[House Report 117-347]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
117th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 117-347
======================================================================
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2022
_______
June 7, 2022.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. DeFazio, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 7776]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred 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, having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that
the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose of Legislation........................................... 56
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 56
Hearings......................................................... 68
Legislative History and Consideration............................ 70
Committee Votes.................................................. 74
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 80
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 80
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 81
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 81
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 81
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits....................................................... 81
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 81
Preemption Clarification......................................... 81
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 81
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 82
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 82
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
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 man-made 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.
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. Washington Aqueduct.
Sec. 132. Contracts with institutions of higher education to provide
assistance.
Sec. 133. Records regarding members and employees of the Corps of
Engineers who perform duty at Lake Okeechobee, Florida, during a
harmful algal bloom.
Sec. 134. Sense of Congress on the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet,
Louisiana.
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. Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel, Louisiana.
Sec. 220. Review of recreational hazards at the banks of the
Mississippi River, Louisiana.
Sec. 221. Hydraulic evaluation of Upper Mississippi River and Illinois
River.
Sec. 222. Disposition study on hydropower in the Willamette Valley,
Oregon.
Sec. 223. Houston Ship Channel Expansion Channel Improvement Project,
Texas.
Sec. 224. Sabine-neches waterway navigation improvement project, Texas.
Sec. 225. Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia.
Sec. 226. Coastal Virginia, Virginia.
Sec. 227. Western infrastructure study.
Sec. 228. Report on socially and economically disadvantaged small
business concerns.
Sec. 229. Report on solar energy opportunities.
Sec. 230. Assessment of coastal flooding mitigation modeling and
testing capacity.
Sec. 231. Report to Congress on easements related to water resources
development projects.
Sec. 232. Assessment of forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration
services on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers.
Sec. 233. Electronic preparation and submission of applications.
Sec. 234. Report on corrosion prevention activities.
Sec. 235. GAO Studies on mitigation.
Sec. 236. GAO Study on waterborne statistics.
Sec. 237. 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. Los Angeles County, California.
Sec. 309. Deauthorization of designated portions of the Los Angeles
County Drainage Area, California.
Sec. 310. Murrieta Creek, California.
Sec. 311. San Francisco Bay, California.
Sec. 312. Columbia River basin.
Sec. 313. Port Everglades, Florida.
Sec. 314. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force.
Sec. 315. Chicago shoreline protection.
Sec. 316. Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin project, Brandon
Road, Will County, Illinois.
Sec. 317. Southeast Des Moines levee system, Iowa.
Sec. 318. Lower Mississippi River comprehensive management study.
Sec. 319. Lower Missouri River streambank erosion control evaluation
and demonstration projects.
Sec. 320. Missouri River interception-rearing complexes.
Sec. 321. Argentine, East Bottoms, Fairfax-Jersey Creek, and North
Kansas Levees units, Missouri River and tributaries at Kansas Cities,
Missouri and Kansas.
Sec. 322. Missouri River mitigation project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa,
and Nebraska.
Sec. 323. Northern Missouri.
Sec. 324. Israel River, Lancaster, New Hampshire.
Sec. 325. Middle Rio Grande flood protection, Bernalillo to Belen, New
Mexico.
Sec. 326. Southwestern Oregon.
Sec. 327. Wolf River Harbor, Tennessee.
Sec. 328. Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, Texas.
Sec. 329. Central West Virginia.
Sec. 330. Puget Sound, Washington.
Sec. 331. Water level management pilot project on the Upper Mississippi
River and Illinois Waterway System.
Sec. 332. Upper Mississippi River protection.
Sec. 333. Treatment of certain benefits and costs.
Sec. 334. Debris removal.
Sec. 335. General reauthorizations.
Sec. 336. Conveyances.
Sec. 337. Environmental infrastructure.
Sec. 338. Additional assistance for critical projects.
Sec. 339. Sense of Congress on lease agreement.
TITLE IV--WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE
Sec. 401. Project authorizations.
SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Army.
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 101. 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--
(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 ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(34) City of Southport, North Carolina.''; 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.
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 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
(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--
(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).
(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.
(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.''.
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 ecosystem restoration and recreation,
Willamette River, Oregon, authorized by section 1401(7) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1714).
(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.
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. WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT.
(a) Capital Improvement Authority.--The Secretary may carry out
capital improvements for the Washington Aqueduct that the Secretary
determines necessary for the safe, effective, and efficient operation
of the Aqueduct.
(b) Borrowing Authority.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) through (4) and
subsection (c), the Secretary is authorized to borrow from the
Treasury of the United States such amounts as are sufficient to
cover any obligations that will be incurred by the Secretary in
carrying out capital improvements for the Washington Aqueduct
under subsection (a).
(2) Limitation.--The amount borrowed by the Secretary under
paragraph (1) may not exceed $40,000,000 in any fiscal year.
(3) Agreement.--Amounts borrowed under paragraph (1) may only
be used to carry out capital improvements with respect to which
the Secretary has entered into an agreement with each customer.
(4) Terms of borrowing.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subsection (c), the
Secretary of the Treasury shall provide amounts
borrowed under paragraph (1) under such terms and
conditions as the Secretary of Treasury determines to
be necessary and in the public interest.
(B) Term.--The term of any loan made under paragraph
(1) shall be for a period of not less than 20 years.
(C) Prepayment.--There shall be no penalty for the
prepayment of any amounts borrowed under paragraph (1).
(c) Contracts With Customers.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may not borrow any amounts
under subsection (b) until such time as the Secretary has
entered into a contract with each customer under which the
customer commits to pay a pro rata share (based on water
purchase) of the principal and interest owed to the Secretary
of the Treasury under subsection (b).
(2) Prepayment.--Any customer may pay, in advance, the pro
rata share of the principal and interest owed by the customer,
or any portion thereof, without penalty.
(3) Risk of default.--A customer that enters into a contract
under this subsection shall, as a condition of the contract,
commit to pay any additional amount necessary to fully offset
the risk of default on the contract.
(4) Obligations.--Each contract entered into under paragraph
(1) shall include such terms and conditions as the Secretary of
the Treasury may require so that the total value to the
Government of all contracts entered into under paragraph (1) is
estimated to be equal to the obligations of the Secretary for
carrying out capital improvements for the Washington Aqueduct.
(5) Other conditions.--Each contract entered into under
paragraph (1) shall--
(A) include other conditions consistent with this
section that the Secretary and the Secretary of the
Treasury determine to be appropriate; and
(B) provide the United States priority in regard to
income from fees assessed to operate and maintain the
Washington Aqueduct.
(d) Customer Defined.--In this section, the term ``customer'' means--
(1) the District of Columbia;
(2) Arlington County, Virginia; and
(3) Fairfax County, Virginia.
SEC. 132. 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. 133. 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. 134. 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.
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) Upper yuba river basin, california.--Project for flood
risk management, Upper Yuba River, California.
(9) Stratford, connecticut.--Project for hurricane and storm
damage risk reduction and flood risk management, Stratford,
Connecticut.
(10) Woodbridge, connecticut.--Project for flood risk
management, Woodbridge, Connecticut.
(11) 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.
(12) Potomac and anacostia rivers, washington, district of
columbia.--Project for recreational access, including enclosed
swimming areas, Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, District of
Columbia.
(13) 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.
(14) 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.
(15) Town of longboat key, florida.--Project for whole island
hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Town of Longboat
Key, Florida.
(16) Lake runnymede, florida.--Project for ecosystem
restoration, Lake Runnymede, Florida.
(17) 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.
(18) Port tampa bay and mckay bay, florida.--Project for
hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Port Tampa Bay,
Florida, including McKay Bay.
(19) Lake tohopekaliga, florida.--Project for ecosystem
restoration and flood risk management, Lake Tohopekaliga,
Florida.
(20) City of albany, georgia.--Project for flood risk
management, City of Albany, Georgia.
(21) City of east point, georgia.--Project for flood risk
management, City of East Point, Georgia.
(22) Flint river basin headwaters, clayton county, georgia.--
Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration,
Flint River Basin Headwaters, Clayton County, Georgia.
(23) 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.
(24) Waikiki, hawaii.--Project for ecosystem restoration and
hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Waikiki, Hawaii.
(25) 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.
(26) Assawompset pond complex, massachusetts.--Project for
ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and water supply,
Assawompset Pond Complex, Massachusetts.
(27) Charles river, massachusetts.--Project for flood risk
management and ecosystem restoration, Charles River,
Massachusetts.
(28) Chelsea creek and mill creek, massachusetts.--Project
for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including
bank stabilization, City of Chelsea, Massachusetts.
(29) Connecticut river streambank erosion, massachusetts,
vermont, and new hampshire.--Project for streambank erosion,
Connecticut River, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire.
(30) Deerfield river, massachusetts.--Project for flood risk
management and ecosystem restoration, Deerfield River,
Massachusetts.
(31) Town of north attleborough, massachusetts.--Project for
ecosystem restoration and flood risk management between
Whiting's and Falls ponds, North Attleborough, Massachusetts.
(32) Town of hull, massachusetts.--Project for flood risk
management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Hull,
Massachusetts.
(33) City of revere, massachusetts.--Project for flood risk
management and marsh ecosystem restoration, City of Revere,
Massachusetts.
(34) Lower east side, detroit, michigan.--Project for flood
risk management, Lower East Side Detroit, Michigan.
(35) 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.
(36) Grosse pointe shores and grosse pointe farms,
michigan.--Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk
management, Grosse Pointe Shores and Grosse Pointe Farms,
Michigan.
(37) Southeast michigan, michigan.--Project for flood risk
management, Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties, Michigan.
(38) 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.
(39) Southwest mississippi, mississippi.--Project for
ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Wilkinson,
Adams, Warren, Claiborne, Franklin, Amite, and Jefferson
Counties, Mississippi.
(40) Camden and gloucester county, new jersey.--Project for
tidal and riverine flood risk management, Camden and Gloucester
Counties, New Jersey.
(41) Edgewater, new jersey.--Project for flood risk
management, Edgewater, New Jersey.
(42) 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.
(43) 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.
(44) 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.
(45) Rockaway river, new jersey.--Project for flood risk
management and ecosystem restoration, including bank
stabilization, Rockaway River, New Jersey.
(46) Tenakill brook, new jersey.--Project for flood risk
management, Tenakill Brook, New Jersey.
(47) 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.
(48) Whippany river watershed, new jersey.--Project for flood
risk management, Morris County, New Jersey.
(49) Lake farmington dam, new mexico.--Project for water
supply, Lake Farmington Dam, New Mexico.
(50) Mcclure dam, new mexico.--Project for dam safety
improvements and flood risk management, McClure Dam, City of
Santa Fe, New Mexico.
(51) Brooklyn navy yard, new york.--Project for flood risk
management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction,
Brooklyn Navy Yard, New York.
(52) Upper east river and flushing bay, new york.--Project
for ecosystem restoration, Upper East River and Flushing Bay,
New York.
(53) Hutchinson river, new york.--Project for flood risk
management and ecosystem restoration, Hutchinson River, New
York.
(54) Mohawk river basin, new york.--Project for flood risk
management, navigation, and environmental restoration, Mohawk
River Basin, New York.
(55) Newtown creek, new york.--Project for ecosystem
restoration, Newtown Creek, New York.
(56) 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.
(57) Mineral ridge dam, ohio.--Project for dam safety
improvements and rehabilitation, Mineral Ridge Dam, Ohio.
(58) Brodhead creek watershed, pennsylvania.--Project for
ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Brodhead Creek
Watershed, Pennsylvania.
(59) Chartiers creek watershed, pennsylvania.--Project for
flood risk management, Chartiers Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania.
(60) Coplay creek, pennsylvania.--Project for flood risk
management, Coplay Creek, Pennsylvania.
(61) Berkeley county, south carolina.--Project for ecosystem
restoration and flood risk management, Berkeley County, South
Carolina.
(62) Big sioux river, south dakota.--Project for flood risk
management, City of Watertown and vicinity, South Dakota.
(63) Tennessee-tombigbee river basins, tennessee.--Project to
deter, impede, or restrict the dispersal of aquatic nuisance
species in the Tennessee-Tombigbee River Basins, Tennessee.
(64) 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.
(65) Gulf intracoastal waterway-channel to palacios, texas.--
Project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway-Channel to
Palacios, Texas.
(66) Sikes lake, texas.--Project for ecosystem restoration
and flood risk management, Sikes Lake, Texas.
(67) 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.
(68) Lower clear creek and dickinson bayou, texas.--Project
for flood risk management, Lower Clear Creek and Dickinson
Bayou, Texas.
(69) Cedar island, virginia.--Project for ecosystem
restoration, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and
navigation, Cedar Island, Virginia.
(70) Ballinger creek, washington.--Project for ecosystem
restoration, City of Shoreline, Washington.
(71) City of north bend, washington.--Project for water
supply, City of North Bend, Washington.
(72) Taneum creek, washington.--Project for ecosystem
restoration, Taneum Creek, Washington.
(73) 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) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) 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.
(8) 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.
(15) Project for navigation, Tacoma Harbor, Washington.
(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).
(3) Project for water supply and ecosystem restoration,
Howard A. Hanson Dam, Washington, authorized by section
101(b)(15) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
Stat. 281).
(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
(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.
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.
SEC. 219. PORT FOURCHON BELLE PASS CHANNEL, LOUISIANA.
With respect to the project for navigation, Port Fourchon Belle Pass
Channel, Louisiana, authorized by section 403(a)(4) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2743), the Secretary is
authorized to--
(1) undertake a feasibility study to modify the project to
include the dredged material disposal plan recommended in the
document published by the Secretary in April 2020, titled
``Review Assessment of Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel
Deepening Project Section 203 Feasibility Study (January 2019,
revised January 2020)''; or
(2) review under section 203 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231) any further
feasibility study undertaken by the non-Federal interest to
modify the project to include a dredged material disposal plan.
SEC. 220. 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. 221. 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. 222. 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) 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).
(c) Report.--Not later than 2 years 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).
SEC. 223. 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. 224. 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. 225. 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. 226. 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. 227. 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. 228. 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.
(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. 229. 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. 230. 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. 231. 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. 232. 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. 233. 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 Public Works of the Senate a
quarterly report describing the status of the implementation of
this section.''.
SEC. 234. 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. 235. 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. 236. 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. 237. 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
``(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.
(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. 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. 309. 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. 310. 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. 311. 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. 312. 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 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. 313. 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. 314. 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. 315. 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. 316. 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. 317. 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. 318. 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. 319. 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. 320. 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 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. 321. 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. 322. 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. 323. 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. 324. 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. 325. 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. 326. 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.
(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. 327. 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. 328. 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. 329. 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. 330. 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. 331. 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. 332. 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. 333. 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. 334. 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. 335. 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. 336. 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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. 337. 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 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.
``(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, 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; 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. 338. 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 (c), by inserting ``water reuse,''
after ``conservation,''; and
(B) 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''.
(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. 339. 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).
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: $71,985,500
Deep Draft 2021 Non-Federal: $73,447,500
Navigation, Los Total: $145,433,000
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
The purpose of H.R. 7776, the Water Resources Development
Act of 2022, as amended, is to authorize the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) to carry out water resources
development activities for the nation, usually through cost-
shared partnerships with non-Federal sponsors. Activities
include projects or studies to address river and coastal
navigation, the reduction of flood and hurricane storm damage
risks, shoreline protection, water supply and conservation, the
restoration and protection of ecosystems and the environment,
and disaster response and recovery.
H.R. 7776, as amended, enhances the Corps' responsibility
to address the long-term resiliency of Corps' projects,
addresses the accessibility and affordability of Corps'
projects for economically disadvantaged, rural, and Tribal
communities, enhances the dialogue between the Corps and Indian
Tribes and other indigenous peoples in addressing local water
resources challenges, assesses the condition of Corps' dams and
levees in addressing current water resources needs and
challenges, and modernizes aspects of the Corps' project
development structure. H.R. 7776, as amended, also authorizes
new, or modifies existing, water resources project and study
authorities to address local water resources infrastructure
needs.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
America enjoys an unparalleled network of natural harbors
and rivers. The ports, channels, locks, dams, and other
infrastructure that support our maritime and waterways
transportation system and provide flood protection for our
homes and businesses are vitally important to a healthy
national economy, job growth, and global competitiveness.
Ensuring a sound infrastructure network is a shared
responsibility, with Federal and state roles recognized by our
Founding Fathers.
The Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (WRDA 2022), as
amended, promotes the Federal commitment to our nation's
competitiveness, prosperity, and economic growth by maintaining
strong maritime transportation infrastructure, ensuring the
efficient flow of domestic and international commerce,
protecting the lives and livelihoods of the American people in
a sustainable manner, and ensuring the restoration and
protection of the nation's environment.
Through WRDA, Congress authorizes the key missions of the
Corps, including developing, maintaining, and supporting the
nation's economically vital waterway infrastructure and
supporting effective and targeted flood protection and
environmental restoration needs. WRDA also provides Congress
the opportunity to implement critical policy reforms and
strengthen oversight.
Since 2014, the Committee has returned to regular
consideration of Water Resources Development Acts once each
Congress. WRDA 2022 continues the WRDA two-year cycle that
provides appropriate oversight of, and policy direction to, the
Administration and the Corps, including bipartisan changes to
how the Corps carries out vital coastal and inland flood risk
reduction projects and addresses both the resiliency and
affordability of future water resources development projects.
WRDA Improves U.S. Water Resources Infrastructure
WRDA 2022, as amended, authorizes the study and
construction of locally driven projects that were developed in
cooperation and consultation with the Corps. These projects are
key to preserving our nation's economy, to protecting our local
economies and communities, and to maintaining our quality of
life--for the current and future generations.
WRDA 2022, as amended, continues the tradition of
authorizing construction of Reports of the Chief of Engineers
(Chief's Reports) submitted to Congress. Chief's Reports are
the final recommendations of the Chief of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers on rigorously studied water resources
infrastructure priorities. WRDA 2022, as amended, authorizes
construction of 16 pending Corps' Chief's Reports that have
been submitted to Congress since the enactment of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2020.
WRDA 2022, as amended, also provides authority for the
Corps to study and plan for future water resources development
projects to address local water resources challenges.
Specifically, H.R. 7776 authorizes several new feasibility
studies for water resources development projects, including
those identified through the public review process established
by section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014.
Finally, WRDA 2022, as amended, authorizes new and modifies
existing authority for the design and construction of
environmental infrastructure in specified municipalities,
counties, and states. This assistance supports publicly owned
and operated facilities, such as water distribution works,
stormwater collection, surface water protection projects, and
environmental restoration, among others.
WRDA Builds More Resilient Communities and Addresses Affordability
Challenges
Most of the Corps' facilities and infrastructure were
constructed in the early to mid-1900s. For example,
approximately 95 percent of the dams managed by the Corps are
more than 30 years old, and half have reached or exceeded their
50-year project lives. As noted in testimony before the
Committee last Congress,\1\ much of our water resources related
infrastructure is reaching the end of its usable life and has
not been maintained or updated to address the water resources
challenges facing our communities today; and that challenge has
not dramatically changed in the last two years. Similarly, in
many areas of the country, there is no comprehensive management
of the inter-related systems of dams, levees, and other
structures that protect residents and their economy within a
watershed--a complexity that can be compounded by observed
changes in the frequency and severity of weather events,
precipitation patterns, and drought, as well as competing
interests wishing to explore the modification of existing
infrastructure to address flood risk in coordination with
comprehensive floodplain management, the use of natural or
nature-based alternatives, and habitat restoration.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See e.g. Testimony of Gerald E. Galloway, PE, PhD, Acting
Director, Center for Disaster Resilience, A. James Clark School of
Engineering, University of Maryland; testimony of Ann C. Phillips, Rear
Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired), Special Assistant to the Governor of
Virginia for Coastal Adaptation and Protection; and testimony of
Melissa Samet, Senior Water Resources Counsel, National Wildlife
Federation before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Hearing on ``Concepts for the Next Water Resources Development Act:
Promoting Resiliency of our Nation's Water Resources Infrastructure,''
November 19, 2019.
\2\See Testimony of Jim Middaugh, Executive Director, Multnomah
County Drainage District; and testimony of Julie Hill-Gabriel, Vice
President for Water Conservation and Acting Vice President for Coastal
Conservation, National Audubon Society, Hearing on ``Proposals for a
Water Resources Development Act of 2022: Stakeholder Priorities,''
February 8, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholders also expressed their support to partner with
the Corps on projects and studies that will address the long-
term resiliency of communities, including communities facing
challenges posed by extreme weather. The Committee heard from
several witnesses and Members of Congress on the water
resources challenges facing many States and local governments,
including the increased frequency and severity of coastal
storms, inland flooding, and drought events, but also on the
promise of considering novel ways to address these challenges
while also addressing local priorities and ensuring the long-
term resiliency of communities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\See Testimony of the Honorable Wade Crowfoot, Secretary of
Natural Resources, State of California; testimony of the Honorable
Michael Bechtel, Mayor, City of Morgan's Point, Texas; testimony of Jim
Middaugh, Executive Director, Multnomah County Drainage District; and
testimony of Julie Hill-Gabriel, Vice President for Water Conservation
and Acting Vice President for Coastal Conservation, National Audubon
Society, Hearing on ``Proposals for a Water Resources Development Act
of 2022: Stakeholder Priorities,'' February 8, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee also received testimony on the challenges
facing a broad spectrum of communities, including underserved,
urban, rural, and tribal communities in addressing local water
resources challenges.\4\ The difficulty that certain
communities face in addressing local water resources challenges
was echoed in testimony the Committee received in the
formulation of WRDA 2022. For example, one Tribal chairman
contrasted the financial differences between Indian Tribes and
traditional non-Federal interests in financing water resources
development projects and noted that ``tribal communities do not
have the same mechanisms to generate or receive tax benefits or
otherwise use bonding capacity . . . or the benefit of
assessing impact fees on developers to help fund [WRDA]
projects.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\In the Water Resources Development Act of 2020, Congress
authorized several new authorities aimed at addressing the needs of
underserved communities, including urban, rural, and tribal
communities, under the concept of ``economically disadvantaged
communities.'' Section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of
2020 directed the Corps to further define this term utilizing the
criteria under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 301(a) of the Public
Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3161), which
utilizes low per capita income (80 percent or less of the national
average) and high unemployment as a metric for determining eligibility.
The Committee notes that the Corps has not completed its rulemaking to
define this term as required by section 160 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2020.
\5\See Testimony of the Honorable Peter Yucupicio, Chairman, Pascua
Yaqui Tribe, Tucson, Arizona, Hearing on ``Proposals for a Water
Resources Development Act of 2022: Stakeholder Priorities,'' February
8, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRDA 2022, as amended, includes several provisions aimed at
addressing the resiliency, affordability, and process for
evaluating future water resources development projects.
WRDA Increases Coordination with Tribal, Minority, and Indigenous
Communities
During the formulation of WRDA 2022, the Committee received
testimony from two Tribal chairmen, who discussed their
experiences in working with the Corps to address water
resources needs of Indian Tribes. In the testimony of the
Chairman of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, the
Honorable Darrell Seki noted that communication between the
Tribes and the Corps ``vary widely from very straight forward
and cordial to nearly non-existent.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\See Testimony of the Honorable Darrell Seki, Chairman, Red Lake
Band of Chippewa Indians, Hearing on ``Proposals for a Water Resources
Development Act of 2022: Stakeholder Priorities,'' February 8, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRDA 2022, as amended, includes several new provisions
aimed at addressing the water resources challenges faced by
Indian Tribes and other indigenous people of the United States
(including Native Hawaiians), such as requiring the Corps to
establish a Tribal Liaison at each District Office of the
Corps, as well as to ensure that all indigenous people of the
United States are able to participate under section 1156 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
Other Policy Matters
The transformative nature of the last four WRDA bills on
the Corps' Civil Works Program has provided the Corps and the
non-Federal interests (sponsors) with a tremendous number of
new opportunities for advancing projects more quickly. The
Committee expects the Corps to continue to issue implementation
guidance on the new provisions contained in this bill in an
expeditious and transparent manner, and where appropriate, to
solicit the views of, and consult with, a wide array of
stakeholders in the formulation of implementation guidance.
However, the Committee remains concerned that several
provisions from prior WRDAs remain unimplemented in accordance
with Congressional intent. For example, the Committee has
received requests related to delayed implementation of the
following enacted provisions: section 110 of WRDA 2020 related
to implementation of water resources principals and
requirements; section 112(a) of WRDA 2020 related to reports to
Congress on Corps' tribal and minority community engagement;
section 125(a) and (b) of WRDA 2020 related to the beneficial
use of dredged material; section 128 of WRDA 2020 related to
implementation of a demonstration program to control and
prevent harmful algal blooms; section 147 of WRDA 2020 related
to the repair and restoration of embankments (with particular
focus on Waco Lake, Lake Shore Drive and the City of Waco); and
section 160 of WRDA 2020 related to the issuance of Corps
guidance to define the term ``economically disadvantaged
community.'' The Committee directs the Corps to provide a
bipartisan briefing to Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure staff within the next 90 days on the status of
these provisions, and any other unimplemented WRDA provision
enacted by Congress since 2014.
The Committee received WRDA requests related to the Corps'
use of its existing authority to perform advance maintenance of
the nation's Federally authorized navigation channels. These
channels are essential to keeping the international supply
chain open and operating efficiently during this period of
economic recovery. The Corps is strongly urged to make optimum
use of available authorities to ensure that these waterways are
adequately maintained and able to accommodate global shipping
needs and generate economic benefits during this critical time.
The use of advance maintenance can be particularly impactful in
channels with high shoaling areas. Over time these areas
naturally silt in and are especially vulnerable to the advent
of more intense storms, and repeated advance maintenance
efforts may be necessary to guard against depth reductions
which can lead to draft restrictions for larger global vessels.
The Corps is encouraged to maintain Federal channels at their
approved advance maintenance depth.
The Committee continues to receive requests from Members of
Congress and non-Federal interests to explore opportunities to
utilize forecast informed reservoir operations (FIRO) in
addressing local water resources needs. Section 303 of WRDA
2022 includes additional locations to an existing pilot program
to utilize FIRO at Corps owned and operated dams. The Committee
urges the Corps to ensure that sufficient budgetary resources
are allocated to FIRO projects to more fully utilize this
process in appropriate situations and to provide for the update
of existing water operations control manuals to incorporate
FIRO at reservoirs identified on the comprehensive list
developed by the Corps.
The Committee received several requests related to the
potential modification of lock and dam structures on the inland
waterways system to allow for remote operations, including
concerns with the vulnerability of remote operations to cyber-
attacks and the potential impact of remote operations on
current Corps' employees. The Committee reminds the Secretary
that section 222(b)(1)(B)(V) of WRDA 2020 set forth a security
framework for studies carried out by the Corps. Results from
that effort should be used to address cyber security concerns
for Corps structures, particularly locks and dams, that utilize
remote supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) type
products for automation control systems as part of the Corps'
national security interests. The Committee asks to be kept
abreast of these activities by briefings, reports, or other
updates. The Committee recognizes that remote lock operations
along commercial and recreational waterways can increase the
availability and capacity of the locks, especially in lower-use
waterways, and can support other economic drivers in counties
throughout America. The Committee has received a request to
consider potential expansion of remote operations to additional
locations, such as in the Upper Allegheny Locks in Armstrong
County, Pennsylvania. However, the Committee also reminds the
Secretary of recent Congressional action to statutorily declare
Corps' lock and dam employees as inherently governmental and
directs the Secretary to report to the Committee on any
potential workforce impacts of any proposed automation and
remote operations activity before they are carried out, and to
ensure that any recommendations in a completed study will not
result in the loss of jobs for current lock and dam employees.
The Committee is aware that the Corps utilizes a wide range
of platforms, sensors, and other technologies to conduct a
range of research and monitoring activities, including the use
of uncrewed platforms and sensor packages. The Committee
encourages the Secretary, in coordination with the Corps'
Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), to consider
establishing an Uncrewed Systems Innovation Center to ensure
the appropriate development and utilization of innovative
uncrewed technologies, including autonomous, remotely operated
airborne, terrestrial, and maritime vehicle systems.
In each of the last few WRDAs, Congress has directed the
Corps to make greater use of natural and nature-based features
and other measures to advance resilient solutions through all
the Corps' business lines. However, despite this clear
direction from Congress to ensure that future water resources
development projects are designed and constructed to address
local water resources challenges in a more resilient and
sustainable manner, the Committee received testimony from
stakeholders that these enacted provisions are not being fully
implemented by the Corps.\7\ In response, the Committee
received multiple requests for Congress to establish a
Resilience Directorate within the Office of the Chief of
Engineers that would be tasked with ensuring efficient and
coordinated planning across Corps business lines to take
advantage of existing programs, authorities, and operations to
leverage natural systems alone and in concert with structural
solutions to protect communities from flooding; to formulate
resilience solutions for the most at-risk communities; and to
maximize project co-benefits, including improved water quality,
increased groundwater recharge, and restored wildlife habitat.
While the Committee ultimately did not include statutory
language directing the creation of such a position, the
Committee continues to support the resiliency provisions
contained in this legislation and prior enacted WRDAs, and
encourages the Corps to develop and implement strategies to
infuse resilient solutions and best management practices into
all Army Corps activities, studies, projects, and project
operations, as well as, where appropriate, to increase the use
of natural and nature-based solutions and the restoration and
protection of natural systems including floodplain and coastal
wetlands, in addressing local water resources challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\See e.g. Testimony of Julie Hill-Gabriel, Vice President for
Water Conservation and Acting Vice President for Coastal Conservation,
National Audubon Society; and testimony for the record submitted by
Eileen Shader, Director of River Restoration, American Rivers, Hearing
on ``Proposals for a Water Resources Development Act of 2022:
Stakeholder Priorities,'' February 8, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 102 of WRDA 2022 authorizes the Secretary to repair
or restore a shore protection project or structure beyond the
original design level of the project under its P.L. 84-99
authority. The Committee received a request to authorize the
construction of enhancements to improve the performance of the
Grand Isle and Vicinity, Louisiana Beach Erosion and Hurricane
Protection Project, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, and the
Committee directs the Secretary to review this request
considering the changes to the P.L. 94-99 authority under
section 102.
Section 1111 of WRDA 2018 authorizes the Secretary to carry
out a pilot program to award coastal navigation operation and
maintenance contracts for work at multiple harbors in the same
geographic region if the Secretary determines that the contract
provides cost savings compared to the awarding of such work on
a project-by-project basis. The Committee received a request to
create a similar authority for a regional dredge partnership in
the San Francisco Bay region. The Committee directs the
Secretary to consider utilizing the authority provided in
section 1111 of WRDA 2018 for interested non-Federal interests
in the San Francisco Bay region. Similarly, the Committee
received requests to utilize the expansion of this pilot
program to inland waterways (enacted by section 125(d) of WRDA
2020) in relation to the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation System project. The Committee directs the Secretary
to consider utilizing this authority for an inland waterways
dredge pilot partnership along the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas
River Navigation System.
The Committee received requests from Members of Congress
who represent districts containing the projects for navigation,
Suisun Bay Channel (Slough), California, and San Francisco Bay
to Stockton, California, to ensure that no funds or provisions
are authorized within WRDA 2022 to undertake a study to
deauthorize these projects. The Committee does not intend any
funds or provisions contained in this legislation to authorize
the Corps to deauthorize these projects.
Section 401(5)(1) of WRDA 2020 authorized construction of
the Delta Islands and Levees Ecosystem Restoration Project,
California. The Committee is aware that the non-Federal
interests for the project believe there may be opportunities to
beneficially use dredged materials associated with this
project, and the Committee directs the Corps to examine and
report to the Committee on such opportunities. The Committee
also directs the Secretary to issue a report to the Committee
on whether the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement
of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay has been updated
to reflect changes to the beneficial use of dredged material
program in Section 125 in WRDA 2020.
The Committee is aware that the Corps has been partnering
with the County of Ventura, California, to implement the Santa
Paula Creek Flood Control Project. Although project
construction is nearly complete, a significant weather event
damaged the facility, delaying its transfer to the County. The
County has also been seeking a workable management plan for the
project. The Committee urges the Corps to work with the County
of Ventura to turn over a fully functional project repaired to
design conditions, and address concerns about a workable
Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement, and Rehabilitation
(OMRR&R) Manual.
As part of the Isabella Lake Dam Safety Modification
Project in Kern County, California, the Corps is building the
U.S. Forest Service a new visitor center to replace a facility
that was demolished due to this project. The Committee notes
discussion on this visitor center started a decade ago and
urges the Corps to expeditiously bring the visitor center to
fruition. Specifically, the Committee directs the Corps to
identify a location for the visitor center, including
considering additional locations not previously evaluated, and
update environmental reviews and documents as appropriate.
The Committee directs the Corps to develop a strategy in
consultation with the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority
and the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake to resolve water
supply needs and eliminate overdraft in the Indian Wells Valley
groundwater basin in California. This strategy shall develop
measures needed to provide water supply resiliency in the basin
and for the critical Federal defense assets that overlie it,
including, but not limited to, importation of water,
construction needs, rights of way, estimated costs, and
projected future growth both on and off-base in the basin. The
Corps is directed to provide this strategy to the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works within 180 days of
enactment of this Act.
The Success Reservoir Enlargement Project was authorized by
section 101(b)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 to improve both flood damage protection and water supply
in Tulare County, California. In House Report 116-460, the
Committee previously encouraged the Corps to advance this
project.\8\ The Committee again notes its support for this
project and continues to encourage the Corps to expedite this
project through completion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\https://www.congress.gov/116/crpt/hrpt460/CRPT-116hrpt460.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee received a request related to public safety
at federally authorized hurricane and storm damage reduction
projects, such as the project at Cape May Beach in Cape May,
New Jersey. The Committee encourages the Secretary to work with
the State of New Jersey, the non-Federal sponsors of similar
hurricane and storm damage reduction projects in the region,
and other interested stakeholders and public safety officials
to examine whether the rate of head, neck, and spine injuries
sustained at Cape May Beach as reported by the New Jersey
Department of Health and the City of Cape May Beach Patrol is
similar to or differs from those reported at other federally
authorized projects in the region.
The Port Fourchon, Belle Pass Channel, Louisiana,
navigation project was authorized in the Water Resources
Development Act of 2020, featuring as a key component 100
percent beneficial use disposal of project dredge material. The
Committee is encouraged that progress has been made between the
Corps and the non-federal sponsor in designating a beneficial
use disposal site that will meet National Economic Development
goals, as well as satisfy the local community's need for
beneficial use disposal at impacted coastal areas. The Corps is
expected to provide the non-federal sponsor with a revised
Project Management Plan (PMP), delineating tasks and costs
associated with addressing remaining conditions contained in
the Port Fourchon, Belle Pass Channel, Louisiana authorization,
including a revised dredge material disposal plan that will
designate the beneficial use disposal site. As such, the
Committee directs the Secretary to negotiate and complete a PMP
that is satisfactory to the Secretary and the non-federal
sponsor, including the selection of a beneficial use disposal
site agreed upon by the non-federal sponsor, by the end of
fiscal year 2022.
The Committee understands Miami-Dade County, Florida
currently has five active Corps projects underway and that with
the exception of one project all of these projects are managed
by the Jacksonville District. The Committee received a request
to consolidate the management of all active Miami-Dade County
water resource projects into the Jacksonville District. The
Committee encourages the Corps to transfer project management
of the Miami-Dade Back Bay Coastal Storm Risk Feasibility
Management from the Norfolk District to the Jacksonville
District.
The Committee is aware that many existing water resources
development projects were designed and constructed to meet the
unique needs of the region, including the utilization of
internal mechanisms and engineered parts that are specific to
the project in which they are utilized. While this fact
highlights the engineering capability of Corps employees to
address local water resources challenges, it does create
challenges in having a readily available supply of replacement
parts for certain Corps projects. For example, the Committee
was made aware of the need for replacement parts for the
Hurricane Barrier at New Bedford, Massachusetts. The non-
Federal interest for this project believes there is currently
no stock of parts available to replace critical components of
the Hurricane Barrier. This results in the potential for a
broken part to keep the barrier open or closed for a period
long enough for a replacement to be fabricated and replaced.
The Committee shares the concern that it is in the best
interests of local communities and the nation that adequate
replacement parts for critical water resources projects be
readily available. The Committee directs the Secretary to
review the process by which the Corps acquires or maintains a
supply of replacement parts for critical water resources
development projects and to report to the Committee on its
recommendations for either maintaining that supply or
potentially seeking to standardize replacement parts for Corps
projects to ensure their continued and reliable operation and
maintenance in the future.
The Committee is aware of ongoing local efforts to remove
the Gorge Dam in Akron, Ohio, and how removal of this obsolete
structure and associated contaminated sediments will contribute
toward delisting of the Cuyahoga River Area of Concern.
Currently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
taking the Federal lead on dam removal and remediation
activities, funded in part by the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative (GLRI). The Committee recognizes the expertise that
the Corps can bring to removal of a project, such as the Gorge
Dam, and encourages the Secretary to support ongoing EPA
efforts for the removal of the dam and associated contaminated
sediments.
The Committee is concerned with the speed at which the
Corps has responded to questions submitted for the record at
formal Committee hearings and encourages the Corps to
expeditiously complete and transmit to the Committee the
answers to questions from Members of Congress. In particular,
the Committee requests a full accounting of the total number
and dollar value of awards or contracts to small business
concerns in the last five years. The Committee encourages the
Corps to ensure that it responds to Congressional questions for
the record of Committee hearings within the time requested by
the Chair of the Committee.
The Committee directs the Corps to finalize and implement
guidance on the use of local data in the study and planning of
water resources development projects pursuant to section 112(a)
of WRDA 2020. Further, the Committee encourages the use of
local data and predictive models, when verifiable, that are
more stringent than Corps standards and that these datasets
should be considered as alternate sources of climate risk
information. In many cases, local information may be more
specific to the location, or more recently updated than that of
the Corps. The Corps should strive to make use of the best
available (and verifiable) data related to water resources
development projects, even if that data is provided by a non-
Federal interest.
The Committee remains concerned about the impacts of
drought to the nation's water supply, including the current
drought in the State of California and other arid States. In
WRDA 2020, section 221 directed the Corps to submit a report to
Congress on the benefits and consequences of including water
supply and water conservation as a primary mission of the
Corps. The Committee directs the Corps to prioritize and
expedite completion of this report.
In section 209 of WRDA 2020, Congress authorized a
comprehensive study of the Sacramento River, Yolo Bypass,
California to identify actions to be undertaken by the
Secretary for the comprehensive management of the Yolo Bypass
System. The Committee is aware that the State of California is
currently working on a Yolo Bypass Master Plan that is not yet
final; however, the Committee encourages the Corps to utilize,
to the maximum extent practicable, the State's Yolo Bypass
Master Plan in carrying out section 209 of that Act.
The Committee continues to support efforts for the
beneficial use of sediment obtained from the construction and
operation of Corps' water resources development projects. The
Committee is aware of ongoing scientific research into the use
of nutrient-rich dredged materials as a potential source of
fertilizer for plant growth. The Committee encourages the
Corps, through its Engineer Research and Development Center
(ERDC), to undertake an assessment on the beneficial use of
sediment for such purposes, including an assessment of whether
such use is cost-effective, sustainable, and safe for human
health and the environment.
The Committee received a request related to completion of
the Comite Diversion project, Louisiana, authorized as part of
the project for flood control, Amite River and Tributaries,
Louisiana, pursuant to section 101(11) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802; 110 Stat. 3709; 113
Stat. 321). The Committee directs the Secretary and any other
relevant agencies to take all steps necessary to ensure
completion of the project as quickly as possible. The Committee
requests, within 90 days of the date of the filing of this
report, that the Secretary provide the Committee with a
briefing on the status of completion of the project.
The Committee is aware of ongoing efforts by the Secretary
to repair levees adjacent to Offutt Air Force Base, Omaha,
Nebraska, that were damaged by the 2019 spring flooding in the
Missouri River basin. The Committee requests the Secretary to
provide the Committee with a briefing on ongoing efforts to
complete this work, in a timely manner, and to ensure that
rebuilt flood control infrastructure is incorporated with
enhanced resiliency to address future flooding events.
The Committee received several requests related to water
resources development project and study requests that are fully
authorized but are awaiting the necessary funds to be carried
out and are awaiting completion. The Committee urges the Corps
to prioritize and expedite completion of the following
projects:
(1) The project for Juneau and Auke Bay, Floating Wave
Attenuator, Alaska, authorized pursuant to section 204 of the
Flood Control Act of 1948.
(2) Feasibility study of modifications to the project for
flood control, water conservation, and related purposes, Coyote
Valley Dam, California.
(3) The Hamilton Wetlands Restoration project, California,
authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-53; 113 Stat. 279; 121
Stat. 1110).
(4) The Middle Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem
Restoration Project, California, authorized by section 1001(11)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-
114; 121 Stat. 1051).
(5) The San Francisco Bay Beneficial Use Pilot Project,
California, being carried out under Section 1122 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-322; 130 Stat.
1645).
(6) Feasibility study to modify the Seven Oaks Dam,
California, portion of the project for flood control, Santa Ana
River Mainstem, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113; 101
Stat. 1329-111; 104 Stat. 4611; 110 Stat. 3713; 121 Stat.
1115), to include water conservation as an authorized purpose.
(7) The South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Project,
California, authorized by Section 1401(6) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-322; 130 Stat.
1714).
(8) Feasibility study of modifications to the project for
flood control, Redbank and Fancher Creeks, California,
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112).
(9) The project for ecosystem restoration at Bay Point
Dredge hole, Tampa Bay, Florida.
(10) The project for a reservoir for the Everglades
Agricultural Area, in accordance with section 601 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680; 132 Stat.
3819; 134 Stat. 2709).
(11) Feasibility study of modifications to the channel
depths and dimensions for the project for navigation, Port
Miami, Florida, pursuant to section 5 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1915 (33 U.S.C. 562).
(12) Feasibility study of modifications to channel
dimensions without evaluation of additional deepening for the
project for navigation, Savannah Harbor, Georgia, pursuant to
section 5 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1915 (33 U.S.C.
562).
(13) The update of hydrological modeling of the Fox River
Basin, Illinois.
(14) A comprehensive 50-year review for the Kaskaskia River
Navigation Project, Illinois, pursuant to section 216 of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a)
(15) An update to the water control manual for Mel Price
Lock and Dam, Illinois.
(16) Projects for ecosystem restoration, Upper Mississippi
River and Illinois Waterway System, carried out pursuant to
section 519 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 and
Title VIII of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33
U.S.C. 652 note).
(17) Project for flood risk management, Lower Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana, authorized by section 7016 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-114; 121 Stat.
1282).
(18) Feasibility analysis for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries project to include the portion of the Ouachita
River Levee System at and below Monroe, Louisiana to Caldwell
Parish, Louisiana as authorized in section 204 of the Water
Resources and Development Act of 2020 (P.L. 116-260).
(19) Project for flood control, Ecorse Creek, Wayne County,
Michigan, authorized by section 101(a)(14) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-640; 104 Stat.
4607).
(20) Projects for ecosystem restoration, Salt River Marsh
Coastal Habitat, Lake St. Clair, Michigan, carried out pursuant
to section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
and section 506 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(P.L. 106-541; 114 Stat. 2645).
(21) Project for project for ecosystem restoration and
flood risk management at Coldwater Creek, Missouri, authorized
pursuant to section 1202(b) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-270; 132 Stat. 3803).
(22) Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk
management at Maline Creek, Missouri, authorized under Section
1202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (Pub. L.
115-270; 132 Stat. 3803).
(23) Study for environmental infrastructure at the Truman
Lake Visitor Center, Warsaw, Missouri.
(24) Feasibility study for an updated hydrologic analysis
for the town of Estancia, Torrance County, New Mexico.
(25) Feasibility study for water supply to reduce water
consumption from the Arbuckle Simpson Aquifer, Oklahoma,
utilizing reserved municipal water supply within the Corps of
Engineers owned lakes, under Section 838 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986.
(26) Project for flood risk management, Rio Guayanilla,
Puerto Rico, authorized by section 401(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-260; 134 Stat.
2736).
(27) Projects for critical restoration, Missouri River
Restoration, South Dakota, carried out pursuant to Title IX of
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L.106-541; 114
Stat. 2707).
(28) Project for the Red River Basin Chloride Control Area
VIII, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act
of 1966, as amended.
(29) Dredging for projects at Port of Galveston for Turning
Basin 2 project, Royal Terminal, Galveston Bay, Galveston,
Texas.
(30) The development and implementation of a sediment
management plan at Big Horn Lake, Wyoming, pursuant to section
1179(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (Pub. L.
114-322; 130 Stat. 1675).
The Committee received several requests related to studies
and projects that can be carried out under the Corps'
continuing authorities programs. The Committee urges the Corps
to prioritize completion of the following projects:
(a) Projects for flood control under section 205 of the
Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) for the following
areas:
(1) Southern Maricopa County, in the vicinity of the
Ak-Chin Reservation, Arizona;
(2) Nancy Creek, Georgia;
(3) Peachtree Creek, Georgia;
(4) Sugar Creek, Georgia;
(5) South River Basin, Georgia;
(6) Blind Brook, Rye, New York;
(7) Aibonito Creek and vicinity, Puerto Rico;
(8) Canovanas River, Puerto Rico;
(9) Municipality of Orocovis, Puerto Rico;
(10) Municipality of San Sebastian, Puerto Rico;
(11) Municipality of Villalba, Puerto Rico;
(12) Rio Inabon Ponce, Puerto Rico; and
(13) Yauco River and Berrenchin Stream, Puerto Rico.
(b) Projects for navigation under section 107 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) for the following
areas:
(1) Sebewaing River, Port Sanilac Harbor, Lexington
Harbor, and Harbor Beach Harbor, Michigan;
(2) Sturgeon Point Marina, New York; and
(3) Davis Creek, Mathews County, Mobjack Bay,
Virginia.
(c) Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration under section
206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C.
2330) for the San Pedro River, Cochise County and vicinity,
Arizona, including review of recharge facilities that preserve
water flows and habitats.
(d) Project modifications for improvement of the
environment under section 1135 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) for the towns of
Quincy and Braintree, Massachusetts, for a restoring fish
passage on the Smelt Brook.
(e) Project for flood control under Section 205 of the
Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) and for the removal
of obstructions and clearing channels for flood control under
section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (33 U.S.C. 701g)
for the Passaic River, New Jersey.
(f) Project for shoreline erosion protection of public
works under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33
U.S.C. 701r) and for beach erosion and storm damage reduction
under section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g)
for Buffalo, New York.
(g) Project for beach erosion and storm damage reduction
under section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g)
for West Haven, Connecticut.
HEARINGS
For the purposes of rule XIII, clause 3(c)(6)(A) of the
117th Congress, the following hearings were used to develop or
consider H.R. 7776:
On January 12, 2022, the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment held a hearing titled ``Proposals for a Water
Resources Development Act of 2022: Part I--Administration
Priorities.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from the
Honorable Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), Department of the Army; and Lieutenant General
Scott A. Spellmon, Chief of Engineers and Commanding General,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This hearing allowed Members to
receive testimony from the Corps on the administration's
priorities for a new water resources development act for 2022
and provided Members with an opportunity to review the 2021
Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development and
several reports of the Chief of Engineers on individual water
resources projects that have been submitted to Congress for
authorization.
On February 8, 2022, the Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee held a hearing titled ``Proposals for a Water
Resources Development Act of 2022: Part II--Stakeholder
Priorities.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from the
Honorable Wade Crowfoot, Secretary, California Natural
Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA; the Honorable Peter
Yucupicio, Chairman, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Tucson, AZ; the
Honorable Darrell G. Seki Sr., Chairman, Red Lake Band of
Chippewa Indians, Red Lake, MN; the Honorable Michel Bechtel,
President, Gulf Coast Protection District, Mayor, City of
Morgan's Point, Morgan's Point, TX; Mr. Mrio Cordero, Executive
Director, Port of Long Beach, CA; Mr. Jim Middaugh, Executive
Director, Multnomah County Drainage District, Portland, OR;
and, Ms. Julie Hill-Gabriel, Vice President, Water
Conservation, National Audubon Society, Washington, DC. This
hearing allowed Members to receive testimony from state and
local officials, Tribal groups, and other stakeholders who
engage with the Corps to discuss priorities for a new water
resources development act for 2022.
On March 16, 2022, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment held a hearing titled ``Proposals for a Water
Resources Development Act of 2022: Part III--Members' Day
Hearing.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from Hon. Lizzie
Fletcher, a Representative in Congress from the 7th District of
Texas; Hon. Robert J. Wittman, a Representative in Congress
from the 1st District of Virginia; Hon. Sylvia R. Garcia, a
Representative in Congress from the 29th District of Texas;
Hon. Katie Porter, a Representative in Congress from the 45th
District of California; Hon. Rashida Tlaib, a Representative in
Congress from the 13th District of Michigan; Hon. Rick W.
Allen, a Representative in Congress from the 12th District of
Georgia; Hon. Darren Soto, a Representative in Congress from
the 9th District of Florida; Hon. Brian Higgins, a
Representative in Congress from the 26th District of New York;
Hon. Josh Gottheimer, a Representative in Congress from the 5th
District of New Jersey; Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in
Congress from the 16th District of California; Mary E. Miller,
a Representative in Congress from the 15th District of
Illinois; Hon. Darrell Issa, a Representative in Congress from
the 50th District of California; Hon. Debbie Wasserman Schultz,
a Representative from the 23rd District of Florida; Hon. Dan
Newhouse, a Representative from the 4th District of Washington;
Hon. Kurt Shrader, a Representative in Congress from the 5th
District of Oregon; Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in
Congress from the 20th District of New York; Hon. Earl L.
``Buddy'' Carter, a Representative in Congress from the 1st
District of Georgia; Hon. Kim Schrier, a Representative in
Congress from the 8th District of Washington; Hon. Lori Trahan,
a Representative in Congress from the 3rd District of
Massachusetts; Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester, a Representative in
Congress from Delaware; Hon. Grace Meng, a Representative in
Congress from the 6th District of New York; Hon. Frank J.
Mrvan, a Representative in Congress from the 1st District of
Indiana; Hon. Bill Foster, a Representative in Congress from
the 11th District of Illinois; and Hon. Tracey Mann, a
Representative in Congress from the 1st District of Kansas.
Hon. Sanford D. Bishop Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the 2nd District of Georgia; Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a
Representative in Congress from the 3rd District of Oregon;
Hon. Elaine G. Luria, a Representative in Congress from the 2nd
District of Virginia; Hon. Pete Sessions, a Representative in
Congress from the 17th District of Texas; Hon. Melanie A.
Stansbury, a Representative in Congress from the 1st District
of New Mexico; Hon. David A. Trone, a Representative in
Congress from the 6th District of Maryland; Hon. Luis J.
Correa, a Representative in Congress from the 46th District of
California; Hon. Susie Lee, a Representative in Congress from
the 3rd District of Nevada; Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett, a
Representative in Congress from the Virgin Islands; Hon. David
G. Valadao, a Representative in Congress from the 21st District
of California; and Hon. Ed Case, a Representative in Congress
from the 1st District of Hawaii. This hearing provided Members
with an opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on their
WRDA priorities related to the Corps.
On March 23, 2021, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment held a hearing titled ``The Water Resources
Development Act of 2020: Status of Essential Provisions.'' The
Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Matthew J. Stricker,
Secretary, Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Virginia; Mrs.
Eugene D. Seroka, Executive Director, Port of Los Angeles,
California; Ms. Mary Ann Bucci, Executive Director, Port of
Pittsburgh Commission; Dr. Michael F. Piehler, Director, UNC
Institute for the Environment, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill; and Mr. Chad Berginnis, Executive Director,
Association of State Floodplain Managers. This hearing provided
Members with an opportunity to review the implementation of
Corps projects and policies included in WRDA 2020, and to
discuss those that will have the greatest impact on clearing
maintenance backlogs, modernizing our water resources
infrastructure, and getting critical assistance to communities.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND CONSIDERATION
H.R. 7776, the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2022'',
was introduced in the House on May 16, 2022, by Mr. DeFazio,
Mr. Graves of Missouri, Ms. Napolitano, and Mr. Rouzer and
referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Within the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, H.R.
7776 was referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment.
The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment was
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 7776 on May 18,
2022.
The Committee considered H.R. 7776 on May 18, 2022 and
ordered the measure to be reported to the House with a
favorable recommendation, as amended, by voice vote.
The following amendments were offered:
An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 7776
offered by Mr. DeFazio; was AGREED TO, as amended, by voice
vote.
A Manager's amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. DeFazio was AGREED TO by
voice vote.
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Perry (#2); was NOT AGREED TO by a
record vote of 24 yeas and 34 nays (Roll Call No. 89)
Add at the end of title I the following: Sec. 132.
Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing within the Susquehanna,
Delaware, and Potomac River Basins
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Bost (#4); was AGREED TO by voice
vote.
Strike section 217
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Huffman (#5); was WITHDRAWN.
At the end of title III, add the following: Sec. 3 __. San
Francisco Bay Area Dredging
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Carter of Louisiana (#7); was
WITHDRAWN.
At the end of title III, add the following: Sec. 3 __.
Algiers Canal Levees
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Westerman (#8); was NOT AGREED TO
by a record vote of 19 yeas and 39 nays (Roll Call No. 90)
Page 118, after line 19, insert the following: Sec. 232.
Authorization for Study of Certain Federal Contract Thresholds
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Mast (#9); was NOT AGREED TO by a
record vote of 20 yeas and 37 nays (Roll Call No. 91)
At the end of title III, add the following: Sec. 3 __. Lake
Okeechobee Discharge Prohibition
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Ms. Gonzalez Colon (#10); was
WITHDRAWN.
At the end of title III, add the following: Sec. 3 __. Cano
Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Perry (#12); was WITHDRAWN.
Page 58, after line 12, insert the following: Sec. 132.
Port Development
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana (#14); was
WITHDRAWN.
Add at the end of title I the following: Sec. __. Use of
Other Federal Funds
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Westerman (#15); was NOT AGREED TO
by voice vote.
Page 118, after line 19, insert the following: Sec. 232.
Authorization for Study of Certain Federal Contract Thresholds
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Mast (#16); was AGREED TO, by voice
vote.
Page 49, line 13, insert ``and legacy high-phosphorous
sediments'' after ``contaminated sediments''
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana (#18); was NOT
AGREED TO by voice vote.
At the end of title I, add the following: Sec. 1__.
Protection and Restoration of Other Federal Land Along Rivers
and Coast
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Mast (#20); was WITHDRAWN.
Add at the end of title I the following: Sec. __. Lake
Okeechobee Regulation Schedule Review
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana (#22); was
WITHDRAWN.
At the end of title III, add the following: Sec. 3__.
Repayment Options for Flood Control Projects
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Mast (#23); was NOT AGREED TO by
voice vote.
Add at the end of title I the following: Sec. __. Lake
Okeechobee Regulation Schedule Review
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Mast (#25); was NOT AGREED TO by
voice vote.
Add at the end of title I the following: Sec. __. Lake
Okeechobee Regulation Schedule Review
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Mast (#27); was WITHDRAWN.
Add at the end of title I the following: Sec. 3__.
Management of the Central and Southern Florida System
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Mast (#29); was WITHDRAWN.
Add at the end of title I the following: Sec. 1__.
Hazardous Duty Pay for Members and Civilian Employees of the
Corps of Engineers Who Perform Duty at Lake Okeechobee,
Florida, During a Harmful Algal Bloom
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Mast (#30); was AGREED TO voice
vote.
Add at the end of title I the following: Sec. 1__. Records
Regarding Members and Employees of the Army Corps of Engineers
Who Perform Duty at Lake Okeechobee, Florida, During a Harmful
Algal Bloom
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Mast (#31); was NOT AGREED TO by
voice vote.
Add at the end of title III the following: Sec. 3__.
Limitation on Lake Okeechobee Project
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Perry (#33); was NOT AGREED TO, by
a record vote of 20 yeas and 38 nays (Roll Call No. 92)
Strike section 225
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Ms. Strickland (#34); was AGREED TO by
voice vote.
Add at the end of title III the following: Sec. __. Puget
Sound, Washington
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana (#35); was
WITHDRAWN.
Add at the end of title III the following: Sec. 3__. Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program Reauthorization
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Mast (#36); was NOT AGREED TO by a
record vote of 24 yeas and 34 nays. (Roll Call No. 93)
At the end of title I, add the following: Sec. 1__.
Releases of Water Contaminated with Cyanobacteria
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Gimenez (#37); was WITHDRAWN.
Page 58, after line 12, insert the following: Sec. 132. Use
of Certain Platforms for NEPA Reviews
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Perry (#39); was NOT AGREED TO by
voice vote.
Strike section 107
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana (#40); was NOT
AGREED TO by voice vote.
Page 19, line 3, insert ``if the Secretary determines there
is a Federal interest,'' after ``Secretary,''
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Mast (#41); was NOT AGREED TO by a
record vote of 19 yeas and 38 nays (Roll Call No. 94).
At the end of title III, add the following: Sec. 3__.
Central and Southern Florida Project Recreational Use
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Perry (#42); was NOT AGREED TO by
voice vote.
Strike section 108
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Mast (#43); was NOT AGREED TO by a
record vote of 16 yeas and 39 nays (Roll Call No. 95)
At the end of title I, add the following: Sec. 1__.
Slyphosate Application on Public Drinking Water Sources
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana (#44); was
WITHDRAWN.
Add at the end of title III the following: Sec. __.
Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Garamendi (#11); was WITHDRAWN.
Page 118, after line 19, insert the following: Sec. __.
Implementation of Small Business Act
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Mast (#49); was NOT AGREED TO by a
record vote of 22 yeas and 35 nays (Roll Call No. 96)
At the end of title II, add the following: Sec. 2__. Corps
of Engineers Inspector General Investigation
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Garamendi (#21); was NOT AGREED TO
by voice vote.
At the end of title I, add the following: Sec. 1__. Buy
America Requirement
An En Bloc amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana
(#46, #48, and #54); was AGREED TO by voice vote.
(204) Page 28, line 7, strike the period and insert ``that
achieve greater environmental benefits without undermining the
objectives of (a)(1) and (a)(2).''. Page 29, line 8, insert
``and implications for levee protected communities located in a
Special Flood Hazard Area'' after ``benefits''.; (203) page 23.
Line 21, strike ``; and'' and insert a semi-colon. Page 23,
line 21, strike the period and insert ``; and''. Page 23, after
line 21, insert the following: (G) agricultural water
resources, including the use of aquifers for irrigation
purposes; (205) Page 118, after line 19, insert the following:
Sec. 231. GAO Study on the Integration of Information into the
National Levee Database
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Garamendi (#28); was NOT AGREED TO
by voice vote.
At the end of title I, add the following: Sec. __. Fish and
Wildlife Mitigation
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana (#50); was
WITHDRAWN.
At the end of title I, add the following: Sec. 1__. Credit
for Acquisition of Public Real Property
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Garamendi (#32); was WITHDRAWN.
At the end of title III, add the following: Sec. __. South
San Francisco Bay Shoreline Project
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana (#55); was
WITHDRAWN.
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. XXX. Comite Diversion Project
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Garamendi (#38); was WITHDRAWN.
At the end of title I, add the following: Sec. __. Water
Supply in California at Corps of Engineers Facilities
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. LaMalfa (#6); was WITHDRAWN.
At the end of title I, add the following: Sec. __. Reburial
and Conveyance Authority
An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 7776 offered by Mr. Westerman (#24); was NOT AGREED TO
by voice vote.
At the end of title I, add the following: Sec. 1__. New
Federal Hopper Dredges
COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report to include the
total number of votes cast for and against on each record vote
on a motion to report and on any amendment offered to the
measure or matter, and the names of those members voting for
and against.
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Roll Call Vote No. 89
On: Agreeing to Amendment #2 offered by Mr. Perry (605)
Not Agreed to: 24 yeas and 34 nays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Vote Member Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DeFazio..................................... Nay Mr. Graves of MO.................. Nay
Ms. Norton...................................... Nay Mr. Crawford...................... Yea
Ms. Johnson of TX............................... Nay Mr. Gibbs......................... Yea
Mr. Larsen of WA................................ Nay Mr. Webster....................... Yea
Mrs. Napolitano................................. Nay Mr. Massie........................ Yea
Mr. Cohen....................................... ............ Mr. Perry......................... Yea
Mr. Sires....................................... ............ Mr. Rodney Davis of IL............ Yea
Mr. Garamendi................................... Nay Mr. Katko......................... ............
Mr. Johnson of GA............................... Nay Mr. Babin......................... Yea
Mr. Carson...................................... Nay Mr. Graves of LA.................. Yea
Ms. Titus....................................... Nay Mr. Rouzer........................ Nay
Mr. Maloney of NY............................... Nay Mr. Bost.......................... Yea
Mr. Huffman..................................... Nay Mr. Weber of TX................... Yea
Ms. Brownley.................................... ............ Mr. LaMalfa....................... Yea
Ms. Wilson of FL................................ Nay Mr. Westerman..................... Yea
Mr. Payne....................................... ............ Mr. Mast.......................... Yea
Mr. Lowenthal................................... Nay Mr. Gallagher..................... Yea
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay Mr. Fitzpatrick................... Nay
Mr. Lynch....................................... ............ Miss Gonzalez-Colon............... Nay
Mr. Carbajal.................................... Nay Mr. Balderson..................... Yea
Mr. Brown....................................... ............ Mr. Stauber....................... Yea
Mr. Malinowski.................................. Nay Mr. Burchett...................... Yea
Mr. Stanton..................................... Nay Mr. Johnson of SD................. Yea
Mr. Allred...................................... Nay Mr. Van Drew...................... Yea
Ms. Davids of KS................................ Nay Mr. Guest......................... Yea
Mr. Garcia of IL................................ Nay Mr. Nehls......................... ............
Mr. Delgado..................................... ............ Ms. Mace.......................... Nay
Mr. Pappas...................................... Nay Ms. Malliotakis................... Yea
Mr. Lamb........................................ ............ Ms. Van Duyne..................... Yea
Mr. Moulton..................................... Nay Mr. Gimenez....................... Yea
Mr. Auchincloss................................. Nay Mrs. Steel........................ Yea
Ms. Bourdeaux................................... Nay
Mr. Kahele...................................... Nay
Ms. Strickland.................................. Nay
Ms. Williams of GA.............................. Nay
Ms. Newman...................................... Nay
Mr. Carter...................................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Roll Call Vote No. 90
On: Agreeing to Amendment #8 offered by Mr. Westerman (072)
Not Agreed to: 19 yeas and 39 nays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Vote Member Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DeFazio..................................... Nay Mr. Graves of MO.................. Nay
Ms. Norton...................................... Nay Mr. Crawford...................... Yea
Ms. Johnson of TX............................... Nay Mr. Gibbs......................... Yea
Mr. Larsen of WA................................ Nay Mr. Webster....................... Yea
Mrs. Napolitano................................. Nay Mr. Massie........................ Yea
Mr. Cohen....................................... ............ Mr. Perry......................... Yea
Mr. Sires....................................... ............ Mr. Rodney Davis of IL............ Nay
Mr. Garamendi................................... Nay Mr. Katko......................... ............
Mr. Johnson of GA............................... Nay Mr. Babin......................... Yea
Mr. Carson...................................... Nay Mr. Graves of LA.................. Yea
Ms. Titus....................................... Nay Mr. Rouzer........................ Nay
Mr. Maloney of NY............................... Nay Mr. Bost.......................... Nay
Mr. Huffman..................................... Nay Mr. Weber of TX................... Yea
Ms. Brownley.................................... ............ Mr. LaMalfa....................... Yea
Ms. Wilson of FL................................ Nay Mr. Westerman..................... Yea
Mr. Payne....................................... ............ Mr. Mast.......................... Yea
Mr. Lowenthal................................... Nay Mr. Gallagher..................... Yea
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay Mr. Fitzpatrick................... Nay
Mr. Lynch....................................... ............ Miss Gonzalez-Colon............... Nay
Mr. Carbajal.................................... Nay Mr. Balderson..................... Yea
Mr. Brown....................................... ............ Mr. Stauber....................... Nay
Mr. Malinowski.................................. Nay Mr. Burchett...................... Yea
Mr. Stanton..................................... Nay Mr. Johnson of SD................. Yea
Mr. Allred...................................... Nay Mr. Van Drew...................... Nay
Ms. Davids of KS................................ Nay Mr. Guest......................... Yea
Mr. Garcia of IL................................ Nay Mr. Nehls......................... ............
Mr. Delgado..................................... ............ Ms. Mace.......................... Yea
Mr. Pappas...................................... Nay Ms. Malliotakis................... Nay
Mr. Lamb........................................ ............ Ms. Van Duyne..................... Yea
Mr. Moulton..................................... Nay Mr. Gimenez....................... Yea
Mr. Auchincloss................................. Nay Mrs. Steel........................ Nay
Ms. Bourdeaux................................... Nay
Mr. Kahele...................................... Nay
Ms. Strickland.................................. Nay
Ms. Williams of GA.............................. Nay
Ms. Newman...................................... Nay
Mr. Carter...................................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Roll Call Vote No. 91
On: Agreeing to Amendment #9 offered by Mr. Mast (106)
Not Agreed to: 20 yeas and 37 nays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Vote Member Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DeFazio..................................... Nay Mr. Graves of MO.................. Nay
Ms. Norton...................................... Nay Mr. Crawford...................... Yea
Ms. Johnson of TX............................... Nay Mr. Gibbs......................... Nay
Mr. Larsen of WA................................ Nay Mr. Webster....................... Nay
Mrs. Napolitano................................. Nay Mr. Massie........................ Yea
Mr. Cohen....................................... ............ Mr. Perry......................... Yea
Mr. Sires....................................... ............ Mr. Rodney Davis of IL............ Yea
Mr. Garamendi................................... Nay Mr. Katko......................... ............
Mr. Johnson of GA............................... Nay Mr. Babin......................... Yea
Mr. Carson...................................... Nay Mr. Graves of LA.................. Nay
Ms. Titus....................................... Nay Mr. Rouzer........................ Nay
Mr. Maloney of NY............................... Nay Mr. Bost.......................... Yea
Mr. Huffman..................................... Nay Mr. Weber of TX................... Yea
Ms. Brownley.................................... ............ Mr. LaMalfa....................... ............
Ms. Wilson of FL................................ Nay Mr. Westerman..................... Nay
Mr. Payne....................................... ............ Mr. Mast.......................... Yea
Mr. Lowenthal................................... Nay Mr. Gallagher..................... Yea
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay Mr. Fitzpatrick................... Yea
Mr. Lynch....................................... Nay Miss Gonzalez-Colon............... Yea
Mr. Carbajal.................................... Nay Mr. Balderson..................... Yea
Mr. Brown....................................... ............ Mr. Stauber....................... Nay
Mr. Malinowski.................................. Nay Mr. Burchett...................... Yea
Mr. Stanton..................................... Nay Mr. Johnson of SD................. Yea
Mr. Allred...................................... Nay Mr. Van Drew...................... Yea
Ms. Davids of KS................................ Nay Mr. Guest......................... ............
Mr. Garcia of IL................................ Nay Mr. Nehls......................... ............
Mr. Delgado..................................... ............ Ms. Mace.......................... Yea
Mr. Pappas...................................... Nay Ms. Malliotakis................... Yea
Mr. Lamb........................................ ............ Ms. Van Duyne..................... Yea
Mr. Moulton..................................... Nay Mr. Gimenez....................... Yea
Mr. Auchincloss................................. Nay Mrs. Steel........................ Yea
Ms. Bourdeaux................................... Nay
Mr. Kahele...................................... Nay
Ms. Strickland.................................. Nay
Ms. Williams of GA.............................. Nay
Ms. Newman...................................... Nay
Mr. Carter...................................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Roll Call Vote No. 92
On: Agreeing to Amendment #33 offered by Mr. Perry (607)
Not Agreed to: 20 yeas and 38 nays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Vote Member Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DeFazio..................................... Nay Mr. Graves of MO.................. Nay
Ms. Norton...................................... Nay Mr. Crawford...................... ............
Ms. Johnson of TX............................... Nay Mr. Gibbs......................... Yea
Mr. Larsen of WA................................ Nay Mr. Webster....................... Yea
Mrs. Napolitano................................. Nay Mr. Massie........................ Yea
Mr. Cohen....................................... Nay Mr. Perry......................... Yea
Mr. Sires....................................... ............ Mr. Rodney Davis of IL............ Yea
Mr. Garamendi................................... Nay Mr. Katko......................... ............
Mr. Johnson of GA............................... Nay Mr. Babin......................... Yea
Mr. Carson...................................... Nay Mr. Graves of LA.................. Nay
Ms. Titus....................................... Nay Mr. Rouzer........................ Nay
Mr. Maloney of NY............................... Nay Mr. Bost.......................... Yea
Mr. Huffman..................................... Nay Mr. Weber of TX................... Yea
Ms. Brownley.................................... ............ Mr. LaMalfa....................... Yea
Ms. Wilson of FL................................ Nay Mr. Westerman..................... Yea
Mr. Payne....................................... ............ Mr. Mast.......................... Yea
Mr. Lowenthal................................... Nay Mr. Gallagher..................... Yea
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay Mr. Fitzpatrick................... Nay
Mr. Lynch....................................... Nay Miss Gonzalez-Colon............... Nay
Mr. Carbajal.................................... Nay Mr. Balderson..................... Yea
Mr. Brown....................................... ............ Mr. Stauber....................... Yea
Mr. Malinowski.................................. Nay Mr. Burchett...................... Yea
Mr. Stanton..................................... Nay Mr. Johnson of SD................. Nay
Mr. Allred...................................... Nay Mr. Van Drew...................... Yea
Ms. Davids of KS................................ Nay Mr. Guest......................... ............
Mr. Garcia of IL................................ Nay Mr. Nehls......................... ............
Mr. Delgado..................................... ............ Ms. Mace.......................... Yea
Mr. Pappas...................................... Nay Ms. Malliotakis................... Yea
Mr. Lamb........................................ ............ Ms. Van Duyne..................... Yea
Mr. Moulton..................................... Nay Mr. Gimenez....................... Yea
Mr. Auchincloss................................. Nay Mrs. Steel........................ Nay
Ms. Bourdeaux................................... Nay
Mr. Kahele...................................... Nay
Ms. Strickland.................................. Nay
Ms. Williams of GA.............................. Nay
Ms. Newman...................................... Nay
Mr. Carter...................................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Roll Call Vote No. 93
On: Agreeing to Amendment #36 offered by Mr. Mast (109)
Not Agreed to: 24 yeas and 34 nays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Vote Member Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DeFazio..................................... Nay Mr. Graves of MO.................. Nay
Ms. Norton...................................... Nay Mr. Crawford...................... ............
Ms. Johnson of TX............................... Nay Mr. Gibbs......................... Yea
Mr. Larsen of WA................................ Nay Mr. Webster....................... Nay
Mrs. Napolitano................................. Nay Mr. Massie........................ Yea
Mr. Cohen....................................... Nay Mr. Perry......................... Yea
Mr. Sires....................................... ............ Mr. Rodney Davis of IL............ Yea
Mr. Garamendi................................... Yea Mr. Katko......................... ............
Mr. Johnson of GA............................... Nay Mr. Babin......................... Yea
Mr. Carson...................................... Nay Mr. Graves of LA.................. Yea
Ms. Titus....................................... Nay Mr. Rouzer........................ Nay
Mr. Maloney of NY............................... Nay Mr. Bost.......................... Yea
Mr. Huffman..................................... Nay Mr. Weber of TX................... Yea
Ms. Brownley.................................... ............ Mr. LaMalfa....................... Yea
Ms. Wilson of FL................................ Nay Mr. Westerman..................... Yea
Mr. Payne....................................... ............ Mr. Mast.......................... Yea
Mr. Lowenthal................................... Nay Mr. Gallagher..................... Yea
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay Mr. Fitzpatrick................... Yea
Mr. Lynch....................................... Nay Miss Gonzalez-Colon............... Yea
Mr. Carbajal.................................... Nay Mr. Balderson..................... Yea
Mr. Brown....................................... ............ Mr. Stauber....................... Nay
Mr. Malinowski.................................. Nay Mr. Burchett...................... Yea
Mr. Stanton..................................... Nay Mr. Johnson of SD................. Yea
Mr. Allred...................................... Nay Mr. Van Drew...................... Yea
Ms. Davids of KS................................ Nay Mr. Guest......................... ............
Mr. Garcia of IL................................ Nay Mr. Nehls......................... ............
Mr. Delgado..................................... ............ Ms. Mace.......................... Yea
Mr. Pappas...................................... Nay Ms. Malliotakis................... Yea
Mr. Lamb........................................ ............ Ms. Van Duyne..................... Yea
Mr. Moulton..................................... Nay Mr. Gimenez....................... Yea
Mr. Auchincloss................................. Nay Mrs. Steel........................ Yea
Ms. Bourdeaux................................... Nay
Mr. Kahele...................................... Nay
Ms. Strickland.................................. Nay
Ms. Williams of GA.............................. Nay
Ms. Newman...................................... Nay
Mr. Carter...................................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Roll Call Vote No. 94
On: Agreeing to Amendment #41 offered by Mr. Mast (110)
Not Agreed to: 19 yeas and 38 nays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Vote Member Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DeFazio..................................... Nay Mr. Graves of MO.................. Nay
Ms. Norton...................................... Nay Mr. Crawford...................... Nay
Ms. Johnson of TX............................... Nay Mr. Gibbs......................... Nay
Mr. Larsen of WA................................ Nay Mr. Webster....................... Nay
Mrs. Napolitano................................. Nay Mr. Massie........................ Yea
Mr. Cohen....................................... Nay Mr. Perry......................... Yea
Mr. Sires....................................... ............ Mr. Rodney Davis of IL............ Yea
Mr. Garamendi................................... Nay Mr. Katko......................... ............
Mr. Johnson of GA............................... Nay Mr. Babin......................... Yea
Mr. Carson...................................... Nay Mr. Graves of LA..................
Ms. Titus....................................... Nay Mr. Rouzer........................ Nay
Mr. Maloney of NY............................... Nay Mr. Bost.......................... Yea
Mr. Huffman..................................... Nay Mr. Weber of TX................... Yea
Ms. Brownley.................................... ............ Mr. LaMalfa....................... Yea
Ms. Wilson of FL................................ Nay Mr. Westerman..................... Nay
Mr. Payne....................................... ............ Mr. Mast.......................... Yea
Mr. Lowenthal................................... Nay Mr. Gallagher..................... Yea
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay Mr. Fitzpatrick................... Yea
Mr. Lynch....................................... Nay Miss Gonzalez-Colon............... Yea
Mr. Carbajal.................................... Nay Mr. Balderson..................... Nay
Mr. Brown....................................... ............ Mr. Stauber....................... Yea
Mr. Malinowski.................................. ............ Mr. Burchett...................... Yea
Mr. Stanton..................................... Nay Mr. Johnson of SD................. Yea
Mr. Allred...................................... Nay Mr. Van Drew...................... Yea
Ms. Davids of KS................................ Nay Mr. Guest......................... ............
Mr. Garcia of IL................................ Nay Mr. Nehls......................... ............
Mr. Delgado..................................... ............ Ms. Mace.......................... Yea
Mr. Pappas...................................... Nay Ms. Malliotakis................... Yea
Mr. Lamb........................................ ............ Ms. Van Duyne..................... Yea
Mr. Moulton..................................... Nay Mr. Gimenez....................... Yea
Mr. Auchincloss................................. Nay Mrs. Steel........................ Nay
Ms. Bourdeaux................................... Nay
Mr. Kahele...................................... Nay
Ms. Strickland.................................. Nay
Ms. Williams of GA.............................. Nay
Ms. Newman...................................... Nay
Mr. Carter...................................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Roll Call Vote No. 95
On: Agreeing to Amendment #43 offered by Mr. Mast (111)
Not Agreed to: 16 yeas and 39 nays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Vote Member Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DeFazio..................................... Nay Mr. Graves of MO.................. Nay
Ms. Norton...................................... Nay Mr. Crawford...................... Nay
Ms. Johnson of TX............................... Nay Mr. Gibbs......................... Yea
Mr. Larsen of WA................................ Nay Mr. Webster....................... Nay
Mrs. Napolitano................................. Nay Mr. Massie........................ Yea
Mr. Cohen....................................... Nay Mr. Perry......................... Nay
Mr. Sires....................................... ............ Mr. Rodney Davis of IL............ Nay
Mr. Garamendi................................... Nay Mr. Katko......................... ............
Mr. Johnson of GA............................... Nay Mr. Babin......................... Yea
Mr. Carson...................................... Nay Mr. Graves of LA.................. ............
Ms. Titus....................................... Nay Mr. Rouzer........................ Nay
Mr. Maloney of NY............................... Nay Mr. Bost.......................... Nay
Mr. Huffman..................................... Nay Mr. Weber of TX................... Yea
Ms. Brownley.................................... ............ Mr. LaMalfa....................... Yea
Ms. Wilson of FL................................ Nay Mr. Westerman..................... Nay
Mr. Payne....................................... ............ Mr. Mast.......................... Yea
Mr. Lowenthal................................... Nay Mr. Gallagher..................... Yea
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay Mr. Fitzpatrick................... Yea
Mr. Lynch....................................... Nay Miss Gonzalez-Colon............... Yea
Mr. Carbajal.................................... Nay Mr. Balderson..................... Nay
Mr. Brown....................................... ............ Mr. Stauber....................... Nay
Mr. Malinowski.................................. ............ Mr. Burchett...................... Yea
Mr. Stanton..................................... Nay Mr. Johnson of SD................. Yea
Mr. Allred...................................... Nay Mr. Van Drew...................... Yea
Ms. Davids of KS................................ Nay Mr. Guest......................... ............
Mr. Garcia of IL................................ Nay Mr. Nehls......................... ............
Mr. Delgado..................................... ............ Ms. Mace.......................... Yea
Mr. Pappas...................................... ............ Ms. Malliotakis................... ............
Mr. Lamb........................................ ............ Ms. Van Duyne..................... Yea
Mr. Moulton..................................... Nay Mr. Gimenez....................... Yea
Mr. Auchincloss................................. Nay Mrs. Steel........................ Yea
Ms. Bourdeaux................................... Nay
Mr. Kahele...................................... Nay
Ms. Strickland.................................. Nay
Ms. Williams of GA.............................. Nay
Ms. Newman...................................... Nay
Mr. Carter...................................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Roll Call Vote No. 96
On: Agreeing to Amendment #49 offered by Mr. Mast (112)
Not Agreed to: 22 yeas and 35 nays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Vote Member Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DeFazio..................................... Nay Mr. Graves of MO.................. Nay
Ms. Norton...................................... Nay Mr. Crawford...................... Nay
Ms. Johnson of TX............................... Nay Mr. Gibbs......................... Yea
Mr. Larsen of WA................................ Nay Mr. Webster....................... Nay
Mrs. Napolitano................................. Nay Mr. Massie........................ Nay
Mr. Cohen....................................... Nay Mr. Perry......................... Yea
Mr. Sires....................................... ............ Mr. Rodney Davis of IL............ Yea
Mr. Garamendi................................... Nay Mr. Katko......................... ............
Mr. Johnson of GA............................... Nay Mr. Babin......................... Yea
Mr. Carson...................................... Nay Mr. Graves of LA.................. ............
Ms. Titus....................................... Nay Mr. Rouzer........................ Nay
Mr. Maloney of NY............................... Nay Mr. Bost.......................... Yea
Mr. Huffman..................................... Nay Mr. Weber of TX................... Yea
Ms. Brownley.................................... ............ Mr. LaMalfa....................... Yea
Ms. Wilson of FL................................ Nay Mr. Westerman..................... Yea
Mr. Payne....................................... ............ Mr. Mast.......................... Yea
Mr. Lowenthal................................... Nay Mr. Gallagher..................... Yea
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Nay Mr. Fitzpatrick................... Yea
Mr. Lynch....................................... Nay Miss Gonzalez-Colon............... Yea
Mr. Carbajal.................................... Nay Mr. Balderson..................... Yea
Mr. Brown....................................... ............ Mr. Stauber....................... Yea
Mr. Malinowski.................................. ............ Mr. Burchett...................... Yea
Mr. Stanton..................................... Nay Mr. Johnson of SD................. Yea
Mr. Allred...................................... Nay Mr. Van Drew...................... Yea
Ms. Davids of KS................................ Nay Mr. Guest......................... ............
Mr. Garcia of IL................................ Nay Mr. Nehls......................... ............
Mr. Delgado..................................... ............ Ms. Mace.......................... Yea
Mr. Pappas...................................... Nay Ms. Malliotakis................... Yea
Mr. Lamb........................................ ............ Ms. Van Duyne..................... Yea
Mr. Moulton..................................... Nay Mr. Gimenez....................... Yea
Mr. Auchincloss................................. Nay Mrs. Steel........................ Yea
Ms. Bourdeaux................................... Nay
Mr. Kahele...................................... Nay
Ms. Strickland.................................. Nay
Ms. Williams of GA.............................. Nay
Ms. Newman...................................... Nay
Mr. Carter...................................... Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested
but not received a cost estimate for this bill from the
Director of Congressional Budget Office. The Committee has
requested but not received from the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office a statement as to whether this bill
contains any new budget authority, spending authority, credit
authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax
expenditures. The Chair of the Committee shall cause such
estimate and statement to be printed in the Congressional
Record upon its receipt by the Committee.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, a cost
estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant
to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not
made available to the Committee in time for the filing of this
report. The Chair of the Committee shall cause such estimate to
be printed in the Congressional Record upon its receipt by the
Committee.
PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goal and objective of this legislation is to carry
out water resources development activities for the Nation,
usually through cost-shared partnerships with non-Federal
sponsors.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that no provision
of H.R. 7776, as amended, establishes or reauthorizes a program
of the federal government known to be duplicative of another
federal program, a program that was included in any report from
the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance.
CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF
BENEFITS
In compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the Rule
XXI.
FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT
An estimate of federal mandates prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 423 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was not made available to the
Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chairman
of the Committee shall cause such estimate to be printed in the
Congressional Record upon its receipt by the Committee.
PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local,
or tribal law. The Committee finds that H.R. 7776, as amended,
does not preempt any state, local, or tribal law.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION
Section 1. Short title; Table of Contents
This section provides that this bill may be cited as the
``Water Resources Development Act of 2022''.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary
This section defines the term ``Secretary'' to mean the
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
Title I--General Provisions
Sec. 101. Federal breakwaters and jetties
This section directs the Secretary to repair or maintain
jetties and breakwaters to dimensions which include increases
in projected wave action or height over the life of the project
and to classify such work as routine operations and maintenance
if the functionality of the structure has been diminished due
to a lack of regular federal maintenance.
Sec. 102. Emergency response to natural disasters
This section authorizes the Secretary to repair or restore
a shore protection project or structure beyond the original
design level of the project to account for increases in
projected wave action, height, or storm surge to meet the
authorized purposes of the project.
Sec. 103. Shoreline and riverine restoration
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out projects
for the protection and restoration of coastal shorelines and
riverbanks and provides discretion in meeting standard economic
justifications.
Sec. 104. Tidal river, bay, and estuarine flood risk reduction
This section authorizes the Secretary to consider tidal and
inland flooding within feasibility studies for coastal storm
risk reduction projects.
Sec. 105. Removal of man-made obstruction to aquatic ecosystem
restoration projects
This section authorizes the Secretary to consider removal
of man-made obstructions within the scope of a project (with
the consent of the structure owner) for purposes of increasing
aquatic ecosystem restoration goals.
Sec. 106. National coastal mapping study
This section directs the Secretary to study and map coastal
geographic land changes and identify improved tools and
practices for coastal mapping.
Sec. 107. Public recreational amenities in ecosystem restoration
projects
This section authorizes the Secretary to consider the
inclusion of recreational amenities into ecosystem restoration
projects.
Sec. 108. Preliminary analysis
This section authorizes, at the request of the non-federal
interest, a preliminary analysis phase prior to the beginning
of a feasibility study to identify project scope, cost
estimates, and potential project alternatives.
Sec. 109. Technical assistance
This section increases the funding authorization for
technical assistance under the planning assistance to the
states authority and authorizes the Secretary to waive the cost
of such assistance to economically disadvantaged communities.
Sec. 110. Corps of Engineers support for underserved communities;
outreach
This section directs the Secretary to increase outreach to
urban and rural communities and Indian Tribes on the Corps'
water resources development authorities and to provide
additional public resources for increased community engagement
with Corps programs.
Sec. 111. Project planning assistance
This section authorizes additional feasibility studies to
receive assistance under section 118 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2020.
Sec. 112. Managed aquifer recharge study and working group
This section authorizes the Secretary to study
opportunities to carry out managed aquifer recharge at Corps
projects and to create a working group to determine its
efficacy.
Sec. 113. Flood easement database
This section directs the Secretary to establish, maintain,
and make public a database of flood and flowage easements held
by the Corps of Engineers.
Sec. 114. Assessment of corps of engineers levees
This section directs the Secretary to periodically assess
Corps-constructed levees and make recommendations for any
modifications through a report to Congress.
Sec. 115. Technical assistance for levee inspections
This section authorizes the Secretary to provide credit or
reimbursement to non-federal interests for costs associated
with legally required electronic inspections at flood control
projects.
Sec. 116. Assessment of corps of engineers dams
This section directs the Secretary to assess the status of
all dams operated or maintained by the Corps to determine if
any may be a priority for rehabilitation, retrofitting, or
removal, and to incorporate the status into the National Dam
Inventory.
Sec. 117. National low-head dam inventory
This section requires the Secretary to establish, maintain,
and make public an inventory of low-head dams, in consultation
with relevant federal and state agencies.
Sec. 118. Tribal partnership program
This section includes technical assistance as an eligible
use of the Tribal Partnership Program and reauthorizes the
program through 2026.
Sec. 119. Tribal liaison
This section requires each Corps district that contains a
Tribal community to create a position within that district to
carry out the duties and serve as a Tribal liaison.
Sec. 120. Tribal assistance
This section clarifies the Corps' responsibility to
relocate tribal villages impacted by the construction of the
Bonneville Dam, Dalles Dam, and John Day Dam.
Sec. 121. Cost sharing for territories and Indian Tribes
This section authorizes certain indigenous people to
participate under section 1156 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986.
Sec. 122. Sense of Congress on COVID-19 impacts to coastal and inland
navigation
This section expresses the sense of Congress that the
Secretary take into consideration the impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic when determining eligibility for port funding.
Sec. 123. Assessment of regional confined aquatic disposal facilities
This section directs the Secretary to assess the
availability and need for confined disposal facilities on a
regional basis.
Sec. 124. Strategic plan on beneficial use of dredged material
This section directs the Secretary to develop a strategic
plan for fully implementing the federal authority for
maximizing the beneficial use of dredged material.
Sec. 125. Funding to review mitigation banking proposals from non-
federal public entities
This section authorizes non-federal public entities to
contribute funds towards the review of a proposal for a
mitigation bank.
Sec. 126. Environmental dredging
This section directs the Secretary to work, in consultation
with other federal agencies, to remediate contaminated sediment
at certain authorized projects.
Sec. 127. Reserve component training at water resources development
projects
This section authorizes members of the Armed Forces
reserves to support Corps programs.
Sec. 128. Payment of pay and allowances of certain officers from
appropriation for improvements
This section authorizes warrant officers and enlisted
members of the Armed Forces to support Corps projects or
programs.
Sec. 129. Civil works research, development, testing, and evaluation
This section expands the basic research and development
capabilities of the Corps to support its missions and
authorities, including demonstration projects and coordination
with other entities.
Sec. 130. Support of Army Civil works program
This section authorizes the Secretary to enter into
cooperative agreements to support water resources development
authorities.
Sec. 131. Washington Aqueduct
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out
improvements to the Washington Aqueduct through certain
borrowing authorities.
Sec. 132. Contracts with institutions of higher education to provide
assistance
This section authorizes the Secretary to work with
institutions of higher education in carrying out the Flood
Plain Management Services program, authorized by section 206 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1960.
Sec. 133. Records regarding members and employees of the Corps of
Engineers who perform duty at Lake Okeechobee, Florida, during
a harmful algal bloom
This section directs the Secretary to indicate exposure to
microcystin in the service record of designated Corps
employees.
Sec. 134. Sense of Congress on the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet,
Louisiana
This section restates the Sense of Congress that the plan
to close the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet and restore and
protect the adjacent ecosystem, authorized by title 7 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 should be carried out
at Federal expense.
Title II--Studies and Reports
Sec. 201. Authorization of proposed feasibility studies
This section authorizes feasibility studies for future
water resources development projects and feasibility studies
for modification of existing water resources development
projects. These feasibility studies were submitted in a Report
to Congress on Future Water Resources Development pursuant to
Section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act
of 2014 or were otherwise reviewed by Congress.
Sec. 202. Expedited completion
This section directs the Secretary to expedite the
completion of several feasibility studies currently underway.
Upon completion of the study, if the Secretary determines that
the project is justified, the Corps may proceed directly to
preconstruction planning, engineering, and design. This section
also directs the Secretary to expedite the completion of the
following reviews currently underway: post-authorization change
reports for existing projects, an ongoing watershed assessment,
and proposed feasibility determinations for navigation projects
to be carried out by non-federal interests.
Sec. 203. Expedited modifications of existing feasibility studies
This section directs the Secretary to expedite
modifications to the scope or process of several feasibility
studies currently underway.
Sec. 204. Corps of Engineers reservoir sedimentation assessment
This section directs the Secretary to assess sedimentation
issues and its impacts at reservoirs owned or operated by the
Corps.
Sec. 205. Assessment of impacts from changing operation and maintenance
responsibilities
This section directs the Secretary to submit a report to
Congress on the costs and effects of increasing the depths at
which operation and maintenance at a harbor or inland harbor is
a federal responsibility.
Sec. 206. Report and recommendations on dredge capacity
This section directs the Secretary to submit a report to
Congress on current public and private dredge capacity and
availability to meet dredging needs nationwide.
Sec. 207. Maintenance dredging data
This section adds additional specification to a data point
required within the maintenance dredging database.
Sec. 208. Report to Congress on economic valuation of preservation of
open space, recreational areas, and habitat associated with
project lands
This section directs the Secretary to review existing
policies for the valuation of preserving open space,
recreational areas, and habitat as part of a water resources
development project.
Sec. 209. Ouachita River Watershed, Arkansas and Louisiana
This section directs the Secretary to carry out a study to
modify projects in the Ouachita River watershed, Arkansas and
Louisiana.
Sec. 210. Report on Santa Barbara Streams, Lower Mission Creek,
California
This section directs the Secretary to provide Congress with
an updated economic review of the remaining portions of the
Lower Mission Creek, California, flood damage reduction
project, taking into consideration work already completed by
the non-Federal interest.
Sec. 211. Disposition study on Salinas Dam and Reservoir, California
This section clarifies the details to be included in a
disposition study carried out at Salinas Dam, California.
Sec. 212. Excess lands report for Whittier Narrows Dam, California
This section directs the Secretary to submit a report to
Congress that identifies excess property at Whittier Narrows
Dam that could be transferred to the city.
Sec. 213. Colebrook River Reservoir, Connecticut
This section directs the Secretary to submit a report to
Congress on the initial analysis of terminating a water supply
contract in Connecticut.
Sec. 214. Comprehensive Central and Southern Florida Study
This section authorizes a comprehensive study to improve or
modify existing water resources development projects in central
and southern Florida.
Sec. 215. Study on shellfish habitat and seagrass, Florida Central Gulf
Coast
This section directs the Secretary to study and report to
Congress 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.
Sec. 216. Northern estuaries ecosystem restoration, Florida
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out a
feasibility study to develop a comprehensive plan for
restoring, preserving, and protecting the northern estuaries of
Florida, defined as the Caloosahatchee Estuary, Charlotte
Harbor, Indian River Lagoon, Lake Worth Lagoon, and the St.
Lucie River Estuary.
Sec. 217. Report on South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Plan
Implementation
This section directs the Secretary to submit a report to
Congress that provides updates on the status of authorized
projects or studies within the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Plan
Integrated Delivery Schedule.
Sec. 218. Review of recreational hazards at Buford Dam, Lake Sidney
Lanier, Georgia
This section directs the Secretary to review and mitigate
threats to recreational safety at Buford Dam, Georgia.
Sec. 219. Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel, Louisiana
This section authorizes the Secretary to study the
inclusion of a dredged material disposal plan at the project
for navigation at Port Fourchon, Louisiana.
Sec. 220. Review of recreational hazards at the Banks of the
Mississippi River, Louisiana
This section directs the Secretary to review and mitigate
threats to recreational safety along the banks of the
Mississippi River, Louisiana.
Sec. 221. Hydraulic evaluation of Upper Mississippi River and Illinois
River
This section directs the Secretary to periodically study
the flow frequencies and water surface profiles for certain
rivers in the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River
basins.
Sec. 222. Disposition study on hydropower in the Willamette Valley,
Oregon
This section directs the Secretary to study the effects of
deauthorizing hydropower as an authorized project purpose at
dams in the Willamette Valley.
Sec. 223. Houston Ship Channel Expansion Channel Improvement Project,
Texas
This section directs the Secretary to expedite the review
of modifying the Houston Ship Channel Expansion to incorporate
the construction of certain barge lanes into the project.
Sec. 224. Sabine-Neches Waterway Navigation Improvement Project, Texas
This section directs the Secretary to expedite the review
of a feasibility study submitted by a non-federal sponsor for
authorization.
Sec. 225. Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia
This section directs the Secretary to expedite the review
of modifying the Norfolk Harbor and Channels project to
incorporate Anchorage F into the project.
Sec. 226. Coastal Virginia, Virginia
This section authorizes the Secretary to coordinate with
other federal agencies for inclusion of property owned or
operated by another federal agency in the scope of a water
resources development project study.
Sec. 227. Western infrastructure study
This section authorizes a comprehensive study at Corps
owned, operated, or managed reservoirs in arid Western states
to evaluate opportunities to improve water management, supply,
and preparedness for changes in hydrological conditions.
Sec. 228. Report on Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Small
Business Concerns
This section directs the Secretary to submit a report to
Congress on contracts and subcontracts between the Corps and
Small Disadvantaged Businesses.
Sec. 229. Report on Solar Energy Opportunities
This section directs the Secretary to identify
opportunities for integrating solar panels or floating solar at
certain Corps projects and properties.
Sec. 230. Assessment of coastal flooding mitigation modeling and
testing capacity
This section directs the Secretary to submit a report to
Congress on the Corps' ability to model coastal flood
mitigation systems and the effectiveness of the systems in
preventing flood damage from storm surge.
Sec. 231. Report to Congress on easements related to Water Resources
Development Projects
This section directs the Secretary to review its policies
and procedures related to the use of easements and to identify
potential opportunities for increased use of such easements in
future water resources development projects.
Sec. 232. Assessment of forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration
services on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers
This section directs the Secretary to assess the impacts of
authorizing non-federal interests to provide certain forest,
rangeland, and watershed restoration services on Corps lands.
Sec. 233. Electronic preparation and submission of applications
This section requires the Secretary to provide a quarterly
report updating the implementation status of integrating
electronic systems into certain Corps processes.
Sec. 234. Report on corrosion prevention activities
This section directs the Corps to report to Congress on
corrosion prevention activities at Corps projects.
Sec. 235. GAO studies on mitigation
This section authorizes two GAO studies on mitigation
activities and processes.
Sec. 236. GAO study on waterborne statistics
This section authorizes a GAO study on the collection and
quality of data associated with waterborne commerce.
Sec. 237. GAO study on the integration of information into the National
Levee Database
This section authorizes a GAO study on the sharing of levee
information and the integration of information into the
National Levee Database by the Corps and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) in accordance with section 9004 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2007.
Title III--Deauthorizations and Modifications
Sec. 301. Deauthorization of inactive projects
This section establishes a process for the deauthorization
of certain water resources development projects not yet
initiated or appropriated.
Sec. 302. Watershed and river basin assessments
This section includes additional assessment purposes and
locations for watershed-based studies under section 729 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
Sec. 303. Forecast-informed reservoir operations
This section authorizes additional locations for forecast-
informed reservoir operations.
Sec. 304. Lakes program
This section includes additional locations in the lakes
program authority under section 602 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986.
Sec. 305. Invasive Species
This section includes hydrilla under the Aquatic Invasive
Species Research authority of section 1108 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2018, and additional focus areas
under the Harmful Algal Bloom Demonstration Program, pursuant
to section 128 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020.
Sec. 306. Project reauthorizations
This section reauthorizes identified projects that were
previously deauthorized by Congress.
Sec. 307. St. Francis Lake Control Structure
This section directs the Secretary to establish the
ordinary high-water mark for water impounded behind the St.
Francis Lake Control Structure.
Sec. 308. Los Angeles County, California
This section authorizes funding for environmental
infrastructure in Los Angeles County, California.
Sec. 309. Deauthorization of designated portions of the Los Angeles
County Drainage Area, California
This section deauthorizes certain debris basins within the
project for flood risk management in Los Angeles County,
California.
Sec. 310. Murrieta Creek, California
This section modifies the project for flood control,
environmental restoration, and recreation, Murrieta Creek,
California.
Sec. 311. San Francisco Bay, California
This section clarifies additional areas for inclusion in
the study of San Francisco Bay, California.
Sec. 312. Columbia River Basin
This section clarifies the authority of the Secretary
related to the Columbia River Basin.
Sec. 313. Port Everglades, Florida
This section modifies the project for navigation at Port
Everglades, Florida.
Sec. 314. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
This section authorizes additional representatives to the
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force.
Sec. 315. Chicago Shoreline Protection
This section modifies the Chicago Shoreline Protection
project at Lake Michigan, Illinois.
Sec. 316. Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Project, Brandon
Road, Will County, Illinois
This section modifies the project for ecosystem restoration
at Brandon Road, Illinois.
Sec. 317. Southeast Des Moines Levee System, Iowa
This section conveys certain easements to the city of Des
Moines, Iowa, for completion of a flood protection project.
Sec. 318. Lower Mississippi Comprehensive Management Study
This section makes modifications to an authorized study in
the Lower Mississippi River.
Sec. 319. Lower Missouri River Streambank Erosion Control Evaluation
and Demonstration Projects
This section creates a demonstration program for new
methods and techniques that prevent erosion and protect or
stabilize streambanks.
Sec. 320. Missouri River Interception-Rearing Complexes
This section requires the Secretary to perform an analysis
of the impacts of interception-rearing complexes prior to
additional construction and a study of their effects on certain
species.
Sec. 321. Argentine, East Bottoms, Fairfax-Jersey Creek, and North
Kansas Levees units, Missouri River and Tributaries at Kansas
Cities, Missouri and Kansas
This section modifies 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.
Sec. 322. Missouri River Mitigation Project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa,
and Nebraska
This section clarifies that mitigation activities of other
federal agencies may be used fulfill the Corps' mitigation
responsibilities on the Missouri River.
Sec. 323. Northern Missouri
This section authorizes funding for environmental
infrastructure in Northern Missouri.
Sec. 324. Israel River, Lancaster, New Hampshire
This section deauthorizes a project in Lancaster, New
Hampshire.
Sec. 325. Middle Rio Grande Flood Protection, Bernalillo to Belen, New
Mexico
This section makes modifications to an authorized flood
control project at Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico.
Sec. 326. Southwestern Oregon
This section authorizes funding for environmental
infrastructure in Southwestern Oregon.
Sec. 327. Wolf River Harbor, Tennessee
This section deauthorizes a portion of the project for
navigation in Wolf River Harbor, Tennessee.
Sec. 328. Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, Texas
This section authorizes the Secretary to provide technical
assistance related to sediment removal at the Addicks and
Barker Reservoirs, Texas.
Sec. 329. Central West Virginia
This section modifies the geographic scope of the Central
West Virginia environmental infrastructure authority,
authorized by section 571 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999.
Sec. 330. Puget Sound, Washington
This section modifies the project for ecosystem
restoration, Puget Sound, Washington, authorized by section
1401(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016.
Sec. 331. Water level management pilot project on the Upper Mississippi
River and Illinois Waterway System
This section authorizes a pilot project on the management
of water levels to mitigate flooding or sedimentation impacts
and restore aquatic ecosystems.
Sec. 332. Upper Mississippi River Protection
This section clarifies the recommendations to be included
in a disposition study carried out at the Upper St. Anthony
Falls Lock and Dam.
Sec. 333. Treatment of certain benefits and costs
This section makes a technical change to an authority
enacted in the Water Resources Development Act of 2020.
Sec. 334. Debris removal
This section includes ecosystem restoration as an
authorized justification for debris removal.
Sec. 335. General reauthorizations
This section reauthorizes or extends authorizations for the
following Corps' authorities: Levee Safety Initiative; Transfer
of Excess Credit; Rehabilitation of Existing Levees; Invasive
Species in Alpine Lakes; and Environmental Banks.
Sec. 336. Conveyances
This section authorizes the Corps to convey real property
owned by the federal government in the following locations:
Rogers County, Oklahoma, and Corpus Christi, Texas.
Sec. 337. Environmental infrastructure
This section modifies existing authorizations for
environmental infrastructure projects and provides authority to
carry out additional environmental infrastructure projects.
Sec. 338. Additional assistance for critical projects
This section makes modifications to existing authorities
for environmental infrastructure and environmental restoration.
Sec. 339. Sense of Congress on lease agreement
This section expresses the sense of Congress related to a
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.
Title IV--Water Resources Infrastructure
Sec. 401. Project authorizations
This section authorizes 16 water resources projects that
have completed technical review by the Corps and are
recommended by the Chief of Engineers. The projects are
authorized to be carried out in accordance with the plan, and
subject to the conditions, described in the Chief's Reports.
The section also authorizes three modifications to previously
authorized projects.
[all]