Calendar No. 437
115TH CONGRESS"
2d Session

SENATE!

REPORT
115–258

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS
BILL, 2019

MAY 24, 2018.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. ALEXANDER, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted
the following

REPORT[To accompany S. 2975]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2975) making appropriations for energy and water development and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and forother purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that thebill do pass.
New obligational authority
Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $43,766,000,000
Amount of 2018 appropriations ............................... 60,582,716,000
Amount of 2019 budget estimate ............................ 31,610,121,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to—2018 appropriations .......................................... ¥16,816,716,000
2019 budget estimate ........................................ ∂12,155,879,000

30–148 PDF

CONTENTS
Page

Purpose .....................................................................................................................
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations .....................................................
Introduction ..............................................................................................................
Title I:
Department of Defense—Civil: Department of the Army:
Corps of Engineers—Civil:
Investigations .....................................................................................
Construction .......................................................................................
Mississippi River and Tributaries ....................................................
Operation and Maintenance ..............................................................
Regulatory Program ...........................................................................
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program .........................
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies ..........................................
Expenses .............................................................................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ..........
General Provisions—Corps of Engineers—Civil .....................................
Title II:
Department of the Interior:
Central Utah Project Completion Account ..............................................
Bureau of Reclamation:
Water and Related Resources ...........................................................
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund .........................................
California Bay-Delta Restoration ......................................................
Policy and Administration .................................................................
General Provisions—Department of the Interior ....................................
Title III:Department of Energy:
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ...............................................
Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response ..................
Nuclear Energy ..........................................................................................
Fossil Energy Research and Development ..............................................
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ...............................................
Strategic Petroleum Reserve ....................................................................
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve .....................................................
Energy Information Administration ........................................................
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup .....................................................
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund ..
Science ........................................................................................................
Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ........................................
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program ..................................
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program .............
Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program ................................................
Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs .........................................
Departmental Administration ..................................................................
Office of the Inspector General ................................................................
Weapons Activities ....................................................................................
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ...........................................................
Naval Reactors ..........................................................................................
Federal Salaries and Expenses ................................................................
Defense Environmental Cleanup .............................................................
Other Defense Activities ...........................................................................
Power Marketing Administrations:Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ...................................................................................................
(2)

4
4
4

11
17
25
27
47
47
48
48
48
49
49
51
59
60
60
61
65
78
81
84
91
91
91
91
91
92
92
98
99
99
100
100
100
101
102
105
107
108
108
111
112

3
Page

Title III—Continued
Department of Energy—Continued
Power Marketing Administrations—Continued
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration ....................................................
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund .................
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission .................................................
General Provisions—Department of Energy ...........................................
Title IV:
Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission ..........................................................
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board .................................................
Delta Regional Authority ..........................................................................
Denali Commission ...................................................................................
Northern Border Regional Commission ...................................................
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ..............................................................
Office of Inspector General ................................................................
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ..................................................
General Provisions ...........................................................................................
Title V: General Provisions .....................................................................................
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the
Senate ...................................................................................................................
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the
Senate ...................................................................................................................
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the
Senate ...................................................................................................................
Budgetary Impact of Bill .........................................................................................
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................

113
113
113
138
138
139
139
140
140
140
141
142
143
144
144
146
147
147
148

PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for fiscal
year 2019, beginning October 1, 2018 and ending September 30,
2019, for energy and water development, and for other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources development programs
and related activities of the Corps of Engineers’ civil works program in title I; for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation and Central Utah Project in title II; for the Departmentof Energy’s energy research and development activities, including
environmental restoration and waste management, and atomic energy defense activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration in title III; and for independent agencies and commissions,
including the Appalachian Regional Commission, Delta Regional
Authority, Denali Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in title IV.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The fiscal year 2019 budget estimates for the bill total$31,610,121,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The recommendation of the Committee totals $43,766,000,000. This is$12,155,879,000 above the budget estimates and $16,816,716,000
below the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.
The Committee notes the enacted appropriation for the current
fiscal year includes $17,419,716,000 in supplemental appropriation
for disaster relief requirements.
SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS
To develop this recommendation, the Committee held three budget hearings in April 2018 in connection with the fiscal year 2019budget requests for the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Administration, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The hearings provided officials from the agencies with an opportunity to present theadministration’s most pressing priorities to the Committee. The
Committee also invited and received recommendations from Senators and outside witnesses.
INTRODUCTION
The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development’s 302(b)allocation totals $43,766,000,000 of net budget authority for fiscal
year 2019, including adjustments, which represents an increase of$566,000,000 above fiscal year 2018 enacted levels. Within theamount recommended, $21,892,000,000 is classified as defense(050) spending and $21,874,000,000 is classified as non-defense(non-050) spending.
(4)5
The Committee’s recommendation includes funding for the highest priority activities across the agencies funded in the bill. The
recommendation includes funds for critical water infrastructure, including our Nation’s inland waterways, ports, and harbors; agricultural water supply and drought relief in the West; groundbreaking
scientific research and development, including world-class supercomputing; support for the Nation’s nuclear weapons, non-proliferation, and nuclear Navy programs; and critical economic development.

TITLE ICORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYCORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL
OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONThe Committee recommends $6,927,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers [Corps], an increase of $2,142,417,000 above the budget request.
The Committee’s recommendation sets priorities by supporting
our Nation’s water infrastructure. Specifically, the Committee recommendation provides adequate appropriations to utilize all of theestimated fiscal year 2019 revenues for the fifth consecutive year,
from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and for the fifth consecutive year meets the target prescribed in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 [WRRDA], as amended, forCorps projects eligible for Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds.
INTRODUCTION

The Corps’ civil works mission is to provide quality, responsive
engineering services to the Nation in peace and war. Approximately 23,000 civilians and about 290 military officers are responsible for executing the civil works mission. This bill only funds thecivil works functions of the Corps.
The Corps maintains our inland waterways, keeps our ports
open, manages a portion of our drinking water supply, provides
emission free electricity from dams, looks after many of our recreational waters, helps manage the river levels during flooding,provides environmental stewardship, and emergency response tonatural disasters. The annual net economic benefit generated by
the Corps’ civil works mission is estimated to be $109,830,000,000,
which equates to a return of about $16.60 for every $1 expended.
The Corps’ responsibilities include:—navigation systems, including 13,000 miles of deep draft channels, 12,000 miles of inland waterways, 239 lock chambers, and1,067 harbors which handle over 2.3 billion tons of cargo annually;—flood risk management infrastructure, including 709 dams,
14,700 miles of levees, and multiple hurricane and storm damage risk reduction projects along the coast;—municipal and industrial water supply storage at 136 projects
spread across 25 States;—environmental stewardship, infrastructure, and ecosystem restoration;(6)

7—recreation for approximately 370 million recreation visits per
year to Corps projects;—regulation of waters under Federal statutes; and—maintaining hydropower capacity of nearly 24,000 megawatts
at 75 projects.
ONGOING CORPS REFORM EFFORTS

The Committee commends the Corps for its several ongoing internal initiatives to change itself and improve how it delivers Civil
Works water infrastructure and related programs. Recent efforts tostreamline the processing of section 408 actions for alterations or
use of Corps Civil Works projects are vitally important. Importantchanges include maximum delegation of decision-making to thefield, narrowed scope for evaluating impacts and elimination of certain procedural requirements. For example, the requirement for asection 408 action for routine Operation and Maintenance waseliminated; the requirement for developing a 60-percent design before submitting an application for a 408 action has been eliminated; and a more limited application of navigational servitude to
408 actions which eliminated the need for numerous permits incoastal areas. The Director of Civil Works has also issued formal
direction to, among other things, operationalize risk-informed decisionmaking to change behavior by shifting from a moreregimented- and compliance-based paradigm to a more agile approach that allows for more project- and situation-specific adaptation based on risk after documenting any associated risks. The
Corps is also pursuing 12 specific actions to improve permitting efficiencies, including aggressive implementation of Executive Order
13807 (One Federal Decision); clarification of policy to consider removal of obsolete structures as creditable mitigation bank actions;alignment of section 404 or section 10 permits with section 408 actions; and establishment of a Lead District approach for projects
that cross multiple jurisdictions such as pipeline projects. The
Committee strongly encourages the continuation of these and otheraggressive actions to improve program and project delivery.
BUDGET STRUCTURE CHANGESThe fiscal year 2019 budget request for the Corps proposed numerous structural changes, including creation of two new accounts—Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and Inland Waterways
Trust Fund—and the shifting of various studies and projects between accounts. The Committee rejects all such proposed changes
and instead recommends funding for the requested studies andprojects in the accounts in which funding has traditionally been
provided. Unless expressly noted, the Committee recommends studies and projects remain at the funding levels included in the budget
request, but in different accounts than in the budget request. In
particular:—Projects requested in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund account are shown in the Construction, Mississippi River andTributaries, or Operation and Maintenance accounts, as appropriate;—Projects requested in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund account are shown in the Construction account;8—Dredged material management plans requested in the Investigations account are shown in the Operation and Maintenanceaccount;—Dam safety modification studies requested in the Investigations account are shown in the Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program in the Construction account;—Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program management costs requested in the Expenses account are shown in
the Construction account; and—Sand mitigation projects requested in the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund account are shown in the Construction account.
Additionally, the recommendation includes the Poplar Island,
Maryland beneficial use of dredged material project within the Environmental Restoration business line as in previous years.
If the Corps proposes budget structure changes in future fiscal
years, the proposal shall be accompanied by a display of the funding request in the traditional budget structure.
DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATIONThe budget request this year fails to adequately fund our nation’s harbors. The Committee is disappointed the fiscal year 2019budget request only proposes to spend $965 million for Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF]-related activities, which is $477
million below the spending target of $1,442,000,000 established by
WRRDA, as amended. For fiscal year 2019, the Committee recommends an estimated $1,528,401,000 for HMTF-related activities,
which exceeds the WRRDA spending target.
INLAND WATERWAYS SYSTEMThe Committee notes that the budget request only proposed tospend $5,250,000 of the estimated $105,000,000 deposits for fiscal
year 2019 into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund [IWTF]. This
would leave an estimated $99,750,000 of fiscal year 2019 deposits
unspent. By only proposing to fund one of the four ongoing construction projects that were funded last year, the budget request
disregards the existing Capital Investment Strategy and the advice
and recommendations of industry experts and professional engineers.
The Committee rejects the budget request’s proposal to reform
inland waterways financing by increasing the amount paid by commercial navigation users of inland waterways, particularly when
the administration fails to make full use of the fees already collected for this purpose.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING

The Committee recommends funding above the budget request
for Investigations, Construction, Operation and Maintenance, andMississippi River and Tributaries. This funding is for additional
work (including new starts) that either was not included in thebudget request or was inadequately budgeted. A study or project
may not be excluded from evaluation for additional funding forbeing inconsistent with administration policy.

9The administration is reminded these funds are in addition to its
budget request, and administration budget metrics shall not be areason to disqualify a study or project from being funded. The focusof the allocation process shall favor the obligation, rather than the
expenditure, of funds for work in fiscal year 2019.
Funding associated with each category may be allocated to any
eligible study or project, as appropriate, within that category; funding associated with each subcategory may be allocated only to eligible studies or projects, as appropriate, within that subcategory.
Work Plan.—Not later than 60 days after the date of enactmentof this act, the Corps shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a work plan consistent withthe following general guidance, as well as the specific direction theCommittee provides within each account: (1) a detailed descriptionof the rating system(s) developed and used to evaluate studies andprojects; (2) delineation of how these funds are to be allocated; (3)a summary of the work to be accomplished with each allocation, including phase of work and the study or project’s remaining cost tocomplete (excluding Operation and Maintenance); and (4) a list of
all studies and projects that were considered eligible for funding
but did not receive funding, including an explanation of whether
the study or project could have used funds in fiscal year 2019 andthe specific reasons each study or project was considered as being
less competitive for an allocation of funds.
The work plan shall include a single group of new starts for Investigations and Construction. None of the funds may be used forany item for which the Committee has specifically denied funding.
The Committee urges the Corps within its Flood and Coastal
Storm Damage Reduction mission to strive for a balance between
inland and coastal projects.
New Starts.—The recommendation includes seven new study
starts and six new construction starts to be distributed across theauthorized mission areas of the Corps. Of the new starts in Investigations, two shall be for navigation studies, two shall be for floodand storm damage reduction studies, one shall be for an environmental restoration study, and two shall be for navigation, flood andstorm damage reduction, environmental restoration, or multi-purpose studies. Of the new study starts for navigation, one shall be
for a Small, Remote, or Subsistence Harbor. Of the new study
starts for flood and storm damage reduction, one shall be for a
multi-purpose watershed study to assess coastal resiliency. Of the
new construction starts, one shall be for a navigation project, one
shall be for a flood and storm damage reduction project, one shallbe for an additional navigation or flood and storm damage reduction project, two shall be for environmental restoration projects,
and one shall be for a navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, environmental restoration, or multi-purpose project.
As all new starts are to be chosen by the Corps, all shall be considered of equal importance, and the expectation is that futurebudget submissions will include appropriate funding for all newstarts selected.
A study is not completed until preconstruction engineering anddesign [PED] is completed. No new start or new investment decision shall be required when moving from feasibility to PED. When

10evaluating proposals for new feasibility studies, the Corps is encouraged to give priority to those studies with executed Feasibility
Cost Sharing Agreements and a sponsor with the ability to provide
any necessary cost share for the study phase. The Corps is encouraged to support opportunities to restore critical habitat and enhance the Nation’s economic development, job growth, and international competitiveness.
A new construction start shall not be required for work undertaken to correct a design deficiency on an existing Federal project;
it shall be considered ongoing work.
ASIAN CARPThe Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall make every effort to submit to Congress the Report of
the Chief of Engineers for the Brandon Road feasibility study according to the original published schedule of February 2019. The
Corps is encouraged to allocate sufficient funding provided in thisact to ensure the Report of the Chief of Engineers for the Brandon
Road feasibility study is published in this timeframe. The Corps isalso directed to provide quarterly updates to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on the progress and status of efforts to prevent the further spread of Asian carp as wellas the location and density of carp populations, including the useof emergency procedures.
The Corps shall continue to collaborate with the U.S. Coast
Guard, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of Illinois, andmembers of the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee to
identify and evaluate whether navigation protocols would be beneficial or effective in reducing the risk of vessels inadvertently carrying aquatic invasive species, including Asian carp, through theBrandon Road Lock and Dam in Joliet, Illinois. Any findings ofsuch an evaluation shall be included in the quarterly briefings to
the Committees. The Corps is further directed to implement navigation protocols shown to be effective at reducing the risk of entrainment without jeopardizing the safety of vessels and crews
within 90 days of enactment of this act. The Corps and other Federal and State agencies are conducting ongoing research on potential solutions.
UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMSThe Committee is concerned by a U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement bulletin published in 2017 that confidently assesses
that a Chinese unmanned aerial systems (UAS) manufacturer wasusing its products to provide critical infrastructure data to the Chinese Government. The Corps shall immediately determine whether
UAS that were the subject of the August 2017 bulletin are currently in use and report back to the Committee within 180 days.
Due to the critical infrastructure funded in this bill that has an extensive national security component, any vulnerability to foreign
surveillance is a serious concern to this Committee and the Corps
shall prioritize purchases of American-made UAS in the future.

11
REPROGRAMMINGThe Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation provided in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2018.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

The Committee did not accept or include congressionally directed
spending, as defined in section 5(a) of rule XLIV of the Standing
Rules of the Senate. However, the Committee has recommended
additional programmatic funds for Investigations, Construction,
Operations and Maintenance, and Mississippi River and Tributaries to address deficiencies in the budget request. In some cases,
these additional funds have been included within defined categories, as in prior years, and are described in more detail in theirrespective sections below.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTThe Corps shall provide a monthly report to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, which includes the total
budget authority and unobligated balances by year for each program, project, or activity, including any prior year appropriations.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) shall provide
a monthly report to the Committees on Appropriations of bothHouses of Congress, which includes the total budget authority andunobligated balances by year for each activity funded in the Officeof the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) account, including any prior year appropriations.
INVESTIGATIONSAppropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$123,000,000
82,000,000
123,000,000

The Committee recommends $123,000,000 for Investigations, anincrease of $41,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee’s
recommendation allows the Corps to begin seven new feasibility
study starts.
INTRODUCTION

Funding in this account is used to develop feasibility and PED
studies to address the Nation’s water infrastructure needs, in support of project authorization. The Committee recognizes that thebudget request does not provide adequate funding for Investigations, and specifically PED funding, to allow many of America’s
most important waterways to move efficiently from planning toconstruction. The Committee therefore recommends additional
funding to be used to seamlessly continue feasibility studies into
the PED study phase.
NEW STARTS

The Corps is directed to designate new starts in accordance withthe direction in the front matter under the heading ‘‘Additional
Funding’’.

12
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The table below displays the budget request and the Committee’s
recommendation for Investigations.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS[In thousands of dollars]
Project title

Budgetestimate

Committee
recommendation

ALABAMA
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL ......................................................................
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL ......................................................................................

100
250

........................
........................

298

298

200

200

1,500

........................

100

100

825

825

300
355

........................
355

350
750

........................
........................

10,265
1,500
1,500
1,500

........................
........................
........................
........................

2,675
250
50
1,500
603
200
1,500

2,675
........................
50........................
603
200........................

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AT NORTH LANDING, VA ........
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ............................................................................................................

1,600
300

1,600
........................

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES .............................................................................

28,4716,906........................
........................
........................
........................

7,500
5,000
2,000
9,823

CALIFORNIA
EAST SAN PEDRO BAY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA ..........................................................
ILLINOISINTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES–MISSISSIPPI RIVER.
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES, IL, IN, OH & WI (BRANDON ROAD) ................................
INDIANAMISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN ..........................................................................................................
IOWA
GRAND RIVER BASIN, IA & MO ...............................................................................................
NEW MEXICORIO GRANDE, SANDIA PUEBLO TO ISLETA PUEBLO, NM .........................................................
NEW YORKBUFFALO HARBOR, NY .............................................................................................................
HUDSON RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, NY ...........................................................................
OHIO
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ........................................................................................................
DELAWARE LAKE, OH ...............................................................................................................
OREGONCOLUMBIA RIVER TREATY 2024 IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................
COUGAR LAKE, OR ...................................................................................................................
HILLS CREEK, OR ....................................................................................................................
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR ......................................................................................................
TEXAS
COASTAL TEXAS PROTECTION AND RESTORATION STUDY, TX ................................................
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ......................................................................................
GIWW– BRAZOS RIVER FLOODGATES & COLORADO RIVER LOCK, TX ....................................
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX ...............................................................................................................
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX ..................................................................................................
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX .............................................................................................
PROCTOR LAKE, TX ..................................................................................................................
VIRGINIAREMAINING ITEMSADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORKFLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION ......................................................................
FLOOD CONTROL ...................................................................................................
SHORE PROTECTION ..............................................................................................
NAVIGATION ....................................................................................................................

13
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Project title

Budgetestimate

Committee
recommendation

COASTAL AND DEEP–DRAFT ..................................................................................
INLAND ...................................................................................................................
OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES .....................................................................
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE ................................................
COORDINATION STUDIES WITH OTHER AGENCIES ...................................................................
ACCESS TO WATER DATA ...............................................................................................
COMMITTEE ON MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ...................................................

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
360
50

9,000
6,000
5,000
5,500
........................
360
50

400
400
100
400
1,000
100
5,000

400
400
100
400
1,000
100
8,000

250
1,000
80
230
15,000
500
125
200
75
50
550
1,000
16,258

250
1,000
80
230
15,000
500
125
200
75
50
550
1,000
25,000DISPOSITION OF COMPLETED PROJECTS ........................................................................
NATIONAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ..........................................................
NATIONAL SHORELINE MANAGEMENT STUDY .................................................................
PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM ......................................................................................
TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM ...................................................................................

1,000
5,000
400
3,500
500

1,000
5,000
400
3,500
1,500

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ...................................................................................

53,528116,093

ACCOUNTING ADJUSTMENT ....................................................................................

1

1

GRAND TOTAL ...................................................................................................

82,000123,000

OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMSCOORDINATION WITH OTHER WATER RESOURCE AGENCIES .................................
INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ......................................................
INTERAGENCY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................
INVENTORY OF DAMS ............................................................................................
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS ......................................................................................
FERC LICENSING ...................................................................................................
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES ................................................................................
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATAAUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI–CADD ...........................................
COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES ....................................................................................
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA .....................................................................................................
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES ..........................................................................
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES ....................................................................................................
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES ...................................................................................
PRECIPITATION STUDIES .................................................................................................
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT ................................
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS ....................................................
STREAM GAGING .............................................................................................................
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ...........................................................................................
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ...............................................................................................
OTHER—MISCELLANEOUS

Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project.—The Committee continues to support this vital project to protect drinking water supplies in eastern Miami-Dade County from saltwater intrusion andto enhance the coastal and marine ecology of Biscayne Bay and theoffshore coral reef system. The Committee notes support from
Miami-Dade County and the South Florida Water Management
District to incorporate highly treated, reclaimed wastewater as anadditional source of freshwater to assist the rehydration of thesecoastal wetlands. The Committee encourages the Corps to consider
the incorporation of this potential source of freshwater into further
study, design, and construction of the project and to evaluate thepotential to use additional volumes of reclaimed wastewater to restore freshwater artesian springs within the Bay through underground injection to the shallow, underlying aquifer.

14
Bubbly Creek.—The Committee encourages the Corps to resume
its study of the revitalization of the South Fork of the South
Branch of the Chicago River (known as ‘‘Bubbly Creek’’) now that
the Environmental Protection Agency has completed its evaluationof the study area and removed the site from its Superfund program.
Disposition of Completed Projects.—Disposition studies not included in the budget request that have a non-federal interest who
has expressed interest in assuming responsibility for a facility shallbe considered eligible for additional funding provided in this account. The Committee understands the Corps recommended no action for the Upper Monongahela and Allegheny River Studies in2017. No funds provided may be used to take any action on the recommendations from the Upper Monongahela and Allegheny River
Studies.
Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island.—The Corps has completed the supplemental chief’s report and is awaiting approval from the administration before budgeting for the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island
Project (James and Barren Islands). The Committee encourages theCorps to provide funding for PED for this project through the annual budget process or with additional funds.
Puget Sound Nearshore Study.—The Committee encourages theCorps to proceed with the tiered implementation strategy using all
existing authorities as outlined in the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Feasibility Study, Completion Strategy
Guidance dated June 2015. The Corps is further directed to recognize the Puget Sound Nearshore Study as the feasibility component
for the purposes of Section 544 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The Committee notes that the WIIN Act authorized construction of the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project, and reminds the Corps that no new start, new investment decision, or new phase decision shall be required to movethis project from feasibility to PED.
Rahway River Basin (Upper Basin), New Jersey.—There has been
an agreement to provide further analysis of the Rahway River
Basin Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study led by the Corps’
New England District. The Corps is encouraged to include funding
in the fiscal year 2019 work plan to complete the necessary detailed analysis in conjunction with cost sharing agreements with
the non-federal sponsor.
Research and Development.—The Committee recommends additional funding for increasing collaboration research partnerships toadvance the capability to evaluate methods for restoring ecosystemconservation.
Research and Development, Additional Topic—Urban Flood Damage Reduction and Stream Restoration in Arid Regions.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the Corps’ Flood &Coastal Systems research and development [R&D] program to continue its focus on the management of water resources infrastructure and projects that promote public safety, reduce risk, improve
operational efficiencies, reduce flood damage, sustain the environment, and position our water resource infrastructure to be managed as adaptable systems due to the implications of hydrologic uncertainties. The R&D program shall also continue its focus on

15
science and technology efforts to address needs for resilient water
resources infrastructure, specifically as impacted by post-wildfire
conditions including increased sedimentation and debris flow. The
tools and technologies developed under this program shall also be
applicable to other parts of the country.
Research and Development, Additional Topic.—The Committee
recognizes the importance of sustainable oyster reefs for protecting
vital navigation channels and coastal infrastructure, supporting
commercial fisheries, and maintaining healthy ecosystems. Recent
restoration efforts have not achieved the intended success for U.S.
oyster populations, and the identification of effective restoration
strategies remains a critical gap. The Corps is encouraged to develop partnerships with research universities to leverage expertiseand enhance the Engineer Research and Development Center’s
mission.
San Francisco Waterfront Seawall.—The Committee is deeply
concerned that the seawall protecting over three miles of San Francisco’s waterfront and the city’s financial district is in disrepair andat risk of failure. The Seawall provides essential flood protection
for 24 million residents and visitors, $100,000,000,000 in real estate and economic activity, and the confluence of several rail transportation lines. The Committee understands the Corps first determined there was a Federal interest in the project in 2016 and has
begun the Continuing Authorities Program section 103 project toaddress the highest priority areas first. Given expected sea levelrise, increasing earthquake risk, and the unstable nature of the
Seawall’s Bay Mud infill foundation, the Committee strongly urges
the Corps to prioritize work on this critical life safety project.
Study of Water Resources Development Projects by Non-Federal
Interests.—Section 1126 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements
for the Nation Act of 2016 [WIIN Act] allows the Secretary, at therequest of a non-federal interest, to provide technical assistance relating to any aspect of a feasibility study if the non-federal interest
contracts with the Secretary to pay all costs of providing such technical assistance. The Committee has heard concerns that the Corps
is not providing technical assistance consistent with the spirit ofthis provision and directs the Corps to brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on the perceived limitations to providing (1) review and comment of a non-federal interest’s draft work products by Corps staff at the District and Divisionlevels, (2) Corps District staff preparation of work products and assistance to the non-federal interest in preparing work products, (3)assistance in obtaining public review and comments, and (4) consultation and coordination with other State and Federal agencies
and affected Native American Tribes on environmental, permitting,and cultural resource compliance matters.
Study on Performance of Innovative Materials.—Section 1173 of
the WIIN Act required the Secretary to enter into a contract with
the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of
Sciences ‘‘to develop a proposal to study the use and performanceof innovative materials in water resources development projects
carried out by the Corps of Engineers.’’ The Committee encourages
the Corps to prioritize commencing this work with the National
Academy of Sciences.

16
Upper Des Plaines River and Tributaries Project.—The Committee is aware that the project area was flooded with record highcrests overflowing the Des Plaines River last summer, resulting indamage to more than 3,200 residences. The Committee urges theCorps to move forward with design of the flood damage reduction
project, while the non-federal sponsor prepares a proposal for advance work on a number of flood features under Section 204 of theWater Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended.
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System.—The Committee is concerned that despite longstanding bipartisan support
from Congress for the Navigation Ecosystem Sustainability Program [NESP], the Corps has failed to move forward on this project.
The Committee recognizes that an updated economic analysis of
the project is necessary to produce a benefit-to-cost ratio [BCR],
which will inform how the Corps is able to move forward to construction of the project. The Corps is directed to determine the necessary cost and scope of this analysis and report to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on their findings
within 30 days of enactment of this act. This analysis shall also
consider the benefits of potentially re-scoping the project.
Water Quality and Salinity Impacts on Oyster Reefs.—The Committee encourages the Corps, when conducting or reviewing environmental assessments or environmental impact statements fornavigation or coastal restoration projects in areas where oyster
reefs exist, to consider water quality and salinity impacts on those
reefs and, when appropriate, to mitigate any negative impacts. The
Committee also looks forward to the Corps’ completion of the Congressionally-required assessment and report on the beneficial useof dredged material as substrate for oyster reef development.
Willamette River.—The Committee directs the Corps to prioritize
the restoration floodplain and aquatic habitat through cost-effective
and tested means, such as fish-passage and culvert enhancement
for salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee recommendation includes $41,000,000 in additional funds for Investigations. From these additional funds, the Corps is authorized to
begin seven new feasibility studies. The Corps is directed to allocate these additional funds in accordance with the direction in thefront matter under the heading ‘‘Additional Funding’’. Of the additional funding provided in this account, not less than $16,500,000
shall be allocated to PED activities. Of the additional funding recommended in this account for Navigation and Coastal and Deep
Draft Navigation, the Corps shall allocate not less than $2,500,000
for Navigation PED. Additionally, the Corps shall comply with thefollowing direction in allocating funds made available for Investigations:—When evaluating ongoing studies for funding, the Corps shallconsider completing or accelerating ongoing studies or to initiating new studies that will enhance the Nation’s economic development, job growth, and international competitiveness; arefor projects located in areas that have suffered recent natural
disasters; are for projects the protect life and property; or are
for projects to address legal requirements.

17—The Corps shall consider giving priority to flood and storm
damage reduction studies related to preserving National Historic Landmarks that are threatened by shoreline erosion.
—The Corps shall include appropriate requests for funding in future budget submissions for PED and new feasibility studies
initiated in fiscal year 2019. The Corps shall prepare the budget to reflect study completions, defined as completion of PED.
—Funding shall be available for existing studies, including studies in the PED phase, and the updating of economic analyses
and cost estimates for studies that have received appropriations. Ongoing studies that are actively progressing and canutilize the funding in a timely manner are eligible for these additional funds.
CONSTRUCTION

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$2,085,000,000
871,733,000
2,161,000,000

The Committee recommends $2,161,000,000 for Construction, an
increase of $1,289,267,000 from the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation allows the Corps to select six new construction starts to begin in fiscal year 2019.
INTRODUCTION

Funding in this account is used for construction, major rehabilitation, and related activities for water resources development
projects having navigation, flood and storm damage reduction,water supply, hydroelectric, environmental restoration, and otherattendant benefits to the Nation. Funds to be derived from the
HMTF will be applied to cover the Federal share of the Dredged
Material Disposal Facilities Program.
NEW STARTS

The Corps is directed to designate new starts in accordance withthe direction in the front matter under the heading ‘‘Additional
Funding’’.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The table below displays the budget request and Committee’s
recommendation for Construction:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item
Construction

HMTF

IWTF

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

Committee
recommendation

CALIFORNIAAMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES, NATOMASBASIN, CA .................................................................
HAMILTON CITY, CA ......................................................
ISABELLA LAKE, CA .......................................................
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA ................................
YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA ................................................

42,0006,000
118,000
15,00035,50042,0006,000
118,000
15,00035,500

18
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate

Committee
recommendation

Item
Construction

HMTF

IWTF

DELAWARE
DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET TOLEWIS BEACH, DE .....................................................

........................

150........................

150

96,000........................

........................

96,00067,500........................

........................

67,500........................
49,00010,500........................

........................
........................

10,50049,00029,750........................

5,250

35,00033,170........................

........................

33,17010,000........................

........................

10,00040,000........................

........................

40,000ASSATEAGUE, MD ..........................................................
POPLAR ISLAND, MD .....................................................

........................
........................

600
21,000........................
........................

600
21,000MASSACHUSETTSBOSTON HARBOR, MA ...................................................

15,105........................

........................

15,105........................
5,000

7,200
........................

........................
........................

7,200
5,000

28,000........................

........................

28,00014,000........................

........................

14,00011,90813,00055,000........................
........................
........................

........................
........................
........................

11,90813,00055,00046,00025,000........................
........................

........................
........................

46,00025,000BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ...................................................

7,810........................

........................

7,810

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ...................

762,743

39,4505,250

807,443........................
........................

........................
........................

........................
........................

150,000
150,000

FLORIDA
HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL) .......
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (EVERGLADES), FL ..............................................................
GEORGIASAVANNAH HARBOR DISPOSAL AREAS, GA & SC .........
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA ............................
ILLINOISOLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY .......
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN,
MO & WI ...................................................................
IOWAMISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA,
KS, MO, MT, NE, ND & SD .......................................
KENTUCKYROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY ................................................
MARYLANDNEW JERSEYCAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ .................
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB–BASIN, NJ
OREGONCOLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA ...............
PENNSYLVANIA
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA .....................
TEXAS
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX .......................
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ...........................
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX .....................................................
WASHINGTONCOLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID
(CRFM) ......................................................................
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA .............................................
WEST VIRGINIAREMAINING ITEMSADDITIONAL FUNDING.
FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION ...........
FLOOD CONTROL .........................................

19
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate

Committee
recommendation

Item
Construction

HMTF

IWTF

SHORE PROTECTION ....................................
NAVIGATION ..........................................................
INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND REVENUES ....
OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES ...........
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE ..................................................
ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE ............
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM ...........................
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAMAQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION
206) .................................................................
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204) ........................................................
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINEPROTECTION (SECTION 14) .............................
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) ........
MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGES (SECTION 111)
NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107) ................
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF
THE ENVIRONMENT (SECTION 1135) ...............
SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103) ....................
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION
PROGRAM .................................................................
EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ........................................
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—BOARD EXPENSE .......................................................................
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—CORPS EXPENSE .......................................................................
RESTORATION OF ABANDONED MINES ..........................

........................
........................
........................
........................

........................
........................
........................
........................

........................
........................
........................
........................

50,000500,250
122,750
70,000........................
........................
........................

........................
........................
........................

........................
........................
........................

50,00075,00012,0001,500........................

........................

10,000........................

500........................

8,317........................
500........................
........................

........................
........................
........................
........................

........................
........................
........................
........................

8,000
8,000
500
8,000

1,000
........................

........................
........................

........................
........................

8,000
3,000

88,65517,000........................
........................

........................
........................

100,405
17,00060........................

........................

60

275........................

........................
........................

........................
........................

275
2,000

SUBTOTAL ........................................................

108,990500........................

1,353,557

TOTAL ...............................................................

871,733

39,9505,250

2,161,000

Aquatic Plant Control Program.—Of the funding recommended
for the Aquatic Plant Control Program, $1,000,000 shall be for activities for the control of flowering rush. Of the funding recommended for the Aquatic Plant Control Program, $5,000,000 shallbe for nationwide research and development to address invasive
aquatic plants; within this funding, the Corps is encouraged to support cost-shared aquatic plant management programs. Of the funding recommended for the Aquatic Plant Control Program,$6,000,000 shall be for watercraft inspection stations, as authorized
by section 1039 of the WRRDA, and related monitoring.
Camp Ellis Beach, Saco, Maine.—The Committee is concerned by
the continued delay in implementing a solution at Camp Ellis
Beach in Saco, Maine. To address continued erosion which has destroyed 37 homes to date, the Committee is aware that the Corps’
initial study recommended a shore damage mitigation project consisting of a 750-foot-long spur jetty, and placement of about
360,000 cubic yards of beach fill along the beach. The Committee
is further aware that the project’s design and costs are under review and being updated in preparation of a new report to Congressdetailing a path ahead on the project. Accordingly, the Committee
directs the Secretary to expeditiously submit this report to theCommittees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. This re-20port shall include any additional legislative authorities necessary
for the project to be approved and constructed.
Caño Martı́n Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project, San Juan,
Puerto Rico.—The Committee recognizes the importance of theCaño Martı́n Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project to residents’
health and wellbeing, the local economy and environment, and the
reduction of coastal flood and storm damage risk. The Committee
encourages the Corps to include appropriate funding in futurebudget requests and to coordinate closely with non-federal interestsin Puerto Rico to minimize project planning and construction
delays.
Central Everglades Planning Project.—The Committee recognizes
the importance of restoring America’s Everglades, and urges theCorps to expedite the required validation report for the Central Everglades Planning Project and begin PED work and construction on
PPA South as soon as practicable to complement the efforts of theSouth Florida Water Management District.
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illinois.—
The issue of hydrologic separation should be fully studied by theCorps and vetted by the appropriate congressional authorizing committees and specifically enacted into law. No funds provided in thisact may be used for construction of hydrologic separation measures.
Columbia River Fish Mitigation.—The Committee understands
the Pacific Lamprey are a culturally and ecologically important fish
species to Pacific Northwest Tribal nations. The Corps and several
Tribal nations have worked in partnership for years to develop andexecute a Pacific Lamprey conservation program in the ColumbiaRiver basin, focused on implementing passage improvements. In
part these activities have made it unnecessary for this species tobe listed under the Endangered Species Act, however, adult returns
remain low. The Committee understands the Corps is currently
crafting a status report on these Pacific Lamprey improvements,
and identifying possible activities to support Pacific Lamprey passage. The Committee directs the Corps to uphold the agency’s Tribal treaty responsibilities by working with relevant Tribal nations todevelop and implement a plan based on the status report to support efforts to restore the Pacific Lamprey.
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan [CERP]—IndianRiver Lagoon-South.—The Committee recognizes the importance of
restoring America’s Everglades, and eliminating discharges from
Lake Okeechobee that help fuel harmful algal blooms in the St.
Lucie River and Indian River Lagoon. The Committee urges theCorps to expedite preparations for design work on the C–23 and C–
24 Reservoirs that, along with the C–44 Reservoir, will serve as
crucial elements of the Indian River Lagoon-South CERP project tocollect and clean discharges before they enter the Lagoon.
Continuing Authorities Program.—The Committee recommends$53,817,000 for the Continuing Authorities Program [CAP], an increase of $50,817,000 from the budget request. CAP is a useful tool
for the Corps to undertake small localized projects without being
encumbered by the lengthy study and authorization phases typicalof most Corps projects. Within the CAP and to the extent alreadyauthorized by law, the Corps is encouraged to consider projects
that enhance coastal and ocean ecosystem resiliency. The manage-

21
ment of CAP should continue consistent with direction provided inprevious fiscal years.
Cook County Environmental Infrastructure.—The Committee isaware of the high level of interest in Cook County for additional
resources for the Section 219 Cook County Infrastructure Project.
Given Cook County’s population of 5.2 million people, the Committee urges the Corps to support the project at a higher funding
level to address the wide and expansive range of needs in thisCounty.
Dam Safety Assurance and Seepage/Static Instability Correction
Program.—The Committee rejects the budget request proposal regarding Herbert Hoover Dike, which would make funds provided inthis program available only if the State of Florida commits certain
funds. Consistent with long-standing congressional direction, theCorps may not require funding in excess of legally required costshares for studies and projects as a criterion for funding decisions.
The Corps shall apply dam safety funds to the highest priority
projects.
Howard Hanson Dam.—The Committee is aware that the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] is preparing a Biological
Opinion [BiOp] to determine the impact of ongoing operations ofHoward Hanson Dam, including the Howard Hanson Dam—Additional Water Storage Project, on Endangered Species Act [ESA]listed species and is engaging in consultations with the Corps. The
Committee is also aware that an updated BiOp is anticipated infiscal year 2018. The Committee encourages the Corps to continue
consultations with NMFS and urges the Corps to work with resource co-managers to develop interim and long-term measures tomaintain fish runs past Howard Hanson Dam, while upholding
ESA and municipal and industrial water supply responsibilities.
La Grange Lock and Dam.—The Corps is directed to brief theCommittee not later than 30 days after the enactment of this act
on the current status of this project.
Levee Safety Program.—The Committee noted in the report for
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 that it is concerned that
the Corps has not taken steps to implement the levee safety initiatives required under WRRDA. The Committee directed the Corps,
in conjunction with FEMA, to put together a plan of action by June21, 2018, that includes tangible milestones for how the Agencies
will meet the requirements under WRRDA section 3016. The Committee has not yet received a progress report and directs the Corps
to provide an update within 30 days after enactment of this act.
McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.—The Committee encourages the Corps to use McCook Reservoir as a test pilot for the
Non-Federal Implementation Pilot Program under WRRDA section
1043.
Metro East Levees.—The Committee is disappointed by the lackof funding provided to the Metro East levee system. This levee rehabilitation project will help protect communities in the Metro East
region from rising waters on the Mississippi River. The Committee
urges the Corps to include funding for the Metro East levee systemin the Corps’ fiscal year 2019 work plan.
Mud Mountain Dam.—The Committee commends the Corps for
initiating construction to support the October 2014 Mud Mountain

22
BiOp and mitigate the impact of the ongoing operation of Mud
Mountain Dam on species listed under ESA by replacing the barrier structure and building a new fish passage facility. The Committee notes with interest that the Corps awarded a contract forthe construction of the fish passage facility in March 2018, and reminds the Corps that complex, multi-year construction projects require consistent funding. Therefore, the Committee encourages theCorps to uphold the agency’s ESA and Tribal treaty responsibilities
by requesting sufficient funding in future budgets to complete construction of the fish passage facility by 2020 and fully implement
the BiOp requirements.
Napa River.—The Committee urges the Corps to expeditiously
complete the Determination of Federal Interest in coordination
with the local sponsor and to continue construction through completion of the justified and necessary elements of the project. The
Committee also urges the Corps to prioritize repairs of the defective floodgates.
Natural Infrastructure Options.—The Committee directs theCorps to engage with State and local government and non-profit organizations, where appropriate, on projects in diverse geographic
areas to evaluate the effectiveness of a variety of natural infrastructure options, such as shellfish reef and natural vegetation, inorder to promote resiliency and reduce damage from coastal erosion, storm surge, and flooding. Such features should be incorporated into approved projects where appropriate and effective.
Oyster Restoration.—The Committee supports Gulf Coast oyster
restoration efforts and the Chesapeake Bay Oyster Restoration Program and encourages the Corps to provide sufficient funding in future budget submissions or the fiscal year 2019 work plan.
Prioritization of Projects in Drought-Stricken Areas.—The Committee urges the Corps to prioritize any authorized projects thatwould alleviate water supply issues in areas that have been afflicted by severe droughts in the last three fiscal years, to include
projects focused on the treatment of brackish water.
Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment.—
Within the Section 1135 Continuing Authorities Program authority
and to the extent already authorized by law, the Committee urges
the Corps to give priority to projects that restore degraded wetland
habitat and stream habitat impacted by construction of Corps levees with executed Feasibility Cost Share Agreements.
Public-Private Partnerships.—The Committee notes that theChief of Engineers continues to express strong support for publicprivate partnerships as a method to reduce the Federal cost of future construction projects. In 2018, Congress directed the Corps toissue its policy on how proposals for public-private partnerships
will be considered by the Corps and how these partnerships will beincorporated into budget policy. The Corps is directed to prioritize
completion of this policy to meet the September 18, 2018 deadline.
Rehabilitation of Corps Constructed Dams.—The Committee isaware that implementation guidance for section 1177 of the WIIN
Act is awaiting approval from the administration. The Corps is directed to submit this implementation guidance to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress as expeditiously as
possible.

23
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Justification Sheet Accuracy.—The Committee, the Department of the Interior, and nonfederal project sponsors rely on accurate and timely budget information for South Florida Ecosystem Restoration [SFER] projects
from the Corps. The Committee directs the Corps to carefully ensure the accuracy of all budget justification sheets that inform
SFER Integrated Financial Plan documents for fiscal year 2019 bySeptember 30, 2018.
South San Francisco Bay Shoreline.—The Committee was deeply
disappointed by the lack of a new construction start in the fiscal
year 2019 budget request for the first phase of the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline project and the lack of funding for a feasibility
study of the next phase of the project. This project provides criticalflood protection to communities, businesses, and municipal structures in Santa Clara County. In addition, this project will restore
approximately 2,900 acres of former salt production ponds to tidal
marsh habitat and improve recreational access to surrounding communities. The Committee strongly urges the Corps to prioritize
progress on this project with additional funding allocated throughthe fiscal year 2019 work plan or with recently appropriated disaster funds.
The Dalles Dam.—The Committee is aware that Section 204 of
the Flood Control Act of 1950 (Public Law 81–516) authorized theconstruction of the Dalles Dam on the Columbia River. The original
project authorization recognized that construction of the Dalles
would result in population dislocations and that Indian villages
would necessarily have to be relocated. The original authorization
intended that the Corps would build a new Indian village in response to the dislocation of Tribes. It is not the Committee’s intent
to expand the Corps’ mission. Rather, the Committee intends that
the Corps uphold its responsibility to Tribes as was originally intended when Congress authorized the Dalles by mitigating the impacts of a Corps project to Tribes.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,289,267,000 in additional funds for Construction above the budget request. The Corps shall allocate these
additional funds in accordance with the direction in the front matter under the heading ‘‘Additional Funding’’. Of the additional
funding provided for flood and storm damage reduction, flood control, and environmental restoration or compliance, the Corps shallallocate not less than $15,400,000 for projects for hurricane andstorm damage risk reduction and environmental restoration withboth structural and nonstructural project elements. Of the additional funds recommended in this account for flood and storm damage reduction and flood control, the Corps shall allocate not lessthan $20,000,000 to continue construction of projects which principally include improvements to rainfall drainage systems that address flood damages. Of the additional funds recommended in thisaccount for flood and storm damage reduction, navigation, andother authorized project purposes, the Corps shall allocate not lessthan $30,000,000 to authorized reimbursements for projects withexecuted project partnership agreements and that have completed
construction or where non-Federal sponsors intend to use the funds
for additional water resource development activities. Of the addi-

24tional funds recommended in this account, no less than $1,800,000
is to complete a plan for a purpose outside of the Corps’ traditional
mission.
When allocating the additional funding provided in this account,
the Corps is encouraged to evaluate authorized reimbursements inthe same manner as if the projects were being evaluated for new
or ongoing construction and shall consider giving priority to the following:—Benefits of the funded work to the national economy;—Extent to which the work will enhance national, regional, or
local economic development;—Number of jobs created directly by the funded activity;—Ability to obligate the funds allocated within the calendar year,
including consideration of the ability of the non-Federal sponsor to provide any required cost share;—Ability to complete the project, separable element, or project
phase with the funds allocated;—Legal requirements, including responsibilities to Tribes;—For flood and storm damage reduction projects (including authorized nonstructural measures and periodic beach renourishments),—Population, economic activity, or public infrastructure at risk,
as appropriate, and—The severity of risk of flooding or the frequency with which anarea as experienced flooding;—For shore protection projects, projects in areas that have suffered severe beach erosion requiring additional sand placement
outside of the normal beach renourishment cycle or in which
the normal beach renourishment cycle has been delayed;—For navigation projects, the number of jobs or level of economic
activity to be supported by completion of the project, separable
element, or project phase;—For projects cost hared with the IWTF, the economic impact on
the local, regional, and national economy if the project is notfunded, as well as discrete elements of work that can be completed within the funding provided in this line item;—For other authorized project purposes and environmental restoration or compliance projects, to include the beneficial use ofdredged material; and—For environmental infrastructure, projects in rural communities, projects with greater economic impact, projects in counties or parishes with high poverty rates, projects owed past reimbursements, and projects that will provide substantial benefits to water quality improvement.
The Committee recommendation includes the full use of all estimated fiscal year 2019 annual revenues in the IWTF as well as thesufficient additional IWTF prior year revenues to ensure ongoingnew construction projects may proceed with an efficient funding
profile. Funds recommended herein for inland waterways shall only
be available for ongoing new construction projects, which have afiscal year 2019 estimate of $246,000,000 above the administration’s budget request. The Corps shall allocate all funds recommended in the IWTF Revenues line item along with the statutory cost share from funds provided in the Navigation line item

25
prior to allocating the remainder of funds in the Navigation line
item.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIESAppropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$425,000,000
244,735,000
350,000,000

The Committee recommends $350,000,000 for Mississippi River
and Tributaries, an increase of $105,265,000 above the budget request. Funds recommended in this account are for planning, construction, and operation and maintenance activities associated withwater resource projects located in the lower Mississippi River Valley from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico.
The table below displays the budget request and Committee’s
recommendation:
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item
MR&T

HMTF

Committee
recommendation

CONSTRUCTIONCHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ...........................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &TN ........................
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ...........................................

75,84732,885200........................
........................
........................

75,84732,885200

SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................

108,932........................

108,932

54,6808,984........................
364
304
187
5,900
2,123
1,000
38
95
8,865
1,755
........................
48
3,821
807
498
490
9,246
2,750
........................
135........................
5,509
168
5,296
799
5,334
1,201
6,231
901
357

........................
........................
715........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
555........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
930........................
940........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

54,680
8,984
715
364
304
187
5,900
2,123
1,000
38
95
8,865
1,755
555
48
3,821
807
498
490
9,246
2,750
930
135
940
5,509
168
5,296
799
5,334
1,201
6,231
901
357

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ...........................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &TN ........................
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ...................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ...................................................
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR .............................................
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR .............................................
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO ....................................................................
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA ............................
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR ...................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ....................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ...................................................
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ............................................................................
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ...........................................
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA ..............................................
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA ..................................................
BONNET CARRE, LA ....................................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ...................................................
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA ..........................................
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA .................................................................
OLD RIVER, LA ...........................................................................................
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA .............................................
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS ..........................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ..................................................
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS ...........................................................................
YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ........................................................
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS ..............................................
YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS ...................................................................
YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS ...............................................................
YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS ...........................................................
YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS ..................................................................
YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS ...............................................................
YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS ...............................................................
YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS ...............................

26
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item

Committee
recommendation

MR&T

HMTF

YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS ...........................................
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS .................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ..................................................
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO ..............................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ...................................................
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN ..................................................

538
737
208
4,878
47
........................

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
2,125

538
737
208
4,878
47
2,125

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .................................

134,294

5,265

139,559

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK DREDGING ............................
FLOOD CONTROL ...............................................................................
OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ........................................................
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA ..................................................
MAPPING .....................................................................................................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION ...............................................................

........................
........................
........................
600
819
90

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

5,000
55,00040,000600
819
90SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ......................................................

1,509........................

101,509

TOTAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ..............................

244,735

5,265

350,000

REMAINING ITEMS

Lower Mississippi River Main Stem.—The budget request proposes to consolidate several activities across multiple States into
one line item. The Committee does not support this change and instead recommends continuing to fund these activities as separate
line items.
MAT Sinking Unit.—The MAT Sinking Unit [MSU] has been a
key component in maintaining the Mississippi River channel for 70
years. The Committee understands that without a timely replacement, the current Mississippi River channel alignment is at risk of
migrating, threatening levees, endangering the public, and interrupting river commerce. Because this vital equipment can be utilized nationwide to protect riverbank erosion and sloughing, it isunclear why the Corps proposes to fund its replacement out of theMississippi Rivers and Tributaries account rather than the Plant
Replacement and Improvement Program [PRIP]. Therefore, theCorps shall brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Housesof Congress on why the replacement must be funded in the MR&T
account instead of PRIP.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—When allocating the additional funding recommended in this account, the Corps shall consider giving priority to completing or accelerating ongoing workthat will enhance the nation’s economic development, job growth,and international competitiveness, or to studies or projects locatedin areas that have suffered recent natural disasters. While thisfunding is shown under remaining items, the Corps shall use thesefunds in investigations, construction, and operation and maintenance, as applicable.
When allocating the additional funding recommended in this account the Corps shall allocate not less than $30,000,000 for additional flood control construction projects outside of the Lower Mississippi River Main Stem. Of the additional funds recommended inthis account for other authorized project purposes, the Corps shall27
allocate not less than $2,000,000 for operation and maintenance offacilities that are educational or to continue land management of
mitigation features. Of the additional funds recommended in thisaccount, the Corps shall allocate not less than $5,000,000 for
dredging of ports and harbors.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$3,630,000,000
2,076,733,000
3,740,000,000

The Committee recommends $3,740,000,000 for Operation and
Maintenance, an increase of $1,663,267,000 above the budget request.
INTRODUCTION

Funding in this account is used to fund operations, maintenance,and related activities at water resource projects that the Corps operates and maintains. These activities include dredging, repair, andoperation of structures and other facilities, as authorized in thevarious river and harbor, flood control, and water resources development acts. Related activities include aquatic plant control, monitoring of completed projects where appropriate, removal of sunken
vessels, and the collection of domestic waterborne commerce statistics.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The table below displays the budget request and Committee’s
recommendation for Operation and Maintenance.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item

Committee
recommendation

O&M

HMTF

17,121
23,3367,515
198........................
........................
85
1,800
27,9968,926........................

........................
........................
........................
........................
22,240110........................
........................
........................
........................
70

17,121
23,436
7,765
198
22,240110
85
1,800
27,9968,92670........................
6,292........................
........................
200........................
........................
........................

9,265........................
970
770........................
600
2,055
750

9,265
6,292
970
770
200
600
2,055
750

ALABAMA
ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL ........................................................................
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL .........................................
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL .........................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL ...................................................
MOBILE HARBOR, AL ..................................................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL ............................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL ................................................
TENNESSEE—TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL & MS ...
TENNESSEE—TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL & MS ......................................
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & GA ..........................................
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, AL .............................................
ALASKA
ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK ..........................................................................
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK ...........................................................................
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK ..........................................................................
HOMER HARBOR, AK ..................................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK ...................................................
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK ..............................................................................
NOME HARBOR, AK ....................................................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK ............................................................

28
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item
O&M

HMTF

Committee
recommendation

ARIZONA
ALAMO LAKE, AZ ........................................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ ...................................................
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ ............................................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ ...............................................
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ .........................................................................

3,342
534
3,086
107
935

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

3,342
534
3,086
107
935

8,791
9,131
1,870
7,761
7,438
1,433
1,506
1,305
7,840
........................
646
50,995
4,335
5,751
2,340
6,134
........................
7,979
25........................

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
15........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
15........................
........................
100

8,791
9,131
1,870
7,761
7,438
1,433
1,506
1,305
7,840
15
646
50,995
4,335
5,751
2,340
6,134
15
7,979
25
100

2,620
2,104
........................
3,540........................
7,494
478
2,182
........................
10
3,450
1,389
22,633458
2,092........................
2,878
1,652
........................
........................
4,437........................
........................
........................
........................
1,095........................
........................
........................
1,191........................

........................
........................
6,290........................
200........................
........................
........................
4,510........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
2,400........................
........................
19,0762,470........................
1,350
5,950
10,1452,300........................
798
210
4,400
........................
3,101

2,620
2,104
6,290
3,540
200
7,494
478
2,182
4,510
10
3,450
1,389
22,633
458
2,092
2,400
2,878
1,652
19,076
2,470
4,437
1,350
5,950
10,145
2,300
1,095
798
210
4,400
1,191
3,101

ARKANSASBEAVER LAKE, AR ......................................................................................
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR ....................................................
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR .........................................................................
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR .............................................................................
DEGRAY LAKE, AR ......................................................................................
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR ....................................................................................
DIERKS LAKE, AR .......................................................................................
GILLHAM LAKE, AR .....................................................................................
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR ..........................................................................
HELENA HARBOR, AR .................................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ...................................................
MCCLELLAN–KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR ...............
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR ..................................................................................
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR .........................................................
NIMROD LAKE, AR ......................................................................................
NORFORK LAKE, AR ....................................................................................
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR ...............................................................................
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA ..................................................
WHITE RIVER, AR .......................................................................................
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR ............................................................................
CALIFORNIABLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA .............................................................................
BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA ..................................................
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA ................................................................
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA ...........................................
CRESCENT CITY HARBOR, CA ....................................................................
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA ...........................
FARMINGTON DAM, CA ...............................................................................
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA ..............................................................
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA ............................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, CA ..................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA ...................................................
ISABELLA LAKE, CA ....................................................................................
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA .............................................
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA ................................................................
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA ............................................................................
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA ..........................................................................
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA ...............................................................................
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA ..................................
OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA ..............................................
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA ...........................................................................
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA ...................................................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA ............................................................
REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA .....................................................................
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA ............................................................................
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA ...........................................
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA ..............
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA (NAV) ...
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA ................................
SAN DIEGO HARBOR, CA ............................................................................
SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA ...............................
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL) ......................

29
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA ....................................................................
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON, CA ..........................................
SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA .......................................
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA ....................................................................
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ...................................................................
SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CA .........................................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA ...............................................
SUCCESS LAKE, CA ....................................................................................
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA ........................................................................
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA (DAM SAFETY) ...................................
VENTURA HARBOR, CA ...............................................................................
YUBA RIVER, CA .........................................................................................
YUBA RIVER, CA (NAV) ..............................................................................

Committee
recommendation

O&M

HMTF

........................
........................
........................
12,537........................
........................
1,344
3,543
........................
2,785........................
180........................

4,335
5,000
3,049
........................
3,360
15........................
........................
3,664........................
5,370........................
1,435

4,335
5,000
3,049
12,537
3,360
15
1,344
3,543
3,664
2,785
5,370
180
1,435

587
1,889
6,479
17
347
4,071
560
1,775

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

587
1,889
6,479
17
347
4,071
560
1,775

671
2,583
821
1,285
474
784
391
........................
572
1,022
893

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
900........................
........................
........................

671
2,583
821
1,285
474
784
391
900
572
1,022
893

........................
707........................

770........................
........................
........................
........................

12,450
30
200
5,491

12,450
30
200
5,491

80
........................
........................

........................
930
30

80
930
30

........................
14,429........................
814
2,980
........................
7,560........................
........................

4,149........................
1,033........................
........................
6,560........................
3,845
6,070

4,149
14,429
1,033
814
2,980
6,560
7,560
3,845
6,070

COLORADO
BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO ..............................................................................
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO ..................................................................................
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO ..........................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, CO ..................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO ..................................................
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO ...................................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO ...............................................
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO ....................................................................................
CONNECTICUTBLACK ROCK LAKE, CT ...............................................................................
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT .....................................................................
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT .......................................................................
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT ................................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT ...................................................
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT ...................................................................
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT ...................................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT ............................................................
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT ........................................................
THOMASTON DAM, CT .................................................................................
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT ........................................................................
DELAWARE
INDIAN RIVER INLET & BAY, DE ................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DE ...................................................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, DE& MD .....................................................................................................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY DELAWARE BAY ...................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE ............................................................
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE .........................................................................
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAINSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC ..................................................
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL) .......................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC ...........................................................
FLORIDACANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ............................................................................
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL .....................................................
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL (NAV) ...........................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL ...................................................
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL .........................
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ........................................................................
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA ...............
MANATEE HARBOR, FL ...............................................................................
MIAMI HARBOR, FL .....................................................................................

30
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item

OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL .....................................................................
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL (NAV) ..........................................................
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL .........................................................................
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL .........................................................................
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL ............................................................................
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL ................................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL ............................................................
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL ..........................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL ................................................
TAMPA HARBOR, FL ....................................................................................
WATER / ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, FL ..........................................

Committee
recommendation

O&M

HMTF

1,229
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
132........................
........................

........................
1,091
2,785
55
1,390
5,850
1,275
3,290
........................
980
180

1,229
1,091
2,785
55
1,390
5,850
1,275
3,290
132
980
180

9,257
1,332
3,000
........................
11,395
7,591
11,119........................
196
11,069........................
........................
9,681........................
........................
7,828........................
........................
........................
5,258........................
........................
........................
40........................
........................
59100........................
34,312201........................

9,257
1,332
3,000
5,258
11,395
7,591
11,11940
196
11,06959
100
9,681
34,312
201
7,828

295
........................
278........................

........................
7,300........................
663

295
7,300
278
663

1,182
4,902
377
10,292716........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

1,182
4,902
377
10,292716........................
5,719........................
286
18,920413
43,727
2,060
50
1,973
2,222
........................
6,272

4,616
........................
3,583........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
851........................

4,616
5,719
3,583
286
18,920413
43,727
2,060
50
1,973
2,222
851
6,272

70,824........................

70,824

39,140........................

39,140GEORGIA
ALLATOONA LAKE, GA .................................................................................
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL & FL .........
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA ..................................................
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA ..........................................................................
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA ............................................
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA ....................................................................
HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC .........................................................................
HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC (NAV) ..............................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA ...................................................
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC ........................................................
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC (NAV) ..............................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA ............................................................
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC .......................................
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA .............................................................................
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA ....................................................
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA & AL ......................................................
HAWAIIBARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI .....................................................................
HONOLULU HARBOR, HI .............................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI ....................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI .............................................................
IDAHOALBENI FALLS DAM, ID ...............................................................................
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID .......................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID ....................................................
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID ................................................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID ................................................
ILLINOISCALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN ....................................................
CARLYLE LAKE, IL ......................................................................................
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL .................................................................................
CHICAGO RIVER, IL ....................................................................................
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL ................
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL ...................................................................
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL & IN ...........................................
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL & IN ...........................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, IL ....................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ....................................................
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL .............................................................
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL ..................................................................
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL ................................................................................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR
PORTION), IL ..........................................................................................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVSPORTION), IL ..........................................................................................

31
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL .............................................................
REND LAKE, IL ............................................................................................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL .............................
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL .............................................................................

Committee
recommendation

O&M

HMTF

........................
5,542........................
........................

106........................
680
1,526

106
5,542
680
1,526

1,813
........................
1,195
1,243
........................
1,051
1,375
1,274
1,374
1,498
........................
1,313........................

........................
4,619........................
........................
10,998........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
190........................
55

1,813
4,619
1,195
1,243
10,998
1,051
1,375
1,274
1,374
1,498
190
1,313
55

5,599
6
1,282

........................
........................
........................

5,599
6
1,282

4,829
13,200
2,974
5,954
7,934

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

4,829
13,200
2,974
5,954
7,934

2,354
1,378
738
1,031
1,145
967
4
1,250
1,727
4,134
1,833
3,146
2,153
1,397
2,495
2,063
472
733
2,399
1,844

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

2,354
1,378
738
1,031
1,145
967
4
1,250
1,727
4,134
1,833
3,146
2,153
1,397
2,495
2,063
472
733
2,399
1,844

17,6313,622........................
2,079
1,869
1,155
3,780

........................
........................
1,960........................
........................
........................
........................

17,631
3,622
1,960
2,079
1,869
1,155
3,780

INDIANABROOKVILLE LAKE, IN ................................................................................
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN ................................................................
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN ...............................................................................
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN ........................................................................
INDIANA HARBOR, IN ..................................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN ....................................................
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN .......................................................................
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN .............................................................................
MONROE LAKE, IN ......................................................................................
PATOKA LAKE, IN ........................................................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN .............................................................
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN ..................................................................................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN ............................
IOWA
CORALVILLE LAKE, IA .................................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, IA ...................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA ....................................................
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE,
ND & SD ................................................................................................
MISSOURI RIVER—SIOUX CITY TO THE MOUTH, IA, KS, MO & NE ...........
RATHBUN LAKE, IA .....................................................................................
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA .................................................
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA ...............................................................................
KANSAS
CLINTON LAKE, KS ......................................................................................
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS .........................................................................
EL DORADO LAKE, KS .................................................................................
ELK CITY LAKE, KS .....................................................................................
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS .................................................................................
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS ..................................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, KS ..................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS ...................................................
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS ...............................................
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS ..................................................................................
MARION LAKE, KS .......................................................................................
MELVERN LAKE, KS ....................................................................................
MILFORD LAKE, KS .....................................................................................
PEARSON—SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS ...................................................
PERRY LAKE, KS .........................................................................................
POMONA LAKE, KS ......................................................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS ...............................................
TORONTO LAKE, KS ....................................................................................
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS ............................................................................
WILSON LAKE, KS .......................................................................................
KENTUCKYBARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & TN ...........................................
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY ...........................................................................
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY ............................................................................
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY .................................................................................
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY ..............................................................................
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY ...................................................................................
DEWEY LAKE, KY ........................................................................................

32
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item

ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY .......................................................
FALLS OF THE OHIO NATIONAL WILDLIFE, KY & IN ....................................
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY ....................................................................................
GRAYSON LAKE, KY ....................................................................................
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY ..............................................................
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY .............................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ...................................................
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY .................................................................................
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY ...........................................................................
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY ........................................
NOLIN LAKE, KY ..........................................................................................
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN & OH ......................................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN, OH, PA & WV ..................
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY ................................................................................
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY .............................................................................
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY .............................................................................
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY ..............................................
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY .................................................................................

Committee
recommendation

O&M

HMTF

........................
34
1,858
1,211
2,735
4,849
1,015
22
2,343
1,697
266
2,853
68,524
7,639
1,282
3,461
1,148
10,313
1,889

915........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

915
34
1,858
1,211
2,735
4,849
1,015
22
2,343
1,697
266
2,853
68,524
7,639
1,282
3,461
1,148
10,313
1,889........................
........................
1,289........................
33........................
........................
208........................
........................
30,185........................
1,068
11,881........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
245........................

12,675100........................
100........................
1050........................
18,639759........................
100........................
........................
1,315
1,540
200
89,16911250........................
14

12,675
100
1,289
100
33
10
50
208
18,639759
30,185100
1,068
11,881
1,315
1,540
200
89,169
11
250
245
14

........................
100........................
........................

1,050........................
1,000
30

1,050
100
1,000
30

........................
........................
........................
........................
201........................
........................
126
6,285
........................

13
23,645415
5........................
1010........................
........................
5

13
23,645
415
5
201
10
10
126
6,285
5

LOUISIANA
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF & BLACK, LA .............
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA ................................................................
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA ................................................................
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA .....................
BAYOU PIERRE, LA .....................................................................................
BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA .............................................................
BAYOU TECHE, LA ......................................................................................
CADDO LAKE, LA ........................................................................................
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA ...............................................................
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA ...........................................................................
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA .........................................................
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA .................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ...................................................
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA .......................................................
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA ................................................................
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA ..............................................................................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA .............................................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LA ............
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA ............................................................
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA ..........................................................
WALLACE LAKE, LA .....................................................................................
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA .............................................
MAINEDISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME .............................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME ..................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME ...........................................................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME ...........................
MARYLANDBACK CREEK, MD .......................................................................................
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD ...............................
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL) .............................................
CLAIBORNE HARBOR, MD ...........................................................................
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV .....................................................
FISHING CREEK, MD ...................................................................................
HERRING CREEK, TALL TIMBERS, MD ........................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD ..................................................
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV ......................................................
KNAPPS NARROWS, MD ..............................................................................

33
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item

LOWER THOROFARE, DEAL ISLAND, MD .....................................................
MIDDLE RIVER & DARK HEAD CREEK, MD ................................................
NEAVITT HARBOR, MD ................................................................................
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD ..................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD ...........................................................
ROCK HALL HARBOR, MD ...........................................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD ..............................................
WICOMICO RIVER, MD ................................................................................

Committee
recommendation

O&M

HMTF

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
173........................

5
3
3
5
485
5
........................
4,000

5
3
3
5
485
5
173
4,000

888
886
........................
731
2,535
........................
391
334
684
725
348
1,252
721
505
........................
914
1,034
1,050

........................
........................
7,150........................
........................
5,207........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
950........................
........................
........................

888
886
7,150
731
2,535
5,207
391
334
684
725
348
1,252
721
505
950
914
1,034
1,050

........................
72........................
18........................
........................
260
27........................
........................
........................
........................
531........................
........................
3,153........................
........................

190........................
6,810........................
1,750
600
........................
........................
500
833
1,200
2,425
........................
1,510
1,500
........................
25,179
3,138

190
72
6,810
18
1,750
600
260
27
500
833
1,200
2,425
531
1,510
1,500
3,153
25,179
3,138

462
750
........................
240
1,349
........................

........................
........................
6,790........................
........................
260

462
750
6,790
240
1,349
260

71,737508........................

........................
........................
103

71,737508
103

MASSACHUSETTS
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA ..............................................................................
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA .................................................................................
BOSTON HARBOR, MA ................................................................................
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA .............................................................................
CAPE COD CANAL, MA ...............................................................................
CAPE COD CANAL, MA (NAV) .....................................................................
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA ............................
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA .........................................................................
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA ........................................................................
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA ........................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA ..................................................
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA ...............................................................................
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA ................................................................................
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER, MA ...
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA ...........................................................
TULLY LAKE, MA .........................................................................................
WEST HILL DAM, MA ..................................................................................
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA .................................................................................
MICHIGAN
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI ..............................................................
DETROIT RIVER, MI ....................................................................................
DETROIT RIVER, MI (NAV) ..........................................................................
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI .......................................................................
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI (NAV) .............................................................
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI ...............................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI ...................................................
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI ........................................................................
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI ............................................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI ............................................................
ROGUE RIVER, MI .......................................................................................
SAGINAW RIVER, MI ...................................................................................
SEBEWAING RIVER, MI ...............................................................................
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI ...................................................................................
ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI .............................................................................
ST MARYS RIVER, MI .................................................................................
ST MARYS RIVER, MI (NAV) .......................................................................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI ............................
MINNESOTABIGSTONE LAKE—WHETSTONE RIVER, MN & SD ......................................
DULUTH—SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI ..................................................
DULUTH—SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI (NAV) ........................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN ..................................................
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ........................................
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ..............................................................................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND
MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION), MN ...................................................
ORWELL LAKE, MN .....................................................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN ...........................................................

34
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item

RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN ........................................................................
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN .......................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN ..........................

Committee
recommendation

O&M

HMTF

143
5,244
........................

........................
........................
246

143
5,244
246

........................
290........................
116........................
1,740........................
89........................
........................
........................
........................

1,748........................
3,215........................
30........................
6,151........................
131
935
40
30

1,748
290
3,215
116
30
1,740
6,151
89
131
935
40
30

........................
6,955
3,740
11,638
2
1,512
1,347
3,282

615
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

615
6,955
3,740
11,638
2
1,512
1,347
3,282

30,821
2,767
172
1,606
........................
5,691
10,331........................
........................
........................
........................
409........................
........................

30,821
2,767
172
1,606
409
5,691
10,331

5,534
154
2,636
125

........................
........................
........................
........................

5,534
154
2,636
125

10,087
2,337
3
466
46
858
3,347

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

10,087
2,337
3
466
46
858
3,347

77
1,278
816

........................
........................
........................

77
1,278
816

823
732
1,017
1,857

........................
........................
........................
........................

823
732
1,017
1,857

MISSISSIPPIBILOXI HARBOR, MS ...................................................................................
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS ..........................................................
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS .............................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ..................................................
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS ....................................................................
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS .................................................................................
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS ........................................................................
PEARL RIVER, MS & LA .............................................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS ...........................................................
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS ............................................................................
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, MS ............................................
YAZOO RIVER, MS ......................................................................................
MISSOURI
CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO .................................................................
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO ............................
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO .............................................................................
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO ..........................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, MO .................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ..................................................
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO .................................................................
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO ...........................................................................
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS (REG
WORKS), MO & IL ..................................................................................
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO .....................................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO ..............................................
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO ................................................................................
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MO ..............................
STOCKTON LAKE, MO ..................................................................................
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO & AR ....................................................................
MONTANAFT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT .....................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT ..................................................
LIBBY DAM, MT ..........................................................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT ...............................................
NEBRASKAGAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE & SD ...........................
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE ........................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, NE ..................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE ...................................................
MISSOURI RIVER—KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA ....................
PAPILLION CREEK, NE ................................................................................
SALT CREEKS AND TRIBUTARIES, NE .........................................................
NEVADA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV ...................................................
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV & CA .................................................................
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV ................................................
NEW HAMPSHIREBLACKWATER DAM, NH ..............................................................................
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH ................................................................
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH .........................................................................
HOPKINTON—EVERETT LAKES, NH ............................................................

35
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH ..................................................
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH ............................................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH ...........................................................
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH ......................................................................

Committee
recommendation

O&M

HMTF

90
1,395
........................
801........................
........................
300........................

90
1,395
300
801

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
45
487........................
........................
........................
667........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

8
50
3
15
27,785........................
........................
2
50
8,000
........................
2,223
20
50
10
10
25

8
50
3
15
27,785
45
487
2
50
8,000
667
2,223
20
50
10
10
25

3,715
3,585
2,726
935
27
561
849

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

3,715
3,585
2,726
935
27
561
849

2,117
1,385
199
1,056
746

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

2,117
1,385
199
1,056
746

741
330
........................
5........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
766........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
1,391........................
........................
25........................
6,229
30
30
2,754
400
10
........................
5
50
30
15
20
25
100
9,650
2,704
........................

741
330
25
5
6,229
30
30
3,055
400
10
766
5
50
30
15
20
25
100
9,650
2,704
1,391

NEW JERSEYBARNEGAT INLET, NJ ..................................................................................
CHEESEQUAKE CREEK, NJ ..........................................................................
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ .............................................................................
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ .............................................................
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE ...................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, NJ ...................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ ...................................................
MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ ..............................................................................
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ .............................................
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ .............................
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ .........................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ ............................................................
RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT–OFF, NJ .........................................
RARITAN RIVER, NJ ....................................................................................
SANDY HOOK BAY AT LEONARD, NJ ...........................................................
SHOAL HARBOR AND COMPTON CREEK, NJ ...............................................
SHREWSBURY RIVER, MAIN CHANNEL, NJ .................................................
NEW MEXICOABIQUIU DAM, NM ......................................................................................
COCHITI LAKE, NM .....................................................................................
CONCHAS LAKE, NM ...................................................................................
GALISTEO DAM, NM ....................................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, NM .................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM ..................................................
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM ..........................................................................
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM,
NM .........................................................................................................
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM ..............................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM ..............................................
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM ...............................................................................
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY, NM ..................
NEW YORKALMOND LAKE, NY ......................................................................................
ARKPORT DAM, NY .....................................................................................
BAY RIDGE AND RED HOOK CHANNELS, NY ..............................................
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY ............................
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY (NAV) .................
BRONX RIVER, NY ......................................................................................
BROWNS CREEK, NY ..................................................................................
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY ...............................................................................
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY ........................................................................
EAST RIVER, NY .........................................................................................
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY ..............................................................................
EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY ..........................................................................
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY ...................................................
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY .................................................................
GLEN COVE CREEK, NY ..............................................................................
GREAT KILLS HARBOR, NY .........................................................................
GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY ..............................................................................
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY ....................................................................
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT) ......................................................................
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O & C) ......................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY ...................................................

36
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item

JONES INLET, NY ........................................................................................
LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY ...........................................
MATTITUCK HARBOR, NY ............................................................................
MORICHES INLET, NY .................................................................................
MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY ..........................................................................
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY & NJ ..................................
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY & NJ ......................................
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY ............................................................................
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL) ......................................
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) .......
PORTCHESTER HARBOR, NY .......................................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY ............................................................
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY ..........................................................................
SHINNECOCK INLET, NY .............................................................................
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY ...........................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY ...........................
WESTCHESTER CREEK, NY .........................................................................
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY ..........................................................................

Committee
recommendation

O&M

HMTF

........................
........................
........................
........................
3,785........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
854........................
........................
1,386

50
50
15
50
........................
9,000
16,0008,548
10,373
1,416
50
2,522
1,200
50
........................
610
5........................

50
50
15
50
3,785
9,000
16,0008,548
10,373
1,416
50
2,522
1,200
50
854
610
5
1,386

5,590
4,780
84
........................
3,275
190
........................
50........................
3,555........................
........................
........................
3,417........................

........................
........................
........................
317........................
........................
1,550........................
5,570........................
700
790
1,085
........................
14,715

5,590
4,780
84
317
3,275
190
1,550
50
5,570
3,555
700
790
1,085
3,417
14,715328
15,769
337
530
1,999
503
123
2,029
........................

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
85

328
15,769
337
530
1,999
503
123
2,029
85

2,236
........................
3,098
2,145
1,268
........................
........................
1,664
2,393
1,495
........................
736
101........................
2,359........................
........................
........................
6,789
1,130
........................
........................
........................
1,158........................
........................

2,236
2,359
3,098
2,145
1,268
7,139
1,130
1,664
2,393
1,495
1,158
736
101

NORTH CAROLINAATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC .................................................
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC ...................................................
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC ..............................................
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC (NAV) ...................................
FALLS LAKE, NC .........................................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC ..................................................
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC ..............................................................
MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC .............................
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC ...................................................................
NEW RIVER INLET, NC ................................................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC ...........................................................
ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC ..........................................................................
SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC .........................................................................
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC ................................................
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC .........................................................................
NORTH DAKOTA
BOWMAN HALEY, ND ..................................................................................
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND .....................................................
HOMME LAKE, ND .......................................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND ..................................................
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND ...............................................
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND ...................................................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND ...............................................
SOURIS RIVER, ND .....................................................................................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND ...........................
OHIO
ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH ..............................................................................
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH ...........................................................................
BERLIN LAKE, OH .......................................................................................
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH ..........................................................................
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH ...................................................................
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ...........................................................................
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH ............................................................................
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH ..............................................................................
DELAWARE LAKE, OH ..................................................................................
DILLON LAKE, OH .......................................................................................
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH ..............................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH ..................................................
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ..........................................

37
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item

MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH .........................................
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH ......................................................................
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH ..................................................................
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH .............................................
OHIO–MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH ...................................................
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH ..............................................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH ...........................................................
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ...........................................
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH ............................................................................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH ...........................
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH .................................................................................
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH ..............................................................................
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH ......................................................
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH ....................................................................

Committee
recommendation

O&M

HMTF

1,466
1,857
17,127
556
1,699
1,523
........................
37........................
........................
........................
825
2,412
2,665

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
306........................
1,313
255
4,427
........................
........................
........................

1,466
1,857
17,127
556
1,699
1,523
306
37
1,313
255
4,427
825
2,412
2,665

615
778
2,074
2,119
1,171
6,828
4,998
917
298
861
2,524
735
650
2,215
4,539
20,810
2,320
63
164
1,671
1,285
1,360
1,697
4,318
1,859
758

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

615
778
2,074
2,119
1,171
6,828
4,998
917
298
861
2,524
735
650
2,215
4,539
20,810
2,320
63
164
1,671
1,285
1,360
1,697
4,318
1,859
758

1,042
1,014
2,084
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
1,261
2,360
........................
5,894
1,281
174
1,475
2,013
2,147

........................
........................
........................
5,915
785
23,5356,958
26........................
........................
10........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

1,042
1,014
2,084
5,915
785
23,535
6,958
26
1,261
2,360
10
5,894
1,281
174
1,475
2,013
2,147

OKLAHOMAARCADIA LAKE, OK .....................................................................................
BIRCH LAKE, OK .........................................................................................
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK .............................................................................
CANTON LAKE, OK ......................................................................................
COPAN LAKE, OK ........................................................................................
EUFAULA LAKE, OK .....................................................................................
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK .............................................................................
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK .............................................................................
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK ...................................................................
HEYBURN LAKE, OK ....................................................................................
HUGO LAKE, OK ..........................................................................................
HULAH LAKE, OK ........................................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK ...................................................
KAW LAKE, OK ............................................................................................
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK ...................................................................................
MCCLELLAN–KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK ...............
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK ....................................................................................
OPTIMA LAKE, OK .......................................................................................
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK ..........................
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK ................................................................................
SARDIS LAKE, OK .......................................................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK ...............................................
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK ....................................................................................
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK ......................................................................
WAURIKA LAKE, OK .....................................................................................
WISTER LAKE, OK .......................................................................................
OREGONAPPLEGATE LAKE, OR .................................................................................
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR ...............................................................................
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA ....................................................
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA (NAV) ..........................................
CHETCO RIVER, OR ....................................................................................
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA .............................................
COOS BAY, OR ...........................................................................................
COQUILLE RIVER, OR .................................................................................
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR ........................................................................
COUGAR LAKE, OR .....................................................................................
DEPOE BAY, OR ..........................................................................................
DETROIT LAKE, OR .....................................................................................
DORENA LAKE, OR ......................................................................................
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR .................................................................................
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR ...............................................................................
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR ...............................................................................
GREEN PETER—FOSTER LAKES, OR ..........................................................

38
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item

HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR ..............................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OR ..................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR ..................................................
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA ........................................................
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR .........................................................................
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR ...............................................................................
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA ..........................................................
NEHALEM BAY, OR .....................................................................................
PORT ORFORD, OR .....................................................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR ...........................................................
ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR ..........................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR ...............................................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR ...........................
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR ...................................................................................
SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR ............................................................................
TILLAMOOK BAY & BAR, OR .......................................................................
UMPQUA RIVER, OR ...................................................................................
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR ........................................
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR ..............................................
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR ..........................................................................
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR ................................................................

Committee
recommendation

O&M

HMTF

1,483
60
628
5,688
2,052
3,621
9,623
........................
........................
........................
........................
99........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
161
170
748
........................

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
5
5
400
5
........................
........................
10
5
5
939
........................
........................
........................
3,080

1,483
60
628
5,688
2,052
3,621
9,623
5
5
400
5
99
10,265
10
5
5
939
161
170
748
3,080

7,863
874
416
1,640
3,682
1,703
2,664
2,955
1,060
........................
5,891
2,165
2,720
337
60
1,110
1,581
1,550
1,529
1,457
15,18345,472
1,765........................
850
719
5,281
76
........................
3,080
872
........................
3,480
2,699
611
1,156
1,396
2,827

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
3,850........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
170........................
........................
........................
........................
100........................
........................
105........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

7,863
874
416
1,640
3,682
1,703
2,664
2,955
1,060
3,850
5,891
2,165
2,720
337
60
1,110
1,581
1,550
1,529
1,457
15,18345,472
1,765
170
850
719
5,281
76
100
3,080
872
105
3,480
2,699
611
1,156
1,396
2,827

PENNSYLVANIA
ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA ...............................................................................
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA .............................................................................
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA ..................................................................
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA .................................................................................
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA ..............................................................................
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA ....................................................................
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA .............................................................................
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA ........................................................................
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA ...........................................................................
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ ............................
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA ..................................................
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA .............................................................
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA .....................................................................
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA .................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, PA ..................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA ...................................................
JOHNSTOWN, PA .........................................................................................
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA .........................................
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA ...............................................................................
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA ......................................................................
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA .........................................................................
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH & WV ..........................................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH & WV ...................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA ............................................................
PROMPTON LAKE, PA ..................................................................................
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA ...................................................................................
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA ..................................................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA ...............................................
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA ..............................................................................
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA .......................................................................
STILLWATER LAKE, PA ................................................................................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA ...........................
TIOGA—HAMMOND LAKES, PA ...................................................................
TIONESTA LAKE, PA ....................................................................................
UNION CITY LAKE, PA .................................................................................
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA .....................................................................
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA .....................................................................
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD .....................................................

39
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item

Committee
recommendation

O&M

HMTF

134
........................
........................

........................
100
630

134
100
630

........................
2,335........................
134........................
1,424

2,550
........................
350........................
300........................

2,550
2,335
350
134
300
1,424

3,487
........................
........................
75........................

........................
20,564
3,867........................
875

3,487
20,564
3,867
75
875

9,900
345
260
12,178356
827
12,865144........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

9,900
345
260
12,178356
827
12,865
144

7,719
8,384
3,253
8,571
7,828
328
5,623
11,491
25,952........................

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
920

7,719
8,384
3,253
8,571
7,828
328
5,623
11,491
25,952
920

1,140
1,799
2,045
4,752
4,159
........................
3,343
5,070
........................
........................
........................
7,980
39
4,159
........................
........................
........................
........................

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
85........................
........................
650
100
5,050
........................
........................
........................
4,700
6,630
30
30

1,140
1,799
2,045
4,752
4,159
85
3,343
5,070
650
100
5,300
7,980
39
4,159
4,700
6,630
30
30

PUERTO RICOINSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PR ...................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PR ............................................................
SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR ..............................................................................
RHODE ISLANDBLOCK ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE, RI ....................................................
FOX POINT BARRIER, NARRANGANSETT BAY, RI ........................................
GREAT SALT POND, BLOCK ISLAND, RI ......................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI ....................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI .............................................................
WOONSOCKET, RI .......................................................................................
SOUTH CAROLINAATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC ..................................................
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC .........................................................................
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ..............................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC ...................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC ............................................................
SOUTH DAKOTABIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD ............................................................
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD ..............................................................................
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD ..............................................................
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD .........................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD ...................................................
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN ........................................................................
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD & ND .............................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD ...............................................
TENNESSEECENTER HILL LAKE, TN ..............................................................................
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN .................................................................
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ............................................
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ................................................
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN .............................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ...................................................
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ...............................................
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN ............................................................
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ...............................................................................
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN ..........................................................................
TEXASAQUILLA LAKE, TX ......................................................................................
ARKANSAS—RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL—AREA VIII, TX ....
BARDWELL LAKE, TX ..................................................................................
BELTON LAKE, TX .......................................................................................
BENBROOK LAKE, TX ..................................................................................
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX ....................................................................
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX ....................................................
CANYON LAKE, TX ......................................................................................
CHANNEL TO HARLINGEN, TX .....................................................................
CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX ................................................................
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX .........................................................
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX ..............................................................
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX ....................................
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O’ THE PINES, TX ......................................
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX ..............................................................................
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX ...................................................
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX .............................................................
GIWW, CHANNEL TO CHOCOLATE BAYOU, TX .............................................

40
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item

GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX ....................................................................
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX ..................................................................................
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX .........................................................
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX ............................................................................
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX .....................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX ...................................................
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX .............................................................................
JOE POOL LAKE, TX ....................................................................................
LAKE KEMP, TX ...........................................................................................
LAVON LAKE, TX .........................................................................................
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX ..................................................................................
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX ................................................................
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX ..........................................................................
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX ..........................
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX ................................................................
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX .................................................................................
PROCTOR LAKE, TX ....................................................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX ............................................................
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX .............................................................................
SABINE—NECHES WATERWAY, TX .............................................................
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX .................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX ................................................
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX ................................................................................
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX ...................................................................
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX .................................................................
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX .........................................
WACO LAKE, TX ..........................................................................................
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX ................................................................................
WHITNEY LAKE, TX .....................................................................................
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX ........................................................

Committee
recommendation

O&M

HMTF

6,772
5,185
25,5001,619........................
1,657
1,895
2,645
280
3,932
7,557
........................
2,042
4,231
2,851
1,397
2,666
........................
2,172........................
8,963
295
4,904
6,621
........................
7,582
5,669
2,232
10,2535,418........................
........................
........................
........................
23,300........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
6,450........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
325........................
11,250........................
........................
........................
........................
50........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

6,772
5,185
25,5001,619
23,300
1,657
1,895
2,645
280
3,932
7,557
6,450
2,042
4,231
2,851
1,397
2,666
325
2,172
11,250
8,963
295
4,904
6,621
50
7,582
5,669
2,232
10,253
5,418

24
477

........................
........................

24
477

1,434
174
1,171
739
1,577
860

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

1,434
174
1,171
739
1,577
860

49
........................

........................
50

49
50

2,644
1,438
2,709

........................
........................
........................

2,644
1,438
2,709

........................
........................
432........................
13,8202,888........................
848
5,520

1,500
38
........................
350........................
........................
21,625........................
........................

1,500
38
432
350
13,8202,888
21,925
848
5,520

UTAH
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT ...................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT ...............................................
VERMONTBALL MOUNTAIN, VT ...................................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT ...................................................
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT .......................................................................
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT ...................................................................
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT ................................................................................
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT ............................................................................
VIRGIN ISLANDSINSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VI ....................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VI .............................................................
VIRGINIAATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—ACC, VA .......................................
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—DSC, VA .......................................
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA .................................................
HAMPTON ROADS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS HARBOR, VA (DRIFT REMOVAL) ..................................................................................................
HAMPTON ROADS, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) ............
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA ...................................................
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA .......................................................................
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC ...................................................................
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA ........................................
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ...............................................................................
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA ..................................................
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA ....................................................................................

41
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item
O&M

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA ............................................................

HMTF

Committee
recommendation........................

1,215

1,215

........................
600

2........................

2600........................
........................
........................
........................
3,476........................
........................
........................
12,6805,075
70922........................
1,079........................
3,506
4,347
3,430
5,486
135
6,174
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
463........................
2,917........................
........................
........................
178
3,274
........................

47,2205
1881........................
1,980
2
11,237........................
........................
........................
........................
16........................
6,987........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
17
2
14
1,046
1,485
1,673
........................
1,816........................
80215........................
........................
44

47,220
5
1
881
3,476
1,980
2
11,237
12,680
5,075
70
922
16
1,079
6,987
3,506
4,347
3,430
5,486
135
6,174
17
2
14
1,046
1,485
1,673
463
1,816
2,917
80
2
15
178
3,274
44

1,842
4,863
3,240
2,183
118
474
9,978
29,834
2,684
1,811
1,504
2,579
2,522
1,693

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

1,842
4,863
3,240
2,183
118
474
9,978
29,834
2,684
1,811
1,504
2,579
2,522
1,693

829

........................

829

WASHINGTONBELLINGHAM HARBOR, WA .........................................................................
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA .............................................................................
COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS BELOW VANCOUVER, WA &PORTLAND, OR .......................................................................................
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA & OR .............................................
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND SAND ISLAND, WA .................
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, OR .......
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID ....................................
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA ........................................
FRIDAY HARBOR, WA ..................................................................................
GRAYS HARBOR, WA ..................................................................................
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA .......................................................................
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA .............................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WA ..................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA ..................................................
LAKE CROCKETT (KEYSTONE HARBOR), WA ...............................................
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA .........................................................
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA (NAV) ...............................................
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA ...........................................................
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA .......................................................
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA ...............................................
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA ...............................................................................
MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ......................................
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA ..........................................................................
NEAH BAY, WA ...........................................................................................
OLYMPIA HARBOR, WA ...............................................................................
PORT TOWNSEND, WA ................................................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA ...........................................................
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA ............................................
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA ..............................................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA ...............................................
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA ................................................................................
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA ........................................................................
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA ...........................
SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA .........................................................................
TACOMA HARBOR, WA ................................................................................
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA .................................................................
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA & OR ....................................................
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA .............................................................
WEST VIRGINIABEECH FORK LAKE, WV ..............................................................................
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ................................................................................
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV ...............................................................................
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV .................................................................................
ELKINS, WV .................................................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV ..................................................
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV ...................................................
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY & OH ..........................................
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY & OH ...................................
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV ................................................................................
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV ................................................................
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV ..........................................................................
SUTTON LAKE, WV ......................................................................................
TYGART LAKE, WV ......................................................................................
WISCONSINEAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI .......................................................................

42
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Item

Committee
recommendation

O&M

HMTF

4,267
........................
41
18........................
........................
6........................

........................
3,920........................
........................
2,570
325
........................
200

4,267
3,920
41
18
2,570
325
6
200

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WY ..................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY ..................................................
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY .......................................................................
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY ...............................................

15
123
588
107

........................
........................
........................
........................

15
123
588
107

SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER STATES .............................

1,943,355

892,425

2,847,596........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
675
3,650

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

25,000473,952
50,00050,00050,00045,000
675
4,650

900
2,000
1,550
322
10,000
2,700
2,500
1,000
4,000
........................
........................
1,120
6,450
2,820
300
4,500
5,400
........................
4,500
20,0003,900
6,300
10,0005,500
5,000........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
11,69015,000........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
795........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

900
2,000
1,550
322
10,000
7,975
6,500
1,000
4,000
11,69015,000
1,120
6,450
2,820
300
4,500
5,400
795
4,500
20,00010,50013,00015,000
5,500
5,000

3,700
500
3,500
........................

........................
........................
........................
........................

5,200
500
3,500
1,500

8,500
400

........................
........................

8,500
400

FOX RIVER, WI ............................................................................................
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ...........................................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI ...................................................
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI .............................................................................
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI ...........................................................................
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI ............................................................
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI ..............
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI ............................
WYOMINGREMAINING ITEMSADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE ..
DEEP–DRAFT HARBOR AND CHANNEL .....................................
DONOR AND ENERGY TRANSFER PORTS ..................................
INLAND WATERWAYS ................................................................
SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE NAVIGATION .....................
OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ........................................................
AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH .................................................
ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND EQUIP MAINT (FEM) .......................
BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M BUSINESS PROGRAMS STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM ...............................................................
PERFORMANCE–BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM ................
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM .............................
OPTIMIZATION TOOLS FOR NAVIGATION ............................................
CIVIL WORKS WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CWWMS) ............................
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM .......................................................
COASTAL OCEAN DATA SYSTEM (CODS) ....................................................
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION) ............................................
CYBERSECURITY .........................................................................................
DREDGE MCFARLAND READY RESERVE .....................................................
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE .........................................................
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM ..........
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER) ..........
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM (DOTS) .............
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM .........................................
FACILITY PROTECTION ................................................................................
FISH & WILDLIFE OPERATING FISH HATCHERY REIMBURSEMENT .............
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION ........................................
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS ..................................................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS .........
MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS ...............................
NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM ...................................................
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM (PORTFOLIO RISK ASSESSMENT) .........
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (NEPP) ......................
NATIONAL (LEVEE) FLOOD INVENTORY .......................................................
NATIONAL (MULTIPLE PROJECT) NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENTACTIVITIES ..............................................................................................
NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR REALLOCATIONS ........................
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .........................................
RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AT CORPS PROJECTS ............................
REVIEW OF NON-FEDERAL ALTERATIONS OF CIVIL WORKSPROJECTS (SECTION 408) .................................................................
SUSTAINABLE RIVERS PROGRAM (SRP) .....................................................

43
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate

Committee
recommendation

Item
O&M

HMTF

VETERAN’S CURATION PROGRAM AND COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT ........
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS ......................................................
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS) ...................................

6,500
4,670
500

........................
........................
........................

6,500
4,670
6,500

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ......................................................

133,357

27,485892,369

ACCOUNTING ADJUSTMENT .........................................................................

21

8

35

TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................

2,076,733

919,918

3,740,000

Coastal Inlet Research Program.—The Committee understands
that communities, infrastructure, commerce, and resources that are
tied to the coastal nearshore region are all vulnerable to damage
from extreme coastal events and long-term coastal change. The
Committee recommends additional funding to establish a multiuniversity-led effort to identify engineering frameworks to address
coastal resilience needs, to develop adaptive pathways that lead tocoastal resilience, measure the coastal forces that lead to infrastructure damage and erosion during extreme storm events, and to
improve coupling of terrestrial and coastal models. Funding in addition to the budget request is also recommended for the Corps tocontinue work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Water Center on protecting the Nation’s water
resources.
Debris Removal.—Funding is recommended for debris removal
activities pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 603a, as amended by the WIIN
Act, with priority given to urban waterways.
Donor and Energy Transfer Ports.—The additional funding recommended in this account for donor and energy transfer ports shallbe allocated in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 2238c. The Committee
notes the Corps issued implementation guidance for section 1110 of
the WIIN Act but has not completed the necessary work to executeall authorized uses for this funding. The Committee directs theCorps to fully execute subsection (c) of 33 U.S.C. 2238c within 90
days of enactment of this act.
Emerging Harbors.—The Committee understands that Hampton
Harbor in New Hampshire qualifies as an emerging harbor. The
Corps is directed to brief the Committees on Appropriation of bothHouses of Congress within 30 days of enactment of this act on how
the Corps prioritizes additional HMTF dollars for emerging harbors
that experience unexpected levels of deterioration or are at severerisk of closing outside of their scheduled dredging cycles.
Enhanced Options for Sand Acquisition for Beach Renourishment
Projects.—The Committee urges the Corps to provide States withguidance and recommendations to implement cost effective measures and planning for sand management.
Isle of Shoals North and Cape Arundel Dredged Material Placement Site.— The Cape Arundel Disposal Site in the State of Maine
selected by the Department of the Army as an alternative dredged
material disposal site under section 103(b) of the Marine Protection
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, shall remain open until

44
April 15, 2024, until the remaining disposal capacity of the site has
been utilized, or until final designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site for southern Maine under section 102(c) of the
Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, whichever first occurs, provided that the site conditions remain suitable
for such purpose and that the site may not be used for disposal ofmore than 80,000 cubic yards from any single dredging project.
John W. Flannagan Dam and Reservoir.—The Committee supports efforts to optimize regional economic benefits and enhanced
downstream recreation opportunities along the Russell Fork River.
The Committee understands the Corps has recently completed a
Section 216 Initial Appraisal for the John W. Flannagan Dam andReservoir and found that a feasibility-level study is warranted toaccommodate additional whitewater releases. The Committee urges
the Corps to implement the recommendations identified in the Initial Appraisal and within the additional funds provided in this account, prioritize an optimization analysis to formulate and evaluate
Federal interest in changing project operations at the John W.
Flannagan Dam and Reservoir as it relates to winter drawdown toincrease regional economic benefits and extend whitewater recreation opportunities.
Kennebec River Long-Term Maintenance Dredging.—In fiscal
year 2018, Congress directed the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), in consultation with the Navy, to submit a report to
the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, proposing a long-term plan for regular maintenance of the Kennebec
River. The Committee urges the Secretary to prioritize the completion of this report. Within 90 days enactment of this act, the Secretary shall brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Housesof Congress on the status of ongoing discussions with the Navy andthe identification of a long-term plan.
Monitoring of Completed Navigation Projects—Fisheries.—The
Committee is concerned that a reduction in or elimination of navigational lock operations on the Nation’s inland waterways is having a negative impact on river ecosystems, particularly the abilityof a number of endangered, threatened and game fish species tomigrate through waterways, particularly during critical spawningperiods. The Committee is aware of preliminary research that indicates reduced lock operations on certain Corps designated low-use
waterways is directly impacting migration and that there are effective means to mitigate the impacts. The Committee believes maximizing the ability of fish to use these locks to move past the dams
has the potential to restore natural and historic long-distance rivermigrations that may well be critical to species survival. In fiscal
year 2018, the Committee recommended funding to continue preliminary research on the impact of reduced lock operations onriverine fish.
The Committee understands the research underway is proving
valuable and, within available funds for ongoing work, directs theCorps to continue this research at no less than the 2017 level. The
goal of the continued funding is to support the ongoing researchand, where appropriate, expand the work to look at ecosystem level
impacts and additional waterways, lock structures, lock operation

45
methods, and fish species that will more fully inform the Corps’ operations.
Monitoring of Completed Navigation Projects-Non-Destructive
Testing.—The Committee supports the Corps efforts to significantly
improve safety, efficiency, reliability, and cost of maintaining critical and aging infrastructure, particularly post-tensioned anchorages at locks and dams along the navigable waterways and floodcontrol facilities in the United States. The Committee is also awarethat innovative and technically advanced non-destructive testing[NDT] methods of inspection have been developed collaboratively
by the Corps that will assist in performing this vital mission moresafely and more accurately at significantly less cost than current
methods. Of the funding provided in the Monitoring Completed
Navigation Projects, $600,000 shall be used to continue the validation and deployment of NDT tools, modeling, and management
practices for trunnion rods on dams of interest in navigable waterways.
Monitoring of Completed Navigation Projects-Structural Health
Monitoring.—Of the funding provided, $4,000,000 shall be to support the structural health monitoring program to facilitate research
to maximize operations, enhance efficiency, and protect asset life
through catastrophic failure mitigation.
National Dam Safety Program.—In cooperation with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission and the Bureau of Reclamation,
the Corps is directed to conduct a comprehensive Independent External Peer Review [IEPR] of risk-informed dam safety practices inthese three Federal agencies with the intent to inform improvements broadly in national dam safety practices. The Corps is directed to contract with an independent peer review organization inaccordance with its current review policy and the National Academy of Science IEPR process. The IEPR shall also consider how
dam safety practices are affected by human factors, as well as how
risk informed analysis in other industries may be applicable to dam
safety practices.
San Rafael Channel.—The Committee is aware that the last full
dredging of the San Rafael Channel was in 2002. This lack ofdredging is becoming a public safety issue as the San Rafael Police
and Fire Department, who have taken over emergency services andsearch and rescue operations, are based in the Channel and needaccess and capacity for bay patrols, rescues, and other public safety
activity. Given public safety concerns, the Committee urges theCorps to prioritize dredging of the San Rafael Channel.
Soil Moisture and Snowpack Monitoring Program.—Following
the 2011 Missouri River Flood, the Government Accountability Office released a report concluding that increased soil moisture andsnowpack monitoring could have mitigated the impact of the floodon communities along the Missouri River. Accordingly, WRRDA
section 4003 authorized a soil moisture and snowpack monitoring
program to be administered by the Corps in coordination with the
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the
Bureau of Reclamation. Section 1179 of the WIIN Act identified theCorps as the lead agency for carrying out and coordinating thismonitoring program. Activities necessary to carry out soil moisture46
and snowpack monitoring are eligible for funds provided in this account. The Corps is also encouraged to provide sufficient funding
in future budget submissions for this program.
Upper Missouri River Basin.—The Committee recognizes the importance of recreation on Corps-owned sites across the upper Missouri River Basin and encourages the Corps to prioritize muchneeded repairs and other maintenance at these sites.
Water Operations Technical Support.—Funding in addition to thebudget request is included for research into atmospheric rivers first
funded in fiscal year 2015.
WIFIA Planning and Development.—The Water Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act [WIFIA] is another alternative financing tool that has received strong support from many Members ofCongress. The Environmental Protection Agency’s WIFIA program
was initiated in fiscal year 2015, but to date, the Corps has not requested funding nor provided requested information on how a corresponding program for the Civil Works program would be implemented. Therefore, the Corps again is directed to provide to theCommittees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a detailed plan for how WIFIA would be implemented, including an estimated schedule for when funding could be used to provide loans.
The Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 in this account to continue that effort.
WRRDA Section 4001.—The Committee urges the Secretary tofollow through on previous direction provided by Congress to financially support the Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River
Basin Commissions. Congress has made clear its intent and expects the Corps to budget accordingly. The Corps is directed tobrief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congresswithin 30 days of enactment of this act on the Federal role in theRiver Basin Commissions.
WRRDA Section 6002.—The Committee supports the Corps’ performing a review of its inventory, in accordance with WRRDA section 6002, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of thisact.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee cannot
support a level of funding that does not fund operation and maintenance of our Nation’s aging infrastructure sufficiently to ensure
continued competitiveness in a global marketplace. Federal navigation channels maintained at only a fraction of authorized dimensions and navigation locks and hydropower facilities well beyond
their design life result in economic inefficiencies and risk infrastructure failure, which can cause substantial economic losses. The
Committee recommendation includes additional funds for projects
and activities to enhance the Nation’s economic growth and international competitiveness.
The Committee is concerned that the Administration’s criteria
for navigation maintenance disadvantage small, remote, or subsistence harbors and waterways from competing for scarce navigation
maintenance funds. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Corps
to revise the criteria used for determining which navigation maintenance projects are funded to develop a reasonable and equitableallocation under the Operation and Maintenance account. The

47
Committee supports including criteria to evaluate economic impactthat these projects provide to local and regional economies.
Any costs to cover administrative fees or any other efforts necessary to resolve encroachments that were the result of past land
surveying errors made by the Corps shall be eligible for additional
funding provided in this account.
When allocating the additional funding recommended in this account, the Corps shall consider giving priority to the following:—Ability to complete ongoing work maintaining authorized
depths and widths of harbors and shipping channels (including
small, remote, or subsistence harbors), including where contaminated sediments are present.
—Ability to address critical maintenance backlog;—Presence of the U.S. Coast Guard;—Extent to which the work will enhance national, regional, or
local economic development;—Extent to which the work will promote job growth or international competitiveness;—Number of jobs created directly by the funded activity;—Ability to obligate the funds allocated within the calendar year;—Ability to complete the project, separable element, project
phase, or useful increment of work within the funds allocated;—For harbor maintenance activities,—Total tonnage handled;—Total exports;—Total imports;—Dollar value of cargo handled;—Energy infrastructure and national security needs served;—Designation as strategic seaports;—Lack of alternative means of freight movement; and—Savings over alternative means of freight movement.
REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$200,000,000
200,000,000
200,000,000

The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Regulatory
Program, the same as the budget request.
Salton Sea.—The Committee is concerned with the worsening air
quality and habitat impacts related to Salton Sea and encourages
the Corps to prioritize permitting for the Salton Sea Management
Plan.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$139,000,000
120,000,000
120,000,000

The Committee recommends $120,000,000 for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, the same as the budget request.

48
FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$35,000,000
27,000,000
35,000,000

The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for Flood Control andCoastal Emergencies, an increase of $8,000,000 above the budget
request.
EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$185,000,000$187,000,000
193,000,000

The Committee recommends $193,000,000 for Expenses, an increase of $6,000,000 above the budget request. This appropriation
finances the expenses for the Office of the Chief of Engineers, theDivision Offices, and certain research and statistical functions of
the Corps. No funding is recommended for creation of an Office ofCongressional Affairs.
Additional funding recommended in the Expenses account is for
activities that were previously funded under Remaining Items andlater migrated to the Expenses account. These include: up to$2,000,000 annually for the executive direction and management of
the Dam Safety Program, which will allow for more appropriatedConstruction funds to be used on dam safety activities; not lessthan $2,000,000 annually to efficiently fund the Guidance Update
Management Program [GUMP], providing vital up-to-date policy
and technical guidance ensuring the excellence and quality ofCorps Civil Works program; and not less than $2,000,000 annuallyfor developing a Civil Works Data Modernization Program that focuses on improving and modernizing data management systems,
data system integration methods, and making data publically available.
Deauthorizations.—Within 90 days of enactment of this act, theCorps shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of bothHouses of Congress a list of all projects that have been deauthorized or will be deauthorized in the next two fiscal years as a resultof section 1302 of the WIIN Act.
Inventory of Corps Projects.—Within 120 days after enactment
this act, the Corps shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of both houses of Congress an inventory of all authorized
Corps studies and projects in each state. For each study and project
identified, the Corps shall include by State, the specific authorization, respective mission area, remaining Federal cost to complete,
and the current status.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$5,000,000
5,000,000
5,000,000

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the same as the budget request.

49
The Committee counts on a timely and accessible executive
branch in the course of fulfilling its constitutional role in the appropriations process. The requesting and receiving of basic, factual
information is vital to maintain a transparent and open governing
process. The Committee recognizes that some discussions internal
to the executive branch are pre-decisional in nature and, therefore,
not subject to disclosure. However, the access to facts, figures, andstatistics that inform these decisions are not subject to the same
sensitivity and are critical to the appropriations process. The administration needs to do more to ensure timely and complete responses to these inquiries.
GENERAL PROVISIONS—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL
Section 101. The bill includes a provision related to reprogramming.
Section 102. The bill includes a provision related to transfers to
the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Section 103. The bill includes a provision related to open Lake
disposal of dredged material.
Section 104. The bill includes a provision related to the acquisition of buoy chain.
Section 105. The bill includes a provision related to permitting
for the discharge of dredged or fill material.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORCENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$10,500,000
7,983,000
15,000,000

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Central Utah
Project Completion Account, which includes $898,000 for transfer
to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for
use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, $1,398,675 for necessary expenses of the Secretary of theInterior, and up to $1,500,000 for the Commission’s administrative
expenses. This allows the Department of the Interior to develop
water supply facilities that will continue to sustain economic
growth and an enhanced quality of life in the western States, thefastest growing region in the United States. The Committee remains committed to complete the Central Utah Project, which
would enable the project to initiate repayment to the Federal Government.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATIONOVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONThe Committee recommends $1,478,000,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation [Reclamation], an increase of $490,983,000 above thebudget request. The Committee recommendation sets priorities by
supporting our Nation’s water infrastructure.

50
INTRODUCTION

In addition to the traditional missions of bringing water andpower to the West, Reclamation continues to develop programs, initiatives, and activities that will help meet new water needs andbalance the multitude of competing uses of water in the West. Reclamation is the largest wholesaler of water in the country, operating 338 reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 140 million
acre-feet. Reclamation projects deliver 10 trillion gallons of water
to more than 31 million people each year, and provide 1 out of 5
western farmers with irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland that produce 60 percent of the Nation’s vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits and nuts. Reclamation manages, with partners,
289 recreation sites that have 90 million visits annually.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 WORK PLAN

The Committee recommends funding above the budget request
for Water and Related Resources. Reclamation is directed to submit
a work plan, not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of
this act, to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses ofCongress proposing its allocation of these additional funds. The
work plan shall be consistent with the following general guidance.
—None of the funds may be used for any item for which theCommittee has specifically denied funding.
—The additional funds are provided for ongoing studies or
projects that were either not included in the budget request or
for which the budget request was inadequate.
—Funding associated with a category may be allocated to eligible
studies or projects within that category.
—Reclamation may not withhold funding from a study or project
because it is inconsistent with administration policy. The Committee notes that these funds are in excess of the administration’s budget request, and that administration budget metrics
should not disqualify a study or project from being funded.
REPROGRAMMINGThe Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation provided in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2018.
DROUGHT RESILIENCY

Congress has invested approximately $500 million over the past
4 years in drought and water supply-related activities. The Committee remains intently focused on the need for substantially increased investment in improving drought resiliency as well as infinding opportunities for agencies to combine water supply benefits
with other mission priorities. In Energy and Water Development
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, the Committee
began the transition from mitigating an ongoing drought in theWest to preparing for the next one. The Committee continues thatapproach in this year’s bill by recommending another $196 million
for the drought resiliency programs authorized in the WIIN Act.
The Committee directs Reclamation to continue working with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Serv-51
ice, and relevant State agencies to undertake comprehensive,around the clock, real-time monitoring of water supply conditions
and their impact on endangered species during critical periods inthe winter and spring.
The Committee believes that the only answer to these chronic
droughts is a combination of additional storage, substantial investments in desalination and recycling, improved conveyance, and increased efficiencies in the uses of water both for agriculture and potable purposes. As the West has consistently been the fastest growing part of the country, it is incumbent on Reclamation to lead theway in increasing the water that is available from year to year andto incentivize more efficient use of the water that is available.
UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMSThe Committee is concerned by a U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement bulletin published in 2017 that confidently assesses
that a Chinese unmanned aerial systems [UAS] manufacturer wasusing its products to provide critical infrastructure data to the Chinese government. Reclamation shall immediately determine whether UAS that were the subject of the August 2017 bulletin are currently in use and report back to the Committee within 180 days.
Due to the critical infrastructure funded in this bill that has an extensive national security component, any vulnerability to foreign
surveillance is a serious concern to this Committee and Reclamation shall prioritize purchases of American-made UAS in the future.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

The Committee did not accept or include congressionally directed
spending, as defined in section 5(a) of rule XLIV of the Standing
Rules of the Senate. However, the Committee has recommended
additional programmatic funds above the budget request for the
Water and Related Resources account. In some cases, these additional funds have been included within defined categories, as inprior years, and are described in more detail in their respective sections below.
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$1,332,124,000
891,017,000
1,382,000,000

The Committee recommends $1,382,000,000 for Water and Related Resources, an increase of $490,983,000 above the budget request.
INTRODUCTION

The Water and Related Resources account supports the development, management, and restoration of water and related natural
resources in the 17 western States. The account includes funds for
operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest
overall level of benefits, to protect public safety, and to conduct
studies on ways to improve the use of water and related natural

52
resources. Work will be done in partnership and cooperation with
non-federal entities and other Federal agencies.
The Committee recommends increased funding in the Water andRelated Resources account on a number of line items to better
allow Reclamation to address the immediate impacts of thedrought.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Project title

Resources
management

Committee recommendation

Facilities
OM&R

Resources
management

Facilities
OM&R

ARIZONAAK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACTPROJECT ...................................................................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN—CENTRAL ARIZONAPROJECT ...................................................................
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM ..
SALT RIVER PROJECT ....................................................
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACTPROJECT ...................................................................
YUMA AREA PROJECTS ..................................................

........................

16,200........................

16,200

6,272
2,303
649

648
........................
250

6,272
2,303
649

648
........................
250

1,550
1,183

........................
22,626

1,550
1,183

........................
22,626778........................

790........................

778........................

790........................

1,377
35
4,812
1,290
1,393
35,000
8,771

8,838
2,184
6,772
2,772
3,324
........................
400

1,377
35
4,812
1,290
1,393
35,000
8,771

8,838
2,184
6,772
2,772
3,324
........................
400........................
1,675
185
........................
474
12,291
3,989
3,219........................
300
1,162
400

17,444495
98........................
9,460
4,777
10,7935,681
873........................
2,534
36

........................
1,675
185
........................
474
12,291
3,989
3,219........................
300
1,162
400

17,444495
98........................
9,460
4,777
10,7935,681
873........................
2,534
36

612
10
185
198
50
152

2,185
393
2,416
13,727139
12,424

612
10
185
198
50
152

2,185
393
2,416
13,727139
12,424........................
506........................
78........................
1,502
79

........................
2,326
2,586
420
38
2,811
388

........................
506........................
78........................
1,502
79

........................
2,326
2,586
420
38
2,811
388

CALIFORNIACACHUMA PROJECT .......................................................
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: ........................................
AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, FOLSOM DAM UNIT/
MORMON ISLAND .............................................
AUBURN–FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT ............................
DELTA DIVISION ....................................................
EAST SIDE DIVISION .............................................
FRIANT DIVISION ..................................................
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENTMISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS ................
REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINT. PROGRAM ...............................
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION .............................
SAN FELIPE DIVISION ...........................................
SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION ........................................
SHASTA DIVISION .................................................
TRINITY RIVER DIVISION ......................................
WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS ........................
WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT ....
ORLAND PROJECT ..........................................................
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT ................................
SOLANO PROJECT ..........................................................
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT .............................................
COLORADOANIMAS–LA PLATA PROJECT .........................................
ARMEL UNIT, P–SMBP ..................................................
COLLBRAN PROJECT ......................................................
COLORADO–BIG THOMPSON PROJECT ..........................
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT .....................................
FRYINGPAN–ARKANSAS PROJECT ..................................
FRYINGPAN–ARKANSAS PROJECT—ARKANSAS VALLEYCONDUIT ...................................................................
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II .......................
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT .......
MANCOS PROJECT .........................................................
NARROWS UNIT, P–SMBP .............................................
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ...................
PINE RIVER PROJECT ....................................................

53
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Project title

SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CLOSED BASIN .................
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CONEJOS DIVISION ...........
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT ..............................................
UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM .......

Resources
management

Committee recommendation

Facilities
OM&R

Resources
management

Facilities
OM&R

118
16
767
870

2,832
34
174
........................

118
16
767
870

2,832
34
174
........................

3,014

2,571

3,014

2,571

19,000
1,383
2,188
14

........................
27
3,475
33

19,000
1,383
2,188
14

........................
27
3,475
33

44
331
39
71
........................
17
16
88

481
935
535
3,402
102
446
481
403

44
331
39
71
........................
17
16
88

481
935
535
3,402
102
446
481
403

238
59

5,009
666

238
59

5,009
666

4,731
5
........................
7
91
716
447
1,047

........................
166
434
46
1,508
30
1,467
117

4,731
5
........................
7
91
716
447
1,047

........................
166
434
46
1,508
30
1,467
117

3,984
52
22

........................
268
8,939

3,984
52
22

........................
268
8,939

69
372
13
93

131
1,964
98
140

69
372
13
93

131
1,964
98
140

4,992
115
700

4,859
........................
........................

4,992
115
700

4,859
........................
........................

2,551........................
12,634
1,860
1,000
15

1,300
........................
10,8855,074........................
16

2,551
........................
12,634
1,860
1,000
15

1,300
........................
10,8855,074........................
16........................

449........................

449

IDAHO
BOISE AREA PROJECTS .................................................
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERYPROJECT ...................................................................
LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS ..................................
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS ...........................................
PRESTON BENCH PROJECT ...........................................
KANSASALMENA UNIT, P–SMBP ................................................
BOSTWICK UNIT, P–SMBP .............................................
CEDAR BLUFF UNIT, P–SMBP .......................................
GLEN ELDER UNIT, P–SMBP .........................................
KANSAS RIVER UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................
KIRWIN UNIT, P–SMBP ..................................................
WEBSTER UNIT, P–SMBP ..............................................
WICHITA PROJECT—CHENEY DIVISION .........................
MONTANACANYON FERRY UNIT, P–SMBP ....................................
EAST BENCH UNIT, P–SMBP .........................................
FORT PECK RESERVATION / DRY PRAIRIE RURAL
WATER SYSTEM ........................................................
HELENA VALLEY UNIT, P–SMBP ....................................
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT .............................................
HUNTLEY PROJECT ........................................................
LOWER MARIAS UNIT, P–SMBP .....................................
LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT ...................................
MILK RIVER PROJECT ....................................................
MISSOURI BASIN O&M, P–SMBP ..................................
ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MT RURAL WATER SYSTEM ...........................................................................
SUN RIVER PROJECT .....................................................
YELLOWTAIL UNIT, P–SMBP ..........................................
NEBRASKAAINSWORTH UNIT, P–SMBP ...........................................
FRENCHMAN–CAMBRIDGE UNIT, P–SMBP ....................
MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT ...............................................
NORTH LOUP UNIT, P–SMBP .........................................
NEVADALAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT ...........................................
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM .......
LAKE MEAD /LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM ...................
NEW MEXICOCARLSBAD PROJECT ......................................................
EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY ...........
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT .....................................
RIO GRANDE PROJECT ..................................................
RIO GRANDE PEUBLOS PROJECT ..................................
TUCUMCARI PROJECT ....................................................
NORTH DAKOTADICKINSON UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................

54
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Project title

GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT, P–SMBP ..........................
HEART BUTTE UNIT, P–SMBP .......................................

Resources
management

Committee recommendation

Facilities
OM&R

Resources
management

Facilities
OM&R

9,221
82

12,284
1,326

9,221
82

12,284
1,326

66
124
34
72
240
57

183
835
673
310
1,093
555

66
124
34
72
240
57

183
835
673
310
1,093
555

268
386
471
13,755
1,774
177
572

457
189
216
3,745
615
216
2,549

268
386
471
13,755
1,774
177
572

457
189
216
3,745
615
216
2,549

130
385
198
100
........................
........................
37........................
........................
153

688
836
720
........................
15
13,475
73
79
208
466

130
385
198
100
........................
........................
37........................
........................
153

688
836
720
........................
15
13,475
73
79
208
466

37
57

13
88

37
57

13
88

50
107
37

........................
869
594

50
107
37

........................
869
594

90
19
50
286
1,191
59
253
751
1,082
100

197
105
104
224
512
13
99
46
959
198

90
19
50
286
1,191
59
253
751
1,082
100

197
105
104
224
512
13
99
46
959
198

4,436
329
744
13,200

8,473
138
6,083
........................

4,436
329
744
13,200

8,473
138
6,083
........................

191

1,893

191

1,893

OKLAHOMAARBUCKLE PROJECT ......................................................
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT ...............................................
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT ............................................
NORMAN PROJECT .........................................................
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT ..............................................
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT ...................................................
OREGONCROOKED RIVER PROJECT ............................................
DESCHUTES PROJECT ....................................................
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS .......................................
KLAMATH PROJECT ........................................................
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION ........
TUALATIN PROJECT ........................................................
UMATILLA PROJECT .......................................................
SOUTH DAKOTAANGOSTURA UNIT, P–SMBP ..........................................
BELLE FOURCHE UNIT, P–SMBP ...................................
KEYHOLE UNIT, P–SMBP ...............................................
LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM ..................
MID–DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT ..........................
MNI WICONI PROJECT ...................................................
OAHE UNIT, P–SMBP .....................................................
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT ................................................
RAPID VALLEY UNIT, P–SMBP .......................................
SHADEHILL UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................
TEXASBALMORHEA PROJECT ...................................................
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT ...........................................
LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAM .........................................................
NUECES RIVER PROJECT ...............................................
SAN ANGELO PROJECT ..................................................
UTAH
HYRUM PROJECT ...........................................................
MOON LAKE PROJECT ....................................................
NEWTON PROJECT .........................................................
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT ................................................
PROVO RIVER PROJECT .................................................
SANPETE PROJECT ........................................................
SCOFIELD PROJECT .......................................................
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT ....................................
WEBER BASIN PROJECT ................................................
WEBER RIVER PROJECT ................................................
WASHINGTONCOLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT ...........................................
WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS ......................................
YAKIMA PROJECT ...........................................................
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECTWYOMINGBOYSEN UNIT, P–SMBP ................................................

55
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate
Project title

Resources
management

Committee recommendation

Facilities
OM&R

Resources
management

Facilities
OM&R

BUFFALO BILL DAM, DAM MODIFICATION, P–SMBP ......
KENDRICK PROJECT ......................................................
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT ...............................................
NORTH PLATTE AREA, P–SMBP .....................................
OWL CREEK UNIT, P–SMBP ..........................................
RIVERTON UNIT, P–SMBP .............................................
SHOSHONE PROJECT .....................................................

33
68
78
72
6
8
34

2,764
4,047
1,209
5,437
99
580
761

33
68
78
72
6
8
34

2,764
4,047
1,209
5,437
99
580
761

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ...................

207,939

293,656

207,939

293,656........................
........................
........................

........................
........................
........................

86,50010,000241,844........................
........................
........................

........................

........................

40,000........................

........................

........................

........................

4,000

1,934

13,5191,934

13,5196,000........................

6,000........................

3,513

6,397

3,513

6,397

3,347

........................

3,347........................

940........................

940........................

........................
........................
........................

1,300
66,50020,284........................
........................
........................

1,300
66,50020,284........................

1,300........................

1,300

19,152
1,844........................
2,000........................
........................
9,123........................

19,152
1,844........................
2,000........................
........................
9,123........................

8,301
10,00012,772
68,932
10,684
31,176........................
10,571........................
........................
........................
671........................
........................
980........................

8,301
10,00012,772
68,932
10,684
31,176........................
12,425........................
........................
........................
671........................
........................
980........................

2,462
1,204
2,193
600
2,148

........................
2,437
307
206
........................

2,462
1,204
2,193
600
2,148

........................
2,437
307
206
........................

6,497........................

6,497........................

1,753

1,150

18,653

1,150

REMAINING ITEMSADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK RURAL
WATER ......................................................................
FISH PASSAGE AND FISH SCREENS .....................
WATER CONSERVATION AND DELIVERY ...............
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND COMPLIANCE ................................................................
FACILITIES OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REHABILITATION ...................................................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT,
TITLE I ......................................................................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT,
TITLE II .....................................................................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP), SECTION 5 ......................................................................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP), SECTION 8 ......................................................................
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTPROJECT ...................................................................
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DAM SAFETY PROGRAM ...................................
INITIATE SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION
SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS .............
EMERGENCY PLANNING & DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM ........................................................................
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATIONPROGRAM .................................................................
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ..............
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES .....................
GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES ....................................
INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS AAMODT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT ....................................................
BLACKFEET IWRS .................................................
CROW TRIBE RIGHTS ...........................................
NAVAJO–GALLUP ...................................................
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ......
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS ..........
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM .........................
NEGOTIATION & ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING ......................................................................
OPERATION & PROGRAM MANAGEMENT .......................
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES ........................................
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM ......................
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION ...........................
RECREATION & FISH & WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM ...............................................................

56
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate

Committee recommendation

Project title

Resources
management

Facilities
OM&R

Resources
management

Facilities
OM&R

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...............
SITE SECURITY ACTIVITIES ............................................
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES—TECHNICALSUPPORT ...................................................................
WATERSMART PROGRAM WATERSMART GRANTS ..........
WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM ...............................................................
COOPERATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ...........
BASIN STUDIES ....................................................
DROUGHT RESPONSE & COMPREHENSIVEDROUGHT PLANS .............................................
TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION & REUSE PROGRAM ...............................................................

11,014........................

........................
26,22016,765........................

........................
26,22090
10,000........................
........................

90
34,000........................
........................

1,750
250
2,000

........................
........................
........................

4,179
2,250
5,200

........................
........................
........................

2,901........................

4,000........................

3,000........................

54,406........................

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS .........................

239,028

150,394

726,011

154,394

UNDERFINANCING ..........................................................

........................

........................

........................

........................

TOTAL ...............................................................

446,967

444,050

933,950448,050

Anadromous Fish Screen Program.—The Committee is concernedthat insufficient resources are being devoted to completing work on
the last two remaining priority unscreened diversions on the Sacramento River, both of which have been specifically identified aspriorities in the California Natural Resources Agency Sacramento
Valley Salmon Resiliency Strategy. The Committee strongly urges
Reclamation to allocate sufficient resources from within available
funds to complete the screening of these high priority diversions.
Arkansas Valley Conduit.—The Committee understands Reclamation has proactively worked over the past year to identify costsavings by using existing locally owned facilities. Despite receiving
appropriations since 2009 and the project being in its final phase,the fiscal year 2019 budget request includes no funding for thisConduit, jeopardizing the clean drinking water supply to rural
Southeastern Colorado. The Committee further understands thatthe project could incur a delay cost of 3 percent, costing taxpayers
more than $1,000,000 to achieve the same results. The Committee
urges Reclamation to prioritize additional funding to build andmaintain critical infrastructure in rural communities across the
Nation.
Aquifer Recharge.—The Committee is aware that many States
have implemented new methods of recharging aquifers for increased water storage and drought mitigation. The Committee directs Reclamation to work closely with project beneficiaries to identify and resolve any barriers to aquifer recharge projects when appropriate, while utilizing full authority to prioritize funds for ongoing projects through completion.
CALFED Water Storage Feasibility Studies.—In testimony before
the Subcommittee, the Commissioner of Reclamation asserted thatthe agency would complete feasibility studies for the Sites andTemperance Flat reservoirs by the end of August 2018 and would
complete the feasibility study for the Los Vaqueros reservoir by No-

57
vember 2018. The Committee notes that these studies have taken
more than 15 years and expects Reclamation to take such steps as
are necessary to ensure that each of these studies is completed assoon as possible.
Columbia Basin Project.—The Committee understands the Odessa Subarea of the Columbia Basin Project is facing significant challenges as groundwater from the aquifer has been declining. This
rapid decline has put agriculture production and commercial, municipal, and industrial water uses at risk. The Committee commends Reclamation’s work with the State of Washington and impacted irrigation districts to prevent further depletion of the aquifer and deliver surface water to agricultural lands within the Columbia Basin Project through a pressurized delivery system. In
May 2018, Reclamation issued a Supplemental Information Reportfor the Odessa Groundwater Replacement Program that allows
Reclamation to request funding to support the project, which todate has been supported through State, local, and private investments. The Committee encourages Reclamation to request funding
in future budgets to support projects associated with the Odessa
Groundwater Replacement Program.
Groundwater Recharge.—Using the funds recommended under
the heading ‘‘Water Conservation and Delivery’’, Reclamation shallmake funding available for water conservation programs, conjunctive use projects, and other projects to maximize groundwater storage and beneficial use.
Projects Serving Military Installations.—The Committee is concerned that Reclamation’s criteria for allocating funding have notadequately accounted for projects that would directly benefit military base operations and national security facilities. The Committee directs Reclamation to brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 30 days of delivering thereport to Congress, which was required in the fiscal year 2018 appropriations bill, on the recommendations contained within that report.
Rural Water Projects.—Voluntary funding in excess of legally required cost shares for rural water projects is acceptable but shallnot be used by Reclamation as a criterion for allocating additional
funding recommended by the Committee or for budgeting in futureyears.
Salton Sea.—The Committee encourages Reclamation to establish an interagency Salton Sea working group to coordinate Corps
permitting, Environmental Protection Agency financing opportunities, and Department of Agriculture restoration work as well as expedite implementation of objectives set forth in the August 2016
Memorandum of Understanding.
Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project, Oregon.—The Committee supports the budget request for preconstruction activities at Scoggins
Dam under the Safety of Dams program. Consistent with theTualatin Project Water Supply Feasibility Study authorized in Public Law 108–137 and statutory authority granted by Public Law
114–113 allowing for additional benefits to be conducted concurrently with dam safety improvements, the Committee directs Reclamation to evaluate alternatives, including new or supplementary
works, provided that safety remains the paramount consideration,

58
to address dam safety modifications and increased storage capacity.
Considering the high risk associated with Scoggins Dam, the Committee urges Reclamation to work with local stakeholders and repayment contractors to prioritize this joint project including feasibility and environmental review of the preferred alternative in fiscal year 2019. The Committee understands that a replacement
structure downstream could significantly reduce project costs forboth the Federal Government and local stakeholders. Reclamation
may accept contributed funds from non-federal contractors to expedite completion of any level of review.
Research and Development: Desalination and Water Purification
Program.—Of the funding recommended for this program,$12,000,000 shall be for desalination projects as authorized in section 4009(a) of the WIIN Act.
Research and Development, Science and Technology Program.—
The Committee is aware that the Reclamation Science and Technology Office has been investing in efforts under the Open Water
Data Initiative to integrate currently fragmented water supply
data from several Federal agencies into a connected, national water
data framework. Furthermore, the Committee understands that
the Science and Technology Office has a future goal to develop webbased decision support tools. The Committee urges Reclamation to
expedite the development and testing of a web-based Water Supply
Decision Support System that will help Federal, State, municipal,
Tribal, and private water managers and users make better wateruse decisions to support water conservation and drought resiliencein the western States. Such a system will allow a diverse group ofwater managers and users to better leverage the Federal Government’s investment in producing water supply data on river levels,
snow pack, weather, and climate.
St. Mary’s Diversion Dam and Conveyance Works.—The Committee encourages Reclamation to use additional funding for the
Milk River Project to move forward with its design work for the St.
Mary Canal Diversion Dam, including completion of designs, specifications, and cost estimates. The committee also encourages Reclamation to consider the replacement of the St. Mary Canal Diversion Dam as an extraordinary maintenance measure, and allow
local stakeholders additional flexibility in paying for a dam replacement, instead of one lump sum payment.
WaterSMART Program.—The Committee encourages Reclamation to prioritize eligible Water Conservation projects that will provide water supplies to meet the needs of threatened and endangered species.
WaterSMART Program: Title XVI Water Reclamation & Reuse
Program.—Of the funding recommended for this program,$20,000,000 shall be for water recycling and reuse projects as authorized in section 4009(c) of the WIIN Act.
Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management
Plan.—The Committee supports the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan [Plan]. This innovative
water management plan represents years of collaboration in the
Yakima River Basin among stakeholders including Reclamation,
the State of Washington, the Yakama Nation, irrigators and farmers, conservation organizations, recreationists, and local govern-

59
ments to address water supply needs for agriculture, fish and wildlife, and municipal use. The Committee encourages Reclamation torequest funding in future budgets to implement additional authorized elements of the Plan.
Additional Funding for Water and Related Resources Work.—The
Committee recommendation includes an additional $490,983,000
above the budget request for Water and Related Resources studies,projects, and activities. Priority in allocating these funds shall begiven to advance and complete ongoing work; including
preconstruction activities and where environmental compliance has
been completed; improve water supply reliability; improve water
deliveries; enhance national, regional, or local economic development; promote job growth; advance Tribal and nontribal water settlement studies and activities; or address critical backlog maintenance and rehabilitation activities. Reclamation is encouraged toallocate additional funding for aquifer recharging efforts to address
the ongoing backlog of related projects. Of the funds recommended
under the heading ‘‘Water Conservation and Delivery’’, $30,000,000
is allocated to fund Colorado River water conservation, including
the Lower Colorado River Operations Program and the Upper Colorado River Operations Program. Of the additional funding recommended under the heading ‘‘Water Conservation and Delivery’’,$134,000,000 shall be for water storage projects as authorized in
section 4007 of Public Law 114–322. Of the additional funding recommended under the heading ‘‘Environmental Restoration or Compliance’’, not less than $30,000,000 shall be for activities authorizedunder sections 4001 and 4010 of Public Law 114–322 or as set forthin Federal-State plans for restoring threatened and endangered
fish species affected by the operation of Reclamation’s waterprojects. Reclamation is reminded that activities authorized under
Indian Water Rights Settlements are eligible to compete for the additional funding under ‘‘Water Conservation and Delivery’’.
Buried Metallic Water Pipe.—Reclamation shall continue following its temporary design guidance.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUNDGROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$41,376,000
62,008,000
62,008,000

OFFSETTING COLLECTIONSAppropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$41,376,000
62,008,000
62,008,000

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. ...........................
Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... ...........................
Committee recommendation ................................................................. ...........................

The Committee recommends $62,008,000 for the Central Valley
Project Restoration Fund, the same as the budget request. This appropriation is fully offset by collections, resulting in a net appropriation of $0.

60
The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized in
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of Public Law
102–575. This fund uses revenues from payments by project beneficiaries and donations for habitat restoration, improvement andacquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in theCentral Valley project area of California. Payments from project
beneficiaries include several required by the act (Friant Division
surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to non-Central
Valley Project users, and tiered water prices) and, to the extent required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation and restoration payments.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$37,000,000
35,000,000
35,000,000

The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for California BayDelta Restoration, the same as the budget request.
This account funds activities that are consistent with the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18
State and Federal agencies and representatives of California’s
urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals of
the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water supply
reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California’s water distribution system.
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$59,000,000
61,000,000
61,000,000

The Committee recommends $61,000,000 for Policy and Administration, the same as the budget request.
This account funds the executive direction and management of
all Reclamation activities, as performed by the Commissioner’s offices in Washington, DC; Denver, Colorado; and five regional offices. The Denver office and regional offices charge individual
projects or activities for direct beneficial services and related administrative and technical costs. These charges are covered underother appropriations.
Reclamation Project Reimbursability Decisions.— In September
2017, the Department of the Interior’s Office of Inspector Generalreleased a report calling into question Reclamation’s method of financial participation in the State of California’s Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. The Committee is concerned that Reclamation was
not satisfactorily transparent in its use of funds for activities thatwere not included in the budget request. Reclamation is directed tosubmit an annual report 60 days after the end of each fiscal year
detailing the use of financial assistance agreements to redirect appropriated funds from their intended purpose outlined in the previous year’s budget request. Reclamation is directed to review andreport to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 90 days after enactment of this act, on the advisabilityof developing additional financial controls and requiring more ex-61tensive written justifications for determinations of what costs are
reimbursable for complex projects involving major Federal expenditures and multiple funding sources.
GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Section 201. The bill includes a provision regarding reprogramming.
Section 202. The bill includes a provision regarding the San Luis
Unit and Kesterson Reservoir.
TITLE IIIDEPARTMENT OF ENERGYOVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONThe Committee recommends $34,990,015,000 for the Departmentof Energy, an increase of $9,512,377,000 above the budget request.
The Committee recommendation sets priorities by supporting the
Office of Science and ARPA–E, leading the world in scientific computing, addressing the Federal Government’s responsibility for environmental cleanup and disposal of used nuclear fuel, keeping
large construction projects on time and on budget, effectively maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile, and supporting our nuclear
Navy.
INTRODUCTION
The mission of the Department of Energy [Department] is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy,
environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative
science and technology solutions. To accomplish this mission, theSecretary of Energy [Secretary] relies on a world-class network ofnational laboratories, private industry, universities, States, andFederal agencies, which allows our brightest minds to solve our
Nation’s most important challenges.
The Committee’s recommendation for the Department includes
funding in both defense and non-defense budget categories. Defense
funding is recommended for atomic energy defense activities, including the National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages our Nation’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, prevents proliferation of dangerous nuclear materials, and supports the Navy’s nuclear fleet; defense environmental cleanup to remediate the former
nuclear weapons complex; and safeguards and security for Idaho
National Laboratory. Non-defense funding is recommended for the
Department’s energy research and development programs (including nuclear, fossil, and renewable energy, energy efficiency, gridmodernization and resiliency, and the Office of Science), power
marketing administrations, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and administrative expenses.
REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINESThe Committee’s recommendation includes control points to ensure the Secretary spends taxpayer funds in accordance with congressional direction. The Committee’s recommendation also in-62cludes reprogramming guidelines to allow the Secretary to request
permission from the Committee for certain expenditures, as defined
below, which would not otherwise be permissible. The Secretary’s
execution of appropriated funds shall be fully consistent with thedirection provided under this heading and in section 301 of the bill,
unless the Committee includes separate guidelines for specific actions in the bill or report.
Prior to obligating any funds for an action defined below as a reprogramming, the Secretary shall notify and obtain approval of theCommittees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. The
Secretary shall submit a detailed reprogramming request in accordance with section 301 of the bill, which shall, at a minimum, justify
the deviation from prior congressional direction and describe theproposed funding adjustments with specificity. The Secretary shallnot, pending approval from the Committee, obligate any funds forthe action described in the reprogramming proposal.
The Secretary is also directed to inform the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress promptly and fully whena change in program execution and funding is required during the
fiscal year.
Definition.—A reprogramming includes:—the reallocation of funds from one activity to another within an
appropriation;—any significant departure from a program, project, activity, ororganization described in the agency’s budget justification aspresented to and approved by Congress;—for construction projects, the reallocation of funds from one
construction project identified in the agency’s budget justification to another project or a significant change in the scope ofan approved project;—adoption of any reorganization proposal which includes moving
prior appropriations between appropriations accounts; and—any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority, or prioryear deobligations.
DIRECTION ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIESThe budget request proposes a shift away from later-stage research and development activities to refocus the Department on an
early-stage research and development mission. The Committee believes that such an approach will not successfully integrate the results of early-stage research and development into the U.S. energy
system and thus will not adequately deliver innovative energy technologies, practices, and information to American consumers andcompanies. The Committee directs the Department to implement
mid- and late-stage research and development activities as directedin this report in a timely manner.
CROSSCUTTING INITIATIVES
The recommendation supports several crosscutting initiatives
funded in prior years that reach outside of individual program offices to draw on the diverse disciplines within the agency as awhole. These initiatives, which address the Energy-Water Nexus;
grid modernization; subsurface science, technology and engineering

63
research, development, and deployment; cybersecurity; advanced
materials, and the Beyond Batteries Initiative have allowed for amore comprehensive review of complex issues.
Grid Modernization.—The Department is directed to continue theongoing work between the national laboratories, industry, and universities to improve grid reliability and resiliency through the strategic goals of the Grid Modernization Initiative and encourages the
Department to include all applied energy programs to ensure broad
energy system resilience and modernization. Further, the Committee supports the Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortiumand supports continued implementation of the Grid Multi-Year Program Plan. The Committee directs the Department to emphasize
national grid resilience modeling and improved grid cyber resilience to address emerging national resilience challenges of the gridand related energy systems, planned investments in energy storage
to improve grid flexibility and resilience, and advanced sensors andcontrol paradigms that promise to improve energy system resilienceof the future smart grid. The Committee recognizes that the inaugural projects funded for a 3-year duration will be concluding in fiscal year 2019 and therefore the Department is directed to continue
support for the Grid Modernization Initiative and the Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium and provide a plan to Congress
to extend the multi-year program plan to include priorities for field
validation of the most successful research outcomes with industry
and State stakeholders to accelerate adoption of the key Department results.
Beyond Batteries Initiative.—The Committee is supportive of the
Department’s approach to consider energy storage holistically, andfocus on advances in controllable loads, hybrid systems, and new
approaches to energy storage. The Committee agrees that advancesin this wide range of energy storage technologies will allow forloads to be combined with generation from all sources to optimize
use of existing assets to provide grid services, and increase grid reliability. The Department shall continue to use all of its capabilities
to accelerate the development of storage technologies, including thebasic research capabilities of the Office of Science, the technology
expertise of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
the grid-level knowledge of the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response, and the rapid technology development capabilities of ARPA–E. The Committee directs the Department to coordinate efforts among various existing Department programs to maximize efficiency of funds and expand vital research.
The Department is encouraged to prioritize achieving a long-termgoal of deploying technologies at $100/kWh or less cost installed
while being able to cycle twice per day, discharging for at least 4
hours, with a lifetime of roughly 20 years or at least 8,000 cycles.
Subsurface Crosscut.—The Committee supports the ongoing Subsurface Technology and Engineering Research [SubTER] Initiative,
focused on revolutionizing sustainable subsurface energy production and storage through transformational improvements in theability to access, characterize, predict, and adaptively manipulate
subsurface fracture and flow processes. SubTER aims to double reservoir recovery, decrease the environmental footprint, and enhanceenergy security and public safety. The Committee supports the

64
SubTER program’s approach to increasing domestic supply of oil,gas, and geothermal energy resources by manipulating the permeability of subsurface rock formations to injection fluids. To validate
methods which enhance oil and gas recovery from fracking wells,
the Committee encourages the Department to conduct pilot fieldtests of promising technologies with university and industry partners to reduce permeability and control the flow of fluids in thesubsurface with targets of blocking highly permeable pathways
that reduce sweep efficiency in porous rock and plugging fracturesin shales.
Energy-Water Nexus.—The Committee recognizes water and energy are critical resources that are reciprocally linked. The EnergyWater Nexus crosscut consists of a collaboration of agencies, national laboratories, State and local governments, utilities, industry,
and the science community working collectively to address energy
and water resource challenges, specifically as they relate to energy
security and energy sector water needs.
Advanced Materials.—The Committee supports the Department’s
attention to advanced materials research and development, focusing on lightweight materials and composites, and corrosion and materials under extremes. The Committee understands in previous
years, other program offices independently had standalone existingmaterials programs, and continues to support formal coordination
across offices through the Materials Working Group. Continued coordination supports the Department’s ability to impact the materials development cycle from scientific discovery to technological innovation and deployment.
Cybersecurity Crosscut.—Cybersecurity activities within the Department cover a broad scope ranging from the protection of Department assets against cybersecurity threats to improving
cybersecurity in the electric power and oil and natural gas sectors
to other areas in the national security portfolio. As cybersecurity
threats become more complex, and the Department increases its
focus on cybersecurity research and development, it is vital that
there be clear crosscutting objectives and coordination across the
Department. The Committee directs the Department to develop aplan that integrates all of the Department’s cybersecurity research,development, and deployment investments, and brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 90 days
after enactment of this act.
Arctic Energy Office.—The Committee supports the promotion ofresearch, development, and deployment of electric power technologythat is cost-effective and well-suited to meet the needs of rural andremote regions of the United States, especially where permafrost ispresent or located nearby. In addition, the Committee further supports research, development and deployment in such regions of enhanced oil recovery technology, including heavy oil recovery, reinjection of carbon, and extended reach drilling technologies; gasto-liquids technology and liquefied natural gas, including associatedtransportation systems; small hydroelectric facilities, river turbines, and tidal power; natural gas hydrates, coal bed methane,and shallow bed natural gas; and alternative energy, including
wind, geothermal, and fuel cells. The Department is encouraged tosupport a renewed focus on the Arctic region, and as a cross-cut-

65ting activity, use the Arctic Energy Office as a centralized area tosupport the use of energy resources, but also innovative activities,
including microgrids and integrated energy systems.
Regional Initiatives.—The Committee continues to urge the Department to utilize investments through existing regional capabilities that include industry, universities, and State and regional economic development assets. The Committee further encourages thenational laboratories to expand their geographic outreach throughpeople and access to specialized equipment and user facilities inorder to contribute to the success of these regional initiatives.
COMMONLY RECYCLED PAPER
The Secretary shall not expend funds for projects that knowingly
use as a feedstock commonly recycled paper that is segregated frommunicipal solid waste or collected as part of a collection systemthat commingles commonly recycled paper with other solid waste
at any point from the time of collection through materials recovery.
ENERGY PROGRAMSENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$2,321,778,000
695,610,000
2,322,000,000

The Committee recommends $2,322,000,000 for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy [EERE], an increase of $1,626,390,000
above the budget request. Within available funds, the Committee
recommends $162,500,000 for program direction.
Congressional Direction.—The Committee directs the Department
to maintain a diverse portfolio of early-, mid-, and late-stage research, development, and market transformation activities. Regularconsultation with industry is encouraged to avoid duplication ofprivate-sector efforts. The Committee further directs the Department to fully execute the funds appropriated in this act, as directedin this report, in a timely manner and to keep Congress apprisedof progress in implementing funded programs, projects, and activities. Further, the Committee directs the Department to give priority to stewarding the assets and optimizing the operations of
EERE-designated user facilities across the Department of Energy
complex. In future budget requests, the Committee directs EERE
to demonstrate a commitment to operations and maintenance of facilities that support the Department’s critical missions.
Workforce Development.—The development of a skilled workforce
is critical to the successful deployment and long-term sustainabilityof energy efficient and renewable energy technologies. The Committee encourages funding within EERE programs to be allocatedto training and workforce development programs that assist andsupport workers in trades and activities required for the continued
growth of the U.S. energy efficiency and clean energy sectors. Furthermore, the Committee encourages the Department to work with
2-year, public community, and technical colleges for job training
programs that lead to an industry-recognized credential in the energy workforce.

66
Electrification Futures Study.—The Committee encourages continued coordination between the EERE and the Office ofCybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response to evaluate the impacts of mass electrification on the utility business modeland the electricity distribution system of the U.S. through the Electrification Futures Study.
Cybersecurity.—The Committee believes cybersecurity vulnerabilities must be addressed as renewable energy technologies enter
into the marketplace. The Committee also believes there is a gap
with respect to distributed generators and behind-the-substation
generators, storage, smart buildings technologies and electric vehicles where the potential for cyberattacks will continue to grow andthreaten the modern grid. Within funds recommended for EERE,
not less than $20,000,000 is recommended to establish a programthat will bring cybersecurity into early-stage technology R&D sothat it is built into new technology for this effort. Within 180 days
after enactment of this act, the Department shall submit to theCommittees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a multiyear program plan for this effort to encompass all EERE programs.
Energy Star.—The Department is encouraged to support the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to reexamine Energy Star
guidelines and standard operating procedures to ensure transparency, predictability, and consistency for all stakeholders.
VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIESThe Committee recommends $337,500,000 for Vehicle Technologies, including $7,000,000 for operations and maintenance of
the National Transportation Research Center.
Within this amount, the Committee recommends not less than$163,200,000 for Battery and Electrification Technologies to lower
the cost of batteries across light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles
through battery processing science, advanced battery chemistries,
materials research, and modeling and simulation of battery performance. The Committee recommends not less than $38,100,000
for electric drive research and development including high power
density electric drive systems, wireless charging and power electronic for extreme fast charging. The Committee also supports research and development to lower the cost of batteries for electricvehicles through cobalt-free materials and roll-to-roll manufacturing. Funding in this area shall also support research and development to improve electric motor technology through advanced material processing and the use of high-performance computing for
multi-physics discovery to understand these new processes.
The Committee further recommends $25,000,000 for Energy Efficient Mobility Systems, including the Systems and Modeling for Accelerated Research in Transportation [SMART] Mobility, Big Data
Solutions for Mobility [Big Data], and Advanced Computing for Energy [ACE] initiatives, including HPC4Mobility and HPC-enabled
analytics. These investments are critical to expanding U.S. energy
security, economic vitality, and quality of life. Therefore, the Committee supports continued funding for research that allows the U.S.
to continue its leadership in advancing state-of-the-art transportation infrastructure.

67
The Committee recommends $43,000,000 for Advanced Engine
and Fuel Technologies for research focused on advanced fuel formulations that optimize engine performance. Within this amount,$24,500,000 is recommended for the Co-Optimization of Engine andFuels Multi-Laboratory Consortium.
The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for Materials Technology. Within this amount, $25,000,000 is recommended for earlystage research on multi-material joining and propulsion materials
at the national laboratories, and carbon fiber-reinforced composites
at the Carbon Fiber Technology Facility.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $10,000,000
for continued funding of section 131 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act for transportation electrification.
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 to continue the fiveawards under the SuperTruck II program and encourages the Department to provide additional early-stage research funding forheavy-duty vehicle technologies as part of the program.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $46,300,000
for Outreach, Deployment, and Analysis. Within this amount,$37,800,000 is recommended for deployment through the Clean Cities Program. The Department is encouraged to ensure balance inthe award of funds to achieve varied aims in fostering broader
adoption of clean vehicles and installation of supporting infrastructure. The Committee further encourages the Department toprioritize projects in States where the transportation sector is responsible for a higher percentage of the State’s total energy consumption and is the largest source of greenhouse gases.
The Committee supports Advanced Vehicle Competitions, a collegiate engineering competition that provides hands-on, real-world
experience to demonstrate a variety of advanced technologies anddesigns, and supports development of a workforce trained in advanced vehicles. The Committee recommends $2,500,000 following
the successful EcoCAR 3 competition to support a new 4-year collegiate engineering competition, EcoCAR 4.
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to continue improving
the energy efficiency of commercial off-road vehicles, including up
to $5,000,000 for fluid power systems.
The Committee is concerned with the Department’s lack of requested funding for natural gas vehicle research and development.
With an abundant source of low-cost domestic natural gas, this resource as a transportation fuel is becoming the alternative fuel ofchoice for high fuel use fleets and off-road vehicles. Further research is needed on natural gas storage, natural gas engines, andfueling infrastructure optimization. Within available funding, theCommittee recommends $15,000,000 to address technical barriers
to the increased use of natural gas vehicles, including the development of novel compression and liquefaction technologies, advanced
materials, and improvements in processes for conditioning, storingand dispensing natural gas. The Committee directs the Department
to undertake a comprehensive study, with stakeholder input, on
natural gas vehicle deployment in on- and off-road transportation,
identifying barriers to increased deployment of natural gas vehicles.

68
BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIESThe Committee recommends $215,000,000 for Bioenergy Technologies.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than
$30,000,000 for Advanced Algal Systems to sustain the investment
in development of algal biofuels.
The Committee further recommends $30,000,000 for Feedstock
Supply and Logistics, $50,000,000 for Demonstration and Market
Transformation, and $10,000,000 for Analysis and Sustainability.
The Committee further recommends $95,000,000 for Conversion
Technologies. Within this amount, $20,000,000 is recommended tocontinue activities of the Agile Biology Foundry intended to achieve
substantial improvements in conversion efficiencies and the scaleup of biological processes with lower development costs and leadtimes.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $5,000,000
within Conversion Technologies to continue the research biopower
program, which makes full and innovative use of biomass, municipally-derived biosolids, municipal solid waste, and livestock waste.
Within available funds the Committee recommends $5,000,000 to
support the development and testing of new domestic manufactured low-emission, high-efficiency, residential wood heaters that
supply easily accessed and affordable renewable energy and havethe potential to reduce the national costs associated with thermalenergy.
The Committee recognizes that biomethane or anaerobic digesters can provide important solutions to meet renewable energy
goals, as well as address environmental and economic challenges
and divert organic waste from landfills. The Committee encourages
the Department to fund research, development, and demonstration
activities to help lower upfront development costs and promotesmaller-scale, community digesters. Within available funds for Conversion Technologies, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 to improve the efficiency of community and smaller digesters that accept
both farm and food wastes.
Within available funding, the Committee recommends not lessthan $10,000,000 to establish a multi-university partnership to
conduct research and enhance educational programs that improvealternative energy production derived from urban and suburban
wastes. The Committee further directs the Department to collaborate with institutions in Canada and Mexico to leverage capacity
and capitalize on North American resources.
Within available funds, the Committee supports research to develop the foundation for scalable technologies to use carbon dioxide
produced in biorefineries to produce higher value fuels, chemicals
or materials.
HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIESThe Committee recommends $115,000,000 for Hydrogen and Fuel
Cell Technologies.
Within the amounts recommended, the Committee recommends$39,000,000 for Hydrogen Fuel Research and Development for efforts to reduce the cost and improve the performance of hydrogen

69
generation and storage systems, hydrogen measurement devices for
fueling stations, hydrogen compressor components, and hydrogenstation dispensing components. The Department shall continue toresearch novel onboard hydrogen tank systems, as well as trailerdelivery systems to reduce cost of delivered hydrogen. Further, theDepartment is directed to support research and development activities that reduce the use of platinum group metals, provide improvements in electrodes and membranes and balance-of-plant components and systems. The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for
Systems Analysis, including research on in-situ metrology for process control systems for manufacturing of key hydrogen system components.
Within the amounts recommended, $19,000,000 is recommendedfor Hydrogen Infrastructure Research and Development. Further,
the Department is directed to continue the H2@Scale Initiative,
which couples current research efforts within the program withnew opportunities for using hydrogen to provide grid resiliency andadvance a wide range of industrial processes for the production offuels, chemicals, and materials.
The Committee recommends $19,000,000 for Technology Acceleration activities, including $3,000,000 for manufacturing researchand development, and $7,000,000 for industry-led efforts to demonstrate a hydrogen-focused integrated renewable energy production, storage, and transportation fuel distribution/retailing system.
Regular consultation with industry is encouraged to avoid duplication of private-sector activities.
The Committee further recommends $7,000,000 for Safety,
Codes, and Standards to maintain a robust program and engage
regulatory and code officials to support their technical needs relative to infrastructure and vehicle safety.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to work with the Secretary of Transportation and industry on coordinating efforts to deploy hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
SOLAR ENERGYThe Committee recommends $239,500,000 for Solar Energy.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $55,000,000
for Concentrating Solar Power research, development, and demonstration to reduce overall system costs, better integrate subsystem components, develop higher-temperature receivers, and improve the design of solar collection and thermal energy storage.
Within this amount, $5,000,000 is recommended for competitively
selected projects focused on advanced thermal desalination technologies.
The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for Photovoltaic Research and Development to develop new or improved high-performance cell materials and architectures and achieve greater than 40percent cell efficiencies. The Department is encouraged to cooperatewith industry and academia in its research and development efforts.
The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for Balance of System
Soft Cost Reduction to reduce non-hardware costs through newtechno-economic tools and methodologies for distributed energy resources; an assessment of the potential for block-chain technologies

70
to improve management of distributed solar; and standardization ofplanning, permitting, and installation tools and methodologies.
Within this amount, the Committee recommends not less than
$1,000,000 for the joint Solar Ready Vets program within the Department of Defense as a way to train America’s veterans to fill thegrowing need for solar industry workers.
Within the amounts recommended for Balance of System Soft
Cost Reduction, $5,000,000 is recommended to re-invigorate the
National Community Solar Partnership program to provide technical assistance to low- and moderate-income individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and State, local, and tribal governments to increase use of community solar installations.
Further, the Committee recommends $49,500,000 for Systems Integration to address the technical barriers to increased solar penetration on the grid, including grid reliability, dispatchability, powerelectronics, and communications. The Committee encourages research and development efforts to target grid storage improvements, demand-response and load-shaping technologies, and modeling and planning tools for distributed energy resources.
The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for Manufacturing
Competitiveness to develop advanced low-cost manufacturing process technologies, including thickness reduction and faster processing with fewer steps. Within this area, the Committee also supports early-stage research on photovoltaics based on earth abundant materials focusing on scalable production methods, material
stability, and ultrahigh efficiency tandem photovoltaic cell manufacturing approaches. To directly address fundamental barriers
that could limit new technology’s adoption, the Committee believes
the fastest approach for rapid commercialization of new photovoltaic technologies would be to bring national laboratory capabilities and academia, in partnership with early-stage companies todevelop a new photovoltaic U.S. manufacturing base. The Department is directed to create a 5-year domestic manufacturing capability consortium focused on inherently scalable production methods such as solution processing, roll-to-roll manufacturing, thescience of inherent material stability, and ultrahigh efficiency
through tandem manufacturing. Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than $10,000,000 for the first year of
the consortium.
WIND ENERGYThe Committee recommends $80,000,000 for Wind Energy.
The Committee supports research using high-performance computing, modeling and simulation, including the Atmosphere toElectrons initiative, and reliability and grid integration efforts.
Further, the Department is directed to give priority to stewarding
the assets and optimizing the operations of the Department-owned
wind research and development facilities. Within available funds,
the Committee recommends not less than $30,000,000 for the National Wind Technology Center, which shall include the development of a large-scale research platform to support next-generation
wind energy science and manufacturing and systems integration ofmultiple energy generation, consumption, and storage technologies
with the grid.

71
The Committee encourages the Department to prioritize distributed wind technologies that reduce costs and improve performance,
and to collaborate with industry to invest in the development anddemonstration of technologies and practices that advance distributed wind. Within available funds, the Committee recommends$10,000,000 for distributed wind.
The Committee directs the Department to support the advancement of innovative technologies for offshore wind development, including freshwater, deepwater, shallow water, and transitional
depth installations. In addition, the Department is directed to support the innovative offshore wind demonstration projects for which
funding has been allocated in previous fiscal years, and further
supports efforts to optimize their development, design, construction
methods, testing plans, and economic value proposition. The Committee recommends not less than $6,000,000 in new project development for the offshore wind demonstration projects to be allocatedequitably between the approved projects, and to provide not lessthan 18 months of additional development to ensure success. The
Committee further directs the Department to support the deployment and testing of scale floating wind turbines designed to reduceenergy costs. Within available funds, the Committee recommends
not less than $30,000,000 for the Department to prioritize earlystage research on materials and manufacturing methods and advanced components that will enable accessing high-quality wind resources, on development that will enable these technologies to compete in the marketplace without the need for subsidies, and on activities that will accelerate fundamental offshore-specific researchand development such as those that target technology and deployment challenges unique to U.S. waters. Further, the Committee
recommends not less than $10,000,000 for existing national-leveloffshore wind test facilities.
The Committee supports the Department’s research on the effects of offshore wind, especially the impact of marine sound andother stressors on marine mammals, and encourages the Department to work with nonprofit research institutions, like aquariums,
to continue this work.
WATER POWER

The Committee recommends $105,000,000 for Water Power.
Hydropower Technologies.—Within available funds, the Committee recommends $35,000,000 for conventional hydropower andpumped storage activities, including up to $6,600,000 for the purposes of section 242 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Within available funds, the Department is directed to continue research, development, and deployment efforts on pumped hydropower storage
technologies and use cases.
Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology Research, Development, andDeployment.—The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for marine
and hydrokinetic technology research, development, and deployment activities, including research into mitigation of marine ecosystem impacts of these technologies.
Within the funding available for marine and hydrokinetic technology, $30,000,000 is recommended for a balanced portfolio ofcompetitive solicitations to support industry-led and university re-72
search, development, and deployment of marine and hydrokinetic
technologies; and support wave, ocean current, tidal and in-riverenergy conversion components and systems across the high- andlow-technology readiness spectrum to increase energy capture, reliability, survivability, and integration into local or regional grids forlower costs and to assess and monitor environmental effects. Within this amount, not less than $8,000,000 is recommended to support collaborations between universities, Marine Renewable Energy
Centers, and national laboratories. Further, not less than
$5,000,000 is recommended to prioritize infrastructure needs atmarine and hydrokinetic technology testing sites operated by Marine Renewable Energy Centers. The Department is directed tosupport ongoing design of the previously awarded open-water wave
energy test facility within available funds. The Department is also
directed to continue its coordination with the U.S. Navy on marine
energy technology demonstration.
The Committee encourages close coordination between the Department and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, other relevant agencies and industry to
reduce the amount of time to permit marine energy test and validation projects.
GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGIESThe Committee recommends $85,000,000 for Geothermal Technologies.
Within available funds, $53,000,000 is recommended for Enhanced Geothermal Systems. To facilitate necessary technology development and expand understanding of subsurface dynamics, theCommittee recommends $30,000,000 for the continuation of activities of the Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy [FORGE], with activities to include ongoing novel subsurface
characterization, full-scale well drilling, and technology researchand development to accelerate the commercial pathway to largescale enhanced geothermal systems power generation.
Further, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 for Hydrothermal, $10,000,000 for Low-Temperature and Co-produced Resources, and $7,000,000 for Systems Analysis.
The Committee recognizes that enhanced geothermal systems areversatile, inherently modular, and scalable from residential utilization to district heating opportunities and large power parks thatcan provide baseload capacity. The Committee encourages the Department to support enhanced geothermal system applications forindustrial and residential uses.
The Committee directs the Department to continue its efforts to
identify prospective geothermal resources in areas with no obvious
surface expressions.
ADVANCED MANUFACTURING

The Committee recommends $311,000,000 for Advanced Manufacturing.
The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for Advanced Manufacturing Research and Development Projects.

73
The Committee recommends $171,000,000 for Advanced Manufacturing Research and Development Facilities. The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Manufacturing Demonstration Facility and the Carbon Fiber Technology Facility for early-stage research in additive manufacturing, carbon fiber and composites development, and manufacturing of multi-material systems to reduce
the energy intensity and life-cycle energy consumption of domestic
manufactured products, thereby increasing the competitiveness of
U.S. manufacturing industries. Within funding for the Manufacturing Demonstration Facility, $5,000,000 is recommended for thedevelopment of additive systems and automation technologies thathave the potential to deposit multiple materials allowing for hybridmaterial solutions that enhance performance in extreme environments and enable precise property profiles.
The Committee recognizes the important role large-area additive
manufacturing can play in helping to advance the deployment ofbuilding, transportation, and clean energy technologies. The Committee directs the Department to further foster the partnership between the National Laboratories, universities, and industry to use
bio-based thermoplastics composites, such as micro- and nano-cellulosic materials, and large-area 3–D printing to overcome challenges to the cost and deployment of building, transportation, andenergy technologies.
In addition, the Committee recommends $20,000,000 to support
the development of additive manufacturing involving nanocellulosic
feedstock materials made from forest products to overcome challenges to the cost and deployment of building, transportation, andenergy technologies, and encourages the Department to leverageexpertise and capabilities for large-scale additive manufacturing
through partnerships between universities and the Manufacturing
Demonstration Facility.
To ensure grid reliability and resiliency, energy storage at scalemust be achieved. Validation of materials for production of energy
storage is both slow and expensive, currently taking an average of18 years from concept to commercialization. For technologies suchas batteries, materials innovation is traditionally separate fromscale-up and device integration, and this disconnect slows progress.
Therefore, within the amounts recommended, the Committee recommends $20,000,000 for a manufacturing demonstration facility
specifically focused on accelerating the processes needed for clean
energy materials to go from discovery to scale-up, which will drive
manufacturing innovation, lower the cost of battery energy storage,
and spur job creation by bringing down the timeline for validationfrom an average of 18 years to an average of 5 years.
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the third year of research and development efforts to lower the cost and energy intensity of technologies to provide clean, safe water through the Energy-Water Desalination Hub. The Committee is concerned thatafter 2 years of funding for this hub in fiscal years 2017 and 2018,the Department still has not completed the cooperative agreement
solicitation and award process to begin work in this important research area. Therefore, upon enactment of this act, the Committee
directs the Department to brief the Committees on Appropriationsof both Houses of Congress on schedule and milestones for solic-74
iting and evaluating proposals from qualified consortia and awarding a 5-year cooperative agreement.
The Committee recommends $56,000,000 to support four Clean
Energy Manufacturing Institutes [CEMIs], including $14,000,000
each for the Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute, the Reducing Embodied-energy and Decreasing Emissions [REMADE] Institute, and the Rapid Advancement in Process Intensification Deployment [RAPID] Institute, and a CEMI selection to be announced. The Committee notes the PowerAmerica Next Generation
Power Electronics Manufacturing Innovation Institute and the Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation Institute have both
received $70,000,000 over the past 5 years to stand up a sustainable effort, and encourages the Department to work with one ormore national laboratories and universities to build a sustainable
plan for these institutes. The Committee is pleased with the ongoing work of the innovative advanced manufacturing opportunities
through the CEMIs, and directs the Department to issue a solicitation and make an award for the sixth CEMI not later than October
1, 2018.
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 to continue Critical Materials Hub. The Committee notes many municipal recycling facilities where collected recyclables are separated, now use technologies
which are aging and inefficient. The Committee directs the Department to conduct a study to determine if the eddy current technology, which is now in use by most facilities, might be upgradedto increase the supply of recycled aluminum and to make recommendations as to how this might be accomplished and report to
the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congresswithin 180 days after enactment of this act.
The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for the Industrial Technical Assistance program. Within this amount, the Committee recommends $12,000,000 to provide ongoing support for the Combined
Heat and Power [CHP] Technical Assistance Partnerships [TAPs]
and related CHP Technical Partnership activities at the Department, including $5,000,000 for the TAPs and $7,000,000 for related
CHP activities. The Committee also encourages the Department toprioritize research, development, and demonstration of district energy systems, and work to accelerate greater deployment of district
energy systems in communities, campuses, industries, and cities
nationwide by supporting adaptive regional and local technology,
and market opportunities.
The Committee encourages the Department to continue its efforts of extending the Industrial Assessment Centers to underserved areas and furthering the geographic reach of the program
to regions that are less likely to be adequately serviced because of
their distance from the current Centers. Therefore, the Committee
recommends $10,000,000 to expand the technical assistance provided by the Industrial Assessment Centers and fund no fewer
than two but no more than four additional centers. The Committee
recognizes the great potential for energy savings in municipal, industrial, and agricultural wastewater treatment systems and encourages the Department to expand on the technical assistance provided by the Industrial Assessment Centers to address these needs.
Within the funds recommended for the Industrial Assessment Cen-75
ters, the Committee recommends $3,000,000 for wastewater treatment technical assistance.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $10,000,000
for district heating. The Committee further directs the Department
to collaborate with industry on the potential energy efficiency andenergy security gains to be realized with district energy systems.
The Committee supports research and development on improving
foundational materials and processes applicable to aluminum andother primary metal industries.
The Committee supports the issuance of a competitive solicitation for university/industry-led teams to improve the efficiency ofdrying processes, which consume approximately 10 percent of theenergy used in the manufacturing sector.
The Committee directs the Department to develop a national
smart manufacturing plan that will identify areas where the Department can facilitate more rapid development, deployment andadoption of smart manufacturing technologies. The Department
shall submit a plan to the Committees on Appropriations of bothHouses of Congress not later than 180 days after the enactment of
this act.
BUILDING TECHNOLOGIESThe Committee recommends $225,000,000 for Building Technologies.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $39,000,000
for the Commercial Building Integration program for a program ofcore research and development of more cost-effective integration
techniques and technologies that could help the transition toward
deep retrofits. In addition, the Committee encourages the Department to increase engagement with private sector stakeholders todevelop market-transforming policies and investments in commercial building retrofits.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $28,000,000
for the Residential Building Integration program. The Committee
encourages funding to be concentrated on industry teams to facilitate research, demonstrate and test new systems, and facilitate
widespread deployment through direct engagement with builders,the construction trades, equipment manufacturers, smart grid technology and systems suppliers, integrators, and State and local governments.
The Committee recommends $108,000,000 for the Emerging
Technologies subprogram. Within available funds, the Committee
recommends not less than $30,000,000 for building-grid integration
research and development consistent with a transactive energy system, including development of advanced transactive control methodologies, field validation and testing in existing buildings, continuation of the Building-to-Grid Integration Demonstration, and coordination with the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, andEmergency Response transactive energy systems activities. Within
this amount, $5,000,000 is recommended to continue promoting regional demonstrations of new, utility-led, residential Connected
Communities advancing smart grid systems. Further, within available funds for Emerging Technologies, the Committee recommends
not less than $18,000,000 for HVAC & Refrigeration R&D,

76
$14,000,000 for Building Envelope and $5,300,000 for Building Energy Modeling.
Within available funds for Emerging Technologies, the Committee recommends $25,000,000 for research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities related to advanced solid-state lighting technology development. If the Secretaryfinds solid-state lighting technology eligible for the Twenty-First
Century Lamp prize, specified under section 655 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, $5,000,000 shall be madeavailable to fund the prize or additional projects for solid-state
lighting research and development.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $10,000,000
for research and development for energy efficiency efforts related tothe direct use of natural gas in residential applications, including
gas heat pump heating and water heating, onsite combined heatand power, natural gas appliance venting, green pilots, and micrometers.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $5,000,000
for novel earlier stage research, development, and demonstration oftechnologies to advance energy efficient, high-rise Cross-LaminatedTimber [CLT] building systems. The Committee directs the Department to support university research, in partnership with nationallabs, for developing, building, and evaluating CLT wall systems forembodied energy content, operating energy efficiency, wall moisture profiles, structural connector durability, and health monitoring sensors.
The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for Equipment andBuildings Standards. The Department has missed two deadlines forreports to Congress mandated by section 305 of the Energy Independence and Security Act [EISA] of 2007. These reports are invaluable sources of information for the Committee and other stakeholders about the status of energy conservation standards and theDepartment’s plans to comply with its statutory obligations. The
Department shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations ofboth Houses of Congress a status report within 30 days after enactment of this act. The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for the
Building Energy Codes Program to provide assistance to States andto organizations that develop model codes and standards to improve building resilience as well as efficiency.
Energy efficiency is a critical component of infrastructure development strategies. The Committee recognizes the importance of theTransformation in Cities initiative for local government planningand directs the Department to continue to support the goals of theinitiative.
The Committee is concerned with the Department’s recently announced plans to cancel the 2019 Solar Decathlon, pending a reevaluation of the program. The Committee recommends not lessthan $5,000,000 for the Solar Decathlon. The annual competition
has engaged thousands of university students to apply energy research and development to the practical concerns of housing by balancing design excellence and smart energy production and innovation, energy efficiency, and market potential. While the Committee
understands that commercialization of technology is important, thisshould not become the sole or even the primary focus of the com-77
petition. Therefore, not later than 30 days after the enactment of
this act, the Department shall brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on its plans for preserving theSolar Decathlon in its current form, any adjustments to the competition, and plans by the Department to accelerate adoption ofsuitable energy and water efficient technologies in the marketplace.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $31,000,000 for the Federal Energy
Management Program.
The Committee encourages the continued use of the AssistingFederal Facilities with Energy Conservation Technologies grant
program to leverage more private sector investment in aging Federal facilities and infrastructure.
WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $306,000,000 for the Weatherization
and Intergovernmental Program.
Within this amount, $251,000,000 is recommended for the
Weatherization Assistance Program [WAP], including $248,000,000
for Weatherization Assistance Grants and $3,000,000 for Training
and Technical Assistance; and $55,000,000 is recommended forState Energy Program grants.
The Committee recognizes the importance of providing Federal
funds under the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program toStates and tribes in a timely manner to avoid any undue delay ofservices to eligible low-income households, and to encourage local
high-impact energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives andenergy emergency preparedness. Therefore, the full amount of thefunds recommended for WAP and the State Energy Program shallbe obligated to States, tribes, and other direct grantees not later
than 60 days after enactment of this act.
Within available funds, $500,000 is recommended for current
WAP grant recipients via the Weatherization Innovation Pilot Program to develop and implement strategies to treat harmful substances, including vermiculite.
The Committee supports WAP’s continued participation in theinteragency working group on Healthy Homes and Energy with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Department
is encouraged to further coordinate with the Office of Lead Hazard
Control and Healthy Homes on energy-related housing projects.
The Committee directs the Department to begin tracking the occurrence of window replacements, which supports the reduction oflead-based paint hazards in homes.
STRATEGIC PROGRAMSThe Committee recommends $12,500,000 for Strategic Programs.
Within available funds, $2,500,000 is recommended for the Energy Transition Initiative [ETI] to support ongoing initiatives to address high energy costs, reliability, and inadequate infrastructure
challenges faced by island and remote communities. The Committee supports ETI’s efforts to develop a cross-sector initiative oforganizations pursuing energy transition efforts that will address

78
energy challenges, build capacity, accelerate the sharing of bestpractices and innovations between similarly-situated regions, andleverage specialized expertise into commercial opportunity. The
Committee further directs the Department to support initiatives forbuilding of cost-effective, resilient energy infrastructure on island
and remote communities, including in Alaska, the Caribbean, Hawaii, New England, and elsewhere.
CYBERSECURITY, ENERGY SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. ...........................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
$95,800,000
Committee recommendation .................................................................
260,000,000

The Committee recommends $260,000,000 for Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, an increase of$164,200,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, theCommittee recommends $28,500,000 for program direction.
Early-Stage Research, Electricity Sector.—The Committee rejects
the budget’s sole focus on early-stage research. Most utilities have
limited research and development budgets, primarily due to regulatory constraints designed to keep electricity costs low for consumers. Additionally, utilities are unlikely to implement new concepts because most utilities would need to use their own systems
for testing and evaluation, which could impact consumers. State
public utility commissions also have limited budgets that do notsupport research and development. The States rely heavily on the
Department’s technical assistance on assessments of data and tools
to help them evaluate grid modernization alternatives. The Department plays a vital role, not only in early-stage research, but also
in deployment, field testing, and evaluation.
CYBERSECURITY FOR ENERGY DELIVERY SYSTEMSThe Committee recommends $80,829,000 for Cybersecurity for
Energy Delivery Systems.
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the DarkNet projectto explore opportunities for getting the Nation’s critical infrastructure off the Internet and shielding the Nation’s electricity infrastructure from disruptive cyber penetration.
The Committee supports extension of cyber risk information
sharing tools to close remaining vulnerabilities in the distribution
and transmission system. The Committee encourages the Department to continue existing work within ongoing programs and to invest in research addressing power system vulnerabilities in supply
chain and life cycle management for critical power system components and advanced adaptive defensive methods for grid control
systems.
TRANSMISSION RELIABILITYThe Committee recommends $39,000,000 for Transmission Reliability.
The Committee supports continued investment in advanced gridmodeling algorithms and tool development to ensure resilient grid
controls and protection systems that meet the challenges of theemerging smart grid.

79
RESILIENT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMSThe Committee recommends $38,671,000 for Resilient Distribution Systems.
Within available funding, $5,000,000 is recommended to develop
high fidelity sensors and use data analytics to improve operations
in steady-state and under extreme conditions, and to continue
early-stage research to develop low-cost, printable sensors that can
predict the health of critical equipment in the electric delivery system.
The Committee supports the promotion of regional demonstrations of new, utility-led, residential Connected Communities advancing smart grid systems. The Department shall focus on identifying and addressing technical and regulatory barriers impeding
grid integration of distributed energy systems to reduce energy
costs and improve the resiliency and reliability of the electric grid.
The Committee supports advanced control concepts and open test
beds for new distribution control tools for enhanced distribution
system resilience.
ENERGY STORAGE

The Committee recommends $41,000,000 for Energy Storage.
Within available funds, the Committee continues to support development of an operational energy storage test facility capable ofperformance-driven data in a utility environment.
The Committee supports the Beyond Batteries initiative andcost-shared demonstrations of energy storage technologies with theprivate sector needed to achieve the Department’s technology goal.
Low-cost, grid-scale energy storage is crucial to a 21st century electricity grid, and the Department’s storage research, development
and deployment efforts shall support nationwide efforts to improvegrid resiliency, reliability, and security, empower consumers, andincrease integration of a broad range of generation sources.
The Committee encourages the Department to further the development and demonstration of non-battery advanced storage components, including compressed air energy storage development anddemonstration to enable efficiency improvements for utility-scale,bulk energy storage solutions.
The Committee notes that innovation and advancement in distributed energy resources is helping the Nation’s power grid to better address reliability, resiliency, safety, and accessibility. This enhances our Nation’s energy security and global leadership. The
Committee encourages the Department to further advance the development and demonstration of innovative battery and non-battery energy storage components. Energy storage is needed to better
enable distributed energy resources; integrate intermittent uses
such as water heaters, electric vehicle chargers, battery storage
systems, and pumps; help balance supply and demand in the power
grid to aid consumers to better manage their energy costs; protect
residential and commercial customers and public services frompower interruptions; and improve grid security and reliability.
The Committee supports grid-scale field demonstrations of energy storage projects, either as single facilities or as aggregationsof units, with a focus on new use cases rather than new battery

80
chemistry. The Committee encourages the Department to support
State energy offices and universities with energy storage planningand deployment, and to participate in industry-led safety codes andstandards development. The Committee also supports funding fordevelopment of analytical methods for including energy storage inelectric system planning, as well as for development of softwaretools to better value energy storage technologies. The Committee
encourages the Department to remain committed to research anddevelopment partnerships related to the development and deployment of energy storage, with stakeholders in diverse geographic regions with unique market dynamics and policy challenges that canhelp to inform nationwide efforts to improve grid resiliency, reliability, and security, empower consumers, and increase integrationof a broad range of generation sources. The Committee encourages
the Department to make additional investments in cutting-edgestorage technologies and relevant software, including conventional
and advanced batteries. The Committee further encourages the Department to prioritize pilot scale initiatives with relevant utilities
and State energy organizations that have the potential to advance
real-time deployment and testing of these technologies.
The Committee is supportive of research for novel materials andsystem components to resolve key cost and performance challenges
for electrochemical energy storage systems based on earth abundant advanced chemistries. In addition, the Committee supports
continued materials research that will improve the understanding
and predictability of energy storage systems and components, aswell as enable safer and more reliable materials and systems to be
developed.
TRANSFORMER RESILIENCE AND ADVANCED COMPONENTS

The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for Transformer Resilience and Advanced Components.
Within available funds, the Committee directs the Department tocontinue to support research and development for advanced components and grid materials for low-cost, power flow control devices,
including both solid state and hybrid concepts that use power electronics to control electromagnetic devices and enable improved controllability, flexibility, and resiliency.
INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AND ENERGY RESTORATIONThe Committee recommends $18,000,000 for Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration.
The Committee supports further development of energy sector
situational awareness capabilities through Eagle-I, the Federal
Government’s situational awareness tool for national power outages. The Committee encourages the Department to further illustrate how to benefit from increased access to more varied sourcesof data.
The Committee previously directed the Department to submit areport identifying strategic laboratory, university, and industry
partnerships that would enhance national security and assist industry in addressing critical threats, including electromagnetic
pulses [EMP], geomagnetic disturbances [GMD], cyber-attacks, andsupply chain disruptions. The Committee looks forward to receiving

81
this report expeditiously. The Committee supports the establishment of an EMP/GMD testing facility that can, without posing risk
to the existing grid, replicate EMP/GMD events and cyber-attacks
on a real world configuration of critical grid components and systems. Such a facility is necessary to expose entire substations, including devices such as Extra High Voltage Transformers and subsystem components, to the combined effects of the complete composite EMP Waveform for early stage research and development, as
well as testing and validation purposes at both the transmission
and distribution levels. The Committee encourages the Department
to ensure such a facility to be a collaborative public-private effort
between national laboratories, utilities, and research universities.
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$1,205,056,000
757,090,000
1,206,000,000

The Committee recommends $1,206,000,000 for Nuclear Energy,
an increase of $448,910,000 above the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation prioritizes funding for programs, projects andactivities that will ensure a strong future for nuclear power in the
United States.
Nuclear power provides more than 20 percent of our Nation’s
electricity and nearly 60 percent of our emissions-free electricity.
Electricity generation from our Nation’s operating nuclear power
plants is critical to our national security, economy, and way of life.
Nuclear power is a reliable, resilient source of power, and the Department is encouraged to seek opportunities to take advantage ofthat fact to meet its long-term needs.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Integrated University Program.
The Committee notes the administration repeatedly attempts todefund this program, despite continued success in developing highly qualified nuclear specialists to meet national needs.
NUCLEAR ENERGY ENABLING TECHNOLOGYThe Committee recommends $149,200,000 for Nuclear Energy
Enabling Technology.
Within this amount, the Committee recommends $50,000,000 for
Crosscutting Technology Development, $28,200,000 for Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation, $41,000,000 for National
Scientific User Facilities, and $30,000,000 for the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation. The Committee notes thatthe budget request made the short-sighted recommendation to cancel the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation for thesecond year in a row, despite the important contributions it continues to make to improving operations and safety of operating nuclear reactors, and its likely application in licensing accident tolerant fuels and other advanced technologies.

82
REACTOR CONCEPTS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATIONThe Committee recommends $302,000,000 for Reactor Concepts
Research, Development, and Demonstration.
Advanced nuclear technologies hold great promise for reliable,safe, emission-free energy and should be a priority for the Department. The Department was previously directed to provide a reportthat sets aggressive, but achievable goals to demonstrate a variety
of private-sector advanced reactor designs and fuel types by thelate 2020s. The Department is directed to expedite that report andprovide it to the Committee as soon as possible.
Advanced Reactor Technology.—Within available funds, the Committee recommends $150,000,000, for Advanced Reactor Technology, including $22,000,000 for the fourth year of the advanced
reactor concepts program.
The Committee supports the Department’s goal to accelerate reactor manufacturing, development, and deployment of advanced reactors. The Department is encouraged to leverage its technologicalcapabilities in materials research and development, advanced manufacturing, high-fidelity modeling and simulation, sensors and control systems to transform the methods of reactor design, manufacturing, licensing and operation. The Committee recommends$30,000,000 above the budget request for the demonstration of aTransformational Challenge Reactor concept.
Versatile Fast Reactor.—The Committee supports the budget request and recommends $15,000,000 for the Versatile Fast Reactor.
The Department was previously directed to provide a report thatdetails all current programs and projects within the Office of Nuclear Energy, whether the Department plans to continue to support
each program or project, and the expected out-year funding
through completion of the program or project. The Department isdirected to expedite that report and provide it to the Committee assoon as possible.
Light Water Reactor Sustainability.—Within available funds, theCommittee recommends $47,000,000. The most cost-effective way
for the United States to maintain low-cost, carbon-free electricity
is to safely extend the lives of our Nation’s existing nuclear reactors from 60 to 80 years. Therefore, the Committee recommends additional funding above the budget request for this activity as a priority. The Committee directs the Secretary to use funding in thisactivity to continue research and development work on the technical basis for subsequent license renewal. The Secretary shallfocus funding in this program on materials aging and degradation,
advanced instrumentation and control technologies, and component
aging modeling and simulation. The Secretary shall also coordinate
with industry to determine other areas of high-priority researchand development in this area.
FUEL CYCLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $267,300,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and Development.
Within available funds, $30,000,000 is recommended for Material
Recovery and Waste Form Development, $6,000,000 is recommended for Materials Protection, Accountancy, and Controls for83
Transmutation, and $8,500,000 is recommended for Systems Analysis and Integration.
The Committee continues to strongly support the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Futureand believes that near-term action is needed to address the accumulating inventory of spent nuclear fuel. The Committee recommends $35,300,000 for Integrated Waste Management System
activities. Funding is recommended to implement plans to consolidate spent nuclear fuel from around the United States to one ormore private or government interim central storage facilities. Priority shall be given to accepting spent nuclear fuel from shutdown
reactors, and to accelerating the development of a transportation
capability to move spent fuel from its current storage locations.
Within funds recommended, the Committee recommends up to$10,000,000 for the Secretary, within existing authorities, to contract for the management of spent nuclear fuel to which the Secretary holds the title or has a contract to accept title, which includes contracting with a private company for consolidated interim
storage of spent nuclear fuel.
The Committee directs the Secretary to work across the administration and to report to the Committees on Appropriations of bothHouses of Congress, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this act, with information regarding existing resources andfunding opportunities for which communities hosting decommissioned/decommissioning reactors may be eligible. The report shallalso include what opportunities exist for these affected communities to consider alternative uses for these sites upon completionof the decommissioning process.
The Committee does not adopt the budget proposal to eliminate
research and development activities previously funded in this account. The Committee recommends $62,500,000 to continue research and development activities on behavior of spent fuel in longterm storage, under transportation conditions, and in various geologic media, which will continue to be important to developing a solution to the waste problem. Priority shall be placed on the ongoingstudy of the performance of high-burnup fuel in dry storage and on
the potential for direct disposal of existing spent fuel dry storage
canister technologies.
The Committee continues to place a high priority on the development of nuclear fuels with enhanced accident-tolerant characteristics to significantly mitigate the potential consequences of a nuclear accident. The Committee urges the Secretary to maintainfocus and priority on achieving results in these efforts. The Committee recommends $125,000,000 for the Advanced Fuels program.
The Department is directed to continue implementation of the accident tolerant fuels development program, the goal of which remains development of accident tolerant nuclear fuels leading tocommercial reactor fuel assembly testing by 2022. Within thisamount not less than $55,600,000 is recommended to continue theparticipation of three industry-led teams in Phase 2 of the costshared research and development program. Further, the Committee recommends not less than $20,000,000 to support accident
tolerant fuels development at the national laboratories and otherfacilities, including at the Advanced Test Reactor, the Transient84
Reactor Test Facility, and the Halden reactor. In addition toamounts awarded through the Small Business Innovation Researchand Small Business Technology Transfer programs, $3,000,000 is
to continue the previously awarded small business projects to develop ceramic cladding for accident tolerant fuels.
Finally, the United States currently lacks either a supply of highassay low enriched uranium [HALEU], or a process to make
HALEU, for advanced reactor designs that would require enrichment up to 20 percent, below levels considered usable for nuclear
weapons. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Department to begin work to design and build a demonstration facility to
produce HALEU from naval spent nuclear fuel or other available
HEU within the Department’s inventory. The Committee notesthat using naval spent fuel for this purpose has the added benefitof potentially reducing the volume of waste that would eventuallyrequire disposal in a permanent repository.
INFRASTRUCTURE
RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENTThe Committee recommends $29,000,000 for Radiological Facilities Management, including $20,000,000 for continued safe operations and maintenance of Oak Ridge National Laboratory hot
cells.
IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENTThe Committee recommends $238,000,000 for Idaho Facilities
Management. The Advanced Test Reactor [ATR] is a vital asset
that provides research capability across the Department. The Department was previously directed to provide a report that lists all
current and planned users for the ATR for the next 3 years, theoperating cost attributed to each user, and the source of funds thatwill be applied to cover the costs for each user. The Department isdirected to expedite that report and provide it to the Committee assoon as possible.
FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$726,817,000
502,070,000
727,000,000

The Committee recommends $727,000,000 for Fossil Energy Research and Development, an increase of $224,930,000 above thebudget request. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $61,070,000 for program direction.
Early-Stage Research and Development.—The Fossil Energy Research and Development program advances transformative scientific research, development, and deployment of technologies thatenable the reliable, efficient, affordable, and environmentally sounduse of fossil fuels. Fossil energy is an essential part of the UnitedStates’ energy future, and the National Energy Technology Laboratory [NETL] supports the Office of Fossil Energy in this critical national priority. The Committee rejects the approach to only provide
funds for early-stage research. Such restrictions would cripple inno-

85
vation and development, and would reduce the number of energy
technologies adopted in the marketplace.
Fossil Energy Roadmap.—The Committee previously directed theDepartment to develop a cohesive policy and technology strategy
and supporting roadmap or long term plan for its Fossil Energy Research and Development portfolio and supporting infrastructure.
This roadmap will guide the discovery or advancement of technological solutions and incorporate lessons learned for the future ofresearch, development, and demonstration efforts on advanced carbon capture and storage [CCS] technologies, advanced fossil energy
systems, and crosscutting fossil energy research, as well as guidethe discovery or advancement of technological solutions for the prudent and sustainable development of unconventional oil and gas.
The Committee looks forward to receiving the roadmap expeditiously.
NETL.—No funds shall be used for the closure of NETL sites.
The Committee supports NETL’s mission to discover, develop, anddeploy new technologies to support a strong domestic fossil energy
path. The Committee previously directed the Department to conduct a comprehensive assessment of Fossil Energy writ large to include the Fossil Energy Headquarters programs, NETL, and relevant competencies of other national laboratories which support
the mission of the Office of Fossil Energy. The Committee looks forward to receiving the assessment expeditiously.
National Carbon Capture Center.—The Committee recommends
funding for the National Carbon Capture Center consistent withthe cooperative agreement and fiscal year 2018. The Committee
continues to encourage the Department to establish university
partnerships to support ongoing fossil energy programs, to promotebroader research into CCS technologies, and to expand its technology transfer efforts. The Department has previously funded several university-based CCS projects and is encouraged to build onan established research base to support ongoing research and toaddress the wider implementation of CCS technologies.
The Committee reiterates the importance of adequate Federal
support to promote design-related work and testing for a commercial-scale, post-combustion carbon dioxide capture project on an existing coal-fueled generating unit as well as fossil energy research,development, and deployment of breakthrough technologies.
COAL CCS AND POWER SYSTEMSThe Committee recommends $463,030,000 for Coal CCS andPower Systems.
The Committee does not support the Department’s proposal toreorganize or consolidate the Carbon Capture, Carbon Storage, Advanced Energy Systems, crosscutting research and development
programs, and the Supercritical CO2 Technology Program [STEP].
The Committee supports the Department’s Cooperative Agreements to develop cost sharing partnerships to conduct basic, fundamental, and applied research that assist industry in developing, deploying, and commercializing efficient, low-carbon, nonpolluting energy technologies that could compete effectively in meeting requirements for clean fuels, chemical feedstocks, electricity, and water resources. The Committee encourages the Department to fund activi-

86
ties that promote the reuse of captured carbon dioxide from coal,natural gas, industrial facilities, and other sources for the production of fuels and other valuable products. Within the ongoing CCS
Program, the Department is encouraged to pursue an aggressive
timeline to develop advanced carbon storage and utilization technologies and enhanced oil recovery that will improve the economics
associated with domestic energy production. The Committee supports small-scale and modular coal-fired technologies with reduced
carbon outputs or carbon capture that can support incremental
power generation capacity additions that will enable a step-change
in performance, efficiency, or cost of electricity as compared to thetechnology in existence on the date of enactment.
The Committee supports small-scale and modular coal-fired technologies with reduced carbon outputs or carbon capture that can
support incremental power generation capacity additions that will
enable a step-change in performance, efficiency, or cost of electricity as compared to the technology in existence on the date of enactment.
The Committee recommends research and development as wellas pilot-scale activities that will improve the performance, reliability and efficiency of both new- and existing-fossil fuel fired
power plants, including solvent-based, heat-integrated carbon capture and storage research and testing at pilot-scale facilities installed at a commercial power plant with focus on solvent physicalproperty impact on column performance, transformative approaches to mitigate emissions, and solvent quality maintenance toultimately reduce capital and operating costs; development andtesting of materials for highly efficient energy platforms; advancement of gasification systems; development of carbon products from
coal; development of transformational energy conversion systems
including pressurized oxycombustion, supercritical CO2 cycles, andchemical looping technologies; advancement of turbine technologies
for higher efficiency and pressure cycles; development of fuel cells;
coal and methane to liquid fuels; development and testing of advanced water management technologies; and continued investigation of rare earths recovery from coal and coal refuse.
Within funds available for CCS and Power Systems, the Committee recommends not less than $30,000,000 to support a new solicitation for Front-End Engineering and Design [FEED] studies of
two commercial-scale carbon capture power projects for retrofit atan existing coal plant and for a coal or natural gas plant that generates carbon dioxide suitable for utilization or storage. A FEED
study shall incorporate work from feasibility studies and testing toprovide specific project definition, detailed design, scopes of work,
material purchasing and construction schedules, cost for project
execution, and subsurface, structural, and environmental permitting requirements.
Carbon Capture.—Achieving low-cost carbon capture technology
is important to facilitating economic environmental mitigation solutions for the power and industrial sectors while opening up a
broader carbon utilization economy. The Committee encourages the
Department to focus its Carbon Capture research, development anddeployment efforts on improving the efficiency and decreasing thecosts of carbon capture technologies, demonstrating carbon capture

87
technologies for private sector-driven adoption at fossil energy
power systems and industrial sources, and to identify how thesetechnologies can be integrated within business models and operations. This includes small- and large-scale pilot testing of technologies moving through the program pipeline on both coal andnatural gas applications, as well as on industrial sources.
Carbon Storage.—Within available funds for Carbon Storage, theCommittee recommends $12,000,000 for Carbon Use and Reuse tocontinue research and development activities to support valuable
and innovative uses for carbon. The Committee believes the potential for carbon dioxide utilization technologies to become economically viable has improved in recent years, and these technologies
should continue to receive attention from the Office of Fossil Energy. The Committee urges the Office of Fossil Energy to prioritize
research on carbon dioxide utilization technologies, direct air capture technologies, and industrial source capture. The Committee
also encourages the Office of Fossil Energy to collaborate with the
Bioenergy Technologies program within the EERE, the private sector, and academia to support projects that utilize carbon dioxide in
the production of algae and other potentially marketable products.
The Committee supports early-stage research and development inconversion of coal pitch/coal to carbon fiber and in other valueadded products for alternative uses of coal. Within Carbon Storage,
the Committee recommends $55,000,000 for Storage Infrastructure.
The Committee recognizes the successful work of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships and the important role they playin supporting the research and development of carbon utilizationand storage. The Committee supports the focus on infrastructuredevelopment strategies through continued efforts to expand regional geological characterization to reduce uncertainties, collectand analyze data, facilitate and inform regional permitting and policy challenges. The Department is directed to fulfill prior commitments to the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships. Further,
the Committee recommends funding beyond the current phase,through a multiyear continuation of competitively selected partnerships to expand the work of the existing partnerships. The Committee recommends not less than $20,000,000 for a competitive
continuation of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership
Program and not less than $30,000,000 to continue the four-phase
CarbonSAFE initiative. The Committee directs the Department towork collaboratively with the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships to develop a Storage Infrastructure roadmap through 2025
to identify the knowledge gaps and technology and policy developments that are needed to close those gaps.
Advanced Energy Systems.—The Committee recommends up to$30,000,000 for solid oxide fuel cell systems, which supports research and development to enable efficient, cost-effective electricity
generation with minimal use of water. The Committee encourages
the Department to promote and assist in the research and development of new higher efficiency gas turbines used in power generation systems to allow the United States to upgrade and increase
the reliability and resiliency of the Nation’s electrical grid system,
to better compete against the threat of foreign competitors who arebeing subsidized by their governments, while reducing the cost of

88electricity and significantly lowering emissions. This includes
awarding grants and funding contract proposals from industry,small businesses, universities and other appropriate parties.
The Committee supports coal and coal biomass to liquids activities and encourages the Department to focus on research and development to improve cost and efficiency of coal-to-fuels technology
implementation and polygeneration. The Committee recognizes theimportance of emerging technologies such as, coal-to-liquids [CTL]
fuel conversion. Within available funds, the Committee supports research and development that will ensure CTL technologies have an
opportunity to grow. The Committee supports the activities proposed in Power Generation Efficiency which would focus on improving the reliability and efficiency of existing plants through earlystage research and development.
Crosscutting Research.—The Committee supports Advanced
Ultrasupercritical Materials research and development to identify,
test, qualify, and develop a domestic supply chain capable of producing components from high temperature steam materials.
STEP.—The Committee rejects the proposed changes in the request to the STEP Program, and recommends $25,000,000 to complete the necessary design and construction of the 10MW pilot facility, and conduct the necessary testing, including long-duration
testing for the facility.
NETL Coal Research and Development.—Within available funds
for NETL Coal Research and Development, the Committee recommends $18,000,000 for the Department to continue its external
agency activities to develop and test advanced separation technologies and accelerate the advancement of commercially viable
technologies for the recovery of rare earth elements and minerals
from U.S. coal and coal byproduct sources. The Committee expects
research to support pilot-scale and experimental activities for nearterm applications.
NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIESThe Committee recommends $53,200,000 for Natural Gas Technologies.
Risk-Based Data Management System.—Within available funds,
the Committee recommends $5,200,000 to continue the Risk Based
Data Management System [RBDMS] to support a cloud-based application and necessary cybersecurity initiatives. In addition, funding shall support the continued integration of FracFocus and
RBDMS for improved public access to State-oil and gas-relateddata, as well as for State regulatory agencies to support electronic
permitting for operators, eForms for improved processing time for
new permits, operator training from the improved FracFocus 3.2
after enhancements are implemented, and miscellaneous reports,such as Produced Water Report: Current and Future Beneficial Uses
Report. The Committee supports the continued efforts to provide
public transparency, while protecting proprietary information.
Methane Hydrate Activities.—The Committee recommends$20,000,000 for methane hydrates. The Committee notes that thebudget request includes no money for actual research into themethods for producing methane hydrates. The Committee encourages the Department to perform a long-term methane hydrate pro-

89
duction test in the Arctic, as proposed in the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee’s earlier recommendations (May 21, 2014) to the
Department.
Environmentally Prudent Development.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Environmentally Prudent Development subprogram.
Emissions Mitigation from Midstream Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for the Emissions Mitigation fromMidstream Infrastructure subprogram. The Committee recommends funds for natural gas infrastructure research, including
advanced materials and novel sensor technologies. The Department
is directed to incorporate this research into its ongoing work in thisfield, so that it shall complement the Emissions Mitigation fromMidstream Infrastructure subprogram.
Emissions Quantification from Natural Gas Infrastructure.—The
Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Emissions Quantification from Natural Gas Infrastructure research subprogram.
UNCONVENTIONAL FOSSIL ENERGY TECHNOLOGIESThe Committee recommends $54,000,000 for Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies. The Committee notes the importance ofproviding research support that will assure sustainable, reliable,
affordable, and environmentally sound supplies of domestic unconventional fossil energy resources.
The Committee understands the Department is continuing toconduct a study on the feasibility of establishing an ethane storage
and distribution hub in central Appalachia. The Department is directed to identify the Federal agencies with jurisdictional oversightof such a project and to coordinate with the liaisons of those agencies to streamline the permitting application and approval process
for a central Appalachian ethane storage and distribution hub. Further, the Department is directed to brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on their findings and recommendations once complete.
The Department is encouraged to explore research and development for safe drilling and completion technologies that use no fresh
water and can be deployed in horizontal wells.
Within available funds, $15,500,000 is recommended for research
to better understand reservoirs and to improve low recovery factors
from unconventional natural gas and oil wells and $15,500,000 isrecommended to continue research toward enhanced recovery technologies in shale oil, low permeability reservoirs, residual oil zone
reservoirs, fractured reservoirs, and conventional oil reservoirs.
The Department shall solicit, award and manage these research
projects on a nationwide basis directly with researchers from universities and not-for-profit research organizations. The projects
may include research projects to improve environmental mitigation,water quality and treatment, infrastructure technology as well as
the societal impacts of unconventional shale plays. These awards
shall identify ways to improve existing technologies, encourage prudent development, provide cost-effective solutions, and develop abetter understanding of these reservoirs’ resource potential.
The Committee recommends $17,500,000 for the UnconventionalField Test Sites.

90
The Committee recognizes the Department’s ongoing efforts to
support research into the exploration for and development ofemerging unconventional oil and/or gas reservoirs, and directs the
Department to direct future allocations to projects in locations geologically representative of the unconventional reservoir of interest.
The Committee encourages continued efforts to characterize emerging unconventional reservoirs but with emphasis on geographic
areas where geological conditions are optimal for the generation
and accumulation of economically significant amounts of oil or gas
in the geological formation(s) being studied, as indicated by published reports and existing early-stage commercial activity. The
Committee further encourages a focus of available resources on potential unconventional reservoirs for which there is limited datarather than well-known existing reservoirs. University-led research
is preferred to ensure a broad range of expertise is utilized to address the entire range of environmental, socio-economic, geological,
and technical challenges associated with unconventional oil andgas development. The Committee also recognizes that private industry participation in very early development phase research
projects, although desirable, is often difficult to achieve due to thehighly proprietary nature of early-stage exploration data.
The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for further research on
multipronged approaches for characterizing the constituents of andmanaging the cleaning of water produced during the extraction ofoil and natural gas, of which $2,000,000 is recommended to partnerwith research universities engaged in the study of characterizing,cleaning, treating, and managing produced water and who are willing to engage though public private partnerships with the energy
industry to develop and assess commercially viable technology toachieve the same. The Committee encourages the Department towork with the energy producing industry to identify and develop—
to a commercial scale—technologies that can characterize, clean
and effectively treat produced water to have beneficial reuse.
The Committee directs the Department to continue its research
partnership with the Department of Transportation on the crude
oil characterization study to improve the safety of crude oil transported by rail. The Committee recommends up to $1,500,000 forcompletion of the study.
The Committee recognizes that the United States possesses vast
domestic coal reserves that cannot be mined economically at current prices. Although some natural gas is absorbed by coal and canbe economically recovered through methane extraction, more efficient recovery mechanisms are feasible. To validate methods for recovering a greater fraction of energy contained in deep coal deposits, the Committee encourages the Department to conduct pilot
field tests of technologies for in-situ biological conversion of coal tonatural gas with university participants, and evaluate the feasibility of converting coal deposits in both the Western and Eastern
United States into natural gas.
NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORYThe Committee recommends $50,000,000 for NETL Research andOperations and $45,000,000 for NETL Infrastructure.

91
NETL Infrastructure.—The Committee directs the Department toprioritize funds to provide site-wide upgrades for safety, avoid anincrease in deferred maintenance, and provide for the continued
update and refresh of Joule through the final year of a 3-yearlease.
NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$4,900,000
10,000,000
10,000,000

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Naval Petroleum
and Oil Shale Reserves, the same as the budget request.
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$252,000,000
175,105,000
175,105,000

The Committee recommends $175,105,000 for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the same as the budget request.
NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$6,500,000
10,000,000
10,000,000

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Northeast Home
Heating Oil Reserve, the same as the budget request.
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$125,000,000
115,035,000
125,000,000

The Committee recommends $125,000,000 for the Energy Information Administration, an increase of $9,965,000 above the budget
request.
The Committee recognizes the importance of building energy information and the opportunity for better data collection presented
by new technologies. The Department is encouraged to upgrade theCommercial Buildings Energy Consumption Surveys to a real-timedata collection system with rapid reporting of results, without compromising statistical validity or data security.
NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUPAppropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$298,400,000
218,400,000
353,240,000

The Committee recommends $353,240,000 for Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, an increase of $134,840,000 above the budget
request.
Small Sites.—The Committee recommends $174,000,000 for
Small Sites. Within the available funds, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for work required pursuant to the agreement
reached in 2012 between the Department, the Advisory Council on

92
Historic Preservation, and State and local governments to complete
the demolition of K–25 in exchange for preserving the historic contributions made by the K–25 site to the Manhattan Project. The
Committee also recommends $20,000,000 for operations, maintenance, and cleanup activities to support the Manhattan Project National Historical Park sites in Hanford, Washington, and Los Alamos, New Mexico. The Park tells an important story in our Nation’s history: the development and production of the technology
and materials necessary to create the world’s first atomic bomb.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $55,000,000
to continue work at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,$45,000,000 for Moab, and $25,000,000 to continue the removal of
the High Flux Beam Reactor stack at Brookhaven.
URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING
FUND
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$840,000,000
752,749,000
840,818,000

The Committee recommends $840,818,000 for Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning [UED&D] activities,
an increase of $88,069,000 above the budget request.
The Committee recommendation includes $195,000,000 for East
Tennessee Technology Park to continue cleanup and demolition of
all remaining facilities including the K–1200 complex and the K–
1600 complex, and to conduct remedial actions, and site closure activities. The Committee also recommends $206,000,000 for Paducah, and $408,099,000 for Portsmouth. Additional funding of$60,000,000 above the budget request is recommended for thePortsmouth Site, and the Department shall not barter, transfer, or
sell uranium during fiscal year 2019 to generate additional funding
for Portsmouth cleanup that is in excess of the amount of funding
recommended.
SCIENCE
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$6,259,903,000
5,390,972,000
6,650,000,000

The Committee recommends $6,650,000,000 for Science, an increase of $1,259,028,000 above the budget request.
Distinguished Scientist Program.—The Committee recommends$4,000,000 to support the Department’s Distinguished Scientist
Program, as authorized in section 5011 of Public Law 110–69 topromote scientific and academic excellence through collaborations
between institutions of higher education and national laboratories
to be funded from across all Office of Science programs.
Quantum Information Science.—The Committee supports the Office of Science’s coordinated and focused research program in quantum information science to support the Department’s science, energy, and national security missions. This emerging field of science
promises to yield revolutionary new approaches to computing, sensing, communication, and metrology, as well as our understandingof the universe, and accordingly the Committee recommends

93$105,000,000 as requested across the Office of Science programs toadvance early stage fundamental research in this field of science.
Small Business Innovation Research.—The Committee recognizes
the importance of small businesses in meeting the research and development mission of the Department and is concerned that the
Department’s previous delays in issuing Small Business Innovation
Research [SBIR] and Small Business Technology Transfer [STTR]
awards had a negative impact on small businesses. The Committee
directs the Department to meet its congressionally mandated deadlines of reviewing small businesses’ applications for SBIR/STTR
awards as required by P.L. 112–81.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $980,000,000 for Advanced Scientific Computing Research.
The Committee recommends $232,706,000 for the Exascale Computing Project. In addition, the Committee recommends$205,000,000 for the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility,$145,000,000 for the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility,$110,000,000 for the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, and $85,000,000 for ESnet. The Committee supports
the Department’s efforts to fully fund an upgrade to ESnet andurges the Department to submit budget requests that provide
ESnet the ability to procure the technology and operational resources needed for mission success. Further, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Computational Sciences Graduate
Program. The Committee recommends not less than $24,000,000
for Research and Evaluation Prototypes.
The Committee recommends not less than $159,000,000 forMathematical, Computational, and Computer Sciences Research tosupport the development of critical tools for advanced computing.
The Committee is supportive of recent research thrusts to developscientific machine learning tools to enhance scientific discovery
from user facility data and fundamental research in quantum information science that will lay the groundwork for deployable quantum computing systems.
The Committee recommends $75,667,000 for Computational
Partnerships [SciDAC]. Within available funding for SciDAC, theCommittee recommends up to $13,000,000 to support work on artificial intelligence and big data focused on the development of algorithms and methods to identify new ways of extracting informationfrom data generated at the Office of Science’s large user facilities
or validating use of machine learning in the Office of Science’s program’s scientific simulations. This is the only funding recommended within the Office of Science that shall be available forthis work. Further, none of the funding in the Office of Science isavailable for clinical trials or therapeutics.
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $2,193,400,000 for Basic Energy
Sciences [BES].
The Committee recommends not less than $110,000,000 for the
Energy Frontier Research Centers to continue multi-disciplinary,
fundamental research needed to address scientific grand chal-

94
lenges. The Committee continues to support the EPSCoR programand its goals of broadening participation in sustainable and competitive basic energy research in eligible jurisdictions. The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for EPSCoR and directs the Department to resume annual or at minimum, biennial, Implementation Grant solicitations. The Committee further directs the Department to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations ofboth Houses of Congress not later than 90 days after enactment of
this act that provides a plan for future solicitations.
The Committee recommends not less than $519,009,000 to fully
fund optimal operations at the five BES light sources and to adequately invest in the recapitalization of key instruments and infrastructure, and in staff and other resources necessary to deliver critical scientific capabilities to users. Within the available funds, theCommittee recommends $118,200,000 for the operation of NSLS–II.
Recognizing that the Department has constructed only half of the
60 beamlines that the NSLS–II can accommodate, and has not yet
requested funding for the construction of additional beamlines infiscal year 2019, the Committee directs the Department to submit
as part of its fiscal year 2020 budget request a plan for the buildout of additional beamlines to fully leverage the capabilities of the
NSLS–II.
The Committee recommends $285,000,000 for high-flux neutron
source operations which will allow for both Spallation Neutron
Source [SNS] and High Flux Isotope Reactor [HFIR] to proceedwith the most critical deferred repairs, replace outdated instruments, and make essential machine improvements. The Committee
does not recommend funding for the Lujan Neutron Scattering
Center.
The Committee recommends not less than $140,000,000 to fully
fund optimal operations at the five BES Nanoscale Science Research Centers and to adequately invest in the recapitalization of
key instruments and infrastructure, and in staff and other resources necessary to deliver critical scientific capabilities to users.
The Committee recommends $24,088,000 for the Batteries andEnergy Storage Hub, the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research[JCESR]. The Committee is highly supportive of the work of
JCESR to develop energy storage research prototypes for transportation and grid applications beyond lithium-ion technologies. These
prototypes will demonstrate the potential to scale up manufacturing prototype batteries to decrease costs and increase energy
density of novel energy storage concepts. The Committee supports
the continued research and development for JCESR, to ensure theoutcome of basic research leads to practical solutions that are competitive in the marketplace.
The Committee recommends not less than $15,000,000 for theFuels from Sunlight Hub. The Committee directs the Departmentof Energy to submit a solar fuels research initiative strategic plan
within 120 days after enactment of this act. The 10-year plan shall
include research challenges and opportunities, program goals andmilestones to overcome scientific and technological impediments, adescription of coordination between the Office of Science, EERE,
and ARPA–E to leverage basic research and early-stagetranslational research in solar fuels to accelerate the pace of inno-

95
vation, an assessment of U.S. leadership in solar fuels research relative to international competition and the extent to which the Department’s investments are sufficient to maintain U.S. leadership.
The Committee supports funding for energy research activities
related to enhanced efficiency in energy conversion and utilization,
including emergent polymer optoelectronic technologies, to ensure
continued competitiveness in a global marketplace. The Department is directed to continue its partnership with qualified institutions of higher education in this effort. The Committee encourages
the Department to continue funding to support research and development needs of graduate and post-graduate science programs at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
The Committee recommends $26,000,000 for exascale systems.
Within the amounts recommended for Construction, the Committee recommends $70,000,000 for the Proton Power Upgrade
project at the Spallation Neutron Source, $15,000,000 for the Second Target Station preliminary engineering design and to continue
work towards a project baseline, $50,000,000 for the Advanced
Light Source Upgrade, $140,000,000 for the Advanced Photon
Source Upgrade, $28,000,000 for LCLS–II HE, and $139,300,000
for LCLS–II.
Not less than $14,100,000 is available for Other Project Costs, ofwhich $6,000,000 is for the High Energy Upgrade at LCLS–II;$6,100,000 is for LCLS–II; and $2,000,000 is for the Advanced
Light Source Upgrade.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $715,000,000 for Biological and Environmental Research. The Committee recognizes the unique andbeneficial role that the Department plays for the Nation in the advancement of biosciences to address core departmental missions inenergy and the environment. The Department is directed to givepriority to optimizing the operation of Biological and Environmental Research User Facilities.
The Committee recommends $371,000,000 for Biological Systems
Science, including not less than $100,000,000 for the four recently
selected Bioenergy Research Centers. The Committee directs the
Department to maintain Genomic Science as a top priority and recommends $90,000,000 for Foundational Genomics Research and$34,908,000 for Biomolecular Characterization and Imaging
Science. The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for the Joint Genome Institute, an essential component for genomic research. The
Committee recognizes the importance of the emerging field of
microbiome research to the mission objectives of the Office of
Science and more broadly within the Department, especially in relation to energy security and environmental sustainability. To address programmatic opportunities in microbiome research and development and to maintain U.S. leadership in the field, the Committee recommends an additional $10,000,000 to begin the establishment of a national microbiome database. The Department
should lead this effort in collaboration with other Federal agencies.
The Committee recommends $344,000,000 for Earth and Environmental Systems Sciences. Within available funding for Earthand Environmental Systems Sciences, the Committee recommends

96
not less than $40,000,000 for Terrestrial Ecosystem Science, of
which not less than $10,000,000 is for NGEE-Arctic, $8,300,000 is
for the SPRUCE field site, $5,800,000 is for Next Generation Ecosystem Experiments Tropics, $6,800,000 is for Watershed Function
SFA, and $5,700,000 is for AmeriFLUX Long-Term Earth System
Observations. Within available funding for Earth and Environmental Systems Sciences, the Committee recommends not less than
$22,143,000 for Subsurface Biogeochemical Research, including notless than $3,000,000 to support on-going research and discovery related to mercury biogeochemical transformations in the environment.
The Committee recommends $97,000,000 for Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling and directs the Department to expend
appropriated funds for earth system modeling, and regional andglobal model analysis. The Committee further directs the Department to make land-energy interactions, land biogeochemistry, uncertainty quantification, and model evaluation (e.g., ILAMB) a priority within the regional and global modeling activities, and continue to support performance optimization of coupled systems for
execution on high performance and exascale systems. The Committee recommends $15,000,000 to support the exascale computing
initiative.
Within available funds, not less than $133,500,000 is recommended for Facilities and Infrastructure in the Earth and Environmental Systems Sciences program, including $45,000,000 for theEnvironmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, and $68,000,000 for
the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement [ARM] User Facility. The
Committee also recommends an additional $17,500,000 to replace
the ARM mobile unit. The Committee supports the Department’s
proposal to initiate a terrestrial-aquatic interfaces pilot project andencourages the Department to explore as part of this pilot the resilience of ecosystems in coastal regions in response to changing environments and extreme weather events.
The Committee encourages the Department to increase its funding for academia to perform independent evaluations of climate
models using existing data sets and peer-reviewed publications ofclimate-scale processes to determine various models’ ability to reproduce the actual climate.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $425,000,000 for Fusion Energy
Sciences.
U.S. Contribution to ITER.—The Committee recommends$122,000,000 for the in-kind contributions and related support activities of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor[ITER] project. The Committee does not recommended funding forthe cash contribution.
The Committee recommends not less than $7,000,000 for the Material Plasma Exposure eXperiment and not less than $92,500,000
for DIII–D.
The Committee directs the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory
Committee to review establishing a reactor concepts research, development, and deployment activity. Within 180 days after enactment of this act, the Department is directed to brief the Commit-

97
tees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on a recommendation, which if supported, will include a technical plan,
program and eligibility requirements, and funding profile for futurefiscal years.
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICSThe Committee recommends $1,010,000,000 for High Energy
Physics. The Committee strongly supports the Department’s efforts
to advance the recommendations of the Particle Physics Project
Prioritization Panel Report [P5], which established clear priorities
for the domestic particle physics program.
The Committee recommends $7,500,000 for the Dark Energy
Spectroscopic Instrument; $14,450,000 for the G2 Dark Matter Experiment LUX–ZEPLIN; and $10,000,000 for the Facility for Advanced Accelerator Experimental Tests II. The Committee notesthat fabrication of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope Camera
will be complete with fiscal year 2018 funding and recommends$6,250,000 for ongoing efforts for commissioning and initial operation of the camera.
In accordance with the P5, the Committee strongly urges the Department to maintain a balanced portfolio of small-, medium- andlarge-scale experiments, and to ensure adequate funding for thebasic research program at universities and the national laboratories. In particular, in addition to the support for the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility to study neutrino physics, the Committee
urges the Department to support the P5 recommendation for anext-generation Stage 4 Cosmic Microwave Background experimentfor precision studies of the early universe.
Four years into executing the P5, the Committee commends the
Office of Science and the high energy physics community forachieving significant accomplishments and meeting the milestones
and goals set forth in the strategic plan, including advancing thehigh-luminosity accelerator and detector upgrades for the Large
Hadron Collider, construction of the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility/Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, completing the construction of second generation dark matter and dark energy experiments, operating the world’s highest power beams for neutrino
physics, building a successful prototype of the strongest accelerator
magnet ever built, and discovering new configurations of matter.
The Committee encourages the Department and the high energy
physics community to continue to provide progress reports on meeting P5 goals. The Committee recommends $145,000,000 to continue
construction of the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility/Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, consistent with the Department’s
project cost profile, and $35,000,000 for the PIP–II accelerator upgrade.
A recent National Academies study, Opportunities in Intense
Ultrafast Lasers, Towards the Brightest Light, highlighted the importance of investing in high-intensity laser technology to maintain
U.S. leadership and open up new frontiers of science. To help advance this important area of research, the Committee directs the
Department to provide a plan within 90 days after enactment of
this act that responds to the recommendations of this study concerning this important national capability.

98
NUCLEAR PHYSICSThe Committee recommends $710,000,000 for Nuclear Physics,
and strongly supports the Long Range Plan for Nuclear Science released in October 2015 to address important scientific questions
with modest or constrained growth in the nuclear science budgets,
while still maintaining a strong, vital and world-leading program.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $75,000,000
for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams [FRIB], and encourages the
Department to work with Michigan State University to commence
early operations at FRIB. The Committee also recommends$11,500,000 for the Stable Isotope Production Facility to provide increased domestic capacity for production of critically needed enriched stable isotopes for research, defense, and industry, and reduce the Nation’s dependence on foreign supplies. The Committee
also recommends $6,600,000 for the Gamma-Ray Energy Tracking
Array, which will enable advanced, high resolution gamma ray detection capabilities for FRIB.
The Committee further recommends optimal operations at theRelativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, the Argonne Tandem Linac Accelerator System, andthe Brookhaven Linac Isotope Producer Facility.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS

The Committee recommends $24,500,000 for Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $11,300,000 for the Science Undergraduate
Laboratory Internship; $1,000,000 for the Community College Institute of Science and Technology; $4,500,000 for the Graduate Student Research Program; $1,200,000 for the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship; $2,900,000 for the National Science
Bowl; $750,000 for Technology Development and Online Application; $600,000 for Evaluation Studies; $500,000 for Outreach; and$50,000 for Laboratory Equipment Donation Program.
SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $302,100,000 for Science Laboratories Infrastructure.
Within these funds, the Committee recommends $26,000,000 for
nuclear operations at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. In futurebudget requests, the Committee directs the Office of Science towork with the Office of Nuclear Energy to demonstrate a commitment to operations and maintenance of nuclear facilities at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory that support multiple critical missions.
ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY—ENERGY
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
$353,314,000
Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... ...........................
Committee recommendation .................................................................
375,000,000

The Committee recommends $375,000,000 for the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy [ARPA–E], an increase of$375,000,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, theCommittee recommends $33,250,000 for program direction.

99
ARPA–E was established by the America COMPETES Act of2007 following a recommendation by the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report. Since receiving its first funding in fiscal year
2009, ARPA–E continues to catalyze and support the developmentof transformational, high-impact energy technologies to ensure the
Nation’s economic and energy security and technological leadership. Project sponsors continue to form strategic partnerships andnew companies, as well as secure private sector funding to help
move ARPA–E technologies closer to the market.
The Committee definitively rejects the short-sighted proposal toterminate ARPA–E, and instead increases investment in this transformational program and directs the Department to continue tospend funds provided on research and development and program
direction. The Department shall not use any appropriated funds toplan or execute the termination of ARPA–E.
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAMADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSESGROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$33,000,000
10,000,000
33,000,000

OFFSETTING COLLECTIONSAppropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

¥$10,000,000¥15,000,000¥15,000,000

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$23,000,000¥5,000,000
18,000,000

The Committee recommends $33,000,000 in funding for the Loan
Guarantee Program, an increase of $23,000,000 above the budget
request. This funding is offset by $15,000,000 in collections fromloan guarantee applicants, for a net appropriation of $18,000,000.
An additional $44,000,000 is credited to the bill as an adjustment
from negative subsidies associated with this program. No funds
recommended under this heading may be used to plan, develop, implement or pursue the elimination of the Title XVII Innovative
Technologies Loan Program.
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN
PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$5,000,000
1,000,000
5,000,000

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, an increase of$4,000,000 above the budget request.

100
TRIBAL ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$1,000,000¥8,500,000
1,000,000

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the Tribal Energy
Loan Guarantee Program, an increase of $9,500,000 above thebudget request.
OFFICE OF INDIAN ENERGY POLICY AND PROGRAMSAppropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. ...........................
Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... ...........................
Committee recommendation .................................................................
$18,000,000

The Committee recommends $18,000,000 for the Office of Indian
Energy Policy and Programs. The activities of this office have previously been funded in the Departmental Administration account.
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$285,652,000
235,534,000
266,000,000(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

¥$96,000,000¥96,000,000¥96,000,000

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$189,652,000
139,534,000
170,000,000

The Committee recommends $266,000,000 in funding for Departmental Administration. This funding is offset by $96,000,000 inrevenue for a net appropriation of $170,000,000.
The Committee has reduced the number of control points in thisaccount to provide flexibility to the Department in its management
and funding of its support functions. The Department is directed
to continue to submit its budget request for this account in its current structure. The Other Departmental Administration activity includes Technology Transition Management, Chief Human Capital
Officer, Chief Information Officer, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, General Counsel, Energy Policy and
Systems Analysis, Technology Transitions, International Affairs,
Public Affairs, Economic Impact and Diversity, and Office of Energy Jobs Development. The Office of Indian Energy Policy andPrograms is funded in a separate account.
Within International Affairs, the Committee recommends$2,000,000 for the Israel Binational Industrial Research and Development [BIRD] Foundation and $4,000,000 to continue the U.S.Israel Center of Excellence in Energy Engineering and Water Technology as authorized by the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act. This joint research and development center between the

101
U.S. and Israel shall focus on collaborative research initiatives
among universities, research institutions, and industry partners
that could include hydrocarbon extraction and processing, energy
infrastructure and policies, process water treatment, alternative
energy sources, and impacts on coastal communities. Funding provided shall be matched with Israeli government and industry funding. The Department is directed to expeditiously obligate funding
provided in fiscal year 2018 and provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a briefing on implementation and management. The Committee directs the Department toensure the center is cost-shared with Israel and non-federal partners.
Technology Transfer.—Within the amount recommended for
Other Departmental Administration, the Committee recommends$8,505,000 for the Office of Technology Transition. In awarding
funding from the Technology Commercialization Fund, the Department shall assure cost match with private partners is in accordance with cost sharing in section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352).
Small Refinery Exemption.—The Department is directed to continue to follow the direction included in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, under
this heading.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$49,000,000
51,330,000
51,330,000

The Committee recommends $51,330,000 for the Office of the Inspector General, the same as the request.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIESNATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATIONThe Committee recommendation for the National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA] continues funding for recapitalizationof our nuclear weapons infrastructure, while modernizing andmaintaining a safe, secure, and credible nuclear deterrent without
the need for underground testing. This is among our most important national security priorities.
At the same time, the Committee supports continuing importantefforts to secure and permanently eliminate remaining stockpiles ofnuclear and radiological materials overseas and in the UnitedStates that could be used for nuclear or radiological weapons. In
addition, the Committee supports Naval Reactors and the important role they play in enabling the Navy’s nuclear fleet.
The NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the Department.
The NNSA Act clearly lays out the functions of the NNSA, andgives the Administrator authority over, and responsibility for, thosefunctions. No funds shall be used to reorganize, reclassify, or study
combining any of those functions with the Department. Funds may
be used to evaluate any other function not specifically listed as an
NNSA function in the NNSA Act, such as a chief scientist or officeof policy.

102
INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM

The Committee directs the Secretary to carry out the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 16274a in support of university research anddevelopment in areas relevant to the NNSA’s mission. Within
available funds, the Committee recommends not less than
$5,000,000 for the Integrated University Program to cultivate thenext generation of leaders in nonproliferation, nuclear security, andinternational security. Together with funds from the Office of Nuclear Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, this program ensures highly qualified nuclear specialists will be available
to meet national needs. The Committee directs the Department torequest funding for this program in future budget years. Funding
for this program shall not come from prior year funds.
In addition to the Integrated University Program within Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation, the NNSA manages several universityrelated programs, ranging from fellowships and scholarships to university research. The NNSA has not been able to provide a clear
accounting of these various programs, and is directed to provide areport annually with the budget request that lists all of the university programs requested, the recommended funding level, and thevalue that program provides the NNSA.
PROJECT MANAGEMENTThe Committee is concerned about the NNSA’s ability to properly
estimate costs and timelines for large projects. The NNSA is encouraged to assess current performance on projects costing morethan $750,000,000, and make appropriate project managementchanges. The Committee encourages the NNSA to identify problems in cost and schedule estimates early, and provide updated information to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses ofCongress in a timely manner.
WEAPONS ACTIVITIESAppropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $10,642,138,000
Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 11,017,078,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,850,000,000

The Committee recommends $10,850,000,000 for Weapons Activities, a decrease of $167,078,000 below the budget request, to ensure
the safety, security, reliability, and effectiveness of the Nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile without the need for nuclear testing.
DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORKThe Committee recommends $4,700,501,000 for Directed Stockpile Work.
Life
Extension
Programs.—The
Committee
recommends$1,919,988,000 for Life Extension Programs [LEPs] and Major Alterations, which fully funds all LEPs and major alterations in thebudget request, consistent with the plan of record approved by the
Nuclear Weapons Council. The NNSA needs to ensure that LEPs
are completed on time and on budget to prevent impact on otherhigh priorities, such as modernizing aging infrastructure, criticalnonproliferation activities to combat nuclear terrorism, and naval
nuclear propulsion.

103
Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition.—The Committee recommends $56,000,000 for the dismantlement of retired nuclear
weapons removed from the stockpile.
Strategic Materials.—The Committee supports the budget request for strategic materials, including management of existingmaterial stockpiles and methods to replenish the supply needed forour national security programs. As the Department progresses
through the ongoing warhead life extension programs, it will require the necessary strategic materials to meet the stockpile demands. The NNSA is encouraged to explore all options, including
leveraging qualified industrial partners, to ensure it can maintaina consistent supply of purified uranium metal and other strategic
materials.
The Committee continues to support the Nuclear Weapons Council’s program of record for plutonium pit production to meet the
Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act requirementof 30 pits per year at Los Alamos National Laboratory by 2026.
Within available funds, NNSA is directed to contract with athird-party federally-Funded Research and Development Corporation to conduct an independent assessment of the NNSA’s decision
to conduct pit production operations at two sites. NNSA shall identify and execute a contract with an independent FFRDC, not directly involved in plutonium pit production, not later than 60 days
after enactment of this a act. NNSA shall not proceed with conceptual design activities for the recently announced preferred alternative until an FFRDC is under contract. The assessment shall include an analysis of the four options evaluated in the recent Plutonium Pit Production Engineering Assessment, all identified risks,engineering requirements, workforce development requirements,and other factors considered. The FFRDC shall submit its report to
the Committees on Appropriations of both the Houses of Congress
not later than 210 days after enactment of this act.
Domestic Uranium Enrichment.—The Department’s approved
Mission Need Statement [MNS] for Domestic Uranium Enrichment
states that in 2014–2015, the American Centrifuge Plant had successfully completed its mission of providing reliability and operational data. The Department’s research and development on small
centrifuges has not yet reached that level of maturity. The MNS
also stated that the cost range to enrich uranium using AC–100
would cost approximately twice as much as using small centrifuges.
The Committee is concerned that the Department lacks a credible
plan to obtain adequate data on small centrifuge operations to complete the Analysis of Alternatives for uranium enrichment asscheduled. The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for Domestic
Uranium Enrichment, including not more than $5,000,000 for research, development, and demonstration of AC–100 and not lessthan $45,000,000 for research, development and demonstration ofsmall centrifuges. No funds are recommended for uranium
downblending within this account.
Tritium
Sustainment.—The
Committee
recommends$290,275,000 for tritium sustainment, including $85,000,000 to
downblend uranium for tritium production.

104
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERINGThe Committee recommends $2,042,289,000 for Research, Development, Technology, and Engineering.
Science.—The Committee directs the Administrator to enter into
a contract with the group known as JASON for a study to assess
the efforts of the NNSA to understand plutonium aging and thelifetime of plutonium pits in nuclear weapons. The Administrator
shall make available all information that is necessary to successfully complete a meaningful study on a timely basis. Not later than
18 months after the date of enactment of this act, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report on the findings of thestudy. The report shall include recommendations of the study for
improving the knowledge, understanding, and application of thefundamental and applied sciences related to the study of plutonium
aging and pit lifetimes, an estimate of minimum and likely lifetimes for pits in current warheads, and the feasibility of reusing
pits in modified nuclear weapons. The report shall be submitted in
unclassified form but may include a classified annex.
Academic Alliances and Partnerships.—The Committee recognizes the importance of the Academic Alliances and Partnerships
program in supporting fundamental science and technology research at universities that support stockpile stewardship, the development of the next generation of highly-trained workforce, andthe maintenance of a strong network of independent technicalpeers. The Committee is also aware of the expertise provided to the
NNSA by academic alliances and the centers of excellence program.
The Committee encourages the NNSA to fund new centers of excellence, especially in the field of materials under extreme conditions
research. The Committee recommends $53,364,000. Within thisamount, not less than $20,000,000 is recommended for the Minority Serving Institution Partnership Program, within which not lessthan $2,000,000 is recommended for Tribal Colleges and Universities.
Engineering.—The Committee recommends $22,500,000 to complete the recapitalization of the Microsystems and Engineering
Sciences Applications silicon fabrication facility, consistent with thebudget request. The Committee also supports increased investment
in Enhanced Surety in recognition of new threats and the challenges maintaining readiness on aging systems. Within the available funding, $5,000,000 is recommended for next-generation technology development for warhead system certification and the protection against theft/loss and terrorism incident.
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield.—The Committee finds that the Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield[ICF] program continues to be a critical and essential componentof nuclear stockpile certification without underground nuclear
weapons testing, maintaining U.S. leadership in high energy density physics and laser technologies, and developing the next-generation
workforce.
Therefore,
theCommittee
recommends$544,934,000 for the ICF program. Within available funds, theCommittee recommends $344,000,000 for inertial confinement fusion activities at the National Ignition Facility, $63,100,000 is recommended for Sandia National Laboratory’s Z facility, and105$80,000,000 is recommended for the University of Rochester’sOmega facility. Within available funds for facility operations andother amounts, the Committee recommends not less than
$30,000,000 for target research, development, and production. To
ensure a robust, diverse, and competitive vendor base for targets,
the Committee directs the NNSA to compete as much scope aspracticable and limit sole-source contracts to $15,000,000 or less.
The Committee further encourages continued research by the
NNSA in High Energy Density Plasmas and recognizes the partnerships between the laboratories and research universities to address the critical need for skilled graduates to replace an aging
workforce at our NNSA laboratories.
Advanced Simulation and Computing.—The Committee recommends $703,404,000 for advanced simulation and computing.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than$163,000,000 for activities associated with the exascale initiative,
such as advanced system architecture design contracts with vendors and advanced weapons code development to effectively use
new high performance computing platforms. Within funds provided,
the Committee recommends up to $13,000,000 for work on integration of artificial intelligence approaches into mechanistic modelingand prediction.
Advanced Manufacturing Development.—The Committee recommends $96,838,000 for Advanced Manufacturing Development.
Within available funds, $35,914,000 is recommended for Process
Technology Development, including $5,000,000 to modernize andupgrade legacy applications at weapons production facilities to improve manufacturing and safety.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONSThe Committee recommends $2,749,048,000 for Infrastructure
and Operations.
Project 06–D–141, Uranium Processing Facility, Y–12, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee.—The Committee recommends $703,000,000 to continue
construction activities of the five remaining subprojects of the Uranium Processing Facility, including the Main Process Building and
the Salvage and Accountability Building. The Committee notes thatthe designs for these nuclear facilities have reached the 90 percent
completion milestone and the NNSA Administrator has approved
the cost and schedule baselines for both buildings.
The Committee supports the ongoing effort to replace existing enriched uranium capabilities currently residing in Building 9212 by
2025 for not more than $6,500,000,000 and the strategy of breaking
the project into more manageable subprojects. This practice is specifically permitted by DOE Order 413.3B, and is a practical approach for any project of this magnitude.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$1,999,219,000
1,862,825,000
1,902,000,000

106
The Committee recommends $1,902,000,000 for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, an increase of $39,175,000 above the budget request.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation provides a vitally importantcomponent of our national security—preventing nuclear materials
and weapons from falling into the wrong hands, including nonweapons nations, terrorist organizations, and other non-state entities. This mission is challenged by an increasingly dangerous world
with emerging and evolving threats, in addition to the proliferationof technologies that simplify production, manufacturing, and designof nuclear materials and weapons. The Committee recognizes theimportance of bilateral and multilateral agreements and organizations in detecting, intercepting, and deterring nuclear and radiological threats. The Committee urges the full use of these partnerships to further strengthen U.S. and global security. Within available funds, the Committee recommends up to $18,000,000 to partner with interested State or local governments to improve capabilities to train first-responders, and other experts in nuclear operations, safeguards, cyber, and emergency operations.
To preserve and advance uranium and engineering expertise forpurposes of national security and nonproliferation, the Committee
encourages the ongoing collaboration between the Department’s Office of Intelligence and the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program. Further, as the pathways to proliferation increase, it is vitalto maintain the skilled workforce and unique infrastructure to detect nuclear proliferation and support policymakers in the future.
The Department is directed to provide a report to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 90 days afterenactment of this act that provides a plan to maintain the necessary technical competencies and infrastructure. The Department
is directed to coordinate with other government agencies and nongovernment entities to ensure it addresses the broad spectrum of
nonproliferation needs.
Domestic Radiological Security.—The Committee recommends$115,433,000 for Domestic Radiological Security, including not lessthan $25,000,000 for the Cesium Irradiator Replacement Program.
Nonproliferation and Arms Control.—The Committee recommends $129,703,000 for Nonproliferation and Arms Control activities. Within available funds, the Committee recommends notless than $3,000,000 for international cooperation between governmental and non-governmental organizations at the national andsub-national levels to implement robust export control protocols.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development.—
The Committee recommends $487,270,000 for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation Research and Development. The Committee supports a robust research and development capability to support nonproliferation initiatives. Proliferation of illicit nuclear materials
and weapons continues to be a high-consequence threat, and ourability to detect the production and movement of these materials
is vitally important. Research and development in this area is especially important. The Committee recommendation supports continued research and development of novel enrichment technologies tosupport nonproliferation goals, and recommends $7,500,000 for thispurpose. The Committee also supports exploration and develop-

107
ment of material disposal technologies, and recommends up to$10,000,000 for this purpose.
Low Enriched Uranium for Naval Applications.—Within available funds for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Advanced
Low Enriched Uranium Fuel Research and Development for thenational laboratories to develop low-enriched fuels that could replace highly enriched uranium for naval applications. Consistent
with section 7319 of title 10, United States Code, this funding is
recommended within the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account. This work shall be managed within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
Seismic Research Instruments.—Several U.S. Government agencies reduce the costs of seismic research by utilizing shared-use instruments instead of owning, operating, and maintaining their own
equipment. The Committee directs that within 180 days after enactment of this act, the NNSA shall submit a report to Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on the cost-effectiveness of establishing an agreement between the Department andone or more instrument centers to maintain and provide shared useof any instruments the Department acquires, rather than the Department doing so internally.
MOX Construction.—The Committee recommends $220,000,000
for closeout costs associated with the termination of MOX Fuel
Fabrication Facility construction, consistent with the budget request and the Secretary’s waiver to terminate the project.
Use of Prior Year Funds.—The Committee recommendation assumes the use of $19,000,000 in prior year funds as recommended
in the budget request, and the use of $55,000,000 in prior year
funds from Nonproliferation Construction.
NAVAL REACTORSAppropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$1,620,000,000
1,788,618,000
1,620,000,000

The Committee recommends $1,620,000,000 for Naval Reactors,
a decrease of $168,618,000 below the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation fully funds important national priorities, including the Columbia-class replacement submarine design and theprototype refueling. Naval Reactors currently relies on high-enriched uranium from weapons that have been removed from thestockpile to fuel the Navy’s aircraft carriers and submarines. The
Committee encourages Naval Reactors to work with the NNSA toensure there is a long-term plan that meets the Navy’s needs forhigh-enriched uranium.
COLUMBIA-CLASS REACTOR SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $138,000,000 for Columbia-Class
Reactor Systems Development. Columbia-class submarines must be
delivered on time to maintain our survivable deterrent. The Committee directs Naval Reactors to provide the report in the Energy
and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,

108
2018, on technical risks to delivering the lead submarine on time,and mitigation strategies for those risks.
NAVAL REACTORS DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $475,000,000 for Naval Reactors Development. Within the available funds, the Committee recommends$83,000,000 for the Advanced Test Reactor and $2,000,000 forplanning, preparation, and shipments of unirradiated or irradiatedmaterial to support a pilot project on ZIRCEX.
CONSTRUCTION

The Committee recommends $233,194,000 for Construction.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $209,000,000
for the Spent Fuel Handling Facility in Idaho, $13,200,000 for theFire System Upgrade at Bettis, and $10,994,000 to replace an overhead piping utility distribution system at the KS site.
FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$407,595,000
422,529,000
408,000,000

The Committee recommends $408,000,000 for Federal Salaries
and Expenses, a decrease of $14,529,000 below the budget request.
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUPAppropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$5,988,048,000
5,630,217,000
5,988,000,000

The Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental
Cleanup is $5,988,000,000, an increase of $357,783,000 above thebudget request. Within available funds, the Department is directed
to fund the hazardous waste worker training program at$10,000,000.
Future Budget Requests.—The Committee directs the Department to include out-year funding projections in the annual budget
request for Environmental Management, and an estimate of thetotal cost and time to complete each site.
Richland.—As a signatory to the Tri-Party Agreement, the Department is required to meet specific compliance milestones toward
the cleanup of the Hanford site. Among other things, the Department committed to provide the funding necessary to enable fullcompliance with its cleanup milestones. Unfortunately, if the Department’s fiscal year 2019 budget request were enacted withoutchange, future fiscal year Tri-Party Agreement milestones could be
at risk, threatening high-risk cleanup projects near the City ofRichland, Washington and the economically and environmentally
important Columbia River. The Committee recognizes that significant progress has been made at the Hanford Site. However, because the Department’s budget request could slow or halt criticalcleanup work and threaten the Department’s compliance with its
legal obligations under the Tri-Party Agreement, the Committee
recommends $838,171,000 for Richland Operations. Additional
funding is recommended for cleanup of the 300–296 waste site109
under the 324 Building, interim stabilization of PUREX Tunnel #2,
risk reduction activities associated with legacy waste sites, K-Westfacility cleanup and deactivation, site-wide infrastructure, and community and regulatory support. The Committee recommends nofunding for the Department to carry out activities relating to single-shell tank stabilization nor activities in the Office of River Protection’s tank farms within this control point.
Within available funds, the Department recommends $8,5000,000
for the Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response facilities. Further, within available funds, the Department
is directed to support the recently established Hanford Workforce
Engagement Center to provide education and advocacy to current
and former Hanford employees on all available Federal and State
compensation programs, and to identify if a capability to resolve
disputes and concerns can be integrated into the Hanford Workforce Engagement Center. Funding for maintenance and public
safety efforts at B Reactor in the Manhattan Project National Historical Park is recommended within the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup account.
Oak
Ridge
Reservation.—The
Committee
recommends$410,000,000 for the Oak Ridge Reservation, including $10,000,000
to continue preliminary design of a new landfill. The existing onsite waste disposal facility is expected to reach capacity before all
cleanup activities are completed. The new landfill needs to be completed to ensure that there is no interruption of cleanup activities.
Additional funds above the budget request are recommended to address the growing backlog of deferred maintenance associated withexcess contaminated facilities, several of which are on the Department’s list of high-risk facilities, and to focus efforts at reducing
threats to worker safety and health. Efforts should also be focusedon cleanup of facilities needed for other purposes, such as hot cells,
reactors, and other excess facilities located in the central campus
at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
U–233 Disposition Program.—The Committee recommends$52,300,000 for the disposition of material in Building 3019. Removal of legacy material from this building, an aging facility in theheart of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory central campus, mustremain a high priority for the Department. Removal of the Uranium 233 will enable the overall security posture at the laboratory
to be relaxed, which will reduce costs and eliminate nuclear safetyissues, and make the campus more conducive to collaborative
science. The Committee encourages the Department to seek opportunities to expedite the disposition of material in Building 3019, including public-private partnerships that may reduce the overall
cost of cleanup. At the same time, the Department shall consider
direct disposal of remaining material that may not be suitable toprocessing.
Mercury Treatment Facility.—The Committee recommends$76,000,000 for construction of the Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment
Facility. Remediation of mercury contamination at the Oak Ridge
Reservation is an important precursor to full site remediation. Reducing the mercury being released into the East Fork of Poplar
Creek continues to be among the highest priorities for the Environmental Management program.

110
Office of River Protection.—The Committee recommends$1,573,000,000 for the Office of River Protection. Funds above thebudget request are recommended to resume engineering, procurement, and design work on the High-Level Waste Treatment Facility, to ensure compliance with the 2016 Consent Decree and TriParty Agreement milestones, and to continue tank waste retrievals.
Funds that support the Waste Treatment Plant project are recommended separately for: (1) Low-Activity Waste Treatment Facility, Analytical Laboratory, and Balance of Facilities; (2) High-Level
Waste Treatment Facility; (3) Pre-Treatment Facility; and (4) Low
Activity Waste Pretreatment System. The Committee recommends
no funding for the Department to carry out activities relating to
the test bed initiative for low activity waste disposition. The Committee is aware of efforts to remove high-curie constituents fromhigh-level waste tanks to facilitate low-activity waste vitrification
through the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste concept and meet consent decree requirements. Funding is provided to install and test
one tank-side treatment device. The Department shall not proceedwith expansion of this approach until it reports to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on how this approach
will be integrated with existing and planned capital facilities, howlifecycle cost compare to other approaches, strategy for obtaining
State permits, and plans for ancilliary waste streams. The Department shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of bothHouses of Congress before moving ahead with any plans to place
the High Level Waste Treatment Facility or the Pretreatment Facility into preservation mode for an extended period of time.
The Committee recognizes the Department’s efforts to improve
working conditions in the tank farms and to address chemical
vapor exposures by implementing recommendations from the 2014
Hanford Tank Vapor Assessment Report. The Committee is awareof three subsequent reviews conducted by the Department’s Officeof the Inspector General and Office of Enterprise Assessments, andthe National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Within
available funds in the Tank Farms Activities control point, the Department is directed to continue ongoing work to address chemical
vapor exposures, implement recommendations from all reviews,
and maintain a safe work environment for Hanford employees.
SavannahRiver
Site.—The
Committee
recommends$1,400,000,000 for the Savannah River site. Within available funds,$3,000,000 is for disposition of spent fuel from the High Flux Isotope Reactor. The Committee remains concerned about the coordination among the Office of Environmental Management, the
NNSA, and the Office of Management and Budget when planningfor retiree pension payments at the Savannah River Site. The Department is directed to provide the report required in the Energy
and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,2018 on retiree pension payments as soon as possible.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.—The Department proposes to dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus plutonium at the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant [WIPP] in New Mexico. The Department is directed towork cooperatively with the State of New Mexico, recognizing thelimits in the Land Withdrawal Act and New Mexico’s status as anindependent regulator of the WIPP facility. Further, no later than

111
February 1, 2019, the Department shall submit to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, a plan for obtaining
all necessary final state and Federal permits; acquiring independent scientific and technical review of dilute and dispose processes and waste forms to ensure compliance with waste acceptancecriteria; defining any legislative changes necessary to accommodate
this material and the existing WIPP waste inventory; and outlining
any necessary design and construction modifications to the current
facility, including cost and schedule impacts of any modifications
needed to WIPP facilities or for developing additional repositories.
Technology Development and Demonstration.—The Committee
recommends $28,954,000 for Technology Development and Demonstration. The Committee supports the Department’s efforts to expand technology development and demonstration to address its
long-term and technically complex cleanup challenges. Within theamount recommended, not less than $5,000,000 is recommended forwork on qualification, testing and research to advance the state-ofthe-art on containment ventilation systems. Further, the Department is directed to take the necessary steps to implement and competitively award a cooperative university affiliated research centerfor that purpose.
Within available funds provided, not less than $5,000,000 is recommended to fund the existing cooperative agreement with theConsortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation[CRESP] and up to $5,000,000 is recommended for research anddevelopment of robotics to enhance worker safety.
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIESAppropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$840,000,000
853,300,000
840,000,000

The Committee recommends $840,000,000 for Other Defense Activities, a decrease of $13,300,000 from the budget request. Within
available funds, the Committee recommends $254,378,000 for Specialized Security Activities. Within the available funds for Environment, Health and Safety, the Committee recommends not less than
$1,000,000 for the Epidemiologic Study of One Million U.S. Radiation Workers and Veterans, which was originally approved by the
Office of Science in 2012.
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
No funds are recommended to divest transmission assets of thePower Marketing Administrations [PMA]. The Committee reminds
the Department of the prohibition on studying transfer of PMA assets in Public Law 99–349.
The Committee understands the Department has used existing
authorities to reorganize the reporting structure for the Power
Marketing Administrations [PMAs), shifting responsibilities fromthe Deputy Secretary of Energy to the Assistant Secretary of the
Office of Electricity. While the Committee understands the expertise of the Office of Electricity and recognizes the already existing
relationship between PMAs and the Office of Electricity, the Committee remains concerned with this unnecessary change and urges

112
the Department to continue the long-standing practice of the
PMA’s organizational reporting to the Deputy Secretary of Energy.
The bill includes reductions of $16,000,000 and $44,000,000 to
the annual expense requests for Southwestern Power Administration and Western Area Power Administration, respectively, to account for the Congressional Budget Office’s [CBO] initial estimateof collections assumed in the budget request. CBO inadvertently
misreported its estimate of annual expense collections associatedwith the level of funding for administrative expenses proposed in
the fiscal year 2019 President’s request by approximately$60,000,000 (in the aggregate), but the oversight was not discovered until after the House Committee on Appropriations had reported its version of the fiscal year 2019 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill and, therefore, could not be correctedprior to the Senate Committee on Appropriations taking action on
this bill. CBO has indicated that it will adjust its estimate of theannual expense collection estimate prior to the conference between
the House and Senate. Assuming that the Committee provides therequested level for annual expenses in the conference, the updated
collection estimates will be at or around the levels in the budget
request. The Committee has included additional lines in the detailtable accompanying Title III of this report to show these adjustments.
Additionally, CBO has continued to raise questions about thecurrent receipt authority provided in this and prior year appropriations acts to create carryover of unobligated balances for purchasepower and wheeling expenditures [PPW]. Since the scoring for
PPW receipts has historically equaled expenses as a result of a2001 scoring agreement, the Committee continues to be unable torecommend the full budget request for PPW expenses for theSoutheastern Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, or Western Area Power Administration due to CBO scoring. The Committee recommends the full amount for PPW expenses
that CBO has estimated will be spent for those purposes in fiscal
year 2019, which is approximately $200,000,000 lower (in the aggregate) than the budget request. The Committee will continue towork to resolve the differences in the CBO and administration estimates for PPW expenses.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER
ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$11,400,000
26,400,000
10,400,000

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $10,400,000
for the Southwestern Power Administration.
CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE,WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$93,372,000
132,372,000
89,372,000

113
The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $89,372,000
for the Western Area Power Administration.
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$228,000
228,000
228,000

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $228,000 for
the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSIONSALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$367,600,000
369,900,000
369,900,000

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. ¥$367,600,000
Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... ¥369,900,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥369,900,000

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $0 for theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC]. California recently experienced one of its worst fire seasons in modern history,
resulting in severe challenges to the well-being of utilities and theelectric system in that State. The Committee is concerned that thesafe, reliable, and affordable delivery of electricity to consumers
could be compromised by the increasing frequency and severity ofnatural disasters due to climate change—including hurricanes,
floods, and wildfires. As FERC reviews way to improve the resilience of the electric transmission system, the Committee directs
FERC to include the evaluation of just and reasonable cost-recovery mechanisms for the development of resilient infrastructure andsystem repair and restoration, as well as practices to better prepare the Nation’s bulk power system for natural disasters. FERC
shall study the impacts and effects of strict liability doctrines on
utilities’ ability to invest in the reliability and resilience of transmission systems. FERC is directed to report its findings and recommendations to the Committees on Appropriations of both Housesof Congress, not later than 90 days after the enactment of this act.
The Committee encourages FERC to prioritize meaningful opportunities for public engagement and coordination with State andlocal governments in the Federal permitting and review processesof energy infrastructure proposals. Specifically, review processes
should remain transparent and consistent, and ensure the health,safety, and security of the environment and each affected community.
Oroville Dam.—FERC is directed to brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on its response to the recommendations of the external independent panel reviewing FERC’s
dam safety practices in light of the 2017 incident at Oroville Damin California within 60 days of receiving the external independent
panel’s report.

114
FERC shall require the licensee of Oroville Dam to request theUnited States Society on Dams to nominate independent consultants to prepare a level 2 risk analysis, consistent with the Commission’s guidelines, for use in conducting the next Part 12 safety review of Oroville Dam, currently scheduled for 2019. FERC shall ensure the independence of the nominated consultants from the licensee.
The Committee encourages FERC to prioritize meaningful opportunities for public engagement and coordination with State andlocal governments in the Federal permitting and review processesof energy infrastructure proposals. Specifically, review processes
should remain transparent and consistent, and ensure the health,safety, and security of the environment and each affected community.

ENERGY PROGRAMS

67,00033,00045,00030,000175,000..........................
..........................
..........................

241,600
92,000105,000
80,906
519,506
305,000
220,727
27,000248,000
3,000
251,000
55,000306,000

Subtotal, Renewable Energy ...................................................................................................................................

Energy Efficiency:
Advanced manufacturing ............................................................................................................................................
Building technologies ..................................................................................................................................................
Federal energy management program ........................................................................................................................

Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs:
Weatherization:
Weatherization assistance program ..........................................................................................................
Training and technical assistance ...........................................................................................................

Subtotal, Weatherization .......................................................................................................................

State Energy Program Grants .....................................................................................................................................

Subtotal, Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program ....................................................................................

..........................

..........................

75,00057,00010,000163,500

674,045

Subtotal, Sustainable Transportation .....................................................................................................................

Renewable Energy:
Solar energy .................................................................................................................................................................
Wind energy .................................................................................................................................................................
Water power .................................................................................................................................................................
Geothermal technologies .............................................................................................................................................

Budget estimate

68,50037,00058,0002018
Appropriations

337,500
221,545
115,000

Sustainable Transportation:
Vehicle technologies ....................................................................................................................................................
Bioenergy technologies ................................................................................................................................................
Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies ...........................................................................................................................

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY[In thousands of dollars]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

306,000

55,000251,000

248,000
3,000

311,000
225,000
31,000509,500

239,500
80,000105,000
85,000667,500

337,500
215,000
115,000

Committee
recommendation..........................

..........................

..........................

..........................
..........................

∂306,000∂55,000∂251,000∂248,000∂3,000∂236,000∂168,000∂21,000∂334,500¥10,006∂6,000∂4,273∂4,000∂172,500∂47,000∂60,000∂55,000∂504,000¥6,545¥2,100¥12,000..........................
∂4,094∂269,000∂178,000∂57,000

Budget estimate..........................
¥6,545..........................

2018
Appropriations

Committee recommendation compared
to—

115

..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

2,321,778
2,321,778

39,00038,00075,82941,0007,000
200,829
7,000
12,00028,500248,329
248,329

Subtotal, Energy efficiency and renewable energy ................................................................................................

TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ........................................................................................

Research and development:
Transmission Reliability ..............................................................................................................................................
Resilient Distribution Systems ....................................................................................................................................
Cyber security for energy delivery systems .................................................................................................................
Energy storage .............................................................................................................................................................
Transformer resilience and advanced components ....................................................................................................

Subtotal, Research and development .....................................................................................................................

Transmission Permitting and Technical Assistance ............................................................................................................
Infrastructure security and energy restoration ....................................................................................................................
Program direction .................................................................................................................................................................
Reliability .....................................................................................................................................................................

TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY .....................................................................................

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

269,500

Subtotal, Corporate Support ...................................................................................................................................

..........................

..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

695,610695,610215,11090,000125,110..........................

92,000
162,500
15,000142,000

858,727

Budget estimate

Subtotal, Energy Efficiency .....................................................................................................................................

2018
Appropriations

Corporate Support:
Facilities and infrastructure:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] .................................................................................................
Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................
Strategic programs ......................................................................................................................................................

[In thousands of dollars]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued..........................

..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

..........................

..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

2,322,000

2,322,000

272,000

97,000
162,500
12,500873,000

Committee
recommendation∂1,626,390∂1,626,390

∂222
∂222

..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

¥200,829¥7,000¥12,000¥28,500¥248,329¥248,329..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

∂56,890∂2,500¥39,000¥38,000¥75,829¥41,000¥7,000∂7,000∂37,390∂12,500∂731,000

Budget estimate∂5,000..........................
¥2,500∂14,2732018
Appropriations

Committee recommendation compared
to—

116

CYBERSECURITY, ENERGY SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE..........................
..........................
116,000
163,000
60,0002,500
341,500..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

5,000
5,000
159,000
237,000
260,056
3,000
669,056

20,000Transmission reliability ........................................................................................................................................................
Resilient distribution systems ..............................................................................................................................................
Energy storage ......................................................................................................................................................................
Transformer resilience and advanced components .............................................................................................................
Transmission permitting and technical assistance ............................................................................................................
Program direction .................................................................................................................................................................

TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY ...............................................................................................................................

Research and development:
Integrated university program .....................................................................................................................................
STEP R&D ....................................................................................................................................................................
Nuclear energy enabling technologies ........................................................................................................................
Reactor concepts RD&D ..............................................................................................................................................
Fuel cycle research and development .........................................................................................................................
International nuclear energy cooperation ...................................................................................................................

Subtotal, Research and development .....................................................................................................................

Infrastructure:
Radiological facilities management:
Space and defense infrastructure .....................................................................................................................

NUCLEAR ENERGYELECTRICITY DELIVERY..........................

TOTAL, CYBERSECURITY, ENERGY SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE .........................................................

70,000..........................

61,30913,00010,000
8,000
5,000
6,000
19,30995,800..........................
18,0007,800..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

Subtotal, Research and development .....................................................................................................................

70,000..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

Transmission permitting and technical assistance ............................................................................................................
Infrastructure security and energy restoration ....................................................................................................................
Program direction .................................................................................................................................................................

Research and development:
Cybersecurity for energy delivery systems ..................................................................................................................
Transmission reliability ...............................................................................................................................................
Resilient distribution systems .....................................................................................................................................
Energy storage .............................................................................................................................................................
Transformer resilience and advanced components ....................................................................................................

20,000726,000

5,000..........................
149,200
302,000
267,300
2,500..........................

..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

260,000

7,000
18,00028,500206,500

80,82939,00038,671
41,000
7,000∂7,000..........................
∂20,700∂164,200∂7,000∂18,000∂28,500∂260,000∂20,000∂384,500∂56,944..........................

∂5,000..........................
∂33,200∂139,000∂207,300..........................

¥61,309..........................
¥5,000¥9,800∂65,000∂7,244¥500..........................

¥13,000¥10,000¥8,000¥5,000¥6,000¥19,309∂136,500∂206,500..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

∂10,829∂39,000∂38,671∂41,000∂7,000∂80,829∂39,000∂38,671∂41,000∂7,000117

100,671
98,096
112,000
58,35053,00024,00035,000481,11750,00040,000Coal CCS and Power Systems:
Carbon Capture ...........................................................................................................................................................
Carbon Storage ............................................................................................................................................................
Advanced Energy Systems ...........................................................................................................................................
Cross Cutting Research ..............................................................................................................................................
NETL Coal Research and Development .......................................................................................................................
STEP (Supercritical CO2) .............................................................................................................................................
Transformational Coal Pilots .......................................................................................................................................

Subtotal, Coal CCS and Power Systems ................................................................................................................

Natural Gas Technologies:
Research ......................................................................................................................................................................
Unconventional fossil energy technologies from petroleum—oil technologies ...................................................................

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

1,205,056

TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY .......................................................................................................................................

213,000

323,000
133,000
80,000204,000

294,000

Subtotal, INL facilities management ....................................................................................................

Subtotal, Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................

..........................

6,000

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ..............................................................................................................................
Program direction .................................................................................................................................................................

204,000

288,000

INL facilities management:
INL operations and infrastructure ......................................................................................................................
Construction:
16–E–200 Sample preparation laboratory ................................................................................................

5,500
14,000343,300

20,00020,000135,000
78,30065,00025,000..........................

757,090

136,090
66,500

9,000

9,000

9,000
29,000

Budget estimate

Subtotal, Radiological facilities management ..............................................................................................

2018
Appropriations

Research reactor infrastructure .........................................................................................................................

[In thousands of dollars]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

53,20054,000463,030

104,015
103,015
116,000
61,00054,00025,000..........................

1,206,000

133,000
80,000267,000

238,000..........................

238,000

29,0009,000

Committee
recommendation∂47,700∂40,000∂119,730¥18,087∂3,200∂14,000∂84,015∂83,015¥19,000¥17,300¥11,000..........................
..........................

∂3,344∂4,919∂4,000∂2,650∂1,000∂1,000¥35,000∂448,910∂54,000¥56,000∂944∂34,000¥56,000¥3,090∂13,500..........................

¥6,000..........................
..........................

∂34,000∂20,000..........................

Budget estimate¥50,000..........................

..........................

2018
Appropriations

Committee recommendation compared
to—

118

726,817
20,200¥15,300
4,900

252,000¥350,000
350,000
252,000

8,400
8,400

10,000¥3,5006,500
125,000

2,240
101,304
119,856
75,000TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................................................................................................
Use of prior year balances ...................................................................................................................................................

TOTAL, NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES .........................................................................................

Strategic Petroleum Reserve ................................................................................................................................................
Sale of crude oil ...................................................................................................................................................................
Use of sale proceeds ............................................................................................................................................................

TOTAL, STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE ..............................................................................................................

SPR Petroleum Account ........................................................................................................................................................

TOTAL, SPR PETROLEUM ACCOUNT .........................................................................................................................

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ...................................................................................................................................
Use of prior year balances ...................................................................................................................................................

TOTAL, NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE .................................................................................................

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION ..............................................................................................................................

Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA) ....................................................................................................................................
Gaseous Diffusion Plants .....................................................................................................................................................
Small sites ...........................................................................................................................................................................
West Valley Demonstration Project ......................................................................................................................................

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUPNORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVESPR PETROLEUM ACCOUNTSTRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

60,000700
50,00045,000Program direction .................................................................................................................................................................
Special recruitment programs ..............................................................................................................................................
NETL Research and Operations ............................................................................................................................................
NETL Infrastructure ..............................................................................................................................................................

2,240
100,575
55,03160,554

115,035

10,00010,000..........................

..........................

2,240
102,000
174,000
75,000125,000

10,00010,000..........................

8,400

8,400

175,105¥124,895..........................

175,105¥350,000
350,000

10,00020,550¥10,550

727,000

61,070700
50,00045,000175,105¥300,000..........................

10,00020,550¥10,550

502,070

61,070200
40,00038,000..........................
..........................
..........................

..........................
¥50,000∂350,000∂350∂4,750∂5,100¥76,895..........................
..........................

..........................
∂696∂54,144..........................

..........................
∂1,425∂118,969∂14,446∂9,965..........................

∂3,500..........................

..........................
..........................

∂8,400∂8,400..........................
∂3,500..........................

..........................

∂300,000∂224,930∂183¥76,895..........................
∂500∂10,000∂7,000∂1,070..........................
..........................
..........................

119

306,931
41,168348,099

666,304
232,706
899,010342,389
38,882381,271
22,79435,732840,000

605,000
205,000
810,000

Portsmouth:
Nuclear facility D&D, Portsmouth ...............................................................................................................................
Construction:
15–U–408 On–site waste disposal facility, Portsmouth ...................................................................................

Subtotal, Portsmouth ..............................................................................................................................................

Pension and community and regulatory support .................................................................................................................
Title X uranium/thorium reimbursement program ...............................................................................................................

TOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND ..............................................

Advanced scientific computing research .............................................................................................................................
Construction:
17–SC–20 SC Exascale Computing Project ................................................................................................................

Basic energy sciences:
Research ......................................................................................................................................................................
Construction:
13–SC–10 LINAC coherent light source II, SLAC ..............................................................................................
18–SC–10 APS Upgrade, ANL ............................................................................................................................
18–SC–11 Spallation Neutron Source Proton Power Upgrade (PPU), ORNL .....................................................
18–SC–12 Advanced Light Source Upgrade (ALS–U), LBNL .............................................................................

Subtotal, Advanced scientific computing research ................................................................................................

SCIENCE

1,635,700
139,300
60,000..........................
10,0001,744,900
192,100
93,00036,00016,000752,749

21,03030,000151,039
202,581

194,673
205,530URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND

Oak Ridge .............................................................................................................................................................................
Nuclear facility D&D, Paducah ............................................................................................................................................

218,400

Budget estimate

298,4002018
Appropriations

TOTAL, NON–DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP .................................................................................................

[In thousands of dollars]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

139,300
140,000
70,00050,0001,751,100

980,000

232,706

747,294

840,818

21,03010,689408,099

41,168366,931

195,000
206,000

353,240

Committee
recommendation∂80,990∂170,000..........................
∂80,000∂70,000∂40,000..........................

∂27,706¥52,800∂47,000∂34,000∂34,000∂80,990∂142,294∂115,400∂88,069∂818∂6,200∂60,000..........................
¥19,311¥1,764¥25,043..........................

∂2,286∂26,828∂60,000∂43,961∂3,419∂327∂470∂24,542∂134,840

Budget estimate∂54,840

2018
Appropriations

Committee recommendation compared
to—

120

1,850,000

2,090,000
673,000
410,111122,000
532,111

Subtotal, Basic energy sciences ....................................................................................................................

Biological and environmental research ...............................................................................................................................

Fusion energy sciences:
Research ......................................................................................................................................................................

Construction:
14–SC–60 ITER ..................................................................................................................................................

Subtotal, Fusion energy sciences ...........................................................................................................................

113,000
30,000..........................

525,000
75,000600,000

95,00044,4001,000
140,400
908,000
586,800
97,200684,000
19,5001,713
6,382
70,34726,000Subtotal, Construction ...................................................................................................................................

Subtotal, High energy physics .......................................................................................................................

Nuclear physics:
Operations and maintenance ......................................................................................................................................
Construction:
14–SC–50 Facility for rare isotope beams, Michigan State University ............................................................

Subtotal, Nuclear physics ..............................................................................................................................

Workforce development for teachers and scientists ............................................................................................................

Science laboratories infrastructure:
Infrastructure support:
Payment in lieu of taxes ....................................................................................................................................
Oak Ridge landlord ............................................................................................................................................
Facilities and infrastructure ..............................................................................................................................
Oak Ridge nuclear operations ............................................................................................................................

1,513
6,434
30,72410,00019,000770,000

143,000

627,000

767,600

High energy physics:
Research ......................................................................................................................................................................
Construction:
11–SC–40 Long baseline neutrino facility / deep underground neutrino experiment, FNAL ...........................
11–SC–41 Muon to electron conversion experiment, FNAL ...............................................................................
18–SC–42 PIP–II, FNAL ......................................................................................................................................

340,000

75,000265,000

500,000

214,300

345,100

Subtotal, Construction ...................................................................................................................................

5,000..........................

8,000..........................

18–SC–13 LINAC coherent light source II HE, SLAC .........................................................................................
19–SC–14 Second Target Station, ORNL ...........................................................................................................

1,713
6,434
48,25326,00024,500710,000

75,000635,000

1,010,000

210,000

145,000
30,00035,000800,000

425,000

122,000

303,000

715,000

2,193,400

442,300

28,00015,000∂343,400∂215,000∂103,400∂42,000∂5,500∂5,000∂200..........................
∂17,529∂16,000∂110,000∂26,000..........................
∂52¥22,094..........................

..........................

∂240,000∂102,000¥22,200∂67,000∂69,600∂110,000∂32,000..........................
∂35,000∂50,000¥14,400∂34,000∂48,200∂173,000∂85,000¥107,111∂32,400∂47,000..........................

∂38,000∂228,000∂97,200¥107,111∂23,000∂15,000∂20,000∂15,000

121

..........................

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL ..................................................................................................................................................

324,064
29,250353,314

ARPA–E projects ...................................................................................................................................................................
Program direction .................................................................................................................................................................

TOTAL, ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY ...................................................................................

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY

6,259,903

TOTAL, SCIENCE ......................................................................................................................................................

126,852

257,292
103,000
183,000

Subtotal, Science laboratories infrastructure .........................................................................................................

Safeguards and security ......................................................................................................................................................
Science program direction ...................................................................................................................................................

78,181

152,850

Subtotal, Construction: ...........................................................................................................................................

..........................

..........................
..........................

90,0005,390,972

106,110
180,000

2,000
20,0004,000
5,000
13,632
13,54920,000..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

..........................
..........................
20,00020,00030,00038,35044,500..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

48,671

104,442

Budget estimate

Subtotal, Infrastructure support ....................................................................................................................

2018
Appropriations

Construction:
19–SC–71 Science User Support Center, BNL ..................................................................................................
19–SC–72 Electrical Capacity and Distribution Capability, ANL ......................................................................
18–SC–71 Energy Sciences Capability, PNNL ...................................................................................................
17–SC–71 Integrated Engineering Research Center, FNAL ...............................................................................
17–SC–73 Core Facility Revitalization, BNL ......................................................................................................
15–SC–78 Integrative genomics building, LBNL ...............................................................................................
15–SC–76 Materials design laboratory, ANL .....................................................................................................
19–SC–73 Translational Research Capability, ORNL ........................................................................................
19–SC–74 BioEPIC Building, LBNL ....................................................................................................................
19–SC–75 CEBAF Renovation and Expansion, TJNAF .......................................................................................
19–SC–76 Craft Resources Support Facility, ORNL ..........................................................................................
19–SC–77 Large Scale Collaboration Center, SLAC ..........................................................................................

[In thousands of dollars]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

375,000

341,750
33,250..........................

6,650,000

106,000
184,000

302,100

219,700

10,00060,00035,00032,50042,200..........................
..........................
35,000
2,000
1,000
1,000
1,000

82,400Committee
recommendation∂175,248¥110∂4,000∂1,259,028∂44,808∂3,000∂1,000∂390,097∂341,750∂33,250∂375,000∂17,686∂4,000∂21,686¥90,000∂141,519∂66,850..........................

∂8,000∂40,000∂31,000∂27,500∂28,568¥13,549¥20,000∂35,000∂2,000∂1,000∂1,000∂1,000∂33,729

Budget estimate∂10,000∂60,000∂15,000∂12,500∂12,200¥38,350¥44,500∂35,000∂2,000∂1,000∂1,000∂1,000¥22,0422018
Appropriations

Committee recommendation compared
to—

122

38,000

5,000..........................
5,000

1,000
..........................
1,000..........................
..........................
..........................

5,300
48,484
126,274
18,000
6,200
10,169TOTAL, TITLE 17—INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM .........................................................

Administrative expenses .......................................................................................................................................................
Rescission of emergency funding ........................................................................................................................................

TOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM ....................................................

Administrative expenses .......................................................................................................................................................
Rescission .............................................................................................................................................................................

TOTAL, TRIBAL ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ...........................................................................................

Administrative Expenses ......................................................................................................................................................
Program Direction .................................................................................................................................................................

TOTAL, OFFICE OF INDIAN ENERGY POLICY AND PROGRAMS .................................................................................

Administrative operations:
Salaries and expenses:
Office of the Secretary:
Program direction ...............................................................................................................................................
Chief Financial Officer .......................................................................................................................................
Chief Information Officer ...................................................................................................................................
Office of Indian energy policy and programs ....................................................................................................
Congressional and intergovernmental affairs ...................................................................................................
Economic impact and diversity ..........................................................................................................................

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATIONOFFICE OF INDIAN ENERGY POLICY AND PROGRAMSTRIBAL ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAMADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM

33,000¥10,000..........................
15,000..........................

TITLE 17—INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

Administrative expenses .......................................................................................................................................................
Offsetting collection .............................................................................................................................................................
Rescission .............................................................................................................................................................................
Title 17 negative subsidy .....................................................................................................................................................
Rescission of emergency funding ........................................................................................................................................

5,395
48,912
96,793
10,005
6,212
10,005..........................

5,395
48,912
131,593..........................
4,212
10,00518,00013,200
4,800

1,000

¥8,500..........................
..........................

1,000..........................

5,000¥4,299,000..........................
¥8,5005,000..........................

¥26,000¥672,433

1,000¥4,300,000

33,000¥15,000..........................
¥44,000..........................

10,000¥15,000¥240,000¥44,000¥383,433∂18,000∂18,000..........................
..........................
∂34,800¥10,005¥2,000..........................

∂13,200∂4,800∂13,200∂4,800∂95∂428∂5,319¥18,000¥1,988¥164∂9,500∂1,000∂8,500∂4,304,000∂4,000∂4,300,000∂646,433∂23,000..........................
∂240,000..........................
∂383,433..........................

..........................
..........................

..........................

..........................
..........................

¥64,000..........................
¥5,000..........................
¥59,000..........................

123

40,000

388,652
40,000428,652..........................
¥143,000

Subtotal, Administrative operations ..............................................................................................................

Strategic partnership projects ....................................................................................................................................

Subtotal, Departmental administration ..................................................................................................................

Use of prior–year balances ..................................................................................................................................................
Funding from other defense activities .................................................................................................................................

Directed stockpile work:
Life Extension Programs and Major Alterations:
B61 Life extension program ...............................................................................................................................
W76–1 Life extension program ..........................................................................................................................
W88 Alteration program .....................................................................................................................................

WEAPONS ACTIVITIESNATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

788,572
224,134
332,292

12,933,049

TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS ....................................................................................................................................
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

49,000OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................

794,049
48,888304,285

3,785,071

51,330139,534

189,652

TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net) ......................................................................................................

794,049
48,888304,285

13,281,893

51,330170,000¥96,000

266,000

235,534¥96,000

285,652¥96,000

Total, Departmental administration (gross) ...........................................................................................................

Miscellaneous revenues ........................................................................................................................................................

409,000..........................
¥143,000

391,223

40,000369,000

369,000

168,883

Committee
recommendation¥2,000¥153,689

351,223351,223

388,652

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................

173,901

Budget estimate

174,225

2018
Appropriations

Other Departmental Administration ...................................................................................................................

[In thousands of dollars]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued∂9,496,822∂348,844..........................
..........................
..........................

..........................

∂2,330∂5,477¥175,246¥28,007∂30,466¥19,652∂30,466..........................

¥19,652..........................

∂2,000∂10,689∂17,777..........................
..........................

¥19,652∂17,777¥19,652..........................

∂17,777¥19,652..........................

¥5,018

Budget estimate¥5,342

2018
Appropriations

Committee recommendation compared
to—

124

64,547
94,30081,32980,20435,082
83,107
180,913619,482

512,916
38,129216,582
300,736
1,068,363

1,002,372
4,666,205

59,72951,40060,10080,08735,762
83,200131,576
501,854
56,000485,400
31,150196,840
285,400
998,790
60,00024,000210,367
198,152..........................
216,196
708,715
4,009,447

57,71089,313

Subtotal, Stockpile systems ...........................................................................................................................

Weapons dismantlement and disposition ...................................................................................................................

Stockpile services:
Production support .............................................................................................................................................
Research and Development support ..................................................................................................................
R and D certification and safety .......................................................................................................................
Management, technology, and production .........................................................................................................

Subtotal, Stockpile systems ...........................................................................................................................

Strategic materials:
Domestic uranium enrichment ...........................................................................................................................
Uranium sustainment .........................................................................................................................................
Plutonium sustainment ......................................................................................................................................
Tritium sustainment ...........................................................................................................................................
Lithium sustainment ..........................................................................................................................................
Strategic materials sustainment .......................................................................................................................

Subtotal, Strategic materials: .......................................................................................................................

Subtotal, Directed stockpile work ...........................................................................................................................

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E):
Science:
Advanced certification ........................................................................................................................................
Primary assessment technologies ......................................................................................................................

57,71095,057100,704
87,182361,282
205,275
29,135
218,794

56,0001,919,988

1,744,088

Subtotal, Life Extension Programs and Major Alterations ............................................................................

Stockpile systems:
B61 Stockpile systems .......................................................................................................................................
W76 Stockpile systems .......................................................................................................................................
W78 Stockpile systems .......................................................................................................................................
W80 Stockpile systems .......................................................................................................................................
B83 Stockpile systems .......................................................................................................................................
W87 Stockpile systems .......................................................................................................................................
W88 Stockpile systems .......................................................................................................................................

654,766
53,00065,000399,090..........................
..........................

W80–4 Life extension program ..........................................................................................................................
IW–1 ...................................................................................................................................................................
W76–2 Modification program .............................................................................................................................

57,71089,3134,700,501

1,036,668

50,00087,182361,282
290,275
29,135
218,794

1,068,363

512,916
38,129216,582
300,736

56,000619,482

64,547
94,30081,32980,20435,082
83,107
180,913

1,919,988

654,766
53,00065,000..........................

∂34,296∂691,054..........................
¥5,744∂34,296∂327,953..........................
..........................

¥50,704..........................
..........................
∂85,000..........................
..........................

..........................

∂69,573¥10,000∂63,182∂150,915∂92,123∂29,135∂2,598..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

∂27,516∂6,979∂19,742∂15,336..........................

∂117,628..........................

..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

..........................

∂175,900∂4,818∂42,900∂21,229
∂117
¥680
¥93
∂49,337..........................
..........................
..........................

∂255,676∂53,000∂65,000125

24,000
23,000418,927

544,934

Advanced simulation and computing:
Advanced simulation and computing ................................................................................................................
Construction:
18–D–670 Exascale class computer cooling equipment, LANL ...............................................................
18–D–620 Exascale computing facility modernization project, LLNL ......................................................

22,0003,000

22,434
17,39751,4538,310..........................
319,333

79,57523,565
77,915
7,596
9,492
346,791

656,401

211,367

183,123

Subtotal, Engineering ....................................................................................................................................

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield:
Ignition ...............................................................................................................................................................
Support of other stockpile programs .................................................................................................................
Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support ...........................................................................................
Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion .........................................................................................................
Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas ................................................................................
Facility operations and target production .........................................................................................................

721,244

43,226
27,53648,23058,37534,00039,71723,02945,23045,14730,000Subtotal, Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield .....................................................................

564,860

474,524

Subtotal, Science ...........................................................................................................................................

Engineering:
Enhanced surety .................................................................................................................................................
Weapons system engineering assessment technology ......................................................................................
Nuclear survivability ...........................................................................................................................................
Enhanced surveillance .......................................................................................................................................
Stockpile responsiveness ....................................................................................................................................

Budget estimate

131,000
32,54477,55353,364
117,632

2018
Appropriations

120,000
37,60076,83352,963
40,105

Dynamic materials properties ............................................................................................................................
Advanced radiography ........................................................................................................................................
Secondary assessment technologies ..................................................................................................................
Academic alliances and partnerships ...............................................................................................................
Enhanced capabilities for subcritical experiments ...........................................................................................

[In thousands of dollars]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

24,00023,000656,401

544,934

79,57523,565
77,915
7,596
9,492
346,791

186,632

43,22623,02945,23045,14730,000510,484

120,000
32,54477,55353,36480,000Committee
recommendation..........................
..........................
..........................

∂2,000∂20,000∂126,007¥64,843..........................

∂57,141∂6,168∂26,462¥714∂9,492∂27,458¥24,735∂3,509..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

..........................
¥4,507¥3,000¥13,228¥4,000¥54,376∂35,960∂3,509..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

¥11,000..........................
..........................
..........................
¥37,632

Budget estimate..........................
¥5,056∂720∂401∂39,895

2018
Appropriations

Committee recommendation compared
to—

126

12,000
38,64434,89685,5402,034,365

Subtotal, Advanced manufacturing development ..................................................................................................

Subtotal, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) ................................................................

Construction:
19–D–125 Plutonium infrastructure recapitalization, LANL ..............................................................................
19–D–670 138kV Power Transmission System Replacement, NNSS ................................................................
18–D–680 Material staging facility, PX ............................................................................................................
18–D–660 Fire station, Y–12 ............................................................................................................................
18–D–650 Tritium production capability, SRS ..................................................................................................
18–D–690 Lithium production capability, Y–12 ...............................................................................................
17–D–640 U1a complex enhancements project, NNSA .....................................................................................
17–D–630 Electrical distribution system, LLNL ................................................................................................
16–D–515 Albuquerque Complex project ..........................................................................................................
15–D–613 Emergency Operations Center, Y–12 ...............................................................................................
07–D–220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility, LANL ..........................................................................
07–D–220–04 TRU liquid waste facility, LANL .................................................................................................
06–D–141 Uranium Processing Facility, Y–12 ..................................................................................................
Chemistry and metallurgy replacement:
04–D–125 Chemistry and metallurgy replacement project, LANL ....................................................................
04–D–125–04 RLUOB equipment installation, phase 2 ...................................................................................
04–D–125–05 PF–4 equipment installation .....................................................................................................

Subtotal, Recapitalization ..............................................................................................................................

Infrastructure and Operations:Operations of facilities ................................................................................................................................................
Safety and environmental operations .........................................................................................................................
Maintenance and repair of facilities ..........................................................................................................................
Recapitalization:
Infrastructure and safety ...................................................................................................................................
Capability based investments ............................................................................................................................

703,401

746,244

Subtotal, Advanced simulation, Computing and Construction .......................................................

Advanced manufacturing development:
Additive manfacturing .................................................................................................................................................
Component manufacturing development ....................................................................................................................
Process technology development .................................................................................................................................

235,095..........................
..........................

..........................
127,025
50,214

540,688612,661..........................
6,000..........................
..........................
27,00019,00053,000..........................
47,953..........................
..........................
..........................
703,000

431,631
109,057

482,661
130,000..........................
..........................
5,200
28,000..........................
5,000
22,1006,000
98,0007,000
2,100
17,895663,000

891,000
115,000
365,000

848,470
110,000
515,138

1,995,393

96,83817,447
48,47730,91447,00025,000Subtotal, Construction ......................................................................................................................

235,095..........................
..........................

..........................
..........................
10,418..........................
27,00019,00053,000..........................
47,953..........................
..........................
..........................
703,000

425,000

320,000
105,000

874,000
110,000
250,000

2,042,289

96,83817,44743,47735,914703,401

47,000..........................
¥6,000∂10,418..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

∂235,095¥127,025¥50,214¥115,688¥187,661..........................
..........................
∂5,218¥28,000∂27,000∂14,000∂30,900¥6,000¥50,047¥7,000¥2,100¥17,895∂40,000¥111,631¥4,057¥162,661¥25,000∂46,896∂7,924¥17,000¥5,000¥115,000..........................

∂11,298∂25,530..........................
¥265,138..........................
¥5,000∂5,000..........................

¥42,843∂5,447∂4,833∂1,018..........................

∂22,000127

46,339
110,433
78,907
154,429

Global material security:
International nuclear security .....................................................................................................................................
Domestic radiologic security .......................................................................................................................................
International radiologic security .................................................................................................................................
Nuclear smuggling detection ......................................................................................................................................

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

10,642,138

TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................................................................

690,638

53,600Construction:
17–D–710 West end protected area reduction project, Y–12 ..........................................................................
770,577..........................

686,977
30,000186,728
232,050

278,639

291,168

Subtotal, Secure transportation asset ....................................................................................................................

Defense nuclear security:
Defense nuclear security .............................................................................................................................................
Security improvements program .................................................................................................................................

Subtotal, Defense nuclear security ................................................................................................................

176,617
102,022

185,568
105,600

Information technology and cyber security ..........................................................................................................................
Legacy contractor pensions ..................................................................................................................................................

3,002,736

3,117,803

Subtotal, Infrastructure and Operations ................................................................................................................

Secure transportation asset:
Operations and equipment ..........................................................................................................................................
Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................

46,33990,76459,576140,429

11,017,078

221,175
162,292

690,638..........................

1,091,048

1,031,534

Subtotal, Construction ...................................................................................................................................

235,095

Budget estimate

177,239

2018
Appropriations

Subtotal, Chemistry and metallurgy replacement .........................................................................................

[In thousands of dollars]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

46,339115,433
78,907
154,429

10,850,000

221,175
162,292

690,638..........................

690,638..........................

278,639

176,617
102,0222,754,466

1,095,466

235,095

Committee
recommendation..........................
..........................
¥167,078∂34,447¥69,758∂207,862..........................
∂24,669∂19,331∂14,000..........................

¥79,939..........................
∂5,000..........................
..........................

..........................

..........................
..........................
¥53,600∂3,661¥30,000..........................

¥12,529¥248,270¥363,337..........................
..........................

∂4,418∂63,932¥8,951¥3,578..........................

Budget estimate∂57,856

2018
Appropriations

Committee recommendation compared
to—

128

279,000

1,862,825..........................

134,703278,255
195,749
82,500556,504
335,000..........................
335,000
40,950282,360..........................
2,048,219¥49,000
1,999,219

156,700
473,065
250,000
466,884..........................

Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D:
Proliferation detection .................................................................................................................................................
Nuclear detonation detection ......................................................................................................................................
Nonproliferation fuels development ............................................................................................................................

Subtotal, Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D ...................................................................................................

Nonproliferation construction:
99–D–143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility, SRS ...................................................................................
18–D–150 Surplus plutonium disposition project, SRS .............................................................................................

Subtotal, Nonproliferation construction ..................................................................................................................

Legacy contractor pensions ..................................................................................................................................................
Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response .................................................................................................................
Use of prior–year balances ..................................................................................................................................................

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ...........................................................................................................

Rescission .............................................................................................................................................................................

TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION .....................................................................................................

Columbia–class reactor systems development ....................................................................................................................
Naval reactors development .................................................................................................................................................
S8G Prototype refueling ........................................................................................................................................................
Naval reactors operations and infrastructure .....................................................................................................................

Construction:
19–D–930 KS Overhead Piping ..................................................................................................................................

NAVAL REACTORS

220,000
59,000308,594

Subtotal, Material management and minimization ...............................................................................................

Nonproliferation and arms control .......................................................................................................................................

10,994

138,000
514,951
250,000
525,764

1,862,825

28,640319,185¥19,000

456,095

273,200
182,895..........................

129,703

332,094

98,30032,925200,869..........................

..........................
32,925
183,669
92,000337,108

390,108

Subtotal, Global material security ..........................................................................................................................

Material management and minimization:
Conversion ...................................................................................................................................................................
Nuclear material removal ............................................................................................................................................
Material disposition .....................................................................................................................................................
Laboratory and partnership support ...........................................................................................................................

10,994

138,000
475,000
200,000
525,764

1,902,000..........................

1,902,000

28,640319,185¥74,000

279,000

220,000
59,000487,270

281,521
195,749
10,000129,703

337,094

88,30032,925200,869
15,000395,108..........................

..........................
¥39,951¥50,000..........................

¥18,700∂1,935¥50,000∂58,880∂10,994∂39,175∂39,175¥146,219¥97,219..........................
..........................
¥55,000¥12,310∂36,825¥74,000..........................

..........................

¥56,000∂49,000..........................
..........................

¥115,000∂59,000∂31,175¥69,234¥5,000∂8,321∂12,854∂10,000∂5,000..........................

∂28,500∂3,266..........................
¥72,500¥10,000..........................
..........................
∂15,000∂58,000∂88,300..........................
∂17,200¥77,000∂5,000129

89,577
562,4735,121..........................
1,000

1,620,000
407,595
14,668,952

4,889
183,692
662,879
10,121..........................
6,500
863,192
420,000
4,071

TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS ........................................................................................................................................

FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES .....................................................................................................................................

TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION .......................................................................................

Closure sites administration ................................................................................................................................................

Richland:River corridor and other cleanup operations ..............................................................................................................
Central plateau remediation .......................................................................................................................................
RL Community and regulatory support .......................................................................................................................
RL Excess facilities D&D .............................................................................................................................................
Construction:
18–D–404 WESF Modifications and capsule storage .......................................................................................

Subtotal, Richland .........................................................................................................................................

Idaho National Laboratory:
Idaho cleanup and waste disposition .........................................................................................................................
Idaho community and regulatory support ...................................................................................................................

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

47,651

346,026
3,200

658,171

4,889

15,091,050

422,529

1,788,618

48,709311,194

225,700

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................................

Program direction .................................................................................................................................................................

13,200..........................
..........................
287,000

Budget estimate..........................
13,70015,000197,0002018
Appropriations

17–D–911 BL Fire System Upgrade ...........................................................................................................................
15–D–904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3 .........................................................................................................
15–D–903 KL Fire System Upgrade ............................................................................................................................
14–D–901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, NRF ...................................................................................

[In thousands of dollars]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

346,026
3,200

838,171..........................

209,577
618,473
10,121..........................

4,889

14,780,000

408,000

1,620,000

48,042

233,194

13,200..........................
..........................
209,000

Committee
recommendation∂180,000¥25,021..........................
..........................

¥1,000¥6,500¥73,974¥871∂120,000∂56,000∂5,000..........................

∂25,885¥44,406..........................
..........................

..........................

¥311,050∂111,048..........................

¥14,529

∂405

¥667

∂391

¥168,618¥78,000∂7,494..........................

..........................
..........................
..........................
¥78,000

Budget estimate∂13,200¥13,700¥15,000∂12,0002018
Appropriations

Committee recommendation compared
to—

130

349,226
1,704
15,00060,136
2,600
191,629..........................
271,069

434,071
1,175
4,800
60,1362,600
220,000
100,000
388,711

Subtotal, Idaho National Laboratory .......................................................................................................................

NNSA sites and Nevada offsites:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ....................................................................................................................
Separations Process Research Unit ............................................................................................................................
Nevada .........................................................................................................................................................................
Sandia National Laboratory .........................................................................................................................................
Los Alamos National Laboratory .................................................................................................................................
LLNL Excess facilities D&D .........................................................................................................................................

4,711
3,000
..........................
226,206

27,1005,605
3,000
125,000
400,219

Subtotal, Construction ...................................................................................................................................

OR Community & regulatory support ..........................................................................................................................
OR Technology development and deployment .............................................................................................................
OR Excess facilities D&D ............................................................................................................................................

56,053675,000..........................
..........................
15,00093,000..........................
630,000
75,00035,000833,000

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................................

746,053

15,000677,460

8,000
719,000

Office of River Protection:
Waste treatment and immobilization plant commissioning .......................................................................................
Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition .................................................................................................
Construction:
15–D–409 Low activity waste pretreatment system .........................................................................................
01–D–16 A–D Waste treatment and immobilization plant ...............................................................................
18–D–16 Waste treatment and immobilization plant—LBL/Direct feed LAW ..................................................
01–D–16 D High–level waste facility ................................................................................................................
01–D–16 E Pretreatment facility .......................................................................................................................

Subtotal, Oak Ridge Reservation ............................................................................................................................

5,000
11,27410,00017,10016,27490,22145,00067,000118,20350,311
71,000Oak Ridge Reservation:
OR Nuclear facility D&D ..............................................................................................................................................
U233 disposition program ...........................................................................................................................................
OR Cleanup and disposition .......................................................................................................................................
Construction:
17–D–401 On–site waste disposal facility .......................................................................................................
14–D–403 Outfall 200 mercury treatment facility ............................................................................................

Subtotal, NNSA sites and Nevada offsites .............................................................................................................

..........................

10,000ID Excess facilities D&D .............................................................................................................................................

786,053

56,053655,000..........................
60,00015,00015,000771,947410,000

5,700
3,000
..........................

86,00010,00076,000

189,000
52,30074,000349,440

1,704
15,00060,1362,600
220,000
50,000349,226..........................

..........................
¥20,000..........................
∂60,000..........................
∂40,000¥46,947∂183,794∂9,781¥36,947∂655,000¥630,000¥15,000¥20,000∂989..........................
..........................

∂95..........................
¥125,000..........................
∂94,487∂69,726∂58,900∂7,000∂52,947∂5,000∂64,726..........................
∂58,900∂98,779∂7,300∂7,000∂78,371¥39,271∂70,797∂1,989∂3,000..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
∂28,371∂50,000..........................

¥84,845∂529∂10,200..........................
..........................
..........................
¥50,000..........................

¥10,000

131

..........................
37,4501,259
41,24365,000..........................
500
500
30,000150,000
181,000
1,312,314

Subtotal, Construction ...................................................................................................................................

Subtotal, Savannah River Site ......................................................................................................................

84,2121,000

86,00019,600376,571
300,000
14,979298,10235,000..........................
..........................

Subtotal, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ............................................................................................................

Program direction .................................................................................................................................................................
Program support ...................................................................................................................................................................
Safeguards and Security ......................................................................................................................................................
Technology development .......................................................................................................................................................
Excess facilities ....................................................................................................................................................................
Use of prior year balances ...................................................................................................................................................

300,000
12,979324,434
25,000150,000..........................

396,907311,695

270,971

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant:
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ..........................................................................................................................................
Construction:
15–D–411 Safety significant confinement ventilation system, WIPP ...............................................................
15–D–412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP .........................................................................................................................

1,472,823

144,952

517,436
4,749
805,686

1,438,513

Budget estimate

482,960
11,249637,105

1,560,000

2018
Appropriations

Savannah River Site:
SR Site risk management operations .........................................................................................................................
SR Community and regulatory support .......................................................................................................................
SR Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ...............................................................................
Construction:
19–D–701 SR Security system replacement .....................................................................................................
18–D–402 Saltstone disposal unit #8/9 ...........................................................................................................
18–D–402 Emergency Operations Center Replacement, SR .............................................................................
17–D–402 Saltstone disposal Unit #7, SRS .....................................................................................................
05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, SRS .................................................................................................

Subtotal, Office of River Protection ........................................................................................................................

[In thousands of dollars]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

300,000
12,979324,434
28,954..........................
..........................

396,90784,212
1,000

311,695

1,400,000

144,952..........................
37,4501,259
41,24365,000517,436
4,749
732,863

1,573,000

Committee
recommendation..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
∂3,954¥150,000..........................

∂20,336..........................
¥2,000∂26,332¥6,046..........................
..........................

..........................
..........................

¥1,788¥18,600¥72,823∂87,686..........................

..........................

¥36,048∂40,724..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

..........................
..........................
¥72,823∂134,487

Budget estimate..........................
∂36,950∂759∂11,243¥85,000∂34,476¥6,500∂95,758∂13,0002018
Appropriations

Committee recommendation compared
to—

132

205,847

198,946
24,06850,863

Subtotal, Environment, Health, safety and security ..............................................................................................

Independent enterprise assessments:
Independent enterprise assessments ..........................................................................................................................
Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................

137,674
16,932
154,606
143,000
5,605..........................
840,000..........................
21,497,000

Office of Legacy Management:
Legacy management ...................................................................................................................................................
Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................

Subtotal, Office of Legacy Management ................................................................................................................

Defense related administrative support ..............................................................................................................................
Office of hearings and appeals ...........................................................................................................................................
Use of prior year balances ...................................................................................................................................................

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................................................

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL ..................................................................................................................................

TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................

66,0706,379
72,449Operation and maintenance:
Purchase power and wheeling ....................................................................................................................................
Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ...................................................................................................................

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATIONPOWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS 1

74,931
262,912Subtotal, Independent enterprise assessments .....................................................................................................

Specialized security activities ..............................................................................................................................................

79,68473,1846,500

21,604,567

30,000853,300

153,689
5,739¥2,000158,877

140,575
18,302

254,378

76,77024,06852,702

135,194
70,653

130,693
68,253OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Environment, health, safety and security:
Environment, health, safety and security ...................................................................................................................
Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................

5,630,217

5,988,048

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP ..........................................................................................................

79,68473,1846,500

21,608,000..........................

840,000

143,000
5,739¥2,000158,877

140,575
18,302

254,378

76,77024,06852,702203,236

132,583
70,653

5,988,000..........................
..........................
..........................

∂7,235∂3,433∂111,000∂7,114∂121¥30,000¥13,300¥10,689..........................
..........................

..........................

..........................

..........................
∂134¥2,000..........................

∂4,271..........................
..........................
..........................

..........................

∂1,839¥8,534∂2,901∂1,370..........................
..........................

¥2,611∂4,290..........................
∂1,839¥2,611..........................

∂357,783∂1,890∂2,400¥48

133

..........................

16,68050,00031,335
14,932..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION ..................................................................................................

Operation and maintenance:
Operating expenses .....................................................................................................................................................
Purchase power and wheeling ....................................................................................................................................
Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................
Construction ................................................................................................................................................................
Reduction due to CBO initial estimates of collections ..............................................................................................

52,272
72,407

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance:
Construction and rehabilitation ..................................................................................................................................
Operation and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................

32,632
77,056

26,40011,400TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION ..................................................................................................

32,632
77,056

10,400¥8,894¥10,000¥12,180¥29,695¥5,707¥83,000..........................
16,000143,876

159,876¥8,894¥10,000¥12,180¥29,695¥5,707¥83,000..........................
16,000112,947¥9,042¥10,000¥9,417¥16,035¥2,853¥40,000¥14,200..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ...................................................................................................................

17,00693,00032,995
16,875¥16,000..........................

¥13,824¥59,360¥6,500Committee
recommendation

17,00693,00032,995
16,875..........................

..........................

¥13,824¥59,360¥6,500

Budget estimate

Less alternative financing (for O&M) .........................................................................................................................
Less alternative financing (for PPW) ..........................................................................................................................
Less alternative financing (Const) .............................................................................................................................
Offsetting collections (PD) ..........................................................................................................................................
Offsetting collections (for O&M) .................................................................................................................................
Offsetting collections (for PPW) ..................................................................................................................................
Use of prior year balances ..........................................................................................................................................
Southwestern Power Administration CBO initial estimates of collections .................................................................

SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION¥15,070¥51,000¥6,3792018
Appropriations

Less alternative financing [PPW] ................................................................................................................................
Offsetting collections (for PPW) ..................................................................................................................................
Offsetting collections (PD) ..........................................................................................................................................

[In thousands of dollars]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued¥19,640∂4,649..........................
..........................

¥16,000¥1,000¥16,000..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

∂30,929∂148..........................
¥2,763¥13,660¥2,854¥43,000∂14,200∂16,000..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
¥16,000..........................

..........................
..........................
..........................

Budget estimate∂326∂43,000∂1,660∂1,943¥16,000..........................

∂1,246¥8,360¥121

2018
Appropriations

Committee recommendation compared
to—

134

5,048¥3,948
¥872
872
1,100
105,872

367,600¥367,600..........................

..........................
..........................

TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND ...................................................................

TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS .......................................................................................................

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ...............................................................................................................................
FERC revenues ......................................................................................................................................................................

TOTAL, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ...........................................................................................

Title III Rescissions:Northeast gasoline supply reserve sale ......................................................................................................................
Strategic Petroleum Reserve crude oil sale ................................................................................................................

General Provisions

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSIONFALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Operation and maintenance .................................................................................................................................................
Offsetting collections ...........................................................................................................................................................
Less alternative financing ...................................................................................................................................................
CBO estimate for third party financing ...............................................................................................................................

¥71,000¥15,000..........................

369,900¥369,900

159,122350

5,329¥4,979¥122
122

132,372

93,372TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION ..................................................................................................

..........................
..........................

..........................

369,900¥369,900

100,122350

5,329¥4,979¥122
122

89,372¥7,758¥27,077¥39,136¥260,954¥150,761¥25,009¥306,408¥9,058..........................
43,000872,533

915,533¥7,758¥27,077¥39,136¥260,954¥150,761¥25,009¥306,408¥9,058..........................
43,000858,473¥5,068¥40,500¥38,398¥289,072¥116,050¥13,854¥209,000¥9,306¥43,853..........................

567,362
238,483¥43,000

567,362
238,483..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ...................................................................................................................

498,072
235,722..........................

Less alternative financing (for O&M) ..................................................................................................................................
Less alternative financing (for Construction) ......................................................................................................................
Less alternative financing (for Program Dir.) .....................................................................................................................
Less alternative financing (for PPW) ...................................................................................................................................
Offsetting collections (for program direction) .....................................................................................................................
Offsetting collections (for O&M) ..........................................................................................................................................
Offsetting collections (Public Law 108–477, Public Law 109–103) ..................................................................................
Offsetting collections (Public Law 98–381) ........................................................................................................................
Use of prior–year balances ..................................................................................................................................................
Western Area Power Administration CBO initial estimates of collections ..........................................................................

Purchase power and wheeling ....................................................................................................................................
Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................
Reduction due to CBO initial estimates of collections ..............................................................................................

..........................
¥59,000..........................
..........................

¥750¥5,750∂2,300¥2,300..........................
..........................

∂71,000∂15,000..........................

..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

∂281¥1,031∂750¥750..........................

¥43,000¥4,000¥43,000..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

∂14,060¥2,690∂13,423¥738∂28,118¥34,711¥11,155¥97,408∂248∂43,853∂43,000..........................
..........................
¥43,000∂69,290∂2,761¥43,000

135

..........................
34,535,921(34,584,921)(¥49,000)..........................

2,321,778
248,329..........................
..........................
1,205,056
726,8174,900
252,000
8,400
6,500
125,000
298,400
840,000
6,259,903..........................
353,31438,0005,000
1,000..........................
189,652

Total, General Provisions ........................................................................................................................................

GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ...............................................................................................................
(Appropriations) ....................................................................................................................................
(Rescissions) .........................................................................................................................................
(Rescissions of emergency funding) ....................................................................................................

Energy efficiency and renewable energy ..............................................................................................................................
Electricity delivery and energy reliability .............................................................................................................................
Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response ..................................................................................................
Electricity delivery ................................................................................................................................................................
Nuclear energy ......................................................................................................................................................................
Fossil Energy Research and Development ...........................................................................................................................
Naval Petroleum & Oil Shale Reserves ................................................................................................................................
Strategic petroleum reserve .................................................................................................................................................
SPR Petroleum Account ........................................................................................................................................................
Northeast home heating oil reserve .....................................................................................................................................
Energy Information Administration ......................................................................................................................................
Non–Defense Environmental Cleanup ..................................................................................................................................
Uranium enrichment D&D fund ...........................................................................................................................................
Science .................................................................................................................................................................................
Nuclear Waste Disposal .......................................................................................................................................................
Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy .......................................................................................................................
Title 17 Innovative technology loan guarantee program .....................................................................................................
Advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loan pgm ....................................................................................................
Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee program ...............................................................................................................................
Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs ......................................................................................................................
Departmental administration ...............................................................................................................................................

SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTS..........................

2018
Appropriations

Strategic Petroleum Reserve use of sale proceeds ....................................................................................................

[In thousands of dollars]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

695,610..........................
95,80061,309757,090502,070
10,000¥124,895..........................
10,000115,035
218,400
752,749
5,390,972
90,000..........................
¥672,433¥4,299,000¥8,500..........................
139,534

2,322,000..........................
260,000..........................
1,206,000
727,000
10,000175,105
8,400
10,000125,000
353,240
840,818
6,650,000..........................
375,000¥26,000
5,000
1,000
18,000170,000

34,990,015(34,990,015)..........................
..........................

..........................

¥71,000
25,477,760(30,409,693)(¥248,500)(¥4,683,433)..........................

Committee
recommendation

15,000

Budget estimate∂71,000∂9,512,255(∂4,580,322)(∂248,500)(∂4,683,433)∂1,626,390..........................
∂164,200¥61,309∂448,910∂224,930..........................
∂300,000∂8,400..........................
∂9,965∂134,840∂88,069∂1,259,028¥90,000∂375,000∂646,433∂4,304,000∂9,500∂18,000∂30,466∂454,094(∂405,094)(∂49,000)..........................

∂222¥248,329∂260,000..........................
∂944
∂183
∂5,100¥76,895..........................
∂3,500..........................
∂54,840∂818∂390,097..........................
∂21,686¥64,000..........................
..........................
∂18,000¥19,652¥15,000

Budget estimate..........................

..........................

2018
Appropriations

Committee recommendation compared
to—

136

5,630,217
853,300
30,00021,604,567..........................
26,400132,372350
159,122

14,668,952
5,988,048
840,000..........................
21,497,000..........................
11,40093,372
1,100
105,872
367,600¥367,600..........................
..........................
..........................
34,535,921

Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Admin ...................................................................................................

Defense environmental cleanup ..................................................................................................................................
Other defense activities ..............................................................................................................................................
Defense nuclear waste disposal .................................................................................................................................

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities .................................................................................................................

Power marketing administrations 1:
Southeastern Power Administration ............................................................................................................................
Southwestern Power Administration ............................................................................................................................
Western Area Power Administration ............................................................................................................................
Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund .............................................................................................

Total, Power Marketing Administrations .................................................................................................................

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................
Revenues .....................................................................................................................................................................
General Provisions ................................................................................................................................................................
Strategic Petroleum Reserve crude oil sale .........................................................................................................................
Strategic Petroleum Reserve use of sale proceeds .............................................................................................................

Total Summary of Accounts, Department of Energy ..............................................................................................

34,990,015

369,900¥369,900..........................
..........................
..........................

100,122..........................
10,40089,372350

21,608,000

5,988,000
840,000..........................

14,780,000

10,850,000
1,902,000
1,620,000
408,000

51,330..........................
..........................
∂71,000∂15,000¥15,000∂9,512,255∂2,300¥2,300..........................
..........................
..........................
∂454,094¥59,000∂3,433∂111,000¥5,750∂357,783¥13,300¥30,000¥48..........................
..........................

..........................
¥16,000¥43,000..........................

¥311,050∂111,048..........................
¥1,000¥4,000¥750¥167,078∂39,175¥168,618¥14,529..........................

∂207,862¥97,219..........................
∂405∂2,330

1 Totals include alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting collection totals reflect funds collected for annual expenses, including power purchase and wheeling.

25,477,760

369,900¥369,900¥71,000¥15,000
15,00015,091,050

11,017,078
1,862,825
1,788,618
422,529

10,642,138
1,999,219
1,620,000
407,595

Atomic energy defense activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons activities .............................................................................................................................................
Defense nuclear nonproliferation .......................................................................................................................
Naval reactors ....................................................................................................................................................
Federal Salaries and Expenses ..........................................................................................................................

51,33049,000

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................

137

138
GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Section 301. The bill includes a provision related to reprogramming.
Section 302. The bill includes a provision to authorize intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 2019 Intelligence Authorization Act.
Section 303. The bill includes a provision related to independent
cost estimates.
Section 304. The bill includes a provision concerning a pilot program for consolidated storage of spent nuclear fuel.
TITLE IVINDEPENDENT AGENCIESThe budget request proposes to eliminate the Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, and Northern Border Regional Commission. The budget requests funding to conduct closeout of theagencies in fiscal year 2019. The Committee strongly opposes thetermination of these agencies, and recommends funding to continue
their activities. The Administration shall continue all activities
funded by this act, as well as follow directive language included inthis report. No funds shall be used for the planning of or implementation of termination of these agencies.
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$155,000,000
152,000,000
155,000,000

The Committee recommends $155,000,000 for the AppalachianRegional Commission [ARC], an increase of $3,000,000 above thebudget request. Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional
Commission is an economic development agency composed of 13
Appalachian States and a Federal co-chair appointed by the President. Within available funding, $73,000,000 is recommended forbase funds.
Further, not less than $16,000,000 shall be for a program of industrial site and workforce development in Southern and South
Central Appalachia, focused primarily on the automotive suppliersector and the aviation sector. Up to $13,500,000 of that amountis recommended for activities in Southern Appalachia. The funds
shall be distributed to States that have distressed counties inSouthern and South Central Appalachia using the ARC Area Development Formula.
Within available funding, the Committee recommends$16,000,000 for a program of basic infrastructure improvements indistressed counties in Central Appalachia. Funds shall be distributed according to ARC’s distressed counties formula and shall bein addition to the regular allocation to distressed counties.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $50,000,000
for the POWER Initiative to support communities, primarily in Appalachia, that have been adversely impacted by the closure of coalpowered generating plants and a declining coal industry by pro-

139
viding resources for economic diversification, job creation, job training, and other employment services.
The Committee recognizes that the headquarters of the Delta Regional Authority, the Denali Commission, and the Northern Border
Regional Commission are each headquartered in their respective
regions. However, the Appalachian Regional Commission is
headquartered in Washington, D.C. Headquartering regional commissions within the region affected is a sensible approach to ensurethat the commissions are housed in more affordable locations thanthe District of Columbia, thereby reducing administrative overhead
and making the commissions closer and more accountable to thepeople the commissions were designed to serve. Accordingly, theCommittee directs the Appalachian Regional Commission, not later
than 180 days after the enactment of this act, to provide the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress with a reportthat examines the feasibility of relocating the Appalachian Regional Commission to within the Appalachian region, including any
potential long-term cost savings that could be accomplished.
The Committee believes that if the Appalachian Regional Commission is going to move, it should move to the State of West Virginia.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$31,000,000
31,243,000
31,000,000

The Committee recommends $31,000,000 for the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board, a decrease of $243,000 below the budget request. Congress permanently authorized the Inspector General for
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to serve as the Inspector General for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The Committee recommendation includes $1,103,000 within the Office of Inspector General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to performthese services.
DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$25,000,000
2,500,000
25,000,000

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Delta Regional
Authority [DRA], an increase of $22,500,000 above the budget request. DRA is a Federal-State partnership that is designed to assist the eight-State Mississippi Delta Region in developing basic infrastructure, transportation, skill training, and opportunities for
economic development for distressed counties and parishes. Within
available funds, not less than $10,000,000 is recommended for flood
control, basic public infrastructure development and transportation
improvements, which shall be allocated separate from the State
formula funding method. The Committee does not include a statutory waiver with regard to DRA’s priority of funding, and directs
DRA to focus on activities relating to basic public infrastructure

140
and transportation infrastructure before allocating funding toward
other priority areas.
DENALI COMMISSION
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$30,000,000
7,300,000
15,000,000

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Denali Commission, an increase of $7,700,000 above the budget request. The
Denali Commission is a Federal-State partnership responsible forpromoting infrastructure development, job training, and other economic support services in rural areas throughout Alaska.
NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$15,000,000
850,000
20,000,000

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Northern Border Regional Commission, an increase of $19,150,000 above thebudget request. Within available funds, no less than $4,000,000 isrecommended for initiatives that seek to address the decline in forest-based economies throughout the region.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONSALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$909,137,000
958,050,000
898,350,000

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. ¥$779,768,032
Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... ¥805,018,500
Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥794,218,500
NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$129,300,892
153,031,500
104,131,500

The Committee recommends $898,350,000 for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [Commission], a decrease of $59,700,000 below
the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation requires theuse of $20,000,000 of unobligated balances from prior year appropriations. This amount is offset by estimated revenues of$794,218,500, resulting in a net appropriation of $104,131,500. In
developing this recommendation, the Committee has consulted with
the Commission to ensure it maintains its gold-standard healthand safety mission while reducing low-priority work.
Budget Execution Plan.—The Commission is directed to provide
the Committee with a specific budget execution plan not later than
30 days after the enactment of this act. This plan shall provide details at the product line level within each of the control points, as141applicable, included in the table after the Office of Inspector General heading below.
Budget Control Points.—The recommendation includes budget
control points for fiscal year 2019 to ensure the Commission’s budget execution follows congressional intent. These budget control
points are included in the table following the heading of Office ofInspector General. As it did for fiscal year 2018, the Committee includes statutory language incorporating the control points by reference into law, and notes that any breaches are subject to the reporting requirements and remedies of the Antideficiency Act contained in title 31 of the United States Code.
Reprogramming Authority.—Section 402 continues reprogramming authority included in the Energy and Water Development
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, for the Commission
between the budget control points, subject to prior congressional
approval, with a provision made for emergency circumstances. This
reprogramming authority supersedes the Commission’s existingguidance on internal reprogrammings.
Unobligated Balances from Prior Appropriations.—The Committee notes that the Commission carries unobligated balancesfrom appropriations received prior to fiscal year 2019. The Committee’s recommendation requires the use of $20,000,000 of these balances, derived from fee-based activities. Because the Commission
has already collected fees corresponding to these activities in prioryears, the Committee does not include these funds within the feebase calculation for determining authorized revenues, and does notprovide authority to collect additional offsetting receipts for theiruse. The Committee notes that any remaining unobligated balances
carried forward from prior years are subject to the reprogramming
guidelines in section 402, and shall only be used to supplement appropriations consistent with those guidelines.
Integrated University Program.—The Committee recommends$15,000,000 for the Integrated University Program, of which notless than $5,000,000 is for grants to support research projects that
do not align with programmatic missions but are critical to maintaining the discipline of nuclear science.
Reporting Requirement.—The Committee directs the Commission
to continue the reporting required in the explanatory statement for
the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, relating to progress against the Commission’s
licensing goals and right-sizing commitments.
Rulemaking.—The Committee directs the Commission to provide
in its annual budget request and the semi-annual report to Congress on licensing and regulatory activities a list of all rulemaking
activities planned, to include their priority and schedule.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERALGROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$12,859,000
12,609,000
12,609,000

142
REVENUES

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

¥$10,555,000¥10,355,400¥10,355,400

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$2,304,000
2,253,600
2,253,600

The Committee recommends $12,609,000 for the Office of Inspector General, the same as the budget request, which is offset by revenues estimated at $10,355,400, for a net appropriation of$2,253,600. The Office of Inspector General serves both the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board, and the recommendation includes $1,103,000 for that purpose, which is not available from fee revenues.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION[In thousands of dollars]

Item

Budget estimate

Committee
recommendation

SALARIES AND EXPENSES ..............................................................
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY ..................................................
NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY ...........................
DECOMMISSIONING AND LOW–LEVEL WASTE ........................
CORPORATE SUPPORT ...........................................................
INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM .....................................

958,050............................
............................
............................
............................
............................

............................
469,767
108,60925,393
299,581
15,000Committee
recommendationcompared tobudget estimate¥958,050∂469,767∂108,609∂25,393∂299,581∂15,000

Subtotal ............................................................................

958,050

918,350¥39,700

USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES ..............................

............................

¥20,000¥20,000

TOTAL, SALARIES AND EXPENSES .......................

958,050

898,350¥59,700

REVENUES ......................................................................................

¥805,019¥794,219¥10,800

Subtotal ............................................................................

153,032

104,132¥48,900

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL:
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ..........................................
REVENUES .............................................................................

12,609¥10,355

12,609¥10,355............................
............................

Subtotal ............................................................................

2,254

2,254

............................

TOTAL, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ..................
APPROPRIATIONS .....................................................

155,285(155,285)

106,385(106,385)¥48,900(¥48,900)

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD
Appropriations, 2018 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2019 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$3,600,000
3,600,000
3,600,000

The Committee recommends $3,600,000 for the Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board to be derived from the Nuclear Waste
Fund, the same as the budget request.

143
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 401. The bill includes a provision regarding Congressional requests for information.
Section 402. The bill includes a provision regarding reprogramming.

TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The following list of general provisions is recommended by theCommittee:
Section 501. The bill includes a provision regarding influencing
congressional action.
Section 502. The bill includes a provision regarding transfer authority.
Section 503. The bill includes a provision regarding requirements
for computer networks.
PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY
In fiscal year 2019, for purposes of the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177), as
amended, the following information provides the definition of theterm ‘‘program, project or activity’’ for departments and agencies
under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Development andRelated Agencies Appropriation Act. The term ‘‘program, project or
activity’’ shall include the most specific level of budget items identified in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2019 and the report accompanying the bill.
If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any percentage
reduction required for fiscal year 2019 pursuant to the provisionsof Public Law 99–177 to all items specified in the report accompanying the bill by the Senate Committee on Appropriations in
support of the fiscal year 2019 budget estimates as modified bycongressional action.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE
STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires Committee reports on generalappropriations bills to identify each Committee amendment to theHouse bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is notmade to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session.’’
The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not covered
under this rule, but reports this information in the spirit of full disclosure.
The Committee recommends funding for the following programsor activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2019:
(144)

145
APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW—FISCAL YEAR 2019
[Dollars in thousands]
Agency/Program

Last Year of
Authorization1

Authorization
Level

Appropriation in
Last Year of
Authorization

Net Appropriationin this Bill

Corps FUSRAP .....................................................................
EERE Program Direction .....................................................
EERE Weatherization Activities ...........................................
EERE State Energy Programs .............................................
EERE Marine and Hydrokinetic R&D ..................................
Nuclear Energy ....................................................................
Nuclear Energy Infrastructure and Facilities .....................
Fossil Energy .......................................................................
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ..........................
Strategic Petroleum Reserve ..............................................
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve .................................
Energy Information Administration .....................................
Office of Science ................................................................
Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program .....
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ......................

2006
2012
2012
2012
2009
2009
2009
2014
2003
2003
1984
2013
2012
2013

......................
110,500
1,400,000
125,000
50,000495,000
145,000
641,000
20,000not specified
not specified
not specified
6,007,000
not specified
312,000......................
164,198
68,00050,00034,000792,000
245,000
727,320
20,000172,856
6,000
55,8704,876,000
6,000
265,000

120,000
162,500
251,000
55,00070,0001,206,000
267,000
727,000
10,000175,105
10,000125,000
6,650,000
5,000
375,000

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup:West Valley Demonstration ........................................
Departmental Administration .............................................

1981
1984

5,000
246,9635,000
185,682

75,000170,000

Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Weapons Activities ............................................
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .....................
Naval Reactors .................................................
Federal Salaries and Expenses ........................
Defense Environmental Cleanup ........................................
Other Defense Activities .....................................................

2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018

10,377,475
1,883,310
1,431,551
407,551
5,440,106
816,000

10,642,138
1,999,219
1,620,000
407,595
5,988,048
840,000

10,850,000
1,902,000
1,620,000
408,000
5,988,000
840,000

Power Marketing Administrations:Southwestern .............................................................
Western Area ..............................................................
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission .............................
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ............................
Nuclear Regulatory Commission .........................................
Delta Regional Authority .....................................................
Northern Border Regional Commission ..............................

1984
1984
1984
2018
1985
2018
2018

40,254
259,700
not specified
30,600460,000
30,00030,00036,229194,630
29,58231,000448,200
25,00015,00010,40089,372........................
31,000104,132
25,00020,000

1 Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization.

146
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE
STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on May 24, 2018, theCommittee ordered favorably reported a bill (S. 2975) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for otherpurposes, provided, that the bill be subject to amendment and thatthe bill be consistent with its budget allocation, and provided that
the Chairman of the Committee or his designee be authorized tooffer the substance of the original bill as a Committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute to the House companion measure, by
a recorded vote of 30–1, a quorum being present. The vote was asfollows:
Yeas

Chairman Shelby
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Alexander
Ms. Collins
Ms. Murkowski
Mr. Blunt
Mr. Moran
Mr. Hoeven
Mr. Boozman
Mrs. Capito
Mr. Lankford
Mr. Daines
Mr. Kennedy
Mr. Rubio
Mrs. Hyde-Smith
Mr. Leahy
Mrs. Murray
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Reed
Mr. Tester
Mr. Udall
Mrs. Shaheen
Mr. Merkley
Mr. Coons
Mr. Schatz
Ms. Baldwin
Mr. Murphy
Mr. Manchin
Mr. Van Hollen

Nays

Mr. Graham

147
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI, OF THE
STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports ona bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or partof any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof
which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print ofthat part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment andof the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing bystricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which
would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form
recommended by the Committee.’’
In compliance with this rule, no changes to existing law are displayed because this bill proposes no changes.
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC.
308(A), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED[In millions of dollars]
Budget authority

Comparison of amounts in the bill with the subcommittee allocation for 2019: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
Mandatory ............................................................................
Discretionary ........................................................................
Security .......................................................................
Nonsecurity .................................................................
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2019 .....................................................................................
2020 .....................................................................................
2021 .....................................................................................
2022 .....................................................................................
2023 and future years ........................................................
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2019
1 Includes outlays from prior–year budget authority.
2 Excludes outlays from prior–year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

OutlaysCommittee
allocation

Amountin billCommittee
allocation

Amountin bill....................
43,766
21,892
21,874....................
43,766
21,892
21,874....................
43,842
NA
NA....................
1 43,842
NANA....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
NA....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
180....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
NA

2 25,518

12,393
4,189
969
596
.................. 2

Central Utah Project

1,332,124
41,376¥41,376..........................
37,000

Water and Related Resources ..............................................................................................................................................
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ..............................................................................................................................
Central Valley Project collections ................................................................................................................................
Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................................

California Bay–Delta Restoration .........................................................................................................................................

Bureau of Reclamation

Central Utah Project Completion Account ...........................................................................................................................

10,5006,827,000

Total, title I, Department of Defense—Civil ..........................................................................................................
TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

123,000
2,085,000
425,000
3,630,000
200,000
139,000
35,000185,000
5,000..........................
..........................

2018
appropriation

Investigations .......................................................................................................................................................................
Construction .........................................................................................................................................................................
Mississippi River and Tributaries ........................................................................................................................................
Operation and Maintenance .................................................................................................................................................
Regulatory Program ..............................................................................................................................................................
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) ...............................................................................................
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies ..............................................................................................................................
Expenses ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) .....................................................................................................
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund ..........................................................................................................................................
Inland Waterways Trust Fund ..............................................................................................................................................

Corps of Engineers—Civil

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

Item[In thousands of dollars]

35,000891,01762,008¥62,008..........................

7,983

4,784,583

82,000871,733
244,735
2,076,733
200,000
120,000
27,000187,000
5,000
965,132
5,250

Budget estimate

35,0001,382,000
62,008¥62,008..........................

15,0006,927,000

123,000
2,161,000
350,000
3,740,000
200,000
120,000
35,000193,000
5,000..........................
..........................

Committee
recommendation∂490,983..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

∂49,876∂20,632¥20,632..........................
¥2,000∂7,017∂2,142,417∂100,000∂4,500∂41,000∂1,289,267∂105,265∂1,663,267..........................
..........................
∂8,000∂6,000..........................
¥965,132¥5,250

Budget estimate..........................
∂76,000¥75,000∂110,000..........................
¥19,000..........................
∂8,000..........................
..........................
..........................

2018
appropriation

Senate Committee recommendationcompared with (∂ or ¥)COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019148

1,428,124
1,438,624

Total, Bureau of Reclamation .................................................................................................................................

Total, title II, Department of the Interior ...............................................................................................................

727,000
10,000175,105¥350,000
350,000
175,105
8,400
10,000125,000
353,240
840,818
6,650,000..........................
375,000
33,000¥15,000..........................
18,000¥124,895..........................
10,000115,035
218,400
752,749
5,390,972
90,000..........................
10,000¥15,000¥240,000¥245,000¥44,000

726,8174,900
252,000¥350,000
350,000
252,000
8,400
6,500
125,000
298,400
840,000
6,259,903..........................
353,31433,000¥10,000..........................
23,000¥15,000

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................................

SPR petroleum account ........................................................................................................................................................
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ...................................................................................................................................
Energy Information Administration ......................................................................................................................................
Non–defense Environmental Cleanup ..................................................................................................................................
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund ..................................................................................
Science .................................................................................................................................................................................
Nuclear Waste Disposal .......................................................................................................................................................
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ........................................................................................................................
Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program ...................................................................................................
Offsetting collection ....................................................................................................................................................
Rescission ....................................................................................................................................................................

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................................

Title 17 negative subsidy ............................................................................................................................................

¥44,000

1,206,000

757,090502,070
10,000175,105¥300,000..........................

1,205,056

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................................

Fossil Energy Research and Development ...........................................................................................................................
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................................................................................................
Strategic Petroleum Reserve ................................................................................................................................................
Sale of crude oil ..........................................................................................................................................................
Use of sale proceeds ...................................................................................................................................................

2,322,000..........................
260,000..........................
1,073,000
133,000

1,493,000

1,478,000

61,000695,610..........................
95,80061,309621,000
136,090995,000

987,01761,0002,321,778
248,329..........................
..........................
1,072,056
133,000

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ............................................................................................................................
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ...........................................................................................................................
Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response ..................................................................................................
Electricity Delivery ................................................................................................................................................................
Nuclear Energy .....................................................................................................................................................................
Defense function .........................................................................................................................................................

Energy Programs

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

59,000

Policy and Administration ....................................................................................................................................................

¥29,000¥5,000..........................
∂3,500..........................
∂54,840∂818∂390,097..........................
∂21,686..........................
¥5,000..........................

..........................

∂263,000∂8,400..........................
∂9,965∂134,840∂88,069∂1,259,028¥90,000∂375,000∂23,000..........................
∂240,000∂300,000∂224,930..........................
..........................
¥50,000∂350,000∂183∂5,100¥76,895..........................
..........................
¥76,895∂448,910∂944∂498,000∂54,376∂1,626,390..........................
∂164,200¥61,309∂452,000¥3,090∂490,983∂49,876∂222¥248,329∂260,000..........................
∂944..........................

..........................

∂2,000149

1,000..........................
1,000..........................
¥8,500¥8,5001,000..........................

Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program ...............................................................................................................................
Rescission ....................................................................................................................................................................

189,652
49,00012,903,049

Net appropriation ...............................................................................................................................................
Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................

Total, Energy programs ...........................................................................................................................................

10,642,138
2,048,219¥49,000
1,999,219

Weapons Activities ...............................................................................................................................................................
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .........................................................................................................................................
Rescission ....................................................................................................................................................................

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................................

National Nuclear Security Administration

Atomic Energy Defense Activities

1,000..........................
285,652¥96,000

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................................

Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs ......................................................................................................................
Departmental Administration ...............................................................................................................................................
Miscellaneous revenues ...............................................................................................................................................

1,862,825

11,017,078
1,862,825..........................

3,785,071

139,534
51,330..........................
235,534¥96,000

1,902,000

10,850,000
1,902,000..........................

13,281,893

170,000
51,33018,000266,000¥96,000

5,000

5,000

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................................

¥4,299,000

5,000..........................

5,000..........................

¥26,000¥672,433

8,000

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................................

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans program ...........................................................................................
Rescission of emergency funding ...............................................................................................................................

Rescission of emergency funding ...............................................................................................................................

1,000¥4,300,000..........................

¥383,433..........................

2018
appropriation

Committee
recommendation

Item

Budget estimate[In thousands of dollars]∂39,175¥97,219∂9,496,822∂378,844¥167,078∂39,175..........................

∂30,466..........................

¥19,652∂2,330∂207,862¥146,219∂49,000∂9,500∂18,000∂30,466..........................

∂18,000¥19,652..........................

∂1,000∂8,500∂4,304,000∂4,000∂4,300,000∂646,433∂383,433

Budget estimate..........................

..........................
..........................

..........................

..........................
..........................

¥34,000..........................

2018
appropriation

Senate Committee recommendationcompared with (∂ or ¥)COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019—Continued

150

14,668,952

5,988,048
840,000..........................
6,828,048
21,497,000

Total, National Nuclear Security Administration ....................................................................................................

Defense Environmental Cleanup ..........................................................................................................................................
Other Defense Activities .......................................................................................................................................................
Defense nuclear waste disposal ..........................................................................................................................................

Total, Environmental and Other Defense Activities ...............................................................................................

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities .................................................................................................................

..........................
45,802..........................
¥35,402
16,00026,400265,142..........................
¥175,770
43,000132,372
5,207¥4,979228..........................
30,288..........................
¥18,888..........................
11,400223,276..........................
¥129,904..........................
93,372
4,176¥3,948228872

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................................

Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration .....................................................................................
Reduction due to CBO initial estimates of collections for annual expenses ............................................................
Offsetting collections ..................................................................................................................................................
Southwestern Power Administration CBO initial estimates of collections for annual expenses ...............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................................

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration .......................................
Reduction due to CBO initial estimates of collections for annual expenses ............................................................
Offsetting collections ..................................................................................................................................................
Western Area Power Administration CBO initial estimates of collections for annual expenses ...............................

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................................

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund ......................................................................................................
Offsetting collections ..................................................................................................................................................

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................................

CBO estimate for 3rd party financing ........................................................................................................................

122

6,500
¥6,50021,604,567

6,513,517

5,630,217
853,300
30,00015,091,050

1,788,618
422,529

6,379¥6,379Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ......................................................................................
Offsetting collections ..................................................................................................................................................

Power Marketing Administrations 1

Environmental and Other Defense Activities

1,620,000
407,595

Naval Reactors .....................................................................................................................................................................
Federal Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................................................................................

122

228

5,207
¥4,97989,372

265,142¥43,000¥175,770
43,00010,40045,802¥16,000¥35,402
16,000..........................

6,500¥6,50021,608,000

6,828,000

5,988,000
840,000..........................

14,780,000

1,620,000
408,000∂357,783¥13,300¥30,000∂314,483∂3,433¥48..........................
..........................
¥48∂111,000..........................
..........................

¥750¥43,000..........................
..........................

¥4,000∂1,031¥1,031..........................

¥16,000..........................
¥43,000..........................
..........................

¥1,000..........................
¥16,000..........................
..........................

∂15,514¥16,000¥16,514∂16,000∂41,866¥43,000¥45,866∂43,000..........................

..........................

..........................
..........................

¥311,050∂111,048

∂121
¥121

¥168,618¥14,529..........................
∂405

151

105,872

367,600¥367,600..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
34,505,921(34,554,921)(¥49,000)

155,000
31,00025,00030,00015,000250
909,137

Total, Power Marketing Administrations .................................................................................................................

Salaries and expenses .........................................................................................................................................................
Revenues applied .................................................................................................................................................................

Title III Rescissions:Northeast gasoline supply reserve sale ......................................................................................................................
Strategic Petroleum Reserve crude oil sale ................................................................................................................
Strategic Petroleum Reserve use of sale proceeds ....................................................................................................

Total, General Provisions ........................................................................................................................................

Total, title III, Department of Energy .....................................................................................................................
Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................
Rescissions ....................................................................................................................................................

Appalachian Regional Commission ......................................................................................................................................
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ..............................................................................................................................
Delta Regional Authority ......................................................................................................................................................
Denali Commission ...............................................................................................................................................................
Northern Border Regional Commission ................................................................................................................................
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission ..........................................................................................................................

Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

General Provisions

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

1,100

2018
appropriation

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................................

Item[In thousands of dollars]

958,050

152,000
31,243
2,500
7,300
850
..........................

898,350

155,000
31,00025,00015,00020,000..........................

34,990,015(34,990,015)..........................

..........................

¥71,000
25,477,760(30,409,693)(¥248,500)..........................
..........................
..........................

369,900¥369,900

100,122350

Committee
recommendation¥71,000¥15,000
15,000369,900¥369,900

159,122350

Budget estimate..........................
..........................

∂2,300¥2,300¥10,787¥59,700∂3,000¥243∂22,500∂7,700∂19,150..........................

∂9,512,255(∂4,580,322)(∂248,500)∂484,094(∂435,094)(∂49,000)..........................
..........................
..........................
¥15,000∂5,000¥250∂71,000..........................

∂71,000∂15,000¥15,000¥59,000¥5,750..........................
..........................
..........................

..........................

Budget estimate

¥750

2018
appropriation

Senate Committee recommendationcompared with (∂ or ¥)COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019—Continued

152

153,031

129,301
12,859¥10,555
2,304
131,605(131,673)
(¥68)
3,600
391,455

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................................

Office of Inspector General .........................................................................................................................................
Revenues .....................................................................................................................................................................

Subtotal ...................................................................................................................................................................

Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ...................................................................................................................
Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................
Rescissions ....................................................................................................................................................

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ...............................................................................................................................

Total, title IV, Independent agencies .....................................................................................................................
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

135,000
15,055,000
770,000
608,000
810,000
20,00013,0008,716
17,419,716
60,582,716(43,212,068)(17,419,716)

Investigations (Public Law 115–123) (emergency) .............................................................................................................
Construction (Public Law 115–123) (emergency) ...............................................................................................................
Mississippi River and Tributaries (Public Law 115–123) (emergency) ..............................................................................
Operations and Maintenance (Public Law 115–123) (emergency) .....................................................................................
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (Public Law 115–123) (emergency) ....................................................................
Expenses (Public Law 115–123) (emergency) .....................................................................................................................
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (Public Law 115–123) (emergency) .................................................................
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (Public Law 115–123) (emergency) ......................................................................................

Total, Other Appropriations .....................................................................................................................................

Grand total ..............................................................................................................................................................
Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................
Emergency appropriations .............................................................................................................................

Corps of Engineers—Civil

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER RELIEF REQUIREMENTS

31,610,121(36,542,054)..........................

..........................

..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

352,7783,600

155,285(155,285)..........................

2,254

12,609¥10,355¥805,019..........................

¥779,768¥68

Revenues .....................................................................................................................................................................
Rescission ....................................................................................................................................................................

43,766,000(43,766,000)..........................

..........................

..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

355,9853,600

106,385(106,385)..........................

2,254

12,609¥10,355

104,131¥794,219..........................

..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
∂12,155,879(∂7,223,946)..........................

¥135,000¥15,055,000¥770,000¥608,000¥810,000¥20,000¥13,000¥8,716¥17,419,716¥16,816,716(∂553,932)(¥17,419,716)∂3,207¥25,220(¥25,288)(∂68)¥35,470¥48,900(¥48,900)..........................

¥50..........................

..........................

¥250
∂200

..........................

¥48,900..........................
..........................

¥25,170∂10,800..........................

¥14,451∂68

153

(¥49,068)..........................

2018
appropriation(¥248,500)(¥4,683,433)

Budget estimate..........................
..........................

Committee
recommendation(∂49,068)..........................

2018
appropriation(∂248,500)(∂4,683,433)

Budget estimate

Senate Committee recommendationcompared with (∂ or ¥)Æ

1 Totals adjusted to net out alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting collection totals only reflect funds collected for annual expenses, excluding power purchasewheeling.

Rescissions ....................................................................................................................................................
Rescissions of emergency appropriations .....................................................................................................

Item[In thousands of dollars]

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019—Continued

154