatchee Estuary, Charlotte Harbor, Indian
River Lagoon, Lake Worth Lagoon, and St. Lucie River Estuary.
(3) South florida ecosystem.--
(A) In general.--The term ``South Florida ecosystem'' means
the area consisting of the land and water within the boundary
of the South Florida Water Management District in effect on
July 1, 1999.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``South Florida ecosystem''
includes--
(i) the Everglades;
(ii) the Florida Keys;
(iii) the contiguous near-shore coastal water of South
Florida; and
(iv) Florida's Coral Reef.
(4) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means all lands
and waters within--
(A) the northern estuaries;
(B) the South Florida ecosystem; and
(C) the study area boundaries of the Indian River Lagoon
National Estuary Program and the Coastal and Heartland
Estuary Partnership, authorized pursuant to section 320 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(b) Proposed Comprehensive Plan.--
(1) Development.--The Secretary shall develop, in
cooperation with the non-Federal sponsors of the Central and
Southern Florida project and any relevant Federal, State, and
Tribal agencies, a proposed comprehensive plan for the
purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the northern
estuaries.
(2) Inclusions.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall develop a proposed comprehensive plan that
provides for ecosystem restoration within the northern
estuaries, including the elimination of harmful discharges
from Lake Okeechobee.
(3) Submission.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
for approval--
(A) the proposed comprehensive plan developed under this
subsection; and
(B) recommendations for future feasibility studies within
the study area for the ecosystem restoration of the northern
estuaries.
(4) Interim reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter until the
submission of the proposed comprehensive plan under paragraph
(3), the Secretary shall submit to Congress an interim report
on the development of the proposed comprehensive plan.
(5) Additional studies and analyses.--Notwithstanding the
submission of the proposed comprehensive plan under paragraph
(3), the Secretary shall continue to conduct such studies and
analyses after the date of such submission as are necessary
for the purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the
northern estuaries.
(c) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
to require the alteration or amendment of the schedule for
completion of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.

SEC. 217. REPORT ON SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION.

(a) Report.--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 provides an update
on--
(1) Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan projects, as
authorized by or pursuant to section 601 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680; 121 U.S.C.
1269; 132 U.S.C. 3786);
(2) the review of the Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule
pursuant to section 1106 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3773) and section 210 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 U.S.C. 2682); and
(3) any additional water resources development projects and
studies included in the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Plan Integrated Delivery Schedule prepared in accordance with
part 385 of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations.
(b) Contents.--The Secretary shall include in the report
submitted under subsection (a) the status of each authorized
water resources development project or study described in
such subsection, including--
(1) an estimated implementation or completion date of the
project or study; and
(2) the estimated costs to complete implementation or
construction, as applicable, of the project or study.

SEC. 218. REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL HAZARDS AT BUFORD DAM, LAKE
SIDNEY LANIER, GEORGIA.

The Secretary shall--
(1) carry out a review of potential threats to human life
and safety from use of designated recreational areas at the
Buford Dam, Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia, authorized by
section 1 of the Act of July 24, 1946 (chapter 595, 60 Stat.
635); and
(2) install such technologies and other measures, including
sirens, strobe lights, and signage, that the Secretary, based
on the review carried out under paragraph (1), determines
necessary for alerting the public of hazardous water
conditions or to otherwise minimize or eliminate any
identified threats to human life and safety.

[[Page H5274]]

SEC. 219. REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL HAZARDS AT THE BANKS OF THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, LOUISIANA.

The Secretary shall--
(1) carry out a review of potential threats to human life
and safety from use of designated recreational areas at the
banks of the Mississippi River, Louisiana; and
(2) install such technologies and other measures, including
sirens, strobe lights, and signage at such recreational areas
that the Secretary, based on the review carried out under
paragraph (1), determines necessary for alerting the public
of hazardous water conditions or to otherwise minimize or
eliminate any identified threats to human life and safety.

SEC. 220. HYDRAULIC EVALUATION OF UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND
ILLINOIS RIVER.

(a) Study.--The Secretary, in coordination with the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
shall, at Federal expense, periodically carry out a study
to--
(1) evaluate the flow frequency probabilities of the Upper
Mississippi River and the Illinois River; and
(2) develop updated water surface profiles for such rivers.
(b) Area of Evaluation.--In carrying out subsection (a),
the Secretary shall conduct analysis along the mainstem of
the Mississippi River from upstream of the Minnesota River
confluence near Anoka, Minnesota, to just upstream of the
Ohio River confluence near Cairo, Illinois, and along the
Illinois River from Dresden Island Lock and Dam to the
confluence with the Mississippi River, near Grafton,
Illinois.
(c) Reports.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and not less frequently than every 20
years 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 containing the results of a
study carried out under subsection (a).
(d) Public Availability.--Any information developed under
subsection (a) shall be made publicly available, including on
a publicly available website.

SEC. 221. DISPOSITION STUDY ON HYDROPOWER IN THE WILLAMETTE
VALLEY, OREGON.

(a) Disposition Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a
disposition study to determine the Federal interest in, and
identify the effects of, deauthorizing hydropower as an
authorized purpose, in whole or in part, of the Willamette
Valley hydropower project.
(2) Contents.--In carrying out the disposition study under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall review the effects of
deauthorizing hydropower on--
(A) Willamette Valley hydropower project operations;
(B) other authorized purposes of such project;
(C) cost apportionments;
(D) dam safety;
(E) compliance with the requirements of the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
(F) the operations of the remaining dams within the
Willamette Valley hydropower project.
(3) Recommendations.--If the Secretary, through the
disposition study authorized by paragraph (1), determines
that hydropower should be removed as an authorized purpose of
any part of the Willamette Valley hydropower project, the
Secretary shall also investigate and recommend any necessary
structural or operational changes at such project that are
necessary to achieve an appropriate balance among the
remaining authorized purposes of such project or changes to
such purposes.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a report to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate that describes--
(1) the results of the disposition study on deauthorizing
hydropower as a purpose of the Willamette Valley hydropower
project; and
(2) any recommendations required under subsection (a)(3).
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Willamette
Valley hydropower project'' means the system of dams and
reservoir projects authorized to generate hydropower and the
power features that operate in conjunction with the main
regulating dam facilities, including the Big Cliff, Dexter,
and Foster re-regulating dams in the Willamette River Basin,
Oregon, as authorized by section 4 of the Flood Control Act
of 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1222; 62 Stat. 1178; 64 Stat.
177; 68 Stat. 1264; 74 Stat. 499; 100 Stat. 4144).

SEC. 222. HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL EXPANSION CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT, TEXAS.

The Secretary shall expedite the completion of a
feasibility study for modifications of the project for
navigation, Houston Ship Channel Expansion Channel
Improvement Project, Harris, Chambers, and Galveston
Counties, Texas, authorized by section 401 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2734), to
incorporate into the project the construction of barge lanes
immediately adjacent to either side of the Houston Ship
Channel from Bolivar Roads to Morgan's Point to a depth of 12
feet.

SEC. 223. SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT, TEXAS.

The Secretary shall expedite the review and coordination of
the feasibility study for the project for navigation, Sabine-
Neches Waterway, Texas, under section 203(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231(b)).

SEC. 224. NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA.

The Secretary shall expedite the completion of a
feasibility study for the modification of the project for
navigation, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, authorized
by section 201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4090; 132 Stat. 3840) to incorporate the widening
and deepening of Anchorage F into the project.

SEC. 225. COASTAL VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA.

(a) In General.--In carrying out the feasibility study for
the project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration,
and navigation, Coastal Virginia, authorized by section
1201(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132
Stat. 3802), the Secretary is authorized to enter into a
written agreement with any Federal agency that owns or
operates property in the area of the project to accept and
expend funds from such Federal agency to include in the study
an analysis with respect to property owned or operated by
such Federal agency.
(b) Information.--The Secretary shall use any relevant
information obtained from a Federal agency described in
subsection (a) to carry out the feasibility study described
in such subsection.

SEC. 226. WESTERN INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY.

(a) Comprehensive Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a
comprehensive study to evaluate the effectiveness of carrying
out additional measures, including measures that use natural
features or nature-based features, at or upstream of covered
reservoirs, for the purposes of--
(1) sustaining operations in response to changing
hydrological and climatic conditions;
(2) mitigating the risk of drought or floods, including the
loss of storage capacity due to sediment accumulation;
(3) increasing water supply; or
(4) aquatic ecosystem restoration.
(b) Study Focus.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall include all covered reservoirs
located in the South Pacific Division of the Corps of
Engineers.
(c) Consultation and Use of Existing Data.--
(1) Consultation.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall consult with applicable--
(A) Federal, State, and local agencies;
(B) Indian Tribes;
(C) non-Federal interests; and
(D) stakeholders, as determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
(2) Use of existing data and prior studies.--In conducting
the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall, to the
maximum extent practicable and where appropriate--
(A) use existing data provided to the Secretary by entities
described in paragraph (1); and
(B) incorporate--
(i) relevant information from prior studies and projects
carried out by the Secretary; and
(ii) the relevant technical data and scientific approaches
with respect to changing hydrological and climatic
conditions.
(d) Report.--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 that describes--
(1) the results of the study; and
(2) any recommendations for additional study in specific
geographic areas.
(e) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section provides
authority to the Secretary to change the authorized purposes
of any covered reservoir.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Covered reservoir.--The term ``covered reservoir''
means a reservoir owned and operated by the Secretary or for
which the Secretary has flood control responsibilities under
section 7 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (33 U.S.C. 709).
(2) Natural feature and nature-based feature.--The terms
``natural feature'' and ``nature-based feature'' have the
meanings given such terms in section 1184(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a)).

SEC. 227. REPORT ON SOCIALLY AND ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available
(including on a publicly available website), a report that
describes and documents the use of contracts and subcontracts
with Small Disadvantaged Businesses in carrying out the water
resources development authorities of the Secretary.
(b) Information.--The Secretary shall include in the report
under subsection (a) information on the distribution of funds
to Small Disadvantaged Businesses on a disaggregated basis.

[[Page H5275]]

(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Small
Disadvantaged Business'' has the meaning given that term in
section 124.1001 of title 13, Code of Federal Regulations (or
successor regulations).

SEC. 228. REPORT ON SOLAR ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES.

(a) Assessment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, at Federal expense, shall
conduct an assessment, in consultation with the Secretary of
Energy, of opportunities to install and maintain photovoltaic
solar panels (including floating solar panels) at covered
projects.
(2) Contents.--The assessment conducted under paragraph (1)
shall--
(A) include a description of the economic, environmental,
and technical viability of installing and maintaining, or
contracting with third parties to install and maintain,
photovoltaic solar panels at covered projects;
(B) identify covered projects with a high potential for the
installation and maintenance of photovoltaic solar panels and
whether such installation and maintenance would require
additional authorization;
(C) account for potential impacts of photovoltaic solar
panels at covered projects and the authorized purposes of
such projects, including potential impacts on flood risk
reduction, recreation, water supply, and fish and wildlife;
and
(D) account for the availability of electric grid
infrastructure close to covered projects, including
underutilized transmission infrastructure.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress, and make publicly available (including on a
publicly available website), a report containing the results
of the assessment conducted under subsection (a).
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary $10,000,000 to carry out
this section.
(d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``covered
project'' means--
(1) any property under the control of the Corps of
Engineers; and
(2) any water resources development project constructed by
the Secretary or over which the Secretary has financial or
operational responsibility.

SEC. 229. ASSESSMENT OF COASTAL FLOODING MITIGATION MODELING
AND TESTING CAPACITY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Director
of the Engineer Research and Development Center, shall carry
out an assessment of the current capacity of the Corps of
Engineers to model coastal flood mitigation systems and test
the effectiveness of such systems in preventing flood damage
resulting from coastal storm surges.
(b) Considerations.--In carrying out the assessment under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
(1) identify the capacity of the Corps of Engineers to--
(A) carry out the testing of the performance and
reliability of coastal flood mitigation systems; or
(B) collaborate with private industries to carry out such
testing;
(2) identify any limitations or deficiencies at Corps of
Engineers facilities that are capable of testing the
performance and reliability of coastal flood mitigation
systems;
(3) assess any benefits that would result from addressing
the limitations or deficiencies identified under paragraph
(2); and
(4) provide recommendations for addressing such limitations
or deficiencies.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year 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, and make publicly available
(including on a publicly available website), a report
describing the results of the assessment carried out under
subsection (a).

SEC. 230. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON EASEMENTS RELATED TO WATER
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a review of
the existing statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements
and procedures related to the use, in relation to the
construction of a project for flood risk management,
hurricane and storm risk reduction, or environmental
restoration, of covered easements that may be provided to the
Secretary by non-Federal interests.
(b) Report to Congress.--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 containing the results of
the review conducted under subsection (a), including--
(1) the findings of the Secretary relating to--
(A) the minimum rights in property that are necessary to
construct, operate, or maintain projects for flood risk
management, hurricane and storm risk reduction, or
environmental restoration;
(B) whether increased use of covered easements in relation
to such projects could promote greater participation from
cooperating landowners in addressing local flooding or
environmental restoration challenges;
(C) whether such increased use could result in cost savings
in the implementation of the projects, without any reduction
in project benefits; and
(D) whether such increased use is in the best interest of
the United States; and
(2) any recommendations of the Secretary relating to
whether existing requirements or procedures related to such
use of covered easements should be revised to reflect the
results of the review.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``covered
easement'' means an easement or other similar interest in
real property that--
(1) reserves for the Secretary rights in the property that
are necessary to construct, operate, or maintain a water
resources development project;
(2) provides for appropriate public use of the property,
and retains the right of continued use of the property by the
owner of the property, to the extent such uses are consistent
with purposes of the covered easement;
(3) provides access to the property for oversight and
inspection by the Secretary;
(4) is permanently recorded; and
(5) is enforceable under Federal and State law.

SEC. 231. ASSESSMENT OF FOREST, RANGELAND, AND WATERSHED
RESTORATION SERVICES ON LANDS OWNED BY THE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out an
assessment of forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration
services on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers, including
an assessment of whether the provision of such services on
such lands by non-Federal interests through good neighbor
agreements would be in the best interests of the United
States.
(b) Considerations.--In carrying out the assessment under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
(1) describe the forest, rangeland, and watershed
restoration services provided by the Secretary on lands owned
by the Corps of Engineers;
(2) assess whether such services, including efforts to
reduce hazardous fuels and to restore and improve forest,
rangeland, and watershed health (including the health of fish
and wildlife habitats) would be enhanced by authorizing the
Secretary to enter into a good neighbor agreement with a non-
Federal interest;
(3) describe the process for ensuring that Federal
requirements for land management plans for forests on lands
owned by the Corps of Engineers remain in effect under good
neighbor agreements;
(4) assess whether Congress should authorize the Secretary
to enter into a good neighbor agreement with a non-Federal
interest to provide forest, rangeland, and watershed
restoration services on lands owned by the Corps of
Engineers, including by assessing any interest expressed by a
non-Federal interest to enter into such an agreement;
(5) consider whether implementation of a good neighbor
agreement on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers would
benefit State and local governments and Indian Tribes that
are located in the same geographic area as such lands; and
(6) consult with the heads of other Federal agencies
authorized to enter into good neighbor agreements with non-
Federal interests.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 18 months 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, and make publicly available
(including on a publicly available website), a report
describing the results of the assessment carried out under
subsection (a).
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration
services.--The term ``forest, rangeland, and watershed
restoration services'' has the meaning given such term in
section 8206 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C.
2113a).
(2) Good neighbor agreement.--The term ``good neighbor
agreement'' means a cooperative agreement or contract
(including a sole source contract) entered into between the
Secretary and a non-Federal interest to carry out forest,
rangeland, and watershed restoration services.
(3) Lands owned by the corps of engineers.--The term
``lands owned by the Corps of Engineers'' means any land
owned by the Corps of Engineers, but does not include--
(A) a component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System;
(B) land on which the removal of vegetation is prohibited
or restricted by law or Presidential proclamation;
(C) a wilderness study area; or
(D) any other land with respect to which the Secretary
determines that forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration
services should remain the responsibility of the Secretary.

SEC. 232. ELECTRONIC PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF
APPLICATIONS.

Section 2040(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2007 (33 U.S.C. 2345(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Water Resources
Development Act of 2016'' and inserting ``Water Resources
Development Act of 2022''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Report on electronic system implementation.--The
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Environment and

[[Page H5276]]

Public Works of the Senate a quarterly report describing the
status of the implementation of this section.''.

SEC. 233. 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. 234. GAO STUDIES ON MITIGATION.

(a) Study on Mitigation for Water Resources Development
Projects.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months 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
projects and activities to mitigate fish and wildlife losses
resulting from the construction, or operation and
maintenance, of an authorized water resources development
project.
(2) Requirements.--In conducting the study under paragraph
(1), the Comptroller General shall--
(A) investigate the extent to which--
(i) mitigation projects and activities (including the
acquisition of lands or interests in lands) restore the
natural hydrologic conditions, restore native vegetation, and
otherwise support native fish and wildlife species, as
required under section 906 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283);
(ii) mitigation projects or activities (including the
acquisition of lands or interests in lands) are undertaken
before, or concurrent with, the construction of the project;
(iii) mitigation projects or activities (including the
acquisition of lands or interests in lands) are completed;
(iv) ongoing mitigation projects or activities are
undertaken to mitigate for fish and wildlife losses from the
operation and maintenance of a project (including periodic
review and updating of such projects or activities);
(v) the Secretary includes mitigation plans (as required
under subsection (d) of such section 906) in any project
study, as such term is defined in section 2034(l) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2343);
(vi) processing and approval of mitigation projects and
activities (including the acquisition of lands or interests
in lands) affects the timeline of completion of projects; and
(vii) mitigation projects and activities (including the
acquisition of lands or interests in lands) affect the total
cost of projects;
(B) review any reports submitted to Congress in accordance
with section 2036(b) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2007 (121 Stat. 1094) on the status of construction of
projects that require mitigation; and
(C) consult with independent scientists, economists, and
other stakeholders with expertise and experience.
(b) Study on the Compensatory Mitigation.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months 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
performance metrics for, compliance with, and adequacy in
addressing project impacts of, potential mechanisms for
fulfilling compensatory mitigation obligations pursuant to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.).
(2) Requirements.--The Comptroller General shall include in
the study under paragraph (1) an analysis of--
(A) the primary mechanisms for fulfilling compensatory
mitigation obligations, including--
(i) mitigation banks;
(ii) in-lieu fee programs; and
(iii) direct mitigation by permittees;
(B) the timeliness of initiation and successful completion
of compensatory mitigation activities in relation to when the
permitted activity occurs;
(C) the timeliness of processing and approval of
compensatory mitigation activities;
(D) the costs of carrying out compensatory mitigation
activities borne by the Federal Government, permittee, or any
other involved entity;
(E) Federal and State agency oversight and short- and long-
term monitoring of the compensatory mitigation activities;
(F) whether the compensatory mitigation activity
successfully replaces any lost or adversely affected habitat
with habitat having similar functions of equal or greater
ecological value; and
(G) the continued, long-term success of the compensatory
mitigation activities over a 5-, 10-, 20-, and 50-year
period.
(3) Update.--In conjunction with the study under paragraph
(1), the Comptroller General shall review and update the
findings and recommendations, including a review of Federal
agency compliance with such recommendations, in the report of
the Comptroller General entitled, ``Corps of Engineers Does
Not Have an Effective Oversight Approach to Ensure That
Compensatory Mitigation Is Occurring'' and dated September
2005 (GAO-05-898).

SEC. 235. GAO STUDY ON WATERBORNE STATISTICS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall carry out a review of the Waterborne Commerce
Statistics Center of the Corps of Engineers that includes--
(1) an assessment of ways in which the Waterborne Commerce
Statistics Center can improve the collection of information
relating to all commercial maritime activity within the
jurisdiction of a port, including the collection and
reporting of records of fishery landings and aquaculture
harvest; and
(2) recommendations to improve the collection of such
information from non-Federal entities, taking into
consideration--
(A) the cost, efficiency, and accuracy of collecting such
information; and
(B) the protection of proprietary information.
(b) Report.--Upon completion of the review carried out
under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall submit to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report containing the results of
such review.

SEC. 236. GAO STUDY ON THE INTEGRATION OF INFORMATION INTO
THE NATIONAL LEVEE DATABASE.

(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on the Environment and Public Works of the Senate a
report on the results of a study on the sharing of levee
information and the integration of information into the
National Levee Database by the Corps of Engineers and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency in accordance with
section 9004 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007
(33 U.S.C. 3303).
(b) Requirements.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Comptroller General shall--
(1) investigate the information sharing protocols and
procedures between the Corps of Engineers and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency regarding the construction of new
Federal flood protection projects;
(2) analyze the timeliness of the integration of
information relating to newly constructed flood protection
projects into the National Levee Database;
(3) identify any delays between the construction of a new
Federal flood protection project and when a policyholder of
the National Flood Insurance Program would realize a premium
discount due to the construction of a new Federal flood
protection project; and
(4) determine whether current information sharing protocols
are adversely impacting the ability of the Secretary to
perform accurate benefit-cost analysis for future flood risk
management activities.

TITLE III--DEAUTHORIZATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS

SEC. 301. DEAUTHORIZATION OF INACTIVE PROJECTS.

(a) Purposes; Proposed Deauthorization List; Submission of
Final List.--Section 301 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 579-2) is amended by striking
subsections (a) through (c) and inserting the following:
``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
``(1) to identify water resources development projects, and
separable elements of projects, authorized by Congress that
are no longer viable for construction due to--
``(A) a lack of local support;
``(B) a lack of available Federal or non-Federal resources;
or
``(C) an authorizing purpose that is no longer relevant or
feasible;
``(2) to create an expedited and definitive process for
Congress to deauthorize water resources development projects
and separable elements that are no longer viable for
construction; and
``(3) to allow the continued authorization of water
resources development projects and separable elements that
are viable for construction.
``(b) Proposed Deauthorization List.--
``(1) Preliminary list of projects.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a
preliminary list of each water resources development project,
or separable element of a project, authorized for
construction before November 8, 2007, for which--
``(i) planning, design, or construction was not initiated
before the date of enactment of this Act; or

[[Page H5277]]

``(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) Proposed list and estimated deauthorization amount.--
The Secretary shall--
``(i) prepare a proposed list of projects for
deauthorization comprised of a subset of projects and
separable elements identified on the preliminary list
developed under paragraph (1) that are projects or separable
elements described in subsection (a)(1), as determined by the
Secretary; and
``(ii) include with such proposed list an estimate, in the
aggregate, of the Federal cost to complete such projects.
``(B) Determination of federal cost to complete.--For
purposes of subparagraph (A), the Federal cost to complete
shall take into account any allowances authorized by section
902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2280), as applied to the most recent project schedule and
cost estimate.
``(3) Public comment and consultation.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall solicit comments
from the public and the Governors of each applicable State on
the proposed deauthorization list prepared under paragraph
(2)(A).
``(B) Comment period.--The public comment period shall be
90 days.
``(4) Preparation of final deauthorization list.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall prepare a final
deauthorization list by--
``(i) considering any comments received under paragraph
(3); and
``(ii) revising the proposed deauthorization list prepared
under paragraph (2)(A) as the Secretary determines necessary
to respond to such comments.
``(B) Appendix.--The Secretary shall include as part of the
final deauthorization list an appendix that--
``(i) identifies each project or separable element on the
proposed deauthorization list that is not included on the
final deauthorization list; and
``(ii) describes the reasons why the project or separable
element is not included on the final deauthorization list.
``(c) Submission of Final Deauthorization List to Congress
for Congressional Review; Publication.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the close of the comment period under subsection (b)(3), the
Secretary shall--
``(A) submit the final deauthorization list and appendix
prepared under subsection (b)(4) to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate; and
``(B) publish the final deauthorization list and appendix
in the Federal Register.
``(2) Exclusions.--The Secretary shall not include in the
final deauthorization list submitted under paragraph (1) any
project or separable element with respect to which Federal
funds for planning, design, or construction are obligated
after the development of the preliminary list under
subsection (b)(1)(A) but prior to the submission of the final
deauthorization list under paragraph (1)(A) of this
subsection.''.
(b) Repeal.--Section 301(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 579-2(d)) is repealed.

SEC. 302. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.

Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2267a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) sea level rise;
``(8) coastal storm damage reduction; and
``(9) streambank and shoreline protection.''; and
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (9), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (10), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(11) New York-New Jersey Watershed Basin, which
encompasses all the watersheds that flow into the New York-
New Jersey Harbor and their associated estuaries, including
the Hudson, Mohawk, Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, and Bronx
River Watersheds and the Hudson River Estuary;
``(12) Mississippi River Watershed; and
``(13) Chattahoochee River Basin, Alabama, Florida, and
Georgia.''.

SEC. 303. FORECAST-INFORMED RESERVOIR OPERATIONS.

(a) Additional Utilization of Forecast-Informed Reservoir
Operations.--Section 1222(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3811; 134 Stat. 2661) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Upper Missouri
River Basin and the North Platte River Basin'' and inserting
``the Upper Missouri River Basin, the North Platte River
Basin, and the Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint River
Basin''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the Upper Missouri
River Basin or the North Platte River Basin'' and inserting
``the Upper Missouri River Basin, the North Platte River
Basin, or the Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint River Basin'';
and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the Upper Missouri
River Basin or the North Platte River Basin'' and inserting
``the Upper Missouri River Basin, the North Platte River
Basin, or the Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint River Basin''.
(b) Completion of Reports.--The Secretary shall expedite
completion of the reports authorized by section 1222 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3811; 134
Stat. 2661).

SEC. 304. LAKES PROGRAM.

Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 104 Stat. 4646; 110 Stat. 3758; 113
Stat. 295; 121 Stat. 1076; 134 Stat. 2703) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (29), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (30), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(31) Salisbury Pond, Worcester, Massachusetts;
``(32) Baisley Pond, New York;
``(33) Legacy Park, Decatur, Georgia; and
``(34) White Rock Lake, Dallas, Texas.''.

SEC. 305. INVASIVE SPECIES.

(a) Aquatic Invasive Species Research.--Section 1108(a) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C.
2263a(a)) is amended by inserting ``, hydrilla'' after
``elodea''.
(b) Harmful Algal Bloom Demonstration Program.--Section
128(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33
U.S.C. 610 note) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Focus Areas.--In carrying out the demonstration
program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall undertake
program activities related to harmful algal blooms in--
``(1) the Great Lakes;
``(2) the tidal and inland waters of the State of New
Jersey, including Lake Hopatcong, New Jersey;
``(3) the coastal and tidal waters of the State of
Louisiana;
``(4) the waterways of the counties that comprise the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California;
``(5) the Allegheny Reservoir Watershed, New York;
``(6) Lake Okeechobee, Florida;
``(7) the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Rivers, Florida;
``(8) Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia;
``(9) Rio Grande River Basin, Colorado, New Mexico, and
Texas;
``(10) lakes and reservoirs in the State of Ohio;
``(11) Detroit Lake, Oregon; and
``(12) Ten Mile Lake, Oregon.''.
(c) Update on Invasive Species Policy Guidance.--Section
501(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33
U.S.C. 610 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.''.

SEC. 306. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) New York Harbor, New York and New Jersey.--The New York
Harbor collection and removal of drift project authorized by
section 2 of the Act of March 4, 1915 (38 Stat. 1051; 88
Stat. 39; 104 Stat. 4615), and deauthorized pursuant to
section 6001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1345), is authorized to be carried out
by the Secretary.
(b) Guanajibo River, Puerto Rico.--The project for flood
control, Guanajibo River, Puerto Rico, authorized by section
101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
278), and deauthorized pursuant to section 6001 of the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat.
1345), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
(c) Rio Nigua, Salinas, Puerto Rico.--The project for flood
control, Rio Nigua, Salinas, Puerto Rico, authorized by
section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 278), and deauthorized pursuant to section 6001 of
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128
Stat. 1345), is authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary.
(d) Rio Grande De Loiza, Puerto Rico.--The project for
flood control, Rio Grande De Loiza, Puerto Rico, authorized
by section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(106 Stat. 4803), and deauthorized pursuant to section 6001
of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014
(128 Stat. 1345), is authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary.

SEC. 307. ST. FRANCIS LAKE CONTROL STRUCTURE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall set the ordinary high
water mark for water impounded behind the St. Francis Lake
Control Structure, authorized by the Act of May 15, 1928 (45
Stat. 538; 79 Stat. 1077), at 208 feet mean sea level.

[[Page H5278]]

(b) Operation by Project Manager.--In setting the ordinary
high water mark under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
ensure that the project manager for the St. Francis Lake
Control Structure may continue operating such structure in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the document
titled ``St. Francis Lake Control Structure Standing
Instructions to the Project Manager'' and published in
January 1982 by the Corps of Engineers, Memphis District.

SEC. 308. FRUITVALE AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE, ALAMEDA,
CALIFORNIA.

Section 4017(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2007 (121 Stat. 1175) is repealed.

SEC. 309. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish
a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal
interests in Los Angeles County, California.
(b) Form of Assistance.--Assistance provided under this
section may be in the form of design and construction
assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and
resource protection and development projects in Los Angeles
County, California, including projects for wastewater
treatment and related facilities, water supply and related
facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water
resource protection and development.
(c) Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide
assistance for a project under this section only if the
project is publicly owned.
(d) Partnership Agreements.--
(1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this
section to a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall enter
into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) with the non-Federal
interest with respect to the project to be carried out with
such assistance.
(2) Requirements.--Each partnership agreement for a project
entered into under this subsection shall provide for the
following:
(A) Development by the Secretary, in consultation with
appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or
resource protection and development plan, including
appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
(B) Establishment of such legal and institutional
structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term
operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.
(3) Cost sharing.--
(A) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a project
under this section--
(i) shall be 75 percent; and
(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or
reimbursements of project costs.
(B) Credit for interest.--In case of a delay in the funding
of the Federal share of a project that is the subject of an
agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest shall
receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing
the non-Federal share of the project cost.
(C) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--
Notwithstanding section 221(a)(4)(G) of the Flood Control Act
of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4)(G)), the non-Federal
interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-
way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share of project
cost (including all reasonable costs associated with
obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation,
and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or
controlled land), but the credit may not exceed 25 percent of
total project costs.
(D) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of
operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with
assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
$50,000,000 to carry out this section.
(2) Corps of engineers expenses.--Not more than 10 percent
of the amounts made available to carry out this section may
be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to
administer projects under this section at Federal expense.

SEC. 310. DEAUTHORIZATION OF DESIGNATED PORTIONS OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CALIFORNIA.

(a) In General.--The portion of the project for flood risk
management, Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California,
authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1936 (49
Stat. 1589; 50 Stat. 167; 52 Stat. 1215; 55 Stat. 647; 64
Stat. 177), consisting of the debris basins described in
subsection (b), is no longer authorized beginning on the date
that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Debris Basins Described.--The debris basins referred to
in subsection (a) are the following debris basins operated
and maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District: Auburn Debris Basin, Bailey Debris Basin, Big
Dalton Debris Basin, Blanchard Canyon Debris Basin, Blue Gum
Canyon Debris Basin, Brand Canyon Debris Basin, Carter Debris
Basin, Childs Canyon Debris Basin, Dunsmuir Canyon Debris
Basin, Eagle Canyon Debris Basin, Eaton Walsh Debris Basin,
Elmwood Canyon Debris Basin, Emerald East Debris Basin,
Emerald West Debris Retention Inlet, Hay Debris Basin,
Hillcrest Debris Basin, La Tuna Canyon Debris Basin, Little
Dalton Debris Basin, Live Oak Debris Retention Inlet, Lopez
Debris Retention Inlet, Lower Sunset Canyon Debris Basin,
Marshall Canyon Debris Retention Inlet, Santa Anita Debris
Basin, Sawpit Debris Basin, Schoolhouse Canyon Debris Basin,
Shields Canyon Debris Basin, Sierra Madre Villa Debris Basin,
Snover Canyon Debris Basin, Stough Canyon Debris Basin,
Wilson Canyon Debris Basin, and Winery Canyon Debris Basin.

SEC. 311. MURRIETA CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

Section 103 of title I of appendix B of Public Law 106-377
(114 Stat. 1441A-65) (relating to the project for flood
control, environmental restoration, and recreation, Murrieta
Creek, California), is amended--
(1) by striking ``$89,850,000'' and inserting
``$252,438,000'';
(2) by striking ``$57,735,000'' and inserting
``$162,511,500''; and
(3) by striking ``$32,115,000'' and inserting
``$89,926,500''.

SEC. 312. SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

The portion of the project for flood protection on the
Sacramento River, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March
1, 1917 (chapter 144, 39 Stat. 949; 45 Stat. 539; 50 Stat.
849; 55 Stat. 647; 80 Stat. 1422), consisting of the portion
of the American River North Levee, upstream of Arden Way,
from G.P.S. coordinate 38.600948N 121.330599W to 38.592261N
121.334155W, is no longer authorized beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 313. SAN DIEGO RIVER AND MISSION BAY, SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA.

(a) In General.--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; 134 Stat. 2705), is modified to
change the authorized conveyance capacity of the project to a
level determined appropriate by the Secretary based on the
actual capacity of the project, which level may be further
modified by the Secretary as necessary to account for sea
level rise.
(b) Operation and Maintenance Manual.--
(1) In general.--The non-Federal sponsor for the project
described in subsection (a) shall prepare for review and
approval by the Secretary a revised operation and maintenance
manual for the project to implement the modification
described in subsection (a).
(2) Funding.--The non-Federal sponsor shall provide to the
Secretary funds sufficient to cover the costs incurred by the
Secretary to review and approve the manual described in
paragraph (1), and the Secretary may accept and expend such
funds in the performance of such review and approval.
(c) Emergency Repair and Restoration Assistance.--Upon
approval by the Secretary of the revised operation and
maintenance manual required under subsection (b), and subject
to compliance by the non-Federal sponsor with the
requirements of such manual and with any other eligibility
requirement established by the Secretary, the project
described in subsection (a) shall be considered for
assistance under section 5(a) of the Act of August 18, 1941
(33 U.S.C. 701n(a)).

SEC. 314. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CALIFORNIA.

(a) Technical Amendment.--Section 203(a)(1)(A) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2675) is amended
by striking ``ocean shoreline'' and inserting ``bay and ocean
shorelines''.
(b) Implementation.--In carrying out a study under section
142 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat.
2930; 100 Stat. 4158), pursuant to section 203(a)(1)(A) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (as amended by
this section), the Secretary shall not differentiate between
damages related to high tide flooding and coastal storm
flooding for the purposes of determining the Federal interest
or cost share.

SEC. 315. COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN.

(a) Study of Flood Risk Management Activities.--
(1) In general.--Using funds made available to carry out
this section, the Secretary is authorized, at Federal
expense, to carry out a study to determine the feasibility of
a project for flood risk management and related purposes in
the Columbia River Basin and to report to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate with recommendations thereon, including
recommendations for a project to potentially reduce the
reliance on Canada for flood risk management in the basin.
(2) Coordination.--The Secretary shall carry out the
activities described in this subsection in coordination with
other Federal and State agencies and Indian Tribes.
(b) Funds for Columbia River Treaty Obligations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to expend
funds appropriated for the purpose of satisfying United
States obligations under the Columbia River Treaty to
compensate Canada for operating Canadian storage on behalf of
the United States under such treaty.
(2) Notification.--If the U.S. entity calls upon Canada to
operate Canadian reservoir storage for flood risk management
on behalf of the United States, which operation may incur an
obligation to compensate Canada under the Columbia River
Treaty--
(A) the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on
Transportation and Infrastructure and Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Committees on Environment
and Public Works and Appropriations of the Senate, by not
later than 30 days

[[Page H5279]]

after the initiation of the call, a written notice of the
action and a justification, including a description of the
circumstances necessitating the call;
(B) upon a determination by the United States of the amount
of compensation that shall be paid to Canada, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committees on Transportation and
Infrastructure and Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Committees on Environment and Public
Works and Appropriations of the Senate a written notice
specifying such amount and an explanation of how such amount
was derived, which notification shall not delay or impede the
flood risk management mission of the U.S. entity; and
(C) the Secretary shall make no payment to Canada for the
call under the Columbia River Treaty until such time as funds
appropriated for the purpose of compensating Canada under
such treaty are available.
(3) Definitions.--In this section:
(A) Columbia river basin.--The term ``Columbia River
Basin'' means the entire United States portion of the
Columbia River watershed.
(B) Columbia river treaty.--The term ``Columbia River
Treaty'' means the treaty relating to cooperative development
of the water resources of the Columbia River Basin, signed at
Washington January 17, 1961, and entered into force September
16, 1964.
(C) U.S. entity.--The term ``U.S. entity'' means the entity
designated by the United States under Article XIV of the
Columbia River Treaty.

SEC. 316. COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, FLORIDA.

(a) In General.--Section 601(e)(5) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2685; 121 Stat. 1269; 132
Stat. 3786) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``subparagraph (D)''
and inserting ``subparagraph (E)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (E)--
(A) in clause (i), in the matter preceding subclause (I),
by striking ``during each 5-year period, beginning with
commencement of design of the Plan'' and inserting ``during
each period of 5 fiscal years, beginning on October 1,
2022'';
(B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``for each project in the
Plan'' before the period at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) Accounting.--Not later than 90 days after the end
of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall provide to the non-
Federal sponsor a financial accounting of non-Federal
contributions under clause (i)(I) for such fiscal year.
``(iv) Limitation.--In the case of an authorized project
for which a project partnership agreement has not been
executed and for which there is an agreement under
subparagraph (B)(i)(III), the Secretary--

``(I) shall consider all expenditures and obligations
incurred by the non-Federal sponsor for land and in-kind
services for the project in determining the amount of any
cash contribution required from the non-Federal sponsor to
satisfy the cost-share requirements of this subsection; and
``(II) may only require any such cash contribution to be
made at the end of each period of 5 fiscal years under clause
(i).''.

(b) Update.--The Secretary and the non-Federal interest
shall revise the Master Agreement for the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, executed in 2009 pursuant to
section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2680), to reflect the amendment made by subsection
(a).

SEC. 317. PORT EVERGLADES, FLORIDA.

Section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2016 (130 Stat. 1709) is amended, in row 4 (relating to the
project for navigation, Port Everglades, Florida)--
(1) by striking ``$229,770,000'' and inserting
``$561,455,000'';
(2) by striking ``$107,233,000'' and inserting
``$361,302,000''; and
(3) by striking ``$337,003,000'' and inserting
``$922,757,000''.

SEC. 318. SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION TASK FORCE.

Section 528(f)(1)(J) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3771) is amended by striking ``2
representatives of the State of Florida,'' and inserting ``3
representatives of the State of Florida, including at least 1
representative of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection and 1 representative of the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission,''.

SEC. 319. LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, IDAHO.

Section 3057(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2007 (121 Stat. 1120) is amended by striking
``$9,000,000'' and inserting ``$40,000,000''.

SEC. 320. CHICAGO SHORELINE PROTECTION.

The project for storm damage reduction and shoreline
erosion protection, Lake Michigan, Illinois, from Wilmette,
Illinois, to the Illinois-Indiana State line, authorized by
section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3664), is modified to authorize the Secretary
to provide 65 percent of the cost of the locally preferred
plan, as described in the Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated April 14, 1994, for the construction of the following
segments of the project:
(1) Shoreline revetment at Morgan Shoal.
(2) Shoreline revetment at Promontory Point.

SEC. 321. GREAT LAKES AND MISSISSIPPI RIVER INTERBASIN
PROJECT, BRANDON ROAD, WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS.

Section 402(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2020 (134 Stat. 2742) is amended by striking ``80 percent''
and inserting ``90 percent''.

SEC. 322. SOUTHEAST DES MOINES LEVEE SYSTEM, IOWA.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of Des Moines,
Iowa.
(2) Flood protection project.--The term ``Flood Protection
Project'' means the project on the Des Moines River for local
flood protection of Des Moines, Iowa, authorized by the Act
of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 896).
(3) Red rock dam project.--The term ``Red Rock Dam
Project'' means the project for the Red Rock Dam on the Des
Moines River for flood control and other purposes, authorized
by the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 896).
(b) Project Modifications.--The Red Rock Dam Project and
the Flood Protection Project shall be modified as follows,
subject to a new or amended agreement between the Secretary
and the City, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b):
(1) That portion of the Red Rock Dam Project consisting of
the segment of levee from Station 15+88.8W to Station
77+43.7W shall be transferred to the Flood Protection
Project.
(2) The relocated levee improvement constructed by the
City, from Station 77+43.7W to approximately Station 20+00,
shall be included in the Flood Protection Project.
(c) Federal Easement Conveyances.--
(1) Flood protection easements.--The Secretary is
authorized to convey, without consideration, to the City the
following easements to become part of the Flood Protection
Project in accordance with subsection (b):
(A) Easements identified as Tracts 3215E-1, 3235E, and
3227E.
(B) Easements identified as Partial Tracts 3216E-2, 3216E-
3, 3217E-1, and 3217E-2.
(2) Additional easements.--The Secretary is authorized to
convey, without consideration, to the City or to the Des
Moines Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation Authority the
following easements:
(A) Easements identified as Tracts 3200E, 3202E-1, 3202E-2,
3202E-4, 3203E-2, 3215E-3, 3216E-1, and 3216E-5.
(B) Easements identified as Partial Tracts 3216E-2, 3216E-
3, 3217E-1, and 3217E-2.
(3) Costs.--An entity to which a conveyance is made under
this subsection shall be responsible for all administrative
costs associated with the conveyance.

SEC. 323. LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT
STUDY.

Section 213 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020
(134 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(j) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
comprehensive study carried out under subsection (a), and any
feasibility study carried out under subsection (e), shall be
100 percent.''.

SEC. 324. LOWER MISSOURI RIVER STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL
EVALUATION AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out
streambank erosion control evaluation and demonstration
projects in the Lower Missouri River through contracts with
non-Federal interests, including projects for streambank
protection and stabilization.
(b) Area.--The Secretary shall carry out demonstration
projects under this section on the reach of the Missouri
River between Sioux City, Iowa, and the confluence of the
Missouri River and the Mississippi River.
(c) Requirements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall--
(1) conduct an evaluation of the extent of streambank
erosion on the Lower Missouri River; and
(2) develop new methods and techniques for streambank
protection, research soil stability, and identify the causes
of erosion.
(d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report describing the results of
the demonstration projects carried out under this section,
including any recommendations for methods to prevent and
correct streambank erosion.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
(f) Sunset.--The authority of the Secretary to enter into
contracts under subsection (a) shall expire on the date that
is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 325. MISSOURI RIVER INTERCEPTION-REARING COMPLEXES.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 129 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2643), and
subject to subsection (b), the Secretary is authorized to
carry out the construction of an interception-rearing complex
at each of Plowboy Bend A (River Mile: 174.5 to 173.2) and
Pelican Bend B (River Mile: 15.8 to 13.4) on the Missouri
River.
(b) Analysis and Mitigation of Risk.--
(1) Analysis.--Prior to construction of the interception-
rearing complexes under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
perform an

[[Page H5280]]

analysis to identify whether the interception-rearing
complexes will--
(A) contribute to an increased risk of flooding to adjacent
lands and properties, including local levees;
(B) affect the navigation channel, including crossflows,
velocity, channel depth, and channel width;
(C) affect the harvesting of sand;
(D) affect ports and harbors; or
(E) contribute to bank erosion on adjacent private lands.
(2) Mitigation.--The Secretary may not construct an
interception-rearing complex under subsection (a) until the
Secretary successfully mitigates any effects described in
paragraph (1) with respect to such interception-rearing
complex.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after completion of the
construction of the interception-rearing complexes under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate a report describing the extent to which
the construction of such interception-rearing complexes
affected the population recovery of pallid sturgeon in the
Missouri River.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 129(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2643) is amended
by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and
(4), respectively, and inserting after paragraph (1) the
following:
``(2) submits the report required by section 318(c) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2022;''.

SEC. 326. ARGENTINE, EAST BOTTOMS, FAIRFAX-JERSEY CREEK, AND
NORTH KANSAS LEVEES UNITS, MISSOURI RIVER AND
TRIBUTARIES AT KANSAS CITIES, MISSOURI AND
KANSAS.

Notwithstanding section 103 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213), the Federal share
of the cost of the portion of the project for flood damage
reduction, Argentine, East Bottoms, Fairfax-Jersey Creek, and
North Kansas Levees units, Missouri River and tributaries at
Kansas Cities, Missouri and Kansas, authorized by section 101
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat.
1054), relating to the Fairfax-Jersey Creek Levee unit, shall
be 80 percent.

SEC. 327. MISSOURI RIVER MITIGATION PROJECT, MISSOURI,
KANSAS, IOWA, AND NEBRASKA.

Section 334 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 306) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(c) Use of Other Funds.--Any acres acquired using Federal
funds for purposes described in subsection (a) shall be
considered toward the total number of acres required under
such subsection, regardless of the source of the Federal
funds.''.

SEC. 328. NORTHERN MISSOURI.

(a) Northern Missouri Defined.--In this section, the term
``Northern Missouri'' means the counties of Buchanan, Marion,
Platte, and Clay, Missouri.
(b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish
a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal
interests in Northern Missouri.
(c) Form of Assistance.--Assistance provided under this
section may be in the form of design and construction
assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and
resource protection and development projects in Northern
Missouri, including projects for wastewater treatment and
related facilities, water supply and related facilities,
environmental restoration, and surface water resource
protection and development.
(d) Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide
assistance for a project under this section only if the
project is publicly owned.
(e) Partnership Agreements.--
(1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this
section to a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall enter
into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) with the non-Federal
interest with respect to the project to be carried out with
such assistance.
(2) Requirements.--Each partnership agreement for a project
entered into under this subsection shall provide for the
following:
(A) Development by the Secretary, in consultation with
appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or
resource protection and development plan, including
appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
(B) Establishment of such legal and institutional
structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term
operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.
(3) Cost sharing.--
(A) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a project
carried out under this section--
(i) shall be 75 percent; and
(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or
reimbursements of project costs.
(B) Credit for interest.--In case of a delay in the funding
of the Federal share of a project that is the subject of a
partnership agreement under this section, the non-Federal
interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest
incurred in providing the non-Federal share of the project
cost.
(C) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--
Notwithstanding section 221(a)(4)(G) of the Flood Control Act
of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4)(G)), the non-Federal
interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of
way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share of project
cost (including all reasonable costs associated with
obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation,
and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or
controlled land), but such credit may not exceed 25 percent
of total project costs.
(D) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of
operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with
assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
$50,000,000 to carry out this section.
(2) Corps of engineers expenses.--Not more than 10 percent
of the amounts made available to carry out this section may
be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to
administer projects under this section at Federal expense.

SEC. 329. ISRAEL RIVER, LANCASTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

The project for flood control, Israel River, Lancaster,
New Hampshire, carried out under section 205 of the Flood
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is no longer authorized
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 330. MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO
BELEN, NEW MEXICO.

The non-Federal share of the cost of the project for flood
risk management, Middle Rio Grande, Bernalillo to Belen, New
Mexico, authorized by section 401(2) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2735), shall be 25
percent.

SEC. 331. SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN COASTAL STORM RISK
MANAGEMENT PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--In the case of a water resources
development project described in subsection (b), the
Secretary shall--
(1) fund, at full Federal expense, any incremental increase
in cost to the project that results from a legal requirement
to use a borrow source determined by the Secretary to be
other than the least cost option; and
(2) exclude the cost described in paragraph (1) from the
cost-benefit analysis for the project.
(b) Water Resources Development Projects Described.--A
water resources development project referred to in subsection
(a) is any of the following:
(1) The project for hurricane-flood protection and beach
erosion control, Carolina Beach and vicinity, North Carolina,
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962
(76 Stat. 1182; 134 Stat. 2741).
(2) The project for hurricane-flood protection and beach
erosion control, Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina,
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962
(76 Stat. 1182; 134 Stat. 2741).

SEC. 332. SOUTHWESTERN OREGON.

(a) Southwestern Oregon Defined.--In this section, the term
``Southwestern Oregon'' means the counties of Benton, Coos,
Curry, Douglas, Lane, Linn, and Josephine, Oregon.
(b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish
a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal
interests in Southwestern Oregon.
(c) Form of Assistance.--Assistance provided under this
section may be in the form of design and construction
assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and
resource protection and development projects in Southwestern
Oregon, including projects for wastewater treatment and
related facilities, water supply and related facilities,
environmental restoration, and surface water resource
protection and development.
(d) Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide
assistance for a project under this section only if the
project is publicly owned.
(e) Partnership Agreements.--
(1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this
section to a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall enter
into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) with the non-Federal
interest with respect to the project to be carried out with
such assistance.
(2) Requirements.--Each partnership agreement for a project
entered into under this subsection shall provide for the
following:
(A) Development by the Secretary, in consultation with
appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or
resource protection and development plan, including
appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
(B) Establishment of such legal and institutional
structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term
operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.
(3) Cost sharing.--
(A) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a project
carried out under this section--
(i) shall be 75 percent; and
(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or
reimbursements of project costs.
(B) Credit for interest.--In case of a delay in the funding
of the Federal share of a project that is the subject of a
partnership agreement under this section, the non-Federal
interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest
incurred in providing the non-Federal share of the project
cost.

[[Page H5281]]

(C) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--
Notwithstanding section 221(a)(4)(G) of the Flood Control Act
of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4)(G)), the non-Federal
interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-
way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share of project
cost (including all reasonable costs associated with
obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation,
and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or
controlled land), but such credit may not exceed 25 percent
of total project costs.
(D) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of
operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with
assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
$50,000,000 to carry out this section.
(2) Corps of engineers expense.--Not more than 10 percent
of the amounts made available to carry out this section may
be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to
administer projects under this section at Federal expense.

SEC. 333. JOHN P. MURTHA LOCKS AND DAM.

(a) Designation.--Locks and Dam 4, Monongahela River,
Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(18) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4803), and
commonly known as the ``Charleroi Locks and Dam'', shall be
known and designated as the ``John P. Murtha Locks and Dam''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
locks and dam referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed
to be a reference to the ``John P. Murtha Locks and Dam''.

SEC. 334. WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TENNESSEE.

Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the project
for navigation, Wolf River Harbor, Tennessee, authorized by
section 202 of the National Industrial Recovery Act (48 Stat.
201; 49 Stat. 1034; 72 Stat. 308), is modified to reduce, in
part, the authorized dimensions of the project, such that the
remaining authorized dimensions are as follows:
(1) A 250-foot-wide, 9-foot-depth channel with a center
line beginning at an approximate point of 35.139634, -
90.062343 and extending approximately 1,300 feet to an
approximate point of 35.142077, -90.059107.
(2) A 200-foot-wide, 9-foot-depth channel with a center
line beginning at an approximate point of 35.142077, -
90.059107 and extending approximately 1,800 feet to an
approximate point of 35.1467861, -90.057003.
(3) A 250-foot-wide, 9-foot-depth channel with a center
line beginning at an approximate point of 35.1467861, -
90.057003 and extending approximately 5,550 feet to an
approximate point of 35.160848, -90.050566.

SEC. 335. ADDICKS AND BARKER RESERVOIRS, TEXAS.

The Secretary is authorized to provide, pursuant to section
206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a),
information and advice to non-Federal interests on the
removal of sediment obstructing inflow channels to the
Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, authorized pursuant to the
project for Buffalo Bayou and its tributaries, Texas, under
section 3a of the Act of August 11, 1939 (chapter 699, 53
Stat. 1414; 68 Stat. 1258).

SEC. 336. NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TEXAS.

The project for ecosystem restoration and storm damage
reduction, North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas,
authorized under section 556 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 353), shall not be
eligible for repair and restoration assistance under section
5(a) of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(a)).

SEC. 337. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA.

Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 371) is amended by striking subsection (a) and
inserting the following:
``(a) Definition of Central West Virginia.--In this
section, the term `central West Virginia' means the counties
of Lewis, Upshur, Randolph, Hardy, Hampshire, Morgan,
Berkeley, Jefferson, Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel, Tyler,
Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, Monongalia, Marion, Harrison,
Taylor, Barbour, Preston, Tucker, Mineral, Grant, Brooke, and
Ritchie, West Virginia.''.

SEC. 338. PUGET SOUND, WASHINGTON.

In carrying out the project for ecosystem restoration,
Puget Sound, Washington, authorized by section 1401(4) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1713), the
Secretary shall consider the removal and replacement of the
Highway 101 causeway and bridges at the Duckabush River
Estuary site to be a project feature, and not a relocation,
and the Federal share of the costs of such removal and
replacement shall be 65 percent.

SEC. 339. WATER LEVEL MANAGEMENT PILOT PROJECT ON THE UPPER
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a pilot
project on water level management, as part of the operations
and maintenance of the 9-foot channel projects of the Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System, to help
redress the degrading influences of prolonged inundation or
sedimentation on such projects, and to improve the quality
and quantity of habitat available for fish and wildlife.
(b) Conditions on Drawdowns.--In carrying out the pilot
project under subsection (a), the Secretary shall carry out
routine and systemic water level drawdowns of the pools
created by the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway
System locks and dams, including drawdowns during the growing
season, when--
(1) hydrologic conditions allow the Secretary to carry out
a drawdown within applicable dam operating plans; or
(2) hydrologic conditions allow the Secretary to carry out
a drawdown and sufficient funds are available to the
Secretary to carry out any additional activities that may be
required to ensure that the drawdown does not adversely
affect navigation.
(c) Coordination and Notification.--
(1) Coordination.--The Secretary shall use existing
coordination and consultation processes to regularly consult
with other relevant Federal agencies and States regarding the
planning and assessment of water level management actions
implemented under this section.
(2) Notification.--Prior to carrying out any water level
management plan pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall
provide notice to the public and to navigation interests and
other interested stakeholders.
(d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System'' has the
meaning given that term in section 8001 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 652 note).

SEC. 340. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER PROTECTION.

Section 2010 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1270; 132 Stat. 3812) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(f) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not recommend
deauthorization of the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam
pursuant to the disposition study carried out under
subsection (d) unless the Secretary identifies a willing and
capable non-Federal public entity to assume ownership of the
Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam.
``(g) Modification.--The Secretary is authorized to
investigate the feasibility of modifying, prior to
deauthorizing, the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam to
add ecosystem restoration, including the prevention and
control of invasive species, water supply, and recreation as
authorized purposes.''.

SEC. 341. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN BENEFITS AND COSTS.

Section 152(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2020 (33 U.S.C. 2213a(a)) is amended by striking ``a flood
risk management project that incidentally generates seismic
safety benefits in regions'' and inserting ``a flood risk
management or coastal storm risk management project in a
region''.

SEC. 342. DEBRIS REMOVAL.

Section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a), is
amended by striking ``or recreation'' and inserting
``ecosystem restoration, or recreation''.

SEC. 343. GENERAL REAUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) Levee Safety Initiative.--Section 9005(g)(2)(E)(i) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C.
3303a(g)(2)(E)(i)) is amended by striking ``2023'' and
inserting ``2026''.
(b) Transfer of Excess Credit.--Section 1020 of the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2223)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (d), by striking ``10 years after the
date of enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``on December
31, 2026''; and
(2) in subsection (e)(1)(B), by striking ``10 years after
the date of enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``December
31, 2026''.
(c) Rehabilitation of Existing Levees.--Section 3017(e) of
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33
U.S.C. 3303a note) is amended by striking ``the date that is
10 years after the date of enactment of this Act'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2026''.
(d) Invasive Species in Alpine Lakes Pilot Project.--
Section 507(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020
(16 U.S.C. 4701 note) is amended by striking ``2024'' and
inserting ``2026''.
(e) Environmental Banks.--Section 309(e) of the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (16 U.S.C.
3957(e)) is amended by striking ``10'' and inserting ``12''.

SEC. 344. CONVEYANCES.

(a) Generally Applicable Provisions.--
(1) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage
and the legal description of any real property or easement 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.

[[Page H5282]]

(b) Sardis Lake, Panola County, Mississippi.--
(1) Conveyance authorized.--The Secretary is authorized to
convey to the City of Sardis, Mississippi, 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
approximately 1,064 acres of lying in the eastern half of
Sections 12 and 13, T 8 S, R 6 W and the western half of
Section 18 and the western half of Section 7, T 8 S, R 5 W,
in Panola County, Mississippi, and being more particularly
described as follows: Begin at the southeast corner of said
Section 13, run thence from said point of beginning, along
the south line of said Section 13, run westerly, 2,723 feet;
thence run N 2739'53'' W, for 1,898 feet; thence run north
2,434 feet; thence run east, 1,006 feet, more or less, to a
point on the easterly edge of Mississippi State Highway No.
315; thence run along said easterly edge of highway,
northerly, for 633 feet; thence leaving said easterly edge of
highway, run N 6200' E, for 200 feet; thence N 0700' E, for
1,350 feet; thence N 0700' W, for 800 feet; thence N 3730'
W for 800 feet; thence N 1000' W for 350 feet; thence N
1100' E, for 350 feet; thence N 4330' E for 250 feet;
thence N 8800' E for 200 feet; thence S 6400' E for 350
feet; thence S 2530' E, for 650 feet, more or less, to the
intersection of the east line of the western half of the
eastern half of the northwest quarter of the southeast
quarter of the aforesaid Section 12, T 8 S, R 6 W and the
235-foot contour; thence run along said 235-foot contour,
6,392 feet; thence leaving said 235-foot contour, southerly
1,762 feet, more or less, to a point on the south line of
Section 7; thence S 0028'49'' E, 2,664.97 feet, more or
less, to a point on the south line of the northwest quarter
of said Section 18; thence along said south line, easterly
for 100 feet, more or less to the northwest corner of the
southwest quarter of said Section 18; thence leaving said
south line of said northwest quarter, along the east line of
said southwest quarter, S 0006'20'' E, run 2,280 feet, more
or less, to the southerly edge of an existing power line
right-of-way; thence leaving said east line of said southwest
quarter, along said southerly edge of said power line right-
of-way, northwesterly, 300 feet, more or less, to the
easterly edge of the existing 4-H Club Road; thence leaving
said southerly edge of said power line right-of-way, along
said easterly edge of said road, southeasterly, 420 feet,
more or less, to the south line of said southwest quarter;
thence leaving said easterly edge of said road, along said
south line of southwest quarter, westerly, 2,635 feet, more
or less, to the point of beginning, LESS AND EXCEPT the
following prescribed parcel: Beginning at a point N
0045'48'' W, 302.15 feet and west, 130.14 feet from the
southeast corner of said Section 13, T 8 S, R 6 W, and
running thence S 0435'58'' W, 200.00 feet to a point on the
north side of a road; running thence with the north side of
said road, N 8351' W, for 64.84 feet; thence N 7226'44'' W,
59.48 feet; thence N 6031'37'' W, 61.71 feet; thence N
6335'08'' W, 51.07 feet; thence N 0647'17'' W, 142.81 feet
to a point; running thence S 8524'02'' E, 254.37 feet to the
point of beginning, containing 1.00 acre, more or less.
(3) Reservation of rights.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall reserve and retain
from the conveyance under this subsection such easements,
rights-of-way, and other interests that the Secretary
determines to be necessary and appropriate to ensure the
continued operation of the Sardis Lake project, authorized by
section 6 of the Act of May 15, 1928 (chapter 569, 45 Stat.
536).
(B) Flooding; liability.--In addition to any easements,
rights-of-way, and other interests reserved an retained under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary--
(i) shall retain the right to flood land for downstream
flood control purposes on--

(I) the land located east of Blackjack Road and below 301.0
feet above sea level; and
(II) the land located west of Blackjack Road and below
224.0 feet above sea level; and

(ii) shall not be liable for any reasonable damage
resulting from any flooding of land pursuant to clause (i).
(4) Deed.--The Secretary shall--
(A) convey the property under this section by quitclaim
deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary
determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States; and
(B) ensure that such deed includes a permanent restriction
that all future building of above-ground structures on the
land conveyed under this subsection shall be restricted to
areas lying at or above 301.0 feet above sea level.
(5) Consideration.--The City of Sardis, Mississippi, 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.
(6) Notice and reporting.--After conveying property under
this subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the City of
Sardis, Mississippi--
(A) weekly reports describing--
(i) the water level of Sardis Lake, as in effect on the
date of submission of the report;
(ii) any applicable forecasts of that water level; and
(iii) any other information that may affect land conveyed
under this subsection; and
(B) a timely notice of any anticipated flooding of a
portion of the land conveyed under this subsection.
(c) Rogers County, Oklahoma.--
(1) Conveyance authorized.--The Secretary is authorized to
convey to the City of Tulsa-Rogers County Port Authority, 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 under this
subsection is the approximately 176 acres of Federal land
located on the following 3 parcels in Rogers County,
Oklahoma:
(A) Parcel 1 consists of U.S. tract 119 (partial), U.S.
tract 123, U.S. tract 120, U.S. tract 125, and U.S. tract 118
(partial).
(B) Parcel 2 consists of U.S. tract 124 (partial) and U.S.
tract 128 (partial).
(C) Parcel 3 consists of U.S. tract 128 (partial).
(3) Reservation of rights.--The Secretary shall reserve and
retain from any conveyance under this subsection such
easements, rights-of-way, and other interests that the
Secretary determines to be necessary and appropriate to
ensure the continued operation of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas
River navigation project (including Newt Graham Lock and Dam
18) authorized under the comprehensive plan for the Arkansas
River Basin by the Act of June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52
Stat. 1218; 60 Stat. 634; 60 Stat. 647; 101 Stat. 1329-112;
117 Stat. 1842).
(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) Consideration.--The City of Tulsa-Rogers County Port
Authority 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) Regional Corps of Engineers Office, Corpus Christi,
Texas.--
(1) Conveyance authorized.--At such time as new facilities
are available to be used as the office for the Galveston
District of the Corps of Engineers, the Secretary shall
convey to the Port of Corpus Christi, all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the property
described in paragraph (2).
(2) Description of property.--The property referred to in
paragraph (1) is the land known as Tract 100 and Tract 101,
including improvements on that land, in Corpus Christi,
Texas, and described as follows:
(A) Tract 100.--The 1.89 acres, more or less, as conveyed
by the Nueces County Navigation District No. 1 of Nueces
County, Texas, to the United States by instrument dated
October 16, 1928, and recorded at Volume 193, pages 1 and 2,
in the Deed Records of Nueces County, Texas.
(B) Tract 101.--The 0.53 acres as conveyed by the City of
Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas, to the United States by
instrument dated September 24, 1971, and recorded at Volume
318, pages 523 and 524, in the Deed Records of Nueces County,
Texas.
(C) Improvements.--
(i) Main Building (RPUID AO-C-3516), constructed January 9,
1974.
(ii) Garage, vehicle with 5 bays (RPUID AO-C-3517),
constructed January 9, 1985.
(iii) Bulkhead, Upper (RPUID AO-C-2658), constructed
January 1, 1941.
(iv) Bulkhead, Lower (RPUID AO-C-3520), constructed January
1, 1933.
(v) Bulkhead Fence (RPUID AO-C-3521), constructed January
9, 1985.
(vi) Bulkhead Fence (RPUID AO-C-3522), constructed January
9, 1985.
(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 Port of Corpus Christi shall pay to
the Secretary an amount that is not less than the fair market
value of the property (including improvements) conveyed under
this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.

SEC. 345. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

(a) New Projects.--Section 219(f) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121
Stat. 1258) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(274) Chandler, arizona.--$18,750,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure in the city of Chandler, Arizona.
``(275) Pinal county, arizona.--$40,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure in Pinal County, Arizona.
``(276) Tempe, arizona.--$37,500,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation and
groundwater recharge, for the City of Tempe, Arizona.
``(277) Bell gardens, california.--$12,500,000 for water
and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and
water supply, in the city of Bell Gardens, California.
``(278) Calimesa, california.--$3,500,000 for stormwater
management and water supply infrastructure, including
groundwater recharge and water recycling, in the city of
Calimesa, California.
``(279) Compton creek, california.--$6,165,000 for
stormwater management infrastructure in the vicinity of
Compton Creek, city of Compton, California.
``(280) Downey, california.--$100,000,000 for water
infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of
Downey, California.
``(281) Lomita, california.--$4,716,600 for stormwater
management infrastructure in the city of Lomita, California.
``(282) East san diego county, california.--$70,000,000 for
water and wastewater

[[Page H5283]]

infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply,
in East County, San Diego County, California.
``(283) Eastern los angeles county, california.--
$25,000,000 for the planning, design, and construction of
water and wastewater infrastructure, including water
recycling and water supply, for the cities of Azusa, Baldwin
Park, Covina, Duarte, El Monte, Glendora, Industry,
Irwindale, La Puente, La Verne, Monrovia, San Dimas, and West
Covina, and for Avocado Heights, Bassett, and Valinda,
California.
``(284) Escondido creek, california.--$34,000,000 for water
and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater
management, in the vicinity of Escondido Creek, city of
Escondido, California.
``(285) Fontana, california.--$16,000,000 for stormwater
management infrastructure in the city of Fontana, California.
``(286) Healdsburg, california.--$23,500,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and
water supply, in the city of Healdsburg, California.
``(287) Inland empire, california.--$60,000,000 for water
and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in
Riverside County and San Bernardino County, California.
``(288) Marin county, california.--$28,000,000 for water
and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in
Marin County, California.
``(289) Maywood, california.--$10,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure in the city of Maywood, California.
``(290) Monterey peninsula, california.--$20,000,000 for
water and wastewater infrastructure, and water supply, on the
Monterey Peninsula, California.
``(291) North richmond, california.--$45,000,000 for water
and wastewater infrastructure, including coastal flooding
resilience measures for such infrastructure, in North
Richmond, California.
``(292) Ontario, california.--$40,700,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and
water supply, in the city of Ontario, California.
``(293) Paramount, california.--$20,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,
in the city of Paramount, California.
``(294) Petaluma, california.--$13,700,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling, in the
city of Petaluma, California.
``(295) Rialto, california.--$27,500,000 for wastewater
infrastructure in the city of Rialto, California.
``(296) Rincon reservation, california.--$38,000,000 for
water and wastewater infrastructure on the Rincon Band of
Luiseno Indians reservation, California.
``(297) Sacramento-san joaquin delta, california.--
$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure
(including stormwater management), water supply and related
facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water
protection and development, including flooding resilience
measures for such infrastructure, in Contra Costa County, San
Joaquin County, Solano County, Sacramento County, and Yolo
County, California.
``(298) South san francisco, california.--$270,000,000 for
water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater
management and water recycling, at the San Francisco
International Airport, California.
``(299) San joaquin and stanislaus, california.--
$200,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure,
including stormwater management, and water supply, in San
Joaquin County and Stanislaus County, California.
``(300) Santa rosa, california.--$19,400,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, in the city of Santa Rosa
California.
``(301) Sierra madre, california.--$20,000,000 for water
and wastewater infrastructure, and water supply, including
earthquake resilience measures for such infrastructure and
water supply, in the city of Sierra Madre, California.
``(302) Smith river, california.--$25,000,000 for
wastewater infrastructure in Howonquet Village and Resort and
Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation, Smith River, California.
``(303) Torrance, california.--$100,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including groundwater recharge and
water supply, in the city of Torrance, California.
``(304) Western contra costa county, california.--
$15,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the cities of
Pinole, San Pablo, and Richmond, and in El Sobrante,
California.
``(305) Hebron, connecticut.--$3,700,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure in the town of Hebron, Connecticut.
``(306) New london, connecticut.--$16,000,000 for
wastewater infrastructure in the town of Bozrah and the City
of Norwich, Connecticut.
``(307) Windham, connecticut.--$18,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure in the town of Windham,
Connecticut.
``(308) New castle, delaware.--$35,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,
in New Castle County, Delaware.
``(309) Washington, district of columbia.--$1,000,000 for
water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater
management, in Washington, District of Columbia.
``(310) Longboat key, florida.--$12,750,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure in the town of Longboat Key,
Florida.
``(311) Martin, st. lucie, and palm beach counties,
florida.--$100,000,000 for water and wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, to improve
water quality in the St. Lucie River, Indian River Lagoon,
and Lake Worth Lagoon in Martin County, St. Lucie County, and
Palm Beach County, Florida.
``(312) Polk county, florida.--$10,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Polk
County, Florida.
``(313) Okeechobee county, florida.--$20,000,000 for
wastewater infrastructure in Okeechobee County, Florida.
``(314) Orange county, florida.--$50,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation and
water supply, in Orange County, Florida.
``(315) Guam.--$10,000,000 for water and wastewater
infrastructure in Guam.
``(316) County of hawai`i, hawaii.--$20,000,000 for water
and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater
management, in the County of Hawai`i, Hawaii.
``(317) Honolulu, hawaii.--$20,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,
in the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii.
``(318) Kaua`i, hawaii.--$20,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,
in the County of Kaua`i, Hawaii.
``(319) Maui, hawaii.--$20,000,000 for water and wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the
County of Maui, Hawaii.
``(320) Dixmoor, illinois.--$15,000,000 for water and water
supply infrastructure in the village of Dixmoor, Illinois.
``(321) Forest park, illinois.--$10,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the
village of Forest Park, Illinois.
``(322) Lake county, illinois.--$10,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Lake
County, Illinois.
``(323) Lemont, illinois.--$3,135,000 for water
infrastructure in the village of Lemont, Illinois.
``(324) Lockport, illinois.--$6,550,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city
of Lockport, Illinois.
``(325) Montgomery and christian counties, illinois.--
$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure,
including water supply, in Montgomery County and Christian
County, Illinois.
``(326) Will county, illinois.--$30,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,
in Will County, Illinois.
``(327) Orleans parish, louisiana.--$100,000,000 for water
and wastewater infrastructure in Orleans Parish, Louisiana.
``(328) Fitchburg, massachusetts.--$20,000,000 for water
and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater
management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city
of Fitchburg, Massachusetts.
``(329) Haverhill, massachusetts.--$20,000,000 for water
and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater
management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city
of Haverhill, Massachusetts.
``(330) Lawrence, massachusetts.--$20,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management
(including combined sewer overflows), in the city of
Lawrence, Massachusetts.
``(331) Lowell, massachusetts.--$20,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management
(including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Lowell,
Massachusetts.
``(332) Methuen, massachusetts.--$20,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management
(including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Methuen,
Massachusetts.
``(333) Boonsboro, maryland.--$5,000,000 for water
infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of
Boonsboro, Maryland.
``(334) Brunswick, maryland.--$15,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure in the city of Brunswick, Maryland.
``(335) Cascade charter township, michigan.--$7,200,000 for
water and wastewater infrastructure in Cascade Charter
Township, Michigan.
``(336) Macomb county, michigan.--$40,000,000 for
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,
in Macomb County, Michigan.
``(337) Northfield, minnesota.--$33,450,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure in the city of Northfield,
Minnesota.
``(338) Centertown, missouri.--$15,900,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure in the village of Centertown,
Missouri.
``(339) St. louis, missouri.--$45,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure in the city of St. Louis, Missouri.
``(340) St. louis county, missouri.--$45,000,000 for water
and wastewater infrastructure in St. Louis County, Missouri.
``(341) Meridian, mississippi.--$10,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,
in the city of Meridian, Mississippi.
``(342) Oxford, mississippi.--$10,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,
in the City of Oxford, Mississippi.
``(343) Manchester, new hampshire.--$20,000,000 for water
and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater
management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city
of Manchester, New Hampshire.

[[Page H5284]]

``(344) Bayonne, new jersey.--$825,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management (including
combined sewer overflows), in the city of Bayonne, New
Jersey.
``(345) Camden, new jersey.--$119,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city
of Camden, New Jersey.
``(346) Essex and sussex counties, new jersey.--$60,000,000
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water
supply, in Essex County and Sussex County, New Jersey.
``(347) Flemington, new jersey.--$4,500,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the
Borough of Flemington, New Jersey.
``(348) Jefferson, new jersey.--$90,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Jefferson
Township, New Jersey.
``(349) Kearny, new jersey.--$69,900,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management (including
combined sewer overflows), in the town of Kearny, New Jersey.
``(350) Long hill, new jersey.--$7,500,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Long Hill
Township, New Jersey.
``(351) Morris county, new jersey.--$30,000,000 for water
and wastewater infrastructure in Morris County, New Jersey.
``(352) Passaic, new jersey.--$1,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Passaic
County, New Jersey.
``(353) Phillipsburg, new jersey.--$2,600,000 for
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,
in the town of Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
``(354) Rahway, new jersey.--$3,250,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure in the city of Rahway, New Jersey.
``(355) Roselle, new jersey.--$5,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the
Borough of Roselle, New Jersey.
``(356) South orange village, new jersey.--$7,500,000 for
water infrastructure, including water supply, in the Township
of South Orange Village, New Jersey.
``(357) Summit, new jersey.--$1,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city
of Summit, New Jersey.
``(358) Warren, new jersey.--$4,550,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Warren
Township, New Jersey.
``(359) Espanola, new mexico.--$21,995,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure in the city of Espanola, New
Mexico.
``(360) Farmington, new mexico.--$15,500,000 for water
infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of
Farmington, New Mexico.
``(361) Mora county, new mexico.--$2,874,000 for wastewater
infrastructure in Mora County, New Mexico.
``(362) Santa fe, new mexico.--$20,700,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, in
the city of Santa Fe, New Mexico.
``(363) Clarkstown, new york.--$14,600,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town
of Clarkstown, New York.
``(364) Genesee, new york.--$85,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management
and water supply, in Genesee County, New York.
``(365) Queens, new york.--$119,200,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management
(including combined sewer overflows), in Queens, New York.
``(366) Yorktown, new york.--$40,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town
of Yorktown, New York.
``(367) Brunswick, ohio.--$4,510,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city
of Brunswick, Ohio.
``(368) Brookings, oregon.--$2,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure in the City of Brookings and the Port of
Brookings Harbor, Oregon.
``(369) Monroe, oregon.--$6,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure in the city of Monroe, Oregon.
``(370) Newport, oregon.--$60,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and water
storage, in the city of Newport, Oregon.
``(371) Lane county, oregon.--$25,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and
storage, distribution, and treatment systems, in Lane County,
Oregon.
``(372) Palmyra, pennsylvania.--$36,300,000 for wastewater
infrastructure in Palmyra Township, Pennsylvania.
``(373) Pike county, pennsylvania.--$10,000,000 for water
and stormwater management infrastructure, including water
supply, in Pike County, Pennsylvania.
``(374) Pittsburgh, pennsylvania.--$20,000,000 for
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,
in the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
``(375) Pocono, pennsylvania.--$22,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure in Pocono Township, Pennsylvania.
``(376) Westfall, pennsylvania.--$16,880,000 for wastewater
infrastructure in Westfall Township, Pennsylvania.
``(377) Whitehall, pennsylvania.--$6,000,000 for stormwater
management infrastructure in Whitehall Township and South
Whitehall Township, Pennsylvania.
``(378) Beaufort, south carolina.--$7,462,000 for
stormwater management infrastructure in Beaufort County,
South Carolina.
``(379) Charleston, south carolina.--$25,583,000 for
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,
in the city of Charleston, South Carolina.
``(380) Mount pleasant, south carolina.--$7,822,000 for
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,
in the town of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.
``(381) Portland, tennessee.--$1,850,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the
city of Portland, Tennessee.
``(382) Smith county, tennessee.--$19,500,000 for
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,
in Smith County, Tennessee.
``(383) Trousdale, macon, and sumner counties, tennessee.--
$178,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in
Trousdale County, Macon County, and Sumner County, Tennessee.
``(384) Virgin islands.--$1,584,000 for wastewater
infrastructure in the United States Virgin Islands.
``(385) Bonney lake, washington.--$3,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure in the city of Bonney Lake,
Washington.
``(386) Burien, washington.--$5,000,000 for stormwater
management infrastructure in the city of Burien, Washington.
``(387) Ellensburg, washington.--$3,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city
of Ellensburg, Washington.
``(388) North bend, washington.--$30,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city
of North Bend, Washington.
``(389) Port angeles, washington.--$7,500,000 for
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,
in the City and Port of Port Angeles, Washington.
``(390) Snohomish county, washington.--$56,000,000 for
water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply,
in Snohomish County, Washington.
``(391) Western washington state.--$200,000,000 for water
and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater
management, water supply, and conservation, in Chelan County,
King County, Kittitas County, Pierce County, Snohomish
County, Skagit County, and Whatcom County, Washington.
``(392) Milwaukee, wisconsin.--$4,500,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management (including
combined sewer overflows), in the city of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.''.
(b) Project Modifications.--
(1) Consistency with reports.--Congress finds that the
project modifications described in this subsection are in
accordance with the reports submitted to Congress by the
Secretary under section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform
and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d), titled
``Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development'',
or have otherwise been reviewed by Congress.
(2) Modifications.--
(A) Sacramento area, california.--Section 219(f)(23) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113
Stat. 336; 117 Stat. 1840; 134 Stat. 2718) is amended by
striking ``Suburban''.
(B) Los angeles county, california.--Section 219(f)(93) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835;
113 Stat. 336; 117 Stat. 1840; 121 Stat. 1259) is amended--
(i) by striking ``$3,000,000'' and inserting
``$103,000,000'';
(ii) by striking ``wastewater and water related
infrastructure,'' and inserting ``water and wastewater
infrastructure, including stormwater management,''; and
(iii) by inserting ``Dominguez Channel, Santa Clarita
Valley,'' after ``La Habra Heights,''.
(C) Boulder county, colorado.--Section 219(f)(109) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113
Stat. 334; 114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended by striking
``$10,000,000 for water supply infrastructure'' and inserting
``$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure,
including stormwater management and water supply''.
(D) Charlotte county, florida.--Section 219(f)(121) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113
Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1261) is amended by striking
``$3,000,000 for'' and inserting ``$33,000,000 for wastewater
and''.
(E) Miami-dade county, florida.--Section 219(f)(128) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113
Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1261) is amended by striking
``$6,250,000 for'' and inserting ``$190,250,000 for
wastewater infrastructure, including''.
(F) Albany, georgia.--Section 219(f)(130) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat.
336; 121 Stat. 1261) is amended by striking ``$4,000,000 for
a storm drainage system,'' and inserting ``$109,000,000 for
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management
(including combined sewer overflows),''.
(G) Atlanta, georgia.--Section 219(e)(5) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat.
3757; 113 Stat. 334) is amended by striking ``$25,000,000''
and inserting ``$75,000,000''.
(H) East point, georgia.--Section 219(f)(136) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat.
336;

[[Page H5285]]

121 Stat. 1261) is amended by striking ``$5,000,000 for'' and
inserting ``$15,000,000 for stormwater management and
other''.
(I) Cook county, illinois.--Section 219(f)(54) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat.
336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended by striking
``$35,000,000 for'' and inserting ``$100,000,000 for
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management,
and other''.
(J) Calumet region, indiana.--Section 219(f)(12)(A) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113
Stat. 336; 117 Stat. 1843; 121 Stat. 1225) is amended by
striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting ``$125,000,000''.
(K) Baton rouge, louisiana.--Section 219(f)(21) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113
Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220; 121 Stat. 1226) is amended by
striking ``$35,000,000'' and inserting ``$90,000,000''.
(L) South central planning and development commission,
louisiana.--Section 219(f)(153) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121
Stat. 1262) is amended by striking ``$2,500,000'' and
inserting ``$12,500,000''.
(M) St. charles, st. bernard, plaquemines, st. john the
baptist, st. james, and assumption parishes, louisiana.--
(i) St. charles, st. bernard, and plaquemines parishes,
louisiana.--Section 219(c)(33) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 114
Stat. 2763A-219) is amended by striking ``Water and
wastewater infrastructure'' and inserting ``Water supply and
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater
infrastructure''.
(ii) St. john the baptist, st. james, and assumption
parishes, louisiana.--Section 219(c)(34) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat.
334; 114 Stat. 2763A-219) is amended--

(I) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Baptist and st.
james'' and inserting ``Baptist, st. james, and assumption'';
and
(II) by striking ``Baptist and St. James'' and inserting
``Baptist, St. James, and Assumption''.

(iii) Authorization of appropriations for construction
assistance.--Section 219(e) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113
Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1192) is amended--

(I) by striking the ``and'' at the end of paragraph (16);
(II) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (17)
and inserting a semicolon; and
(III) by adding at the end the following:

``(18) $70,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(33); and
``(19) $36,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(34).''.
(N) Michigan combined sewer overflows.--Section 219(f)(157)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1262) is amended by striking
``correction of combined sewer overflows'' and inserting
``water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater
management (including correction of combined sewer
overflows)''.
(O) Allegheny county, pennsylvania.--Section 219(f)(66)(A)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-221; 121 Stat. 1240) is
amended by striking ``$20,000,000 for'' and inserting
``$30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including
stormwater management, and other''.
(P) Lakes marion and moultrie, south carolina.--Section
219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220; 117
Stat. 1838; 130 Stat. 1677; 132 Stat. 3818; 134 Stat. 2719)
is amended by striking ``$110,000,000'' and inserting
``$165,000,000''.
(Q) Eastern shore and southwest virginia.--Section
219(f)(10)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1255) is amended by
striking ``$20,000,000'' and inserting ``$52,000,000''.
(3) Effect on authorization.--Notwithstanding the operation
of section 6001(e) of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (as in effect on the day before the
date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of
2016), any project included on a list published by the
Secretary pursuant to such section the authorization for
which is amended by this subsection remains authorized to be
carried out by the Secretary.

SEC. 346. 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) Projects.--
(1) Chesapeake bay.--Section 510(a)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759; 121 Stat.
1202; 128 Stat. 1317) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``infrastructure and'' before ``resource
protection'';
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as
subparagraphs (G) and (H), respectively; and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
``(E) wastewater treatment and related facilities;
``(F) water supply and related facilities;''.
(2) New york city watershed.--Section 552(a)(2) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3780) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``design and construction assistance'' and
inserting ``design, repair, replacement, and construction
assistance''; and
(B) by striking ``treatment, and distribution facilities''
and inserting ``treatment, stormwater management, and water
distribution facilities''.
(3) Southeastern pennsylvania.--Section 566 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3786; 113 Stat.
352) is amended--
(A) by striking the section heading and inserting
``southeastern pennsylvania and lower delaware river
basin.'';
(B) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and the Lower
Delaware River Basin'' after ``southeastern Pennsylvania'';
(C) in subsection (b), by striking ``southeastern
Pennsylvania, including projects for waste water treatment
and related facilities,'' and inserting ``southeastern
Pennsylvania and the Lower Delaware River Basin, including
projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities
(including sewer overflow infrastructure improvements and
other stormwater management),'';
(D) by amending subsection (g) to read as follows:
``(g) Areas Defined.--In this section:
``(1) Lower delaware river basin.--The term `Lower Delaware
River Basin' means the Schuylkill Valley, Upper Estuary,
Lower Estuary, and Delaware Bay subwatersheds of the Delaware
River Basin in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the
States of New Jersey and Delaware.
``(2) Southeastern pennsylvania.--The term `southeastern
Pennsylvania' means Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware,
and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania.''; and
(E) in subsection (h), by striking ``to carry out this
section $25,000,000'' and inserting ``$50,000,000 to provide
assistance under this section to non-Federal interests in
southeastern Pennsylvania, and $20,000,000 to provide
assistance under this section to non-Federal interests in the
Lower Delaware River Basin''.
(4) Florida keys water quality improvements, florida.--
Section 109 of division B of the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-554, appendix D, 114 Stat. 2763A-
222; 121 Stat. 1217) is amended, in subsection (f), by
striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting ``$200,000,000''.
(5) Northeastern minnesota.--Section 569(h) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368; 121 Stat.
1232) is amended by striking ``$54,000,000'' and inserting
``$80,000,000''.
(6) Mississippi.--Section 592 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 379; 117 Stat. 1837; 121
Stat. 1233; 123 Stat. 2851) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b), by striking ``and surface water
resource protection and development'' and inserting ``surface
water resource protection and development, stormwater
management, and drainage systems''; and
(B) in subsection (g), by striking ``$200,000,000'' and
inserting ``$300,000,000''.
(7) Lake tahoe basin restoration, nevada and california.--
Section 108(g) of division C of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 2942)
is amended by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting
``$50,000,000''.
(8) Central new mexico.--Section 593 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 380; 119 Stat. 2255) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``Colfax,'' before
``Sandoval'';
(B) in subsection (c), by inserting ``water reuse,'' after
``conservation,''; and
(C) in subsection (h), by striking ``$50,000,000'' and
inserting ``$100,000,000''.
(9) South central pennsylvania.--Section 313(g)(1) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4845; 109
Stat. 407; 110 Stat. 3723; 113 Stat. 310; 117 Stat. 142; 121
Stat. 1146; 134 Stat. 2719) is amended by striking
``$400,000,000'' and inserting ``$410,000,000''.
(10) Ohio and north dakota.--Section 594 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 381; 119 Stat.
2261; 121 Stat. 1140; 121 Stat. 1944) is amended in
subsection (h), by striking ``$240,000,000'' and inserting
``$250,000,000''.
(11) Texas.--Section 5138 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1250) is amended, in
subsection (g), by striking ``$40,000,000'' and inserting
``$80,000,000''.
(12) Lake champlain, vermont and new york.--Section 542 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2671;
121 Stat. 1150; 134 Stat. 2652) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(2)(C), by striking ``planning'' and
inserting ``clean water infrastructure planning, design, and
construction''; and
(B) in subsection (g), by striking ``$32,000,000'' and
inserting ``$50,000,000''.
(13) Western rural water.--Section 595 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 383; 117 Stat.
139; 117 Stat. 142; 117 Stat. 1836; 118 Stat. 440; 121 Stat.
1219; 123 Stat. 2851; 128 Stat. 1316; 130 Stat. 1681; 134
Stat. 2719) is amended--
(A) in subsection (i)(1), by striking ``$435,000,000'' and
inserting ``$800,000,000''; and
(B) in subsection (i)(2), by striking ``$150,000,000'' and
inserting ``$200,000,000''.

[[Page H5286]]

(c) Effect on Authorization.--Notwithstanding the operation
of section 6001(e) of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (as in effect on the day before the
date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of
2016), any project included on a list published by the
Secretary pursuant to such section the authorization for
which is amended by this section remains authorized to be
carried out by the Secretary.

SEC. 347. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON LEASE AGREEMENT.

It is the sense of Congress that the lease agreement for
land and water areas within the Prado Flood Control Basin
Project Area entered into between the Secretary and the City
of Corona, California, for operations of the Corona Municipal
Airport (Recreation Lease No. DACW09-1-67-60), is a valid
lease of land at a water resources development project under
section 4 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 460d).

SEC. 348. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES.

Section 103(k)(4)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(k)(4)(B)) is amended by striking
``2023'' and inserting ``2032''.

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.--

(2) Flood risk management.--

[[Page H5287]]

5. OR Portland Metro August 20, Federal: $77,111,100
Levee System 2021 Non-Federal: $41,521,300
Total: $118,632,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
Report of
A. State B. Name Chief of D. Estimated Costs
Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CT Fairfield and New January 19, Federal: $92,937,000
Haven Counties 2021 Non-Federal: $50,043,000
Coastal Storm Total: $142,980,000
Risk Management
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. FL Florida Keys, September 24, Federal: $1,513,531,000
Monroe County, 2021 Non-Federal: $814,978,000
Coastal Storm Total: $2,328,509,000
Risk Management
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. FL Pinellas County, October 29, Initial Federal: $8,627,000
Treasure Island 2021 Initial Non-Federal:
and Long Key $5,332,000
Segments, Coastal Total: $13,959,000
Storm Risk Renourishment Federal:
Management $92,000,000
Renourishment Non-Federal:
$101,690,000
Renourishment Total:
$193,690,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. LA Upper Barataria January 28, Federal: $1,005,001,000
Basin Hurricane 2022 Non-Federal: $541,155,000
and Storm Damage Total: $1,546,156,000
Risk Reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. PR San Juan September 16, Federal: $245,418,000
Metropolitan Area 2021 Non-Federal: $131,333,000
Coastal Storm Total: $376,751,000
Risk Management
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. SC Folly Beach, October 26, Initial Federal:
Coastal Storm 2021 $45,490,000
Risk Management Initial Non-Federal:
$5,054,000
Total: $50,544,000
Renourishment Federal:
$164,424,000
Renourishment Non-Federal:
$26,767,000
Renourishment Total:
$191,191,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page H5288]]

(5) Ecosystem restoration.--

(6) Modifications and other projects.--

------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
A. State B. Name Decision D. Estimated Costs
Document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. DC Washington, D.C. July 22, 2021 Federal: $17,740,000
and Vicinity Non-Federal: $0
Flood Risk Total: $17,740,000
Management
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. LA Lake Pontchartrain December 16, Federal: $807,000,000
and Vicinity 2021 Non-Federal: $434,000,000
Total: $1,241,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. LA West Bank and December 17, Federal: $431,000,000
Vicinity 2021 Non-Federal: $232,000,000
Total: $663,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. WA Howard A. Hanson May 19, 2022 Federal: $815,207,000
Dam, Water Supply Non-Federal: $39,979,000
and Ecosystem Total: $855,185,000
Restoration
------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE V--COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN RESTORATION

SEC. 501. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Continuing authority program.--The term ``continuing
authority program'' has the meaning given that term in
section 7001(c)(1)(D)(iii) of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d(c)(1)(D)(iii)).
(2) Covered state.--The term ``covered State'' means the
State of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, or Washington.
(3) Covered tribe.--The term ``covered Tribe'' means an
Indian Tribe that has treaty land or treaty rights in
relationship to the Columbia River Basin in a covered State.
(4) Lower snake river dams.--The term ``Lower Snake River
Dams'' means the dams on the Lower Snake River authorized by
section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (chapter 19, 59 Stat.
21).
(5) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the Columbia
River Basin Task Force established under section 503.
(6) Trust.--The term ``Trust'' means the Columbia River
Basin Trust established under section 502.

SEC. 502. COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN TRUST.

(a) Establishment.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
committee to be known as the Columbia River Basin Trust.
(b) Membership.--The Trust shall be composed of the
following:
(1) 8 members appointed by the Secretary, which shall
represent equally the various interests of the public in the
Columbia River Basin, including representatives of--
(A) agriculture groups;
(B) environmental or conservation organizations;
(C) the hydroelectric power industry;
(D) recreation user groups;
(E) marine transportation groups; and
(F) other appropriate interests, as determined by the
Secretary.
(2) 4 representatives of each covered State, including at
least 1 member of each applicable State government, appointed
by the Secretary on the recommendation of the Governor of the
applicable State.
(3) 1 representative of each covered Tribe, appointed by
the Secretary on the recommendation of the applicable Tribe.

SEC. 503. COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN TASK FORCE.

(a) Establishment.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
task force, to be known as the Columbia River Basin Task
Force.
(b) Membership.--The Task Force shall be composed of--
(1) a representative of the Corps of Engineers, who shall
serve as Chairperson;
(2) a representative of the Department of Agriculture;
(3) a representative of the Bureau of Reclamation;
(4) a representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
(5) a representative of the National Marine Fisheries
Service;
(6) a representative of the Bonneville Power
Administration; and
(7) each member of the Trust.
(c) Duties.--The Task Force shall--
(1) meet not less frequently than 4 times each year;
(2) establish procedures for the preparation and approval
of the restoration plan under subsection (e), which shall
include a requirement that any final restoration plan be
approved by at least 2/3 of the members of the Task Force;
and
(3) prepare the restoration plan in accordance with
subsection (e), including--
(A) reviewing restoration projects that may be included in
the restoration plan; and
(B) developing recommendations to be included in the
restoration plan.
(d) Assessment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the
Task Force a

[[Page H5289]]

report containing the results of an assessment, carried out
at full Federal expense, of water resources needs in the
Columbia River Basin, including an assessment of--
(A) the effects of the Lower Snake River Dams on the
Federal, State, and regional economies;
(B) the effects in the Columbia River Basin of the Lower
Snake River Dams on--
(i) recreation;
(ii) hydropower generation and associated carbon emissions
reductions;
(iii) water supplies;
(iv) flood control;
(v) marine transportation;
(vi) fish and wildlife, particularly anadromous salmonids
and other species listed as threatened or endangered under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
(vii) down-river water quality, including temperature,
sedimentation, and dissolved oxygen; and
(viii) Tribal treaty rights and culturally or historically
significant Tribal lands;
(C) non-breaching alternatives for increasing fish passage
and salmon recovery; and
(D) other issues, as requested by the Task Force.
(2) Consultation.--In preparing the report under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall consult with--
(A) the Task Force;
(B) the Governor of each covered State; and
(C) the government of each covered Tribe.
(e) Restoration Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date on
which the Secretary transmits the report under subsection
(d), the Task Force shall prepare, at full Federal expense, a
restoration plan for the Columbia River Basin, based on the
results of the assessment contained in the report.
(2) Contents of plan.--The Task Force shall include in the
restoration plan--
(A) a description of the overall goals of the restoration
plan;
(B) recommendations for restoration projects in the
Columbia River Basin, which may address any of--
(i) salmon recovery in the Columbia River Basin;
(ii) water quality and water supply improvements along the
Snake River System;
(iii) low-carbon emission transportation and shipping
routes;
(iv) Tribal treaty rights, and the protection of Tribal
historical and cultural resources throughout the Columbia
River Basin;
(v) Federal, State, and regional economies;
(vi) recreation and tourism;
(vii) hydropower generation and associated carbon emissions
reductions; and
(viii) flood control; and
(C) recommendations for any other appropriate actions that
may help achieve the goals of the restoration plan.
(3) Revision of plan.--The Task Force may, on an annual
basis, revise the restoration plan.
(4) Public comment.--Before finalizing the restoration
plan, including any revision of the restoration plan, the
Task Force shall make a proposed restoration plan available
for public review and comment.
(5) Transmittal of plan to congress.--The Secretary shall
transmit the final restoration plan, including any finalized
revision of the restoration plan, to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate, and to each Member of Congress from a
covered State.
(f) Critical Restoration Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in coordination with the
Task Force, shall identify critical restoration projects
included in the final restoration plan transmitted under
subsection (e)(5) that may be carried out in accordance with
the criteria for projects carried out under a continuing
authority program.
(2) Agreement.--The Secretary may carry out a critical
restoration project identified under paragraph (1) after
entering into an agreement with an appropriate non-Federal
interest in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and this section.
(3) Tribal projects.--To the maximum extent practicable,
the Secretary shall ensure that not less than 30 percent of
the funds made available for critical restoration projects
identified under paragraph (1) shall be used exclusively for
projects that are--
(A) within the boundary of an Indian reservation; or
(B) administered by an Indian Tribe.
(4) Cost sharing.--
(A) In general.--A non-Federal cost share shall be required
to carry out any project under this subsection that does not
primarily benefit the Federal Government, as determined by
the Task Force.
(B) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out a project under this subsection for which the
Task Force requires a non-Federal cost share under
subparagraph (A) shall be 65 percent, except that such
Federal share shall not exceed $10,000,000 for any project.
(C) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--Not more than 50 percent of the non-
Federal share of the cost of carrying out a project described
in subparagraph (B) may be provided in the form of services,
materials, or other in-kind contributions.
(ii) Required non-federal contributions.--For any project
described in subparagraph (B), the non-Federal interest
shall--

(I) provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged
material disposal areas, and relocations;
(II) pay all operation, maintenance, replacement, repair,
and rehabilitation costs; and
(III) hold the United States harmless from all claims
arising from the construction, operation, and maintenance of
the project.

(iii) Credit.--For purposes of clause (i), the Secretary
shall credit the non-Federal interest for contributions
provided under clause (ii)(I).
(g) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section authorizes the
Secretary to modify, deauthorize, or remove any of the Lower
Snake River Dams.

SEC. 504. ADMINISTRATION.

Nothing in this title diminishes or affects--
(1) any water right of an Indian Tribe;
(2) any fishing right of an Indian Tribe;
(3) any other right of an Indian Tribe;
(4) any treaty right that is in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act;
(5) any external boundary of an Indian reservation of an
Indian Tribe;
(6) any authority of the State that relates to the
protection, regulation, or management of fish, terrestrial
wildlife, and cultural and archaeological resources; or
(7) any authority of the Secretary, the Secretary of the
Interior, or the head of any other Federal agency under a law
in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, including--
(A) division A of subtitle III of title 54, United States
Code (formerly known as the ``National Historic Preservation
Act'' (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.));
(B) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16
U.S.C. 470aa et seq.);
(C) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661
et seq.);
(D) the Act entitled ``An Act for the protection of the
bald eagle'', approved June 8, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.);
(E) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.);
(F) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.);
(G) the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
(H) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.);
(I) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.);
(J) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(K) the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq.).

TITLE VI--DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS

SEC. 601. 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 rule, the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.

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. 7776, 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, this will be the fifth consecutive 2-year authorization
of the Water Resources Development Act since 2014, a tradition revived
by our former chair, Bill Shuster.
I am grateful for the partnership of Ranking Member Sam Graves,
Subcommittee Chairwoman Grace Napolitano, and Subcommittee Ranking
Member David Rouzer for all their work in developing this historic
Water Resources Development Act.
This legislation builds on the successes of previous water bills,
moving projects from feasibility to construction. This 2-year cycle is
critical to addressing future water resource needs of our Nation.
This bill authorizes construction of 18 reports of the Chief of
Engineers that were studied and transmitted to Congress since the last
water bill was signed into law. These Chief's reports represent
thoroughly vetted, locally driven projects with highly engaged cost-
share partners. Corps projects

[[Page H5290]]

cover a myriad of purposes from navigation, flood control, levees,
ecosystem restoration, that will benefit communities all across the
United States of America.
The bill also authorizes 72 new feasibility studies and directs the
Corps to expedite the completion of 14 ongoing studies. It is critical
that we keep our infrastructure in this Nation up-to-date with new
challenges--with severe weather events, sea level rise, and other
things--and deal with the challenges that communities across this
country endure.
For two decades, I spent two decades--actually, I started longer than
that--Bud Shuster in 1996--trying to free up the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund. That is a tax paid by shippers, which ultimately is passed
on to consumers on the value of imported goods which have been
impounded for years, totaling nearly $10 billion, while our harbors
need dredging, jetties need rebuilding. We finally got that done in
2020. That was historic.
It gives the Corps more resources on the harbor side, which means
they can devote a little more of their allocation to the inland
waterways and to their other 40-some-odd billion dollars of backlog of
critical projects across the country.
It will meet the challenge of climate change by rebuilding these
navigation jetties and breakwaters to new heights and dimensions
necessary for sea level rise and extreme weather. It will study the
impact of coastal storms on inland flooding--which is a particular
concern of the ranking member--address future water supplies in the
arid West, which is a particular concern of all of us in the West, but
particularly those further south and the chair of the subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, 21st century challenges should have 21st century
solutions. The Corps has been hamstrung in their ability. We have
worked with other Members who have heard similar concerns. We included
a solution in this bill that will allow the Corps to be the innovation
expert they need to be to address our Nation's ongoing new challenges.
I am also proud it will continue building upon efforts to provide
equitable project outcomes and flexibility for communities with
affordability concerns. It will address the needs of economically
disadvantaged minority rural Tribal communities in an affordable
manner.
In particular, the bill creates a Tribal liaison position within each
Corps' district office. The Corps often fails to consult meaningfully
with the Tribes. Tribal leaders will have a direct line of
communication now into the regional office and back to the national
office to get consultation, technical assistance, and information to
them.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Subcommittee Chairwoman Napolitano and
Representative Stanton for their tireless work advocating for our
Tribal communities.
For the first time in over a decade, it significantly expands the
Corps' environmental infrastructure authorities to assist more
communities in addressing drinking water and wastewater needs. We need
major work in these areas. Communities all across America--red, blue,
whatever--are suffering, and we need these tools to help them.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Napolitano for her effort to help the
Corps with flexibility and additional authorities that will help them
meet future water supply needs of the arid regions of this Nation. We
are rationing the Colorado River for the first time in history this
year. Her input and advocacy also brought many of the environmental
justice provisions to this bill--support for Tribal communities. She
has been a tireless advocate for meeting the needs of her district and
her State and the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Sam Graves--I couldn't have asked for a better
partner working on this bill--for his steadfast support which has made
it possible. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer) for
his support and wise input on the bill before us today. Their input
brought in critical perspectives.
We had the subcommittee vice chair from Georgia, Representative
Bourdeaux, who brought recreational safety concerns at local dams to
our attention. We had the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams), who
supported a watershed-wide study of the Chattahoochee River.
I thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Kahele), who was an ardent
advocate of native Hawaiians and ensuring their participation in
activities. I thank the gentleman for giving us new perspectives on
that. Representative Newman of Illinois worked hard for all the Great
Lakes.

Representative Carter came to the table with fresh policy and project
ideas to help Louisiana deal with natural disasters, sea level rise,
and severe weather events.
Mr. Speaker, this is essential legislation, and I urge my colleagues
to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 7776, the Water
Resources Development Act of 2022, or WRDA 2022.
Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks ago we advanced this bipartisan legislation out
of committee by voice vote, and I am proud to continue the bipartisan
tradition of passing a WRDA bill every 2 years--as the chairman pointed
out--something we have done since 2014.
I thank Chairman DeFazio, Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee Chair Napolitano, and Ranking Member Rouzer for all of
their hard work and support in getting this legislation across the
finish line here in the House.
WRDA 2022 authorizes water infrastructure projects and policies that
are critical to local communities, but also provides far-reaching
benefits to both the region and our national economy.
With the current supply chain crisis and surging inflation our
country faces, it is more important than ever that Congress continues
to support our Nation's water infrastructure that keeps our economy
moving and protects our communities.
WRDA 2022 supports American competitiveness and our economy by
ensuring the reliability and the effectiveness of our Nation's ports
and inland waterways to move American goods and products to those who
need them.
This legislation also boosts flood production for our local
communities, such as those in Missouri's Sixth District, which is my
own district.
In Missouri, we are at a crossroads of the largest rivers in the
country--the Missouri River and the Mississippi River. These rivers are
an invaluable natural resource that provide drinking water, irrigation,
and transportation; however, they can also be the source of some very
devastating flooding.
My constituents are still working to recover and rebuild their homes,
farms, businesses, and their communities after devastating flooding
that occurred in 2019.
I know all too well the consequences when water resources are
mismanaged, which is why WRDA 2022 is going to ensure that the Corps
remains focused on its core missions and priorities and activities like
flood control and navigation.
To do this, this bill contains assistance for meeting levee
inspection requirements, it examines ways to control erosion on our
rivers, and it supports Missouri flood control projects.
These and other provisions in WRDA 2022 are going to provide benefits
not only to Missourians, but citizens all across the country who depend
on water resources and infrastructure in their daily lives.
Mr. Speaker, I thank everybody for their support in developing this
legislation, and that includes staff on both sides of the aisle.
Specifically, on my team, I acknowledge the work of my staff
director, Paul Sass, for his leadership of the Republican staff on this
bill, and many other important bills for that matter, over the last
3\1/2\ years.
At the end of this week, Paul will be leaving the committee after
more than 20 years of public service on Capitol Hill--and all of that
time working for me in my personal office or on my committee staff. I
thank him for his dedication and his guidance and friendship over the
last two decades. He has a lot to be proud of as he moves forward onto
the next chapter of his career. He can look back and be proud of all
that he has done. I wish him and his family nothing but the best.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support today's legislation,
WRDA

[[Page H5291]]

2022, and I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1730

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of
organizations that support H.R. 7776, totaling 51 very diverse
organizations. I am certain there are more.

Organizations/Letters in Support of H.R. 7776, the Water Resources
Development Act of 2022

Alabama Rivers Alliance, American Association of Port
Authorities (AAPA), American Canoe Association, American
Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), American Rivers,
American Shore and Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA),
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), American Soybean
Association (ASA), American Waterways Operators (AWO),
American Whitewater, Appalachian Mountain Club, Associated
General Contractors of American (AGC), Association of
California Water Agencies (ACWA), Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, California Outdoors, California
Sportfishing Protection Alliance, City Council of the City of
Newport, Oregon.
Fairfax Water, Florida Ports Council (FPC), Idaho Rivers
United, International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE),
Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP), Iowa Confluence
Water Trails, Laborer's International Union of North America
(LIUNA), Lake Carriers' Association, Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works, Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments (COG), Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, Michigan United Conversation Clubs, Multnomah
County Drainage District (MCDD), National Association of
Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA), National
Audubon Society, National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA).
National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), National
Water Supply Alliance (NWSA), National Wildlife Federation,
Outdoor Alliance, Pacific Northwest Waterways Association
(PNWA), Port of Long Beach, Port of Portland, Portland Cement
Association (PCA), Public Power Council (PPC), Rafting
Magazine, The Nature Conservancy, Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership (TRCP), Trout Unlimited, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, United Association of Union Plumbers and
Pipefitters (UA), Waterways Council, Inc. (WCI), Wild Salmon
Center.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano), who is the chair of the subcommittee.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. DeFazio for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my chair, Peter DeFazio, Ranking
Member Graves, and the subcommittee's ranking member, my friend, Mr.
Rouzer, and bring to the floor H.R. 7776, the Water Resources
Development Act of 2022.
The Water Resources Development Act is our legislative commitment to
investing in and protecting our communities from flooding events,
restoring our environment and ecosystems, and keeping our Nation's
competitiveness by supporting our ports and harbors.
Through the biennial enactment of WRDA legislation, the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has addressed local,
regional, and national needs through authorization of new U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers projects, studies, and policies that benefit every
corner of the Nation.
We held four hearings in preparation for this bill, including a
Member Day hearing. We had a formal process to receive legislative,
policy, and project ideas from Members which resulted in 1,500 ideas
submitted to us by Members, so that is quite an accomplishment for our
staff to go through. I thank all Members for engaging with the
committee on this bill and advocating for the needs of their districts.
We were able to incorporate most of the requests from Members into the
bill.
I am particularly thankful that we were able to make a commitment in
this WRDA--thank God, the fifth WRDA--to address the needs of Tribal
and disadvantaged communities. The bill requires the Army Corps of
Engineers to improve outreach to these communities by creating liaison
programs in each Corps district region across the country. That is new.
WRDA includes provisions to develop technical assistance programs
that provide guidance to Tribal communities on water resource projects,
identify opportunities and challenges on existing Corps projects, and
provide planning assistance for future projects. The bill gives Corps
personnel the training and tools to effectively address issues on
Tribal lands of ancestral, historic, and cultural significance,
including burial grounds.
WRDA also continues the effort we started over 10 years ago to
improve water supply at Corps dams by addressing managed aquifer
replenishment so that dams can hold water for recharge to local
groundwater basins. The bill addresses the buildup and removal of
sediment in reservoirs to improve operations and capacity of dams. The
bill requires the Corps to take a particular focus on infrastructure in
the West, to evaluate opportunities to improve water management, water
supply, and address the impacts of climate change.
Section 116 of the bill continues Congress' goal of improving dam
safety by assessing the status of all dams maintained by the Corps and
determining the needs for rehabilitation, retrofit, or removal.
Section 128 of the bill is bipartisan legislation my good friend,
Ranking Member Rouzer, and I introduced titled H.R. 7762, the Army
Corps of Engineers Military Personnel Augmentation Act. It amends an
outdated 1956 law which is prohibitive against current soldiers who
have the technical skills to provide engineering support to the civil
works mission of the Army Corps.
In 1956 there were not a lot of NCOs with advanced degrees, so it was
presumed that only commissioned officers would be properly trained to
handle civil works responsibilities. However, since that time and the
development of the professional Army, there are many NCOs, National
Guard officers, and warrant officers with advanced engineering and
technical skills, and it no longer makes sense to exclude them from
positions in civil works. This change is supported by the Secretary of
the Army, the Chief of Engineers, and the National Guard Association of
the United States.
The bill also provides for hundreds of local concerns throughout the
country. I am proud that this bill transfers the authorization of 31
debris basins in my region to the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District. These debris basins are locally owned and have been
successfully operated and maintained by the County of Los Angeles for
decades. This provision will formalize the current operations of these
debris basins.
WRDA also includes authorization for the development of storm water,
sewer, and ecosystem restoration projects in the San Gabriel Valley and
greater Los Angeles County. This will improve flood protection and
boost local water supply at the same time by investing in spreading
grounds, dam infrastructure, and treatment operations.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the many people who have helped this bill become
a reality. I thank the leadership at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--
Assistant Secretary Connor and Lieutenant General Spellmon--and their
incredible staff who have worked through over 1,000 submissions that we
received for WRDA 2022.
I am very fortunate to have some of the best water leaders in the
country in my district and southern California who provided valuable
input for this bill, including Colonel Julie Balten and David Van Dorpe
of the Los Angeles District.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7776.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer), who is a member of the
Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman DeFazio, Chair Napolitano,
and Ranking Member Graves for their leadership and work to ensure the
Water Resources Development Act, also known as WRDA for short,
continues to be both bipartisan and biennial.
Because of this commitment, before the House today is H.R. 7776, the
Water Resources Development Act of 2022. I am pleased to be a part of
this continuing bipartisan tradition of passing a WRDA every 2 years.
Just 3 weeks ago this bill passed out of the committee by voice vote.
The legislation is a product resulting from the input of many Members
of Congress. It is an example of what can be achieved when Congress
comes together to find solutions for their constituents and the
American public.
WRDA bills provide congressional direction to the Army Corps of
Engineers on the allocations of dollars for water

[[Page H5292]]

resource projects and policy across the Nation. This legislation
authorizes a number of Chief's Reports and studies, as well as new
environmental infrastructure projects for the first time since 2007.
In my home State of North Carolina, we rely on a significant amount
of coastal and inland waterway infrastructure and resources. These
bring us many benefits, but our communities can also face devastating
consequences from flooding of inland waterways as a result.
WRDA 2022 will help our communities address these risks by directing
the Corps to improve management of our Nation's coastal mapping
projects which provide information to States and local communities so
they can better respond to extreme weather events. This program and
other provisions in this year's legislation will provide improved flood
control and storm damage reduction for constituents and stakeholders
all across the country.
I am pleased to be a part of this bipartisan effort, and, again, I
thank Chairman DeFazio and Chair Napolitano for working across the
aisle with us on this critical commonsense legislation.
I also want to take a quick moment to thank Paul Sass, staff director
for the minority of the committee who will soon be leaving for other
opportunities. He has provided many years of service and hard work for
the people of Missouri, Ranking Member Graves, myself, and all the
members of the T & I Committee. I thank Paul for his great counsel and
all the work he has done.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, may I ask as to how much time remains on my
side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 9 minutes
remaining.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Georgia (Ms. Bourdeaux).
Ms. BOURDEAUX. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2022. I am grateful for Chairs DeFazio and
Napolitano and Ranking Members Graves and Rouzer as well as the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee staff for working with my
office and me to ensure that some key needs for Georgia were met.
My district specifically is home to Lake Lanier and the Buford Dam,
which are critical resources in the Chattahoochee River Basin. The
Chattahoochee River supplies 70 percent of metro Atlanta's drinking
water, and it is hard to overstate how essential the lake and river are
to the metro area. The river is also a key source of water for farmers
and agriculture throughout the State. But according to the
Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, more than 1,000 miles of waterway within the
watershed do not meet water quality standards.
This bill would authorize a watershed-based study for the
Chattahoochee River Basin which will allow the Army Corps of Engineers
to assess the water resource needs of the basin, including ecosystem
protection and restoration, flood risk management, watershed
protection, water supply, and drought preparedness.
This bill also includes my important legislation, Lake Lanier and
Upper Chattahoochee River Safety Act, which would direct the Army Corps
to carry out a review of potential threats to human life and safety
from the use of the river. Unfortunately, there are parts of the river
that are extremely dangerous, and during a release of water from Buford
Dam, the Chattahoochee can rise as much as 11 feet in 1 minute. Based
on the findings of this review, the bill would authorize the Corps to
take measures necessary to make the river safer and minimize or
eliminate some of these hazards.
Finally, I am proud to see Lake Lanier included as a focus area in
the previously authorized harmful algal bloom demonstration program
which will allow the Corps to work with local stakeholders to research
tools for freshwater HABs detection, prevention, and management which
is critical to protecting the drinking water of millions of people.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today delivers for my constituents
and the people of Georgia. It delivers for the people of this country.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), who is the ranking member of
the subcommittee.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Water
Resources and Development Act.
WRDA authorizes projects designed to improve the Nation's water
resources infrastructure, including ports and harbors, inland waterway
navigation, and flood and storm protection.
I am thankful to Chairman DeFazio for working with me to ensure
priorities of my district made it into the final language, and for the
leadership of Ranking Member Graves as we fought for community-driven
water solutions. WRDA is a testament to our ability to still pass
critical legislation and still work in a bipartisan fashion to deliver
results to the American people. I encourage my colleagues to vote in
favor of H.R. 7776.
Finally, let me add my voice to those recognizing Paul Sass, who is
ending his 20-year career on Capitol Hill at the end of the week as the
Republican staff director. Since coming to the T&I Committee with
Ranking Member Graves, Paul has dedicated countless hours to improving,
investing in, and securing our Nation's infrastructure. He has not only
been a valuable asset to the Graves staff, but he has been a resource
to my staff as well and helped lead the committee's commitment to a
safe and efficient transportation system.
I thank Paul for his years of public service, and I wish him all the
best in his next chapter.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, a big thank you to Representatives
DeFazio, Napolitano, Graves, Rouzer, and their incredible staff who put
together the Water Resources Development Act of 2022.
There is always talk about congressional dysfunction, and that is
certainly true in the Senate, not here in the House of Representatives.
This is the fifth consecutive biennial WRDA that the House has brought
to the floor since 2014.
The Water Resources Development Act provides key provisions for
Solano and Yolo Counties, the bay area, the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta, and all of California's Third Congressional District.
Specifically, the Water Resources Development Act directs the Army
Corps of Engineers to examine the economic and national security
benefits of dredging the Mare Island Strait channel which has not been
studied since 1999. This is the first step in my ongoing efforts to
increase Federal investment into Mare Island and its ship repair
facilities for the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard, including the $13 million
private investment announced by the Mare Island Dry Dock Company.
It also authorizes $50 million for environmentally friendly
infrastructure projects in the five counties comprising the California
Delta. Furthermore, it provides construction and authorizes
construction for the Lower Cache Creek flood risk management project
with the city of Woodland. It doubles Federal funding to $50 million to
support restoration efforts at the Lake Tahoe basin. It requires the
Army Corps to use more dredged sediment for beneficial use and to
restore the San Francisco Bay Area wetlands instead of just dumping the
dredged sediment in the open ocean.
It authorizes the Army Corps' national levee safety initiative to
help manage flood risk across the entire Nation, including more than
200 miles of the Sacramento River which I currently represent.
It makes the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta a new focus area for the
Corps in its effort to combat invasive species. Finally, it directs the
Army Corps to complete long-overdue recommendations to Congress on
finally making water supply a purpose of all Army Corps reservoirs and
related infrastructure, which is a critical change for Western States
like California facing more frequent and severe droughts due to climate
change.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the chairs, the ranking
members, and my colleagues from both parties to get this timely
legislation to

[[Page H5293]]

President Biden's desk for signature by the end of the calendar year.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

{time} 1745

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Missouri, Ranking
Member Graves, for yielding me time to speak on the 2022 Water
Resources Development Act.
As someone who has seen firsthand the impact WRDA has had on
Americans and our communities, I am greatly honored to have worked on
this year's legislation.
A major priority for southeast Texas, the Texas Coastal Spine, is
authorized in this legislation. This must-do project to protect our
home State from hurricane storm surge and flooding will make millions
of Texans, as well as our State's most important economic hubs, where a
huge percentage of our Nation's gasoline and strategic fuels are
manufactured, much safer.
Additionally, this bill expedites vital projects at the Port of
Houston and the Sabine-Neches Waterway, the busiest port in the country
and where more military equipment is shipped than any other waterway
respectively.
We need to get this bill across the finish line. And I thank Chairman
DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, as well as Subcommittee Chairwoman
Napolitano and Ranking Member Rouzer and their staffs for everyone's
hard work on this bill.
I also take a moment to thank Paul Sass, the departing Republican
staff director, for his many years of service on the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. Paul's commitment to mission and dedication
to public service have improved, not only our committee, but the
Congress as a whole. And I wish him the absolute best of luck with all
of his future endeavors.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Kahele).
Mr. KAHELE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of the fiscal year 2022 Water Resources and
Development Act, legislation which will invest in America's ports,
harbors, and inland waterways, as well as build more climate-resilient
communities.
For the first time ever, WRDA includes Section 219 environmental
infrastructure projects for the State of Hawaii, which will ensure that
Maui, Kauai, Hawaii and Honolulu County are able to address wastewater
infrastructure and confront these challenges head-on today, because the
cost of waiting is too great.
This WRDA will also, for the first time ever, include a provision
that will enable NHOs, or Native Hawaiian Organizations, to waive local
cost-sharing requirements of up to $200,000 for critical environmental
projects, which will open the doors to new environmental restoration
projects and career opportunities in every county. This provision will
help to provide more parity between indigenous communities, and I
applaud its inclusion in this bill.
I am proud to support this bipartisan effort to invest in our ports
and harbors, build more resilient communities, and support our
indigenous brothers and sisters across the country.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I thank both the chairs and the ranking
members for their work on this piece of legislation and, specifically,
helping to combat some injustices.
Injustice number one is this bill works to prohibit once and for all,
finally getting rid of all the toxic discharges out of Lake Okeechobee
into what we call our northern estuaries in Florida. That is fixing
injustice number one.
Injustice number two that this bill specifically addresses is, with
those toxic, poisonous waters there are Corps of Engineers personnel
that are working on top of those, sometimes for 8 or 10 hours a day,
for weeks or months on end. And it actually requires that a letter be
put in the file of those military personnel denoting their exposure to
this so if something happens to them down the road they don't have to
fight like so many of our servicemembers have to fight to get the
appropriate care.
So I thank them for their work in helping to fix injustices in this
specific piece of legislation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I again inquire as to the remaining time
just to check here. We are tight on time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 4 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Missouri has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, in Louisiana, we know the
awesome power of the water. We also know that it is the lifeblood of
our Nation's economy and environment.
The Army Corps of Engineers is the Federal department that most
supports water management, ecosystem restoration, and flood control,
critical issues in my region.
The Water Resources Development Act is the mechanism Congress uses
for these authorizations, and it is a critical policy for my district.
As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I am
proud to have worked to include important updates for my district in
WRDA, such as instructing the Corps of Engineers to continue paused
ecosystem restoration on the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet; authorizing
$136 million for St. John, St. Bernard, St. James, St. Charles, and
Plaquemines Parishes for comprehensive treatment facilities and water
infrastructure.
And on a personal note, the final version included my amendment to
improve safety features along the banks of the Mississippi River, an
important move after the recent tragic drowning of three children in
Algiers in my district.
As we work to untangle supply chains and navigate climate change, we
can't delay critical water management projects. I urge the favorable
passage of the WRDA act, H.R. 7776.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).
Miss GONZALEZ-COLON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leadership and ranking
member for allowing all the amendments and the language included in
this bill.

WRDA has always been key for infrastructure development projects in
all our States and territories, and this year's bill will not be the
exception. This has been a cornerstone in the process of Puerto Rico's
recovery, and this legislation enables it to continue to do so.
This bill includes the reauthorization of three major flood risk
management projects in Puerto Rico: Rio Guanajibo in Mayaguez, Rio
Nigua in Salinas, and Rio Grande de Loiza in Gurabo, that had waited
for funding, in some cases, for over a decade, to the point that the
original authorizations had to be withdrawn and new validation studies
required.
The projects had later received funding for at least their initial
stages after passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, but needed
this reauthorization so their development can continue with the
planning and design, the allocated funding is protected from loss, and
updated project needs can be addressed in the future so they can move
on construction.
So by advancing this legislation containing these provisions, this
House demonstrates its commitment to our communities. I look forward
for the approval of this bill. And again, I thank all the staff and
leadership and the ranking member for allowing all these amendments.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who has done some extraordinary work
for her district and Florida on this bill.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. And I congratulate him on this incredible work product and a
remarkable career.
I rise today in support of H.R. 7776, the Water Resources Development
Act. This bill will advance the economic interests of South Florida.
After more than 20 years of work, the Port Everglades deepening and
widening project will enable safe passage of next-generation cruise and
cargo ships, and it is estimated to create 1,500 good, permanent jobs
when it is finished.
This bill authorizes an additional $269 million in Federal funding
for Port

[[Page H5294]]

Everglades to complete the project, protect our coral reefs from
disruption, and begin construction on an overdue new Coast Guard
station.
I came to Congress as a young mom, and I remember telling my children
about the potential effects of climate change. Now, in 2022, we know
that the perils of a warming planet are no longer just predictions.
We have over 1,000 miles of levees and canals, 150 water control
structures, and 16 major pump stations providing flood protection for
11 million residents in central and South Florida alone.
A 2009 study identified 18 water control structures in Miami-Dade and
Broward Counties alone that are within 6 inches of failure.
I urge passage of this important bill, and I appreciate the
opportunity to speak in favor of it.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls).
Mr. NEHLS. Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Harvey exposed how unprepared our
infrastructure and flood mitigation efforts were for one of the most
strategically important regions in the Nation.
Aside from the emotional and psychological toll Harvey inflicted on
my community, it is estimated that Harvey cost $125 billion in damages.
Instead of continually spending money on the back end of tragedies
that experts agree cost infinitely more, I am proud the Federal
Government is authorizing investments in flood mitigation and
prevention that will help deter another Harvey-like scenario.
I am also pleased that language in section 325 authorizes the
Secretary to provide technical assistance related to non-Federal
interests and the removal of sediment obstructing inflow channels to
Addicks and Barker Reservoirs.
In addition to the statutory changes for sediment removal, I am proud
to support the authorization of $19.2 billion for the Texas coastal
protection and restoration project.
The Port of Houston is home to the largest petrochemical
manufacturing complex in the Americas; 42 percent of the specialty
chemical feedstocks, 27 percent of the gas, and 60 percent of the jet
aviation fuel are all produced in the region. It is good to see
government working for the people.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this year's
Water Resources Development Act, which includes funding for several
critical priorities for my State and my district.
I am very proud to share that this bill authorizes funding to help
the city of Newport replace its woefully outdated and dangerous Big
Creek Dam. This dam holds the city's water supply; sits right above the
city; could completely wipe out the city in an earthquake.
Funding is also designated for wastewater treatment and dredging
along the Oregon coast, particularly in our areas that are facing a lot
of issues with the Pacific Ocean.
I really appreciate the opportunity to present on this report and
urge its passage.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis).
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this
legislation that includes my language to secure additional funds for
the Staten Island seawall to protect my constituents from a future
hurricane.
In October, it will be 10 years since Hurricane Sandy devastated
parts of New York City. Particularly hard-hit was my borough of Staten
Island, where 24 lives were lost, hundreds of families were displaced,
and thousands of homes were damaged.
Since the project's approval in 2013, bureaucratic red tape resulted
in costly redesigns and repeated delays. This vital flood mitigation
project is long overdue, and I made a commitment that when I came to
Congress I would get it back on track.

In February, the city and Federal Governments came to an agreement on
the radiation clean-up in Great Kills Park, which will allow for
construction on the project's levee, floodwall, and tide gate.
This fall, the contract for the first phase is expected to be issued
so we can break ground on the drainage portion in South Beach and
finally begin this long-awaited project that is critical to the
livelihoods of my constituents, and will help reduce flood insurance
costs.
Today, we will ensure that the project will be fully funded through
this bill. I thank my colleagues for their support of this legislation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I give great accolades to the chairman
for his years of service.
This bill, H.R. 7776, deals with water resources infrastructure,
makes communities more resilient, and helps indigenous minority
communities, but urban areas as well.
The first longstanding impact that we have had in Texas over the
years, one of the big ones was Hurricane Ike; 195 dead, 143 miles per
hour and, of course, $38 billion. It was, in fact, the seventh most
expensive hurricane.
We have continued with the devastation through Hurricane Harvey. This
helps us with the Ike Dike and the coastal spine. We are saving lives
and helping people.
I support this bill because we can live on the Gulf Coast.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7776, the ``Water Resources
Development Act of 2022.''
This is the bill costal regions await because it outlines what
critical infrastructure projects will be funded by or in part by the
federal government.
I rise to speak on behalf of the city of Houston, which was
shortchanged by the General Land Office of Houston, which has not
received a single dollar out of $4.3 billion in Hurricane Harvey
funding appropriated by this body for flood mitigation.
Houston experienced 25 percent of the damage caused by Hurricane
Harvey which occurred in the city of Houston and twenty-five percent
occurred in Harris County.
Harris County did receive its Hurricane Harvey Flood mitigation
funding, while Houston did not receive funding for the billions in
damage caused by flood water.
As the Member of Congress representing the 18th Congressional
District of Texas, a senior member of the House Homeland Security
Committee, and the person who led the successful effort in the House of
Representatives to secure the federal disaster funding needed to
mitigate and recover from the epic damage caused by Hurricane Harvey, I
address this body to say if this has happened to the fourth largest
city in the Nation, it can happen to any community.
When Congress appropriates, there should be no light between our
decision and the expending of disaster mitigation funding.
The funds provided to insure that the same level of damage given the
same factors are not repeated in the future.
Because of the inexplicable decision by the Texas General Land Office
(GLO) refusing to award to the City of Houston or Harris County any of
the nearly $1 billion in funding for flood mitigation projects from the
$4.2 billion grant it received from the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development are not ready for another storm of the size and
intensity of Hurricane Harvey.
I requested that the Department of Housing and Urban Development
review the propriety and legality of the action and Texas GLO and
suspend it from distribution any of $4.2 billion tranche, until after
HUD completes its review.
The review should include a determination of whether the decision of
the Texas GLO complies with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and
the Department's regulations.
HUD found that there was nothing it could do because of the agreement
that the Trump Administration entered into with the State of Texas.
It is impossible to justify the decision not to award a single dollar
out of the $1 billion funding tranche to the City of Houston and Harris
County, which are the economic hub of Texas and the southwest United
States, and which accounts for 16.3 percent of the state population and
more than 44 percent of the population directly affected by Hurricane
Harvey.
Hurricane Harvey did not impact all jurisdictions equally. Houston
has experienced 5 major flood events in 5 years, with Harris County as
the only county affected by disasters in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2019.
The cost per-capita of damage in the City of Houston is much greater
than in rural areas because of the infrastructure and density of
residential and business structures.
The Texas GLO appears to have forgotten or disregarded the damage to
Houston and Harris County as a result of Hurricane Harvey, which
dropped 21 trillion gallons of rainfall on Texas and Louisiana, most of
it on the Houston Metroplex.
To put in perspective the devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey,
the volume of water that fell on Houston and other affected areas of
Texas and Louisiana could fill more

[[Page H5295]]

than 24,000 Astrodomes or supply the water for the raging Niagara Falls
for 15 days.
Houston received more than 50 inches of rainfall and whole sections
of Houston, Beaumont, Bayou City, Port Arthur, and other cities were
underwater for days.
More than 13,000 people were rescued in the Houston area and more
than 30,000 persons were forced out of their homes due to the storm. In
just the first three days of the storm, more than 49,000 homes that had
suffered flood damage and more than 1,000 homes were completely
destroyed in the storm. The cost of removing debris dwarfed the $70
million spent by Houston removing debris after Hurricane Ike in 2008.
Given these facts, it is irrational and unconscionable that Texas GLO
awarded nearly $1 billion in U.S. Housing and Urban Development funds
to other local governments in 46 Southeast Texas counties but none to
the City of Houston.
I am in support of this bill because it renews America's commitment
to our environment by funding U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to carry out
critical infrastructure projects, especially in our Nation's coastal
areas and waterways. It also prioritizes climate change in the research
and implementation of the Corps' work.
H.R. 7776 will implement long-overdue modernization of the Corps'
procedures and ensure that the economic benefits associated with a
revitalized infrastructure are specifically advancing disadvantaged
groups. Section 224 of this legislation mandates a report on the
distribution of funds to Small Disadvantaged Businesses.
Those businesses include the thousands of small companies owned by
people of color and indigenous people. This legislation gives us the
opportunity to recenter our Nation's infrastructure development around
black and brown business owners who have been perpetually left behind.
I am pleased that this legislation requires a report to Congress by
the Secretary of the Army--who oversees the Army Corps of Engineers--
that specifies the amount of contract and subcontract dollars awarded
by the Corps to ``small and disadvantaged businesses''.
I hope to work with the Senate to further reinforce the Army Corps,
putting in place reliable strong programs and outreach for use of MWBE
in this work.
The programs for economic assistance and inclusion of MWBE by the
Army Corps in these infrastructure programs must be done. MWBE and
stopping flooding work together.
This transparency will help ensure that small businesses owned by
people of color are given a fair opportunity to compete for contract
and subcontract dollars in water projects. Furthermore, the report will
enable Congress to hold the Corps accountable if the share of dollars
to small disadvantaged businesses is inadequate.
Projects to research and mitigate flooding are critical to my
constituents in Houston, as flood waters present a perpetual risk to my
district and the surrounding community. Levees, bayous, reservoirs, and
watersheds must all be maintained and reinforced to protect Houston
from flood risks. Minority-owned businesses, who face these perpetual
risks, must be included in the contracts to protect our communities
from those risks.
In 2017, when Hurricane Harvey wreaked havoc on Houston and the
entire coast of Texas, it caused more than $125 billion dollars in
damage and killed 68 Texans.
As time passes, hurricanes become more intense as our planet warms.
Funding the Corps' projects will not only help protect communities in
Houston by reducing flooding, but also by lessening America's carbon
footprint. That will make these natural disasters less likely to occur.
H.R. 7776 funds projects in Houston like the removing of sediment
from the Addicks and Barker reservoirs, restoring our coastal regions,
and expanding the Houston Ship Channel. These are critical to the
economic viability and well-being of millions of people in South Texas.
It is time for Congress to act to save lives and protect our
communities. This funding will dually promote a greener America while
also working to lift marginalized groups. In doing both, we make our
Nation a more prosperous and equitable place.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to time
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. And the time for the other side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gimenez).
Mr. GIMENEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Water
Resources Development Act to improve our ports and harbors, inland
waterway navigation, flood and storm protection, and other pieces of
water resources infrastructure, all with a focus on locally driven
projects rather than a nationwide partisan wish list.
This bill is an example of supporting real infrastructure, and it
goes to prove that if we focus on real infrastructure, Congress can
come together in a bipartisan manner.
This legislation has a lot of wins for South Florida. In it, we get
provisions to expedite projects to protect Miami-Dade County and Monroe
County from future storm damage. The flooding this past weekend in
Miami underscored the importance of these projects for our region,
particularly as we begin hurricane season.
We also doubled funding levels for the Florida Keys Water Quality
Improvement Project to expand sanitary sewer systems in the Keys.
Overall, this legislation will be greatly beneficial to South
Florida. It is incredible what we can accomplish when we put political
hackery to the side and focus on the real needs of the American people.
I urge my colleagues to support this year's WRDA.

{time} 1800

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, this bill is very important and
includes important hurricane protection for the Upper Barataria area,
which is going to help Jefferson, St. Charles, and Lafourche Parishes,
all the way up to Ascension Parish. If this had been in place when
Hurricane Ida made landfall, we would have had fundamentally different
conditions.
It is going to make higher, stronger levees. In the New Orleans area,
$3 billion in new investments there, which we worked on with
Congressman Carter and Congressman Scalise.
It clarifies the cost-share for the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet,
something that never should have been in contention.
It helps to manage water on the Mississippi River, expedites the
Comite project, and makes tens of millions of dollars in additional
authorizations for water and wastewater in the capital, river, and
bayou regions.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people who helped with this
legislation. One of them is Paul Sass, and I thank Paul for his nearly
20 years of service to this House and to this committee. Had he not
been around working on many of these bills, it simply would not have
happened, and I appreciate it. Having worked with the ranking member
for some period of time, I couldn't imagine working 20 years with him.
Amazing.
Mr. Speaker, I also thank Ranking Member Sam Graves for his hard work
on this. I thank Chairman DeFazio, Tim Petty, Leslie Parker, and
Melissa Beaumont for their work on this important legislation.
This is all about making investments of millions of dollars before
disasters happen in order to prevent billions of dollars in disaster
recovery and loss of life.
Lastly, I thank Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chair
Napolitano, as well as Ranking Member Rouzer, for their hard work on
this legislation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, maintaining and improving our ports, waterways, and
water infrastructure is critically important to the 14th District of
Texas, as well as to our great State and Nation. Our families, our
businesses, and the critical infrastructure along the upper Texas Gulf
Coast will benefit from WRDA 2022.
Of particular importance to Texas, and the Nation, quite frankly, is
a coastal spine. I have heard it several ways. It will mitigate the
impact of major hurricanes and other significant water events in and
around Galveston Bay, just south of the Houston Ship Channel, and all
the families and the vast petrochemical industry that surrounds it.
In September 2008, Texas 14 was slammed by Hurricane Ike along a
track similar to the deadly 1900 Storm of Galveston that cost 5,000 to
8,000 lives and billions of dollars in damage.

[[Page H5296]]

The damage from Ike, and the even more catastrophic Hurricane Harvey,
could have been reduced significantly by the proposed coastal barrier
that we call the Ike Dike. After years and years of pushing for this
vital barrier system, I am proud that it is included in WRDA 2022.
While this bill does not reflect all the priorities we might prefer,
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. I, too, add my
order of thanks to both sides. This has been a great task, a great
staff we have.
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 California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
Tonight, I join my colleagues in support of this year's Water
Resources Development Act. While it may not be readily apparent, the
threat of storm damage and floods remains front and center, despite the
prolonged drought across the Western United States.
In the wake of wildfires, mudslides will bring vegetation down from
mountainsides into our public waterways. With fewer but more intense
storms seen this year, the risk of flash floods has increased.
Now, as with many bipartisan bills, there are policies and provisions
that I believe are missing from this measure. That work is not done. I
will continue to push for more control over project construction to be
given to local water agencies; more up-front inclusion of Tribes so we
can avoid ruining their cultural and burial sites, literally crushing
skulls while working on levees--this is about basic respect; and for
the Army Corps and EPA to work with our constituents, rather than
against them, such as penalties for when farmers plow their fields or
change crops.
Indeed, we need to keep this conversation going, but I appreciate the
legislation and the direction we are going.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7776, or WRDA 2022, is a very good bipartisan piece
of legislation that will improve flood control infrastructure. It is
going to improve ports, harbors, and inland waterways all across the
country.
This bill provides the support and the investment in our country's
water infrastructure needed to keep our supply chain moving and boost
the competitiveness of the American economy.
When it comes right down to it, this bill is a projects bill that was
pulled together based off requests from Members from all across the
country in the House on both sides of the aisle, and there isn't a
single line in this bill that cannot be attributed to an
individual Member request.

I again thank my colleagues and the members of the committee for
coming together to develop this bipartisan legislation. Again, I thank
the chairman for his work.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this important piece of legislation,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Most of what we do here would not be possible without the hard work
of staff, so I would like to take a moment specifically to thank the
staff of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment that took
the lead in developing WRDA 2022 and ensuring that Members' priorities
and national priorities were included: Ryan Seiger, the staff director
of the subcommittee, who worked to enact more of WRDA than any other
staffer on Capitol Hill; Alexa Williams; Logan Ferree; Michael Bauman.
On the minority side: Ryan Hambleton, the minority staff director;
Leslie Parker; Tim Petty; and Melissa Beaumont. Without them and their
work, we would not be here today.
Paul Sass has already been thanked a number of times, but I
congratulate him on his 20 years on the Hill and wish him well in his
next endeavor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, nearly 80 percent of our traded
goods rely on American ports, harbors, and inland waterways to reach
consumers.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to support our waterways and
ecosystems, improve our defenses against floods and extreme weather,
and create good-paying jobs along the way--and that's what the Water
Resources Development Act of 2022 (WRDA) will do.
Specifically, this bill authorizes the construction of 16 new
projects and 72 feasibility studies approved by the Corps of Engineers
and expedites the completion of 15 ongoing investigations. The bill
also includes a water resource initiative that is very important to my
constituents and the many residents of North Texas.
The White Rock Lake is a 1,015-acre city lake located outside of
Dallas. The lake is one of the most heavily-used parks in the Dallas
Parks system. It is home to the Dallas Arboretum, the White Rock Lake
Museum, the Bath House Cultural Center, a large boat ramp and fishing
pier, over nine miles of hiking and biking trails, a dog park, a picnic
area, and pavilions. White Rock Lake has experienced an accumulation of
sediment since it was last dredged in 1998, reducing the overall
capacity of the lake, with reductions in both its water quality and
recreational use. And with the pandemic increasing the already heavy
usage rate of the lake, the need to dredge it has never been more
urgent.
The goals of the White Rock Lake dredging project included in the
WRDA are to remove sediment from the shoreline to improve maintenance,
improve water quality to minimize negative impacts to aquatic habitat
and other environmentally sensitive areas, and restore the depth of the
lake to enhance watersport recreation.
The bill also authorizes $19.2 billion in funding to restore and
protect Texas' coastline. The project is one of the largest in the
history of the Corps of Engineers and includes improvements that reduce
risks to public health and the economy, restore critical ecosystems,
advance coastal resiliency, and help prepare the state for future
damaging weather events.
I want to commend Chairman DeFazio and Subcommittee Chairwoman
Napolitano for their perseverance in developing this bipartisan bill
and getting it to the House floor for a vote.
I strongly support the passage of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2022 and encourage my colleagues to pass a bill that is essential to
America's economic competitiveness and helps improve the quality of our
waterways for all our constituents.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 7776, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion
are postponed.

____________________