[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.--


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
                                Report of
A. State       B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. AK     Elim Subsistence    March 12,      Federal: $74,905,000
           Harbor Study,       2021          Non-Federal: $1,896,000
           Elim                              Total: $76,801,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CA     Port of Long Beach  October 14,    Federal: $73,533,500
           Deep Draft          2021 and May  Non-Federal: $74,995,500
           Navigation, Los     31, 2022      Total: $148,529,000
           Angeles County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. GA     Brunswick Harbor    March 11,      Federal: $10,774,500
           Modifications,      2022          Non-Federal: $3,594,500
           Glynn County                      Total: $14,369,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. WA     Tacoma Harbor       May 26, 2022   Federal: $120,701,000
           Navigation                        Non-Federal: $174,627,000
           Improvement                       Total: $295,328,000
           Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (2) Flood risk management.--


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
                                Report of
A. State       B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. AL     Selma Flood Risk    October 7,     Federal: $15,533,100
           Management and      2021          Non-Federal: $8,363,900
           Bank                              Total: $23,897,000
           Stabilization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. AL     Valley Creek Flood  October 29,    Federal: $17,725,000
           Risk Management,    2021          Non-Federal: $9,586,000
           Bessemer and                      Total: $27,311,000
           Birmingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. CA     Lower Cache Creek,  June 21, 2021  Federal: $215,152,000
           Yolo County,                      Non-Federal: $115,851,000
           Woodland and                      Total: $331,003,000
           Vicinity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. NE     Papillion Creek     January 24,    Federal: $91,491,400
           and Tributaries     2022          Non-Federal: $52,156,300
           Lakes                             Total: $143,647,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[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.--


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
                                Report of
A. State       B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TX     Coastal Texas       September 16,  Federal: $19,237,894,000
           Protection and      2021          Non-Federal:
           Restoration                        $11,668,393,000
                                             Total: $30,906,287,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page H5288]]

       (5) Ecosystem restoration.--


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
                                Report of
A. State       B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CA     Prado Basin          April 22,     Federal: $33,976,000
           Ecosystem           2021          Non-Federal: $18,294,000
           Restoration, San                  Total: $52,270,000
           Bernardino,
           Riverside and
           Orange Counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. KY     Three Forks of      May 24, 2022   Federal: $72,138,000
           Beargrass Creek                   Non-Federal: $48,998,000
           Ecosystem                         Total: $121,136,000
           Restoration,
           Louisville
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (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.

                          ____________________