26–255 PDF 

Calendar No. 178 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 115–132 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2018 

JULY 20, 2017.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. ALEXANDER, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted 

the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1609] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1609) making appropriations for energy and water development and related 

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for 

other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the 

bill do pass. 

New obligational authority 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $39,267,376,000 

Amount of 2017 appropriations ............................... 38,450,000,000 

Amount of 2018 budget estimate ............................ 34,188,515,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2017 appropriations .......................................... ∂817,376,000 

2018 budget estimate ........................................ ∂5,078,861,000 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 4 

Summary of Estimates and Recommendations ..................................................... 4 

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4 

Title I: 

Department of Defense—Civil: Department of the Army: 

Corps of Engineers—Civil: 

Investigations ..................................................................................... 10 

Construction ....................................................................................... 16 

Mississippi River and Tributaries .................................................... 23 

Operations and Maintenance ............................................................ 24 

Regulatory Program ........................................................................... 44 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ......................... 44 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .......................................... 44 

Expenses ............................................................................................. 44 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) .......... 45 

General Provisions—Corps of Engineers—Civil ..................................... 45 

Title II: 

Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project Completion Account .............................................. 46 

Bureau of Reclamation: 

Water and Related Resources ........................................................... 48 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ......................................... 55 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ...................................................... 56 

Policy and Administration ................................................................. 56 

General Provisions—Department of the Interior .................................... 56 

Title III: 

Department of Energy: 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ............................................... 61 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ............................................ 71 

Nuclear Energy .......................................................................................... 74 

Fossil Energy Research and Development .............................................. 77 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................... 83 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve .................................................................... 83 

Energy Security and Infrastructure Modernization Fund ..................... 83 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ..................................................... 84 

Energy Information Administration ........................................................ 84 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ..................................................... 84 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund .. 85 

Science ........................................................................................................ 85 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ........................................ 91 

Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs ......................................... 91 

Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program ................................................ 92 

Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program .................................. 92 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program ............. 92 

Departmental Administration .................................................................. 93 

Office of the Inspector General ................................................................ 94 

Weapons Activities .................................................................................... 96 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........................................................... 98 

Naval Reactors .......................................................................................... 100 

Federal Salaries and Expenses ................................................................ 101 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................. 101 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Federal Contribution ................................................................................... 104 

Other Defense Activities ........................................................................... 104 
Page

3 

Title III—Continued 

Department of Energy—Continued 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Operations and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ................................................................................................... 105 

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration .................................................... 105 

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund ................. 105 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and Expenses ......... 105 

General Provisions—Department of Energy ........................................... 130 

Title IV: 

Independent Agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission .......................................................... 131 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ................................................. 132 

Delta Regional Authority .......................................................................... 132 

Denali Commission ................................................................................... 132 

Northern Border Regional Commission ................................................... 132 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............................................................. 133 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................ 135 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board .................................................. 136 

General Provisions ........................................................................................... 136 

Title V: General Provisions ..................................................................................... 137 

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 137 

Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 139 

Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 140 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 141 

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 142 
(4) 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for fiscal 

year 2018, beginning October 1, 2017, and ending September 30, 

2018, 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 Department 

of 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 2018 budget estimates for the bill total $34,188,515,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The recommendation of the Committee totals $39,267,376,000. This is 

$5,078,861,000 above the budget estimates and $817,376,000 above 

the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year. 

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development held four sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2018 appropriations bill. Witnesses included officials and representatives of 

the Federal agencies under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

The recommendations for fiscal year 2018, therefore, have been 

developed after careful consideration of available data. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Develop- ment’s allocation totals $38,400,000,000 of net budget authority for 

fiscal year 2018, including adjustments, which represents an increase of $629,000,000 over fiscal year 2017. Within the amount 

recommended, $21,000,000,000 is classified as defense (050) spending and $17,400,000,000 is classified as non-defense (non-050) 

spending. 

The Committee’s constitutional responsibility to oversee the Federal Government’s expenditure of taxpayer dollars requires setting 

priorities and ensuring these funds are executed as Congress has 

directed. To develop this recommendation, the Committee held four 

budget hearings in June 2017 to examine the budget requests for 

the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, and the Nuclear 
5 

Regulatory Commission. The hearings provided officials from the 

agencies with an opportunity to present the administration’s most 

pressing priorities to the Committee. The Committee also invited 

and received recommendations from Senators and outside witnesses. 

The Committee’s recommendation reflects that process and 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. The Committee did not recommend 

funding for low-priority programs, and rescinded unused funds 

from prior years. 

Oroville Dam and Dam Safety Evaluations.—The Committee is 

concerned that the failure of the auxiliary and emergency spillways 

at Oroville Dam in California may be indicative of a broader flaw 

in Federal and state evaluations of dam safety. The Committee understands that the Oroville Dam Spillway Incident Forensic Investigation Team report is expected to be released this fall. Within 90 

days of the release of this report, the Army Corps of Engineers, the 

Bureau of Reclamation, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall jointly brief the Committee on efforts to incorporate 

lessons learned from Oroville into dam inspection protocols across 

all three agencies and their state partners, including an analysis 

of: the Forensic Investigation Team report examining the causes of 

the Oroville Dam spillway failures; the utility of a subsequent independent panel to evaluate whether the Corps, the Bureau and the 

Commission should revise their dam safety procedures in light of 

lessons learned from the Oroville incident; whether additional safety inspections should be required after large storms; whether the 

projected effects of climate change and atmospheric rivers are appropriately considered in safety requirements and testing protocols; 

whether new non-invasive structural health monitoring technologies have the potential to improve safety inspections; and 

whether additional actions should be taken to ensure the safety of 

dams without emergency spillways, such as Trinity Dam in California. 
(6) 

TITLE I 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $6,166,400,000 for the Corps of En- gineer [Corps], an increase of $1,164,400,000 from the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation sets priorities by supporting our 

Nation’s water infrastructure. Specifically, the Committee recommendation provides adequate appropriations to utilize all of the 

estimated fiscal year 2018 revenues from the Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund and meets the target prescribed in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act [WRRDA] of 2014, as amended, for the Corps 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 the 

civil 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 provides emergency response to natural 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, and 

1,067 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; 
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. 

DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION

The budget request this year fails to adequately fund our Nation’s harbors. The Committee is disappointed the administration’s 

budget only proposes to spend $965,000,000 from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF], $375,000,000 below the spending target established by the WRRDA 2014, as amended. 

For fiscal year 2018, the Committee recommends an estimated 

$1,340,000,000 for HMTF-related activities meeting the spending 

target established by WRRDA 2014, as amended, which is 

$375,000,000 above the budget request. 

INLAND WATERWAYS SYSTEM

The Committee notes that the budget request only proposed to 

spend $26,250,000 of the $105,000,000 estimated to be deposited in 

fiscal year 2018 into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund [IWTF]. 

This would leave an estimated $78,750,000 of fiscal year 2018 deposits unspent. The budget request also only proposes to fund a 

single project, Olmsted Lock, and eliminates funding for the other 

three ongoing projects that are already under construction and received funding last year. The Committee does not support the administration’s proposal to reform inland waterways financing by increasing the amount paid by commercial navigation users of inland 

waterways, particularly when the administration does not propose 

to spend the funding already collected. 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING

The Committee has recommended funding above the budget request for Investigations, Construction, Operations and Maintenance, and Mississippi River and Tributaries. Except for funds proposed for new starts, this funding is for additional work that either 

was not included in the administration’s request or was inadequately budgeted. A study or project may not be excluded from 

evaluation for being ‘‘inconsistent with administration policy.’’ 

The administration is reminded these funds are in addition to its 

budget request, and administration budget metrics shall not be a 

reason to disqualify a study or project from being funded. The focus 

of the allocation process shall favor the obligation, rather than the 

expenditure, of funds for work in fiscal year 2018. 

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 enactment 

of this act, the Corps shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a work plan consistent with 

the following general guidance, as well as the specific direction the 

Committee provides within each account: (1) a detailed description 
8 

of the rating system(s) developed and used to evaluate studies and 

projects; (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 (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 2018 and the specific reasons each study 

or project was considered as being less competitive for an allocation 

of funds. The Corps is directed not to obligate any funding above 

the budget request for studies or projects until the Committees 

have approved the work plan for fiscal year 2018. 

The work plan shall include a single group of new starts for Investigations and Construction. None of the funds may be used for 

any item for which the Committee has specifically denied funding. 

New Starts.—The recommendation includes six new study starts 

and five new construction starts to be distributed across the three 

main mission areas of the Corps. Of the new study starts, two shall 

be for navigation studies, two shall be for flood and storm damage 

reduction studies, one shall be for an additional navigation or flood 

and storm damage reduction study, and one shall be for an environmental restoration study. Of the new study starts for navigation, one shall be for a Small, Remote, or Subsistence Harbor. Of 

the new construction starts, two shall be for navigation projects, 

one shall be for a flood and storm damage reduction project, one 

shall be for a coastal storm damage reduction project, and one shall 

be for an environmental restoration project. 

Consideration of studies and projects for selection as new starts 

shall not be limited to only those proposed in the administration’s 

budget request. As all new starts are to be chosen by the Corps, 

all shall be considered of equal importance, and the expectation is 

that future budget submissions will include appropriate funding for 

all new starts selected. 

The Corps shall consider preconstruction engineering and design 

[PED] phase work as a continuation of the investigations and by 

definition, a study is not completed until PED is completed. No 

new start or new investment decision shall be required when moving from feasibility to PED. When evaluating 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 CARP

The Corps is 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 well as the location and density of carp populations, 

including the use of emergency procedures. 
9 

The Corps shall collaborate with the U.S. Coast Guard, the State 

of Illinois, and members of the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating 

Committee to institute navigation protocols identified by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to reduce the risk of vessels inadvertently 

carrying aquatic invasive species, including Asian carp, through 

the Electric Dispersal Barrier near Romeoville, Illinois and locks 

and dams in the Illinois River. The Committee directs the Corps 

to institute these navigation protocols within a year of enactment 

of this act. The Committee is aware that the Corps and other Federal and State agencies are conducting ongoing research on potential solutions. 

REPROGRAMMING

The Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation provided in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2017. 

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE

Savings and slippage [S&S] is a budgetary term that recognizes 

that nothing ever goes completely as planned. The Committee recognizes that many changes may occur between the Corps’ budget 

formulation—beginning 22 months before it is submitted to the 

Committee—and when funds are actually appropriated. Although 

the Committee has attempted to identify and address changes 

through coordination with the Corps, the Committee realizes that 

actual appropriations may not be enacted until later in the year. 

Accordingly, the Committee has included, as in prior years, a reasonable percentage of S&S within Investigations, Construction, and 

Operations and Maintenance as a way to accommodate additional 

project needs, even if funding is insufficient. Upon applying the 

S&S amounts, normal reprogramming procedures shall be undertaken to account for schedule slippages, accelerations, or other unforeseen conditions. 

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 their 

respective sections below. 

REPORTING REQUIREMENT

The 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 both 

Houses of Congress, which includes the total budget authority and 
10 

unobligated balances by year for each activity funded in the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) account, including any prior year appropriations. 

INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $121,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 86,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 113,465,000 

The Committee recommends $113,465,000 for Investigations, an 

increase of $27,465,000 from the budget request. The Committee’s 

recommendation allows the Corps to begin six 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 the 

administration’s budget 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 

to construction. 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 with 

the direction in the front matter under the heading ‘‘Additional 

Funding’’. The Committee is disappointed the fiscal year 2017 work 

plan only utilized one of the six new study starts provided in the 

Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017. Because the administration’s budget request includes funding to complete 26 studies in fiscal year 2018—15 more 

than was recommended in the fiscal year 2017 budget request—the 

Committee directs the Corps to utilize all of the new starts provided by Congress in fiscal year 2018. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The table below displays the budget request and the Committee’s 

recommendation for Investigations. Funding is classified as either 

for feasibility or PED studies, as indicated in the columns, to provide greater transparency in the study phases. 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

FEAS PED FEAS PED 

ALABAMA 

VILLAGE CREEK, AL ....................................................................................... 288 ................ 288 ................

ALASKA 

KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, AK .......................................................... 370 ................ 370 ................

LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL FLOOD DIVERSION, AK ........................................... 950 ................ 950 ................
11 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

FEAS PED FEAS PED 

SAINT GEORGE HARBOR IMPROVEMENT, AK ................................................ 362 ................ 362 ................

UNALASKA (DUTCH) HARBOR, AK ................................................................. 950 ................ 950 ................

ARIZONA 

LITTLE COLORADO RIVER (WINSLOW), AZ ..................................................... 414 ................ 414 ................

LOWER SANTA CRUZ RIVER, AZ ................................................................... 250 ................ 250 ................

ARKANSAS 

THREE RIVERS, AR ........................................................................................ 270 ................ 270 ................

CALIFORNIA 

ALISO CREEK MAINSTEM, CA ........................................................................ 100 ................ 100 ................

CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA .......................................................................... 682 ................ 682 ................

DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) RESTORATION, CA ........................................ 260 ................ 260 ................

EAST SAN PEDRO BAY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA ................................ 194 ................ 194 ................

PORT OF LONG BEACH NAV IMP, CA ............................................................ 327 ................ 327 ................

SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION (PHASE 3) (GRR), CA ................... 482 ................ 482 ................

YUBA RIVER FISH PASSAGE, CA (ENGLEBRIGHT & DAGUERRE POINT 

DAMS) ....................................................................................................... 819 ................ 819 ................

COMMONWEALTH NORTHERN MARIANAS 

ROTA HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI .......................................................... 513 ................ 513 ................

TINIAN HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, CNMI ........................................................ 514 ................ 514 ................

DELAWARE 

DELAWARE INLAND BAYS AND DELAWARE BAY COAST, DE ......................... 700 ................ 700 ................

GEORGIA 

PROCTOR CREEK WATERSHED, FULTON COUNTY, GA .................................. 450 ................ 450 ................

SWEETWATER CREEK, GA .............................................................................. 750 ................ 750 ................

ILLINOIS 

DU PAGE RIVER, IL ....................................................................................... 300 ................ 300 ................

INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES- MISSISSIPPI RIVER AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES, IL, IN, OH & WI (BRANDON ROAD) ............................... 1,850 ................ 1,850 ................

IOWA 

GRAND RIVER BASIN, IA & MO ..................................................................... 1,000 ................ 1,000 ................

MARYLAND 

CITY OF BALTIMORE, MD .............................................................................. 200 ................ 200 ................

NEW JERSEY 

NEW JERSEY BACKBAYS, NJ ......................................................................... 448 ................ 448 ................

NEW MEXICO 

ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE AND TRIBUTARIES, NM ............................ 65 ................ 65 ................

NEW YORK 

HUDSON RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, NY ................................................. 800 ................ 800 ................

NORTH DAKOTA 

SOURIS RIVER, ND ........................................................................................ 400 ................ 400 ................

OKLAHOMA 

ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR, OK ................................................................. 235 ................ 235 ................

OREGON 

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY 2024 IMPLEMENTATION ...................................... 9,500 ................ 9,500 ................
12 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

FEAS PED FEAS PED 

PUERTO RICO 

SAN JUAN HARBOR CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, PR ........................................ 400 ................ 400 ................

RHODE ISLAND 

RHODE ISLAND COASTLINE, RI ..................................................................... 300 ................ 300 ................

TEXAS 

COASTAL TEXAS PROTECTION AND RESTORATION STUDY, TX ...................... 2,175 ................ 2,175 ................

GIWW– BRAZOS RIVER FLOODGATES & COLORADO RIVER LOCK, TX .......... 900 ................ 900 ................

HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX ....................................................................... 1,500 ................ 1,500 ................

JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION, TX .............................................. 516 ................ 516 ................

MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX ................................................................... 800 ................ 800 ................

RESACAS AT BROWNSVILLE, TX .................................................................... 251 ................ 251 ................

VIRGINIA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AT NORTH 

LANDING, VA ............................................................................................. 600 ................ 600 ................

CITY OF NORFOLK, VA ................................................................................... 700 ................ 700 ................

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ................................................... 32,585 ................ 32,585 ................

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION ........................................... ................ ................ 3,545 ................

FLOOD CONTROL ......................................................................... ................ ................ 2,500 ................

SHORE PROTECTION .................................................................... ................ ................ 1,500 ................

NAVIGATION .......................................................................................... ................ ................ 5,000 ................

COASTAL AND DEEP-DRAFT ........................................................ ................ ................ 5,000 ................

INLAND ........................................................................................ ................ ................ 1,500 ................

OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES ........................................... ................ ................ 1,000 ................

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE ............................... ................ ................ 2,000 ................

COORDINATION STUDIES WITH OTHER AGENCIES: 

ACCESS TO WATER DATA ..................................................................... 360 ................ 360 ................

COMMITTEE ON MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ......................... 50 ................ 50 ................

OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS: 

COORDINATION WITH OTHER WATER RESOURCE AGENCIES ...... 400 ................ 400 ................

INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ............................ 400 ................ 400 ................

INTERAGENCY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ...................... 100 ................ 100 ................

INVENTORY OF DAMS .................................................................. 400 ................ 400 ................

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................ 1,000 ................ 1,000 ................

FERC LICENSING ......................................................................... 100 ................ 100 ................

PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES ............................................. 5,000 ................ 5,000 ................

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA: 

AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI–CADD ................. 250 ................ 250 ................

COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION ...................................................... 1,000 ................ 1,000 ................

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES .......................................................... 80 ................ 80 ................

FLOOD DAMAGE DATA .......................................................................... 230 ................ 230 ................

FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES ............................................... 15,000 ................ 15,000 ................

HYDROLOGIC STUDIES ......................................................................... 500 ................ 500 ................

INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES ......................................................... 125 ................ 125 ................

PRECIPITATION STUDIES ...................................................................... 200 ................ 200 ................

REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT ...... 75 ................ 75 ................

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS ......................... 50 ................ 50 ................

STREAM GAGING .................................................................................. 550 ................ 550 ................

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ................................................................. 1,000 ................ 1,000 ................

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT .................................................................... 16,145 ................ 23,000 ................

OTHER–MISCELLANEOUS: 

DISPOSITION OF COMPLETED PROJECTS .............................................. 1,000 ................ 1,000 ................

NATIONAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................................ 5,000 ................ 5,000 ................
13 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

FEAS PED FEAS PED 

NATIONAL SHORELINE MANAGEMENT STUDY ....................................... 400 ................ 400 ................

PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM ............................................................ 3,500 ................ 3,500 ................

TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM ......................................................... 500 ................ 1,500 ................

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ......................................................... 53,415 ................ 83,315 ................

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ................................................................................ ................ ................ ¥2,435 ................

TOTAL ............................................................................................... 86,000 ................ 113,465 ................

GRAND TOTAL .................................................................................. ................ 86,000 ................ 113,465 

Arctic Deep Draft Port Study.—The Committee encourages the 

Corps to continue to thoroughly evaluate the proposed deep draft 

port in Nome, taking into account the wide range of economic benefits the project would bring to the region, the expansion of search 

and rescue capabilities it would provide, and the national security 

reasons for its construction. The Committee supports the creation 

of an Arctic port network north of Dutch Harbor. 

Aquatic Invasive Species Dispersal Barrier.—The Corps is encouraged to consider the feasibility of a dispersal barrier to mitigate Champlain Canal as a vector for invasive species, as authorized in section 5146 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2007 (Public Law 110–114). 

Central Everglades Planning Project Validation Study.—The 

Committee recognizes the importance of restoring America’s Everglades, and urges the Corps to expedite the required validation report for the Central Everglades Planning Project. 

Disposition of Completed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes funding for Disposition of Completed Projects and intends that these funds be used for the studies already underway 

or in the budget request. The Corps shall notify the Committees on 

Appropriations of both Houses of Congress before it deviates from 

this direction. The Committee understands the Corps will be making a ‘‘no action’’ recommendation for the Upper Monongahela and 

Allegheny River studies. No funds provided may be used to take 

any action on the recommendations from the Upper Monongahela 

and Allegheny River studies. 

Economic Impact Studies.—The Committee recognizes there are 

authorized unfunded projects in need of an updated economic impact study. In order to properly show the economic benefits of such 

authorized projects, the Committee recommendation includes additional funding in this account to update economic impact studies 

where appropriate. 

Planning Assistance to States.—The Committee encourages the 

Corps to prioritize ongoing studies which consist of master plan development to address city water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater 

infrastructure needs. 

North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study.—The Corps is encouraged to fund the nine focus areas identified in the North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study. 
14 

Optimal Dredge Fleet Scheduling.—The Committee applauds the 

research efforts by the Corps’ Engineer Research and Development 

Center to support a dredge fleet scheduling optimization approach. 

With limited Federal resources to perform the extensive maintenance dredging needs across the Nation, it is imperative the Corps 

considers contracting methods that are regional or system-wide. 

This approach can achieve efficiencies that could be realized by sequencing the work such that mobilization costs are minimized between jobs while also observing the various environmental work 

windows. Along with the Regional Sediment Management Program 

in the Operation and Maintenance account, which utilizes strategies that link sediment management actions across multiple authorized Corps projects, costs may be significantly reduced allowing 

limited funding to reach more projects in need. Within 120 days of 

enactment of this act, the Corps shall brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on the status of ongoing 

demonstration projects, the development of long-term strategies to 

implement these approaches nationally, and any policy or operational challenges associated with carrying out such efforts. 

Research and Development.—The Committee recommends additional funding for increasing collaboration research partnerships to 

advance the capacity to evaluate methods for restoring ecosystem 

conservation. 

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’ research 

and development [R&D] program to continue its focus on the management of water resources projects that promote public safety, reduce risk, improve operational efficiencies, reduce flood damage in 

arid and semi-arid regions, sustain the environment, and position 

our water resource systems to be managed as systems and adaptable due to the implications of a changing climate. The R&D program should also continue its focus on science and technology efforts to address needs for resilient water resources infrastructure. 

Salton Sea.—The Committee urges the Corps to expedite completion of the feasibility analysis for the Salton Sea Restoration Program and to closely coordinate its planning efforts with the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. 

South Atlantic Coastal Study.—The Committee encourages the 

Corps to conduct, at full Federal expense, a study of the coastal 

areas in the South Atlantic Division to identify the risks and 

vulnerabilities of those areas to increased hurricane and storm 

damage as authorized in section 1204 of the Water Infrastructure 

Improvements for the Nation [WIIN] Act. 

Upper Connecticut River Basin.—The Corps is encouraged to 

work with interested local sponsors to identify wetland and ecosystem restoration projects in the Upper Connecticut River Basin 

for the purposes of habitat protection restoration, streambank stabilization, fish passage, water quality improvement, and restoration of stream stability through structural and non-structural work. 

Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System.—Unfortunately, the bipartisan support for the Navigation and Ecosystem 

Sustainability Program [NESP], spanning almost a decade, has not 

resulted in NESP’s implementation. Last year, the Corps provided 
15 

Congress with a report concluding that an updated economic analysis of the project is necessary before it can be considered as part 

of the Civil Works budget. While the Committee disagrees with this 

conclusion, if the Secretary determines it is necessary, the Corps is 

encouraged to fund an economic re-evaluation that will provide a 

benefit cost ratio and inform how to move forward with the project. 

Such a re-evaluation should include a multi-modal transportation 

evaluation and consideration of the ecological benefits. 

Water Quality and Salinity Impacts on Oyster Reefs.—The Committee encourages the Corps, when conducting or reviewing environmental assessments or environmental impact statements for 

navigation 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 use 

of dredged material as substrate for oyster reef development. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee recommendation includes $27,465,000 in additional funds for Investigations. From these additional funds, the Corps is authorized to 

begin six new feasibility studies. The Corps is directed to allocate 

these additional funds in accordance with the direction in the front 

matter under the heading ‘‘Additional Funding’’. Of the additional 

funds provided in this account, the Committee encourages the 

Corps to allocate $1,000,000 for the development of a hydraulic 

model that will assist no fewer than five States along a major navigable waterway with making regional strategic flood risk management decisions at 100 percent Federal cost. Of the additional funding recommended in this account for Coastal and Deep Draft Navigation, the Corps shall allocate not less than $2,194,000 for the 

continuation of ongoing General Reevaluation Reports. Additionally, the Corps shall comply with the following direction in allocating funds made available for Investigations: 

—When evaluating ongoing studies for funding, the Corps shall 

consider completing or accelerating ongoing studies which will 

enhance the Nation’s economic development, job growth, and 

international competitiveness; studies located in areas that 

have suffered recent natural disasters; or studies for areas 

where revisions to flood frequency flow lines may result in existing infrastructure failing to meet the requirements under 

the National Flood Insurance Program. 

—The Corps shall include appropriate requests for funding in future budget submissions for PED and new feasibility studies 

initiated in fiscal year 2018. The Corps shall prepare the budget to reflect study completions, as 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 for PED that were either not included in the budget request or for which the recommendation in the budget request 

was inadequate. Ongoing studies that are actively progressing 

and can utilize the funding in a timely manner are eligible for 

these additional funds. 
16 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $1,876,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 1,020,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,703,150,000 

The Committee recommends $1,703,150,000 for Construction, an 

increase of $683,150,000 from the budget request. The recommendation includes a rescission of $35,000,000 of unobligated 

balances from fiscal year 2011 and prior resulting in a net appropriation of $1,668,150,000. The Committee’s recommendation allows the Corps to select five new construction starts to begin in fiscal year 2018. 

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 other 

attendant benefits to the Nation. Funds to be derived from the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will be applied to cover the Federal share of the Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program. 

The Committee is concerned that the budget request is inadequate to meet the needs of projects that depend on funding from 

this account. Consequently, the recommendation includes 

$648,150,000 in additional funding for ongoing work. 

NEW STARTS

The Corps is directed to designate new starts in accordance with 

the 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] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

CALIFORNIA 

AMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES, NATOMAS BASIN, CA ................................................ 20,550 20,550 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM RAISE), CA ..................................................... 5,775 5,775 

HAMILTON CITY, CA ................................................................................................................. 8,325 8,325 

ISABELLA LAKE, CA (DAM SAFETY) ......................................................................................... 58,000 58,000 

SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA .......................................................... 2,780 2,780 

SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA ........................................................................................... 40,000 40,000 

YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA ........................................................................................................... 12,400 12,400 

FLORIDA 

HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL) ................................................................. 82,000 82,000 

SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (EVERGLADES), FL ............................................ 76,500 76,500 

GEORGIA 

SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA ...................................................................................... 50,060 50,060 
17 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

ILLINOIS 

OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY ................................................................. 175,000 175,000 

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI ............................................ 33,170 33,170 

IOWA 

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, ND & SD ................. 30,000 30,000 

KENTUCKY 

ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY .......................................................................................................... 25,000 25,000 

MARYLAND 

POPLAR ISLAND, MD ................................................................................................................ 36,250 36,250 

MASSACHUSETTS 

BOSTON HARBOR DEEP DRAFT IMPROVEMENTS, MA ............................................................. 58,000 58,000 

NEW JERSEY 

RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ .......................................................... 20,000 20,000 

OREGON 

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA .......................................................................... 22,000 22,000 

PENNSYLVANIA 

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA ............................................................................... 50,100 50,100 

TENNESSEE 

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN ............................................................................................................ 28,930 28,930 

TEXAS 

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX ................................................................................. 16,500 16,500

WASHINGTON 

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID (CRFM) .................................................... 70,000 70,000 

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA ....................................................................................................... 33,600 33,600 

WEST VIRGINIA 

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................. 4,425 4,425 

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ............................................................................. 959,365 959,365 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING: 

FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION ...................................................................... ........................ 150,000 

FLOOD CONTROL ................................................................................................... ........................ 125,000 

SHORE PROTECTION .............................................................................................. ........................ 50,000 

NAVIGATION .................................................................................................................... ........................ 211,200 

INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND REVENUES ............................................................... ........................ 111,750 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES ..................................................................... ........................ 10,000 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE ................................................ ........................ 40,000 

ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................................... ........................ 60,000 

AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM ...................................................................................... ........................ 11,000 

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM: 

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206) ..................................................... 6,500 9,000 

BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204) ........................................... 500 1,000 

EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SECTION 14) ..................... ........................ 5,000 

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) .................................................................. 1,000 1,000 

MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGES (SECTION 111) ......................................................... ........................ 500 

NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107) .......................................................................... ........................ 7,200 

PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (SECTION 1135) 1,000 3,000 

SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103) .............................................................................. ........................ 500 

DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM ............................................ 34,300 34,300 
18 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ................................................................................................... 17,000 17,000 

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—BOARD EXPENSE ........................................................ 60 60 

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—CORPS EXPENSE ........................................................ 275 275 

RESTORATION OF ABANDONED MINES .................................................................................... ........................ 2,000 

SUBTOTAL ................................................................................................................... 60,635 849,785 

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .......................................................................................................... ........................ ¥106,000 

RESCISSION ............................................................................................................................. ........................ ¥35,000 

TOTAL ......................................................................................................................... 1,020,000 1,668,150 

APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................... 1,020,000 1,703,150 

RESCISSIONS ..................................................................................................... ........................ ¥35,000 

Advanced Project Partnership Agreements.—The Committee notes 

the importance of partnerships with local sponsors who advance 

money beyond their non-Federal share in an effort to reduce the 

overall cost of construction for deep-draft navigation projects. Keeping projects on schedule to meet increasing demands for larger 

ships calling U.S. ports is critical. Therefore, the Committee directs 

the Corps to allow local sponsors who have signed Advanced 

Project Partnership Agreements to receive construction funds in 

Work Plans submitted by the Corps to Congress. 

Alternative Financing.—The Committee directs the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) to report, within 180 days of 

the date of enactment of this act, on how to calculate the total return on Federal investment for projects that use alternative financing such as public-private partnerships. The report shall identify 

the viability of using total return on Federal investment as a metric for analyzing projects with alternative financing. 

Aquatic Plant Control Program.—Of the funding recommended 

for the Aquatic Plant Control Program, $5,000,000 shall be for nationwide research and development to address invasive aquatic 

plants. The Committee encourages the Corps to support cost-shared 

aquatic plant management programs. The funding recommendation 

includes $6,000,000 for watercraft inspection stations, early detection monitoring, and rapid response as authorized by section 

1178(b) of the WIIN Act. Within this amount, the Corps is also directed to undertake control of the flowering rush. 

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illinois.— 

The issue of hydrologic separation should be fully studied by the 

Corps and vetted by the appropriate congressional authorizing committees and specifically enacted into law. No funds provided in this 

act may be used for construction of hydrologic separation measures. 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan [CERP]—Indian 

River 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 the 

Corps to expedite preparations for design work on the C–23 and C– 

24 South Reservoirs that, along with the C–44 Reservoir, will serve 
19 

as crucial elements of the Indian River Lagoon-South CERP project 

to collect and clean discharges before they enter the Lagoon. 

Continuing Authorities Program.—The Committee recommends 

$27,200,000 for the Continuing Authorities Program [CAP], an increase of $18,200,000 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 typical 

of most Corps projects. The standing CAP authorities are: flood 

control (section 205), emergency streambank and shoreline protection (section 14), beach erosion control (section 103), mitigation of 

shore damages (section 111), navigation projects (section 107), 

snagging and clearing (section 208), aquatic ecosystem restoration 

(section 206), beneficial uses of dredged material (section 204), and 

project modifications for improvement of the environment (section 

1135). The Committee recommends funding eight of the nine sections rather than only the four sections proposed in the budget request. The Committee does not recommend funding for section 208, 

as these projects can be accommodated under the authority of section 205. Within the CAP and to the extent already authorized by 

law, the Corps is encouraged to consider projects that enhance 

coastal and ocean ecosystem resiliency. The management of CAP 

should continue consistent with direction provided in previous fiscal years. 

The Committee urges the administration to execute CAP as laid 

out by the Committee and include sufficient funding for this program in future budget requests. The Corps shall continue the ongoing processes for initiating, suspending, and terminating projects. 

Suspended projects shall not be reactivated or funded unless the 

sponsor reaffirms in writing its support for the project and establishes its willingness and capability to execute its project responsibilities. The Corps shall provide an annual report within 60 days 

of the end of each fiscal year detailing the progress made on the 

backlog of projects. The report shall include the completions and 

terminations as well as progress of ongoing work. 

Dalles Dam.—The Committee is aware of the Corps’ legal analysis, which finds that a new tribal village can be constructed pursuant to section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950, which authorized construction of The Dalles Dam. A January 3, 2017 memorandum directed the Corps to create a Village Development Plan 

which would be eligible for construction funding upon completion. 

The Corps is encouraged to complete the Village Development Plan 

in consultation with affected Columbia River tribes and the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs. The Committee further urges the Corps to issue 

implementation guidance for section 1178(c) of the WIIN Act. 

Enhanced Options for Sand Acquisition for Beach Renourishment 

Projects.—The Committee urges the Corps to provide states with 

guidance and recommendations to implement cost effective measures and planning for sand management. 

Environmental Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends an 

additional $60,000,000 in the Construction account for environmental infrastructure. The Corps is encouraged to give priority to 

projects in rural areas, projects with greater economic impact, 

projects in counties or parishes with high poverty rates, projects 

owed past reimbursements, and projects that will provide substan-
20 

tial benefits to water quality improvement. The Committee encourages the Corps to evaluate projects under section 592 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1999 and section 5113 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2007 and allocate resources made 

available by Congress to meet the needs and projects identified 

under those sections. 

Levee Safety Program.—The Committee is concerned that the 

Corps has not taken steps to implement the levee safety initiatives 

required under WRRDA 2014. The Committee directs the Corps, 

after consulting with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

to develop a plan of action within 90 days of the date of enactment 

of this act that includes tangible milestones for how the Corps will 

meet the requirements under Public Law 113–121, section 3016. 

McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.—The Committee is 

again disappointed by the Corps’ failure to provide funding for 

McCook Reservoir in the budget and deeply concerned by the 

Corps’ decision to reject congressional intent and its own history on 

this project. Congressional intent has been clear since its authorization in 1988, and in subsequent modification. Congress recently 

reiterated its support for the project when it ordered the Corps to 

expedite the project’s completion in the WIIN Act. The project is 91 

percent complete, and the Committee strongly urges the Corps to 

complete the project. The McCook Reservoir was authorized for 

flood risk management and constructed to help alleviate flooding 

problems in the Metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois. 

Metro East Saint Louis, Illinois.—The Committee is disappointed 

by the lack of 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 system in the Corps’ Fiscal Year 2018 Work Plan. 

Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island.—The Committee understands that 

the Corps must complete and approve its Baltimore Harbor and 

Channels Dredged Material Management Plan Update prior to 

budgeting for the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Project (James and 

Barren Islands). When the Dredged Material Management Plan is 

approved, the Committee encourages the Corps to provide funding 

for PED for this project through the annual budget process or from 

undesignated funds. 

Monitoring and Adaptive Management.—The Committee commends the Corps for completion of and progress on a number of 

large scale ecosystem restoration projects, which have produced significant wetland and habitat restoration, beneficial reuse of 

dredged material, and additional public access. Many of these restoration projects provide multiple benefits to wildlife and surrounding communities, yet are not adequately studied for quantifiable benefits. Additionally, where the Corps performs mitigation 

measures, success rates are not adequately monitored to ensure 

replication and use of best practices. The Committee encourages 

the Corps to expand monitoring and adaptive management efforts 

in order to better measure the return on investment of large scale 

ecosystem restoration projects and mitigation project performance. 

Mud Mountain Dam.—The Committee commends the Corps for 

initiating construction to support the October 2014 Mud Mountain 
21 

Biological Opinion (BiOp) and mitigate the impact of the ongoing 

operation of Mud Mountain Dam on species listed under the Endangered Species Act [ESA] by replacing the barrier structure and 

building a new fish passage facility. The Committee encourages the 

Corps to uphold the agency’s ESA and tribal treaty responsibilities 

by requesting sufficient funding in future budgets to implement the 

BiOp requirements and complete construction by 2020. 

Murrieta Creek California.—The Committee is aware that the 

Corps has been working on a Limited Reevaluation Report [LRR] 

to detail a re-scoped project for a more cost-effective solution while 

it proceeds with construction. The Committee urges the Corps to 

complete and approve the LRR and move into the next phase of 

construction. 

Oyster Restoration.—The Committee supports the Chesapeake 

Bay Oyster Restoration Project and encourages the Corps to provide sufficient funding in future budget submissions or the fiscal 

year 2018 work plan. 

Prioritization of the Corps Projects in Drought Stricken Areas.— The Committee urges the Corps to prioritize any authorized 

projects that would alleviate water supply issues in areas that have 

been afflicted by severe droughts in the last 3 fiscal years, to include projects focused on the treatment of brackish water. 

Puget Sound.—The Committee encourages the Corps 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 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 the WIIN Act authorized construction of the 

Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project, and the 

Committee encourages the Corps to initiate PED. 

South San Francisco Bay Shoreline.—The Committee was deeply 

disappointed by the lack of a new construction start in the fiscal 

year 2018 budget for the first phase of the South San Francisco 

Bay Shoreline Project or funding for the feasibility study for the 

next phase of the project. This project provides critical flood protection to communities, businesses, and municipal structures in Santa 

Clara County, California. 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. 

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Comprehensive FederalState Cost-Share Transparency.—The Committee recognizes the importance of the 50/50 partnership between the State of Florida and 

the Federal Government in efforts to restore America’s Everglades. 

Key to this partnership is an accurate and transparent accounting 

of all spending for all South Florida Ecosystem Restoration [SFER] 

projects, including CERP projects, associated with the FederalState cost-share. The Committee directs the Corps to make publicly 

available a comprehensive snapshot of all SFER cost-share accounting down to the project level for fiscal year 2018 by September 30, 2018. 
22 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee recommendation includes $648,150,000 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 

funds provided in this account for flood and storm damage reduction, flood control, and environmental restoration or compliance, 

the Corps shall allocate not less than $15,400,000 for hurricane 

and storm damage risk reduction and environmental restoration 

projects as authorized in section 7002 of Public Law 113–121 with 

both 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 less 

than $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 this 

account for flood and storm damage reduction, navigation, and 

other authorized project purposes (excluding environmental infrastructure), the Corps shall allocate not less than $15,000,000 to authorized reimbursements for projects with executed 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 additional funds recommended in this account for CAP Flood Control Projects (section 

205), the Corps is encouraged to give priority to projects that have 

been impacted by flood events in 2017, which resulted in legal action against the local sponsor. Of the additional funds recommended in this account for CAP Emergency Streambank and 

Shoreline Protection (section 14), the Corps shall allocate not less 

than $600,000 to complete ongoing feasibility studies and initiate 

construction on projects that address erosion problems jeopardizing 

box culvert crossings on public roadways. Additionally, the Corps 

shall comply with the following direction in allocating funds recommended for Construction: 

—For Flood Risk Management and Flood Control projects, the 

Corps is strongly urged to prioritize funding for dam safety 

projects where progression toward failure is confirmed to be 

taking place under normal operations, and the dam is almost 

certain to fail under normal operations within a few years 

without intervention. 

—Additional considerations include whether the project is positioned to permit award of funding for significant items of construction, achieve necessary milestones, or otherwise realize 

notable construction progress in fiscal year 2018; and the 

project sponsor expended funds under an existing project partnership agreement for creditable work, including acquisition of 

rights-of-way. 

—None of these funds shall be used for CAP projects. 

—Funding may be for all categories including periodic beach renourishments and reimbursements. 

—Funding may be made available to projects for which the sponsor is awaiting reimbursement from the Federal Government 

to continue with construction of remaining authorized project 

features. 
23 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $362,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 253,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 375,000,000 

The Committee recommends $375,000,000 for Mississippi River 

and Tributaries, an increase of $122,000,000 over the budget request. Funds recommended in this account are for planning, construction, and operations and maintenance activities associated 

with water 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] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

CONSTRUCTION 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, REVETMENTS, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ................................ 65,501 65,501 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &TN ..................................................... 25,750 25,750 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, DIKES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &TN ............................................. 14,610 14,610 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ......................................................................................................... 1,500 1,500 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ........................................................................ 650 650 

SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................... 108,011 108,011 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, REVETMENTS, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ................................ 41,371 41,371 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, DREDGING, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ..................................... 14,923 14,923 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, DIKES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ............................................ 2,600 2,600 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &TN ..................................................... 9,917 9,917 

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ................................................................................ 915 915 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................................................ 421 421 

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR .......................................................................... 235 235 

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR .......................................................................... 158 158 

ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO ................................................................................................. 5,900 5,900 

TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA ......................................................... 1,987 1,987 

WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR ................................................................................................ 900 900 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ................................................................................. 27 27 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................................................ 20 20 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ......................................................................................................... 13,639 13,639 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ........................................................................ 1,807 1,807 

BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA ........................................................................... 543 543 

BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA ............................................................................... 36 36 

BONNET CARRE, LA ................................................................................................................. 1,960 1,960 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................................................ 725 725 

LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA ....................................................................... 398 398 

MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA .............................................................................................. 381 381 

OLD RIVER, LA ......................................................................................................................... 6,384 6,384 

TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA .......................................................................... 2,608 2,608 

GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS ....................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ............................................................................... 180 180 

VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS ........................................................................................................ 750 750 

YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ..................................................................................... 5,610 5,610

YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS ........................................................................... 135 135 

YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS ................................................................................................ 5,145 5,145 

YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS ............................................................................................ 644 644 

YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS ......................................................................................... 4,794 4,794 

YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS ............................................................................................... 943 943 

YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS ............................................................................................ 5,901 5,901 

YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS ............................................................................................ 773 773
24 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS ............................................................ 307 307 

YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS ........................................................................ 369 369 

YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS .............................................................................................. 584 584 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ............................................................................... 165 165 

WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO ........................................................................................................... 4,206 4,206 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ................................................................................ 33 33 

MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN ............................................................................... 1,666 1,666 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .............................................................. 141,060 141,060 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK DREDGING ......................................................... ........................ 5,000 

FLOOD CONTROL ............................................................................................................ ........................ 67,000 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ..................................................................................... ........................ 50,000 

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA ............................................................................... 2,700 2,700 

MAPPING .................................................................................................................................. 1,139 1,139 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION ............................................................................................ 90 90 

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ................................................................................... 3,929 125,929 

REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .............................................................................. ........................ ........................

TOTAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ........................................................... 253,000 375,000 

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 work 

that will enhance the Nation’s economic development, job growth, 

and international competitiveness, or to studies or projects located 

in areas that have suffered recent natural disasters. While this 

funding is shown under remaining items, the Corps shall use these 

funds 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 in this account for other authorized project 

purposes, the Corps shall allocate not less than $2,000,000 for operation and maintenance of facilities that are educational or to continue land management of mitigation features. Of the additional 

funds recommended in this account, the Corps shall allocate not 

less than $5,000,000 for dredging of ports and harbors. Of the additional funds recommended in this account for flood control and 

other authorized project purposes, the Corps shall allocate not less 

than $300,000 to initiate a feasibility study to evaluate the need 

for improvements for flood control, ecosystem restoration, water 

quality and related purposes associated with storm water runoff 

and management. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $3,149,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 3,100,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,481,475,000 
25 

The Committee recommends $3,481,475,000 for Operation and Maintenance, an increase of $381,475,000 over 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, and 

operation of structures and other facilities, as authorized in the 

various 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] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

ALABAMA 

ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL ..................................................................................................... 15,392 15,392 

BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL ...................................................................... 27,217 27,217 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL ...................................................................................... 6,534 6,534

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL ................................................................................ 210 210 

MOBILE HARBOR, AL ............................................................................................................... 24,450 24,450 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL ......................................................................................... 149 149 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL ............................................................................. 83 83 

TENNESSEE—TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL & MS ................................ 1,751 1,751 

TENNESSEE—TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL & MS ................................................................... 29,499 29,499 

WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & GA ....................................................................... 9,653 9,653 

WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, AL .......................................................................... 80 80 

ALASKA 

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK ....................................................................................................... 10,260 10,260 

CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK ......................................................................................................... 8,038 8,038 

CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK .............................................................................................................. 150 150 

DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK ....................................................................................................... 850 850 

DOUGLAS HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................ 300 300 

HOMER HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................... 600 600 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK ................................................................................ 200 200 

NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK ........................................................................................................... 550 550 

NOME HARBOR, AK .................................................................................................................. 2,365 2,365 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK ......................................................................................... 750 750 

ARIZONA 

ALAMO LAKE, AZ ...................................................................................................................... 2,027 2,027 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ ................................................................................ 85 85 

PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ .......................................................................................................... 1,139 1,139 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ ............................................................................ 102 102 

WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ ...................................................................................................... 784 784 

ARKANSAS 

BEAVER LAKE, AR .................................................................................................................... 8,907 8,907 

BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR ................................................................................. 7,803 7,803 

BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ...................................................................................................... 1,883 1,883 

BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR .......................................................................................................... 11,427 11,427 

DEGRAY LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................... 7,060 7,060 

DEQUEEN LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................. 1,708 1,708 
26 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

DIERKS LAKE, AR ..................................................................................................................... 1,778 1,778 

GILLHAM LAKE, AR .................................................................................................................. 1,527 1,527 

GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR ........................................................................................................ 8,016 8,016 

HELENA HARBOR, AR .............................................................................................................. 15 15 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................................................ 458 458 

MCCLELLAN–KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR ............................................ 47,467 47,467 

MILLWOOD LAKE, AR ............................................................................................................... 7,362 7,362 

NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR ...................................................................................... 5,908 5,908 

NIMROD LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................... 2,068 2,068 

NORFORK LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................. 9,549 9,549 

OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR ............................................................................................................ 515 515 

OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA ............................................................................... 10,548 10,548 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR ......................................................................................... 1 1 

WHITE RIVER, AR ..................................................................................................................... 25 25 

YELLOW BEND PORT, AR ......................................................................................................... 115 115 

CALIFORNIA 

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA .......................................................................................................... 2,905 2,905 

BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA ............................................................................... 2,318 2,318 

CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA ............................................................................................. 6,400 6,400 

COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA ........................................................................ 3,841 3,841 

DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA ........................................................ 6,470 6,470 

FARMINGTON DAM, CA ............................................................................................................ 617 617 

HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA ........................................................................................... 2,518 2,518 

HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA ......................................................................................... 5,500 5,500

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA ................................................................................ 3,962 3,962 

ISABELLA LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................. 3,538 3,538 

LOS ANGELES– LONG BEACH HARBORS, CA .......................................................................... 4,470 4,470 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA .......................................................................... 17,982 17,982 

MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA ............................................................................................. 810 810 

MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA .......................................................................................................... 1,305 1,305 

MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA ....................................................................................................... 2,200 2,200 

NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA ............................................................................................................. 3,262 3,262 

NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA ............................................................... 2,517 2,517 

OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA ........................................................................... 17,993 17,993 

OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA ......................................................................................................... 2,350 2,350 

PINE FLAT LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................ 10,075 10,075 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA ......................................................................................... 1,433 1,433 

RICHMOND HARBOR, CA ......................................................................................................... 10,800 10,800 

SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA ........................................................................ 1,200 1,200 

SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA ........................................... 1,725 1,725 

SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA ............................................................. 175 175 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA ............................................................ 1,565 1,565 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, CA .......................................... 600 600 

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL) ................................................... 3,500 3,500 

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................. 3,700 3,700 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON, CA ....................................................................... 3,225 3,225 

SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA .................................................................... 5,075 5,075 

SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA .................................................................................................. 5,579 5,579 

SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................ 3,080 3,080 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA ............................................................................ 1,391 1,391 

SUCCESS LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................. 3,454 3,454 

SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA ...................................................................................................... 7,800 7,800 

TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA (DAM SAFETY) ................................................................ 5,950 5,950 

VENTURA HARBOR, CA ............................................................................................................ 5,163 5,163 

YUBA RIVER, CA ...................................................................................................................... 1,519 1,519 

COLORADO 

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO ........................................................................................................... 476 476 

CHATFIELD LAKE, CO ............................................................................................................... 2,105 2,105 

CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO ....................................................................................................... 1,155 1,155 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO ............................................................................... 352 352 
27 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO ................................................................................................ 9,216 9,216 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO ............................................................................ 646 646 

TRINIDAD LAKE, CO ................................................................................................................. 5,155 5,155 

CONNECTICUT 

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT ............................................................................................................ 815 815 

COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT .................................................................................................. 1,237 1,237 

GREENWICH HARBOR, CT ........................................................................................................ 300 300 

HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT ..................................................................................................... 731 731 

HOP BROOK LAKE, CT ............................................................................................................. 1,562 1,562 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, CT ............................................... 10 10 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT ................................................................................ 461 461 

MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT ................................................................................................ 1,461 1,461 

NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT ................................................................................................ 730 730 

PATCHOGUE RIVER, CT ............................................................................................................ 400 400 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT ......................................................................................... 850 850 

STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT ..................................................................................... 784 784 

THOMASTON DAM, CT .............................................................................................................. 1,892 1,892 

WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT ..................................................................................................... 1,033 1,033 

DELAWARE 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DE ................................................................................ 65 65 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, DE & MD ................... 15,585 15,585 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE ......................................................................................... 200 200 

WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE ...................................................................................................... 8,085 8,085 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC ............................................................................... 76 76 

POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL) .................................................... 875 875 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC ........................................................................................ 25 25 

WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC ..................................................................................................... 25 25

FLORIDA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY (AIWW), FL ................................................................... 2,224 2,224 

CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER TO ANCLOTE, FL ............................................................................. 52 52 

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ......................................................................................................... 1,470 1,470 

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL .................................................................................. 24,858 24,858

ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL & AL .......................................................................... 55 55 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL ................................................................................ 958 958 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, CALOOSAHATCHEE R TO ANCLOTE R, FL ................................... 50 50 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL ...................................................... 3,560 3,560 

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ..................................................................................................... 7,690 7,690 

JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA ............................................ 6,874 6,874 

MANATEE HARBOR, FL ............................................................................................................. 900 900 

MIAMI HARBOR, FL .................................................................................................................. 100 100 

OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL .................................................................................................. 2,692 2,692 

PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL ...................................................................................................... 4,000 4,000 

PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL ...................................................................................................... 1,890 1,890 

PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL ......................................................................................................... 34 34 

PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL ............................................................................................. 420 420 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL ......................................................................................... 1,375 1,375 

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL ....................................................................................... 3,259 3,259

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL ............................................................................. 99 99 

TAMPA HARBOR, FL ................................................................................................................. 8,290 8,290 

WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, FL .......................................................................... 170 170 

GEORGIA 

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA .............................................................................................................. 10,463 10,463 

APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL & FL ...................................... 1,845 1,845 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA ............................................................................... 181 181 

BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA ....................................................................................................... 4,528 4,528 

BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA ......................................................................... 11,164 11,164 
28 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA ................................................................................................. 8,587 8,587 

HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC ...................................................................................................... 12,752 12,752 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, GA ............................................... 15 15 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA ................................................................................ 277 277 

J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC ..................................................................................... 12,001 12,001 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA ......................................................................................... 100 100 

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC .................................................................... 9,003 9,003 

SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA .......................................................................................................... 33,436 33,436 

SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA ................................................................................. 137 137 

WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA & AL ................................................................................... 12,147 12,147 

HAWAII 

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI .................................................................................................. 269 269 

HILO HARBOR, HI .................................................................................................................... 551 551 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI ................................................................................. 698 698 

NAWILIWILI HARBOR, HI .......................................................................................................... 4,815 4,815 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI .......................................................................................... 752 752 

IDAHO 

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID ............................................................................................................ 1,459 1,459 

DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID .................................................................................... 4,795 4,795 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID ................................................................................. 337 337 

LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID ............................................................................................................. 3,698 3,698 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID ............................................................................. 627 627 

ILLINOIS 

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN ................................................................................. 3,808 3,808 

CARLYLE LAKE, IL .................................................................................................................... 6,748 6,748 

CHICAGO HARBOR, IL .............................................................................................................. 3,020 3,020 

CHICAGO RIVER, IL .................................................................................................................. 593 593 

CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL ............................................. 16,700 16,700 

FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL ................................................................................................. 529 529 

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL & IN ........................................................................ 48,384 48,384 

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL & IN ........................................................................ 1,958 1,958 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, IL ................................................. 55 55 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ................................................................................. 1,654 1,654 

KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL ........................................................................................... 4,889 4,889 

LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL ............................................................................................... 1,100 1,100 

LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL ............................................................................................................. 8,835 8,835 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION), IL ....... 93,953 93,953 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION), IL ........ 43,900 43,900 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL .......................................................................................... 104 104 

REND LAKE, IL ......................................................................................................................... 7,593 7,593 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL .......................................................... 738 738 

WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL ........................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 

INDIANA 

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN .............................................................................................................. 1,216 1,216 

BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN ............................................................................................. 3,649 3,649 

CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN ............................................................................................................ 1,089 1,089 

CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN ..................................................................................................... 1,047 1,047 

INDIANA HARBOR, IN ............................................................................................................... 11,564 11,564 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN ................................................................................. 1,187 1,187 

J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN .................................................................................................... 1,084 1,084 

MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN .......................................................................................................... 1,110 1,110 

MONROE LAKE, IN ................................................................................................................... 1,144 1,144 

PATOKA LAKE, IN ..................................................................................................................... 1,153 1,153 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN .......................................................................................... 185 185 

SALAMONIE LAKE, IN ............................................................................................................... 1,091 1,091 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN ......................................................... 149 149 
29 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

IOWA 

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA .............................................................................................................. 9,915 9,915 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, IA ................................................ 6 6 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA ................................................................................. 868 868 

MISSOURI RIVER—SIOUX CITY TO THE MOUTH, IA, KS, MO & NE ........................................ 8,964 8,964 

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, ND & SD ................. 2,547 2,547 

RATHBUN LAKE, IA .................................................................................................................. 2,788 2,788 

RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA .............................................................................. 7,095 7,095 

SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA ............................................................................................................. 19,223 19,223 

KANSAS 

CLINTON LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................... 3,662 3,662 

COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS ...................................................................................................... 1,743 1,743 

EL DORADO LAKE, KS .............................................................................................................. 981 981 

ELK CITY LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................. 1,547 1,547 

FALL RIVER LAKE, KS .............................................................................................................. 1,619 1,619 

HILLSDALE LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................ 1,076 1,076 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, KS ............................................... 11 11 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS ................................................................................ 1,218 1,218 

JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS ............................................................................ 1,890 1,890 

KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS ............................................................................................................... 3,185 3,185 

MARION LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................... 2,251 2,251 

MELVERN LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................. 2,714 2,714 

MILFORD LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................. 2,367 2,367 

PEARSON—SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS ................................................................................ 3,799 3,799 

PERRY LAKE, KS ...................................................................................................................... 3,227 3,227 

POMONA LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................... 2,871 2,871 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS ............................................................................ 369 369 

TORONTO LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................. 926 926 

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS ......................................................................................................... 3,975 3,975 

WILSON LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................... 1,766 1,766 

KENTUCKY 

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & TN ........................................................................ 12,247 12,247 

BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY ........................................................................................................ 3,233 3,233 

BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY ......................................................................................................... 1,865 1,865 

BUCKHORN LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................... 1,820 1,820 

CARR CREEK LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................ 1,850 1,850 

CAVE RUN LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................ 962 962 

DEWEY LAKE, KY ..................................................................................................................... 1,920 1,920 

ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY .................................................................................... 915 915 

FALLS OF THE OHIO NATIONAL WILDLIFE, KY & IN ................................................................. 43 43 

FISHTRAP LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................. 2,190 2,190 

GRAYSON LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................. 1,972 1,972 

GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY ........................................................................................... 3,420 3,420 

GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY ........................................................................................................... 2,917 2,917 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................................................ 1,271 1,271 

KENTUCKY RIVER, KY .............................................................................................................. 10 10 

LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY ......................................................................................................... 2,698 2,698 

MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY ......................................................................................................... 1,496 1,496 

MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY ..................................................................... 264 264 

NOLIN LAKE, KY ....................................................................................................................... 2,880 2,880 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN & OH ................................................................... 47,331 47,331 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN, OH, PA & WV ............................................... 5,800 5,800 

PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................. 1,382 1,382 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY ......................................................................................... 1 1 

ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY .......................................................................................................... 4,300 4,300 

TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY .......................................................................................................... 1,099 1,099 

WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY ........................................................................... 11,613 11,613 

YATESVILLE LAKE, KY .............................................................................................................. 1,574 1,574 
30 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

LOUISIANA 

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF & BLACK, LA .......................................... 6,645 6,645 

BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA ............................................................................................. 100 100 

BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA ............................................................................................. 1,512 1,512 

BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA .................................................. 769 769 

BAYOU PIERRE, LA .................................................................................................................. 42 42 

BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA ........................................................................................... 20 20 

BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA ............................................................................. 12 12 

BAYOU TECHE, LA ................................................................................................................... 50 50 

CADDO LAKE, LA ...................................................................................................................... 198 198 

CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA ............................................................................................ 20,759 20,759 

FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA ......................................................................................................... 1,424 1,424 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA ...................................................................................... 26,871 26,871 

HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA .............................................................................................. 979 979

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................................................ 866 866 

J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA .................................................................................... 12,288 12,288 

LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA ............................................................................................. 12 12 

MADISON PARISH PORT, LA ..................................................................................................... 150 150 

MERMENTAU RIVER, LA ........................................................................................................... 1,246 1,246 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA .......................................................................... 1,449 1,449 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LA ......................................... 83,846 83,846 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA ......................................................................................... 54 54 

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA ....................................................................................... 200 200 

WALLACE LAKE, LA .................................................................................................................. 213 213 

WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA .......................................................................... 8 8 

WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO BAYOU DULAC, LA .................................... 22 22 

MAINE 

DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME .......................................................................................... 1,050 1,050 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, ME ............................................... 5 5 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME ............................................................................... 95 95 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME ........................................................................................ 1,000 1,000 

SACO RIVER, ME ..................................................................................................................... 4,200 4,200 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME ........................................................ 30 30 

WELLS HARBOR, ME ................................................................................................................ 400 400 

YORK HARBOR, ME .................................................................................................................. 2,500 2,500 

MARYLAND 

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD ............................................................ 25,557 25,557 

BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL) .......................................................................... 325 325 

CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV .................................................................................. 171 171 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD ............................................................................... 196 196 

JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV ................................................................................... 3,700 3,700 

KNAPPS NARROWS, MD ........................................................................................................... 2,300 2,300 

OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD ............................................... 250 250 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD ........................................................................................ 450 450 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD ........................................................................... 78 78 

WICOMICO RIVER, MD ............................................................................................................. 2,000 2,000 

MASSACHUSETTS 

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA ........................................................................................................... 579 579 

BIRCH HILL DAM, MA .............................................................................................................. 841 841 

BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA .......................................................................................................... 933 933 

CAPE COD CANAL, MA ............................................................................................................. 13,753 13,753 

CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA ......................................................... 353 353 

CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA ...................................................................................................... 495 495 

EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA ..................................................................................................... 986 986 

HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA ..................................................................................................... 845 845 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, MA ............................................... 20 20 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA ............................................................................... 307 307 

KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA ............................................................................................................ 1,054 1,054 
31 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA ............................................................................................................. 991 991 

NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER, MA ................................ 1,302 1,302 

NEWBURYPORT HARBOR, MA .................................................................................................. 200 200

PLYMOUTH HARBOR, MA ......................................................................................................... 500 500 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA ........................................................................................ 1,000 1,000 

TULLY LAKE, MA ...................................................................................................................... 1,145 1,145 

WEST HILL DAM, MA ................................................................................................................ 781 781 

WESTVILLE LAKE, MA ............................................................................................................... 1,070 1,070 

MICHIGAN 

CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI ........................................................................................... 185 185

DETROIT RIVER, MI .................................................................................................................. 5,344 5,344 

GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI .................................................................................................... 1,112 1,112 

HOLLAND HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................. 1,600 1,600 

INLAND ROUTE, MI .................................................................................................................. 50 50 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI ................................................................................ 222 222 

KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI ..................................................................................................... 12 12

MANISTEE HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................... 663 663 

MONROE HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................. 650 650 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI ......................................................................................... 746 746 

SAGINAW RIVER, MI ................................................................................................................. 4,044 4,044 

SEBEWAING RIVER, MI ............................................................................................................ 54 54 

ST CLAIR RIVER, MI ................................................................................................................ 699 699 

ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI .......................................................................................................... 765 765 

ST MARYS RIVER, MI ............................................................................................................... 38,440 38,440 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI ......................................................... 2,912 2,912 

MINNESOTA 

BIGSTONE LAKE—WHETSTONE RIVER, MN & SD ................................................................... 290 290 

DULUTH—SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI ............................................................................... 7,594 7,594 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN ............................................................................... 401 401 

LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ..................................................................... 1,115 1,115 

MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ........................................................................................................... 263 263 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION), MN ..... 84,535 84,535 

ORWELL LAKE, MN ................................................................................................................... 592 592 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN ........................................................................................ 96 96 

RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN ..................................................................................................... 181 181 

RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN .................................................... 4,924 4,924 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN ....................................................... 509 509 

MISSISSIPPI 

CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS ............................................................................................... 1 1 

EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS ....................................................................................... 285 285 

GULFPORT HARBOR, MS .......................................................................................................... 6,350 6,350 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ............................................................................... 86 86 

MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS ................................................................................................. 30 30 

OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS .............................................................................................................. 2,095 2,095 

PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS ..................................................................................................... 5,116 5,116 

PEARL RIVER, MS & LA ........................................................................................................... 150 150 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS ........................................................................................ 151 151 

ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS .......................................................................................................... 8 8 

WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, MS ......................................................................... 40 40 

YAZOO RIVER, MS ................................................................................................................... 19 19 

MISSOURI 

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO .............................................................................................. 815 815 

CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO ......................................................... 6,994 6,994 

CLEARWATER LAKE, MO .......................................................................................................... 4,348 4,348 

HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO ....................................................................... 19,617 19,617 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, MO .............................................. 2 2 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ............................................................................... 1,305 1,305 

LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO ............................................................................................... 1,114 1,114 
32 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO ........................................................................................................ 1,443 1,443 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO & IL .... 29,948 29,948 

NEW MADRID COUNTY HARBOR, MO ...................................................................................... 10 10 

NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO (MILE 889) .................................................................................. 15 15 

POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO .................................................................................................. 3,406 3,406 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO ........................................................................................ 1 1 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO ........................................................................... 169 169 

SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO ............................................................................................................. 1,799 1,799 

SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MO ........................................................... 9 9 

STOCKTON LAKE, MO ............................................................................................................... 5,754 5,754 

TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO & AR .................................................................................................. 10,354 10,354 

MONTANA 

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT .................................................................................................. 6,035 6,035 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT ............................................................................... 232 232 

LIBBY DAM, MT ....................................................................................................................... 2,726 2,726 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT ............................................................................ 121 121 

NEBRASKA 

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE & SD ........................................................ 11,311 11,311 

HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE ..................................................................................................... 2,483 2,483 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, NE ............................................... 3 3 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE ................................................................................ 932 932 

MISSOURI RIVER—KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA ................................................. 96 96 

PAPILLION CREEK, NE ............................................................................................................. 1,000 1,000 

SALT CREEKS AND TRIBUTARIES, NE ...................................................................................... 1,546 1,546 

NEVADA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV ................................................................................ 68 68 

MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV & CA ............................................................................................... 1,342 1,342 

PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV ............................................................................. 387 387 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

BLACKWATER DAM, NH ............................................................................................................ 935 935 

EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH ............................................................................................. 846 846 

FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH ...................................................................................................... 1,664 1,664 

HOPKINTON—EVERETT LAKES, NH ......................................................................................... 2,149 2,149

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH ............................................................................... 60 60 

OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH ......................................................................................................... 1,689 1,689 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH ........................................................................................ 300 300 

SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH ................................................................................................... 1,191 1,191 

NEW JERSEY 

ABSECON INLET, NJ ................................................................................................................. 175 175 

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ............................................................................................................... 450 450 

CAPE MAY INLET, NJ ............................................................................................................... 200 200 

COLD SPRING INLET, NJ .......................................................................................................... 380 380 

DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ .......................................................................................... 15 15 

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE ................................................ 27,370 27,370 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, NJ ................................................ 15 15 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ ................................................................................ 427 427 

MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ ........................................................................................................... 435 435 

NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ .......................................................................... 980 980 

NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ .......................................................... 25,300 25,300 

PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ ...................................................................... 605 605 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ ......................................................................................... 2,017 2,017 

RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT–OFF, NJ ...................................................................... 100 100 

RARITAN RIVER, NJ .................................................................................................................. 220 220 

SANDY HOOK BAY AT LEONARD, NJ ........................................................................................ 10 10 

SHARK RIVER, NJ ..................................................................................................................... 990 990 

SHOAL HARBOR AND COMPTON CREEK, NJ ............................................................................ 10 10 

SHREWSBURY RIVER, MAIN CHANNEL, NJ .............................................................................. 10 10 
33 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

NEW MEXICO 

ABIQUIU DAM, NM ................................................................................................................... 3,437 3,437 

COCHITI LAKE, NM ................................................................................................................... 3,178 3,178 

CONCHAS LAKE, NM ................................................................................................................ 5,769 5,769 

GALISTEO DAM, NM ................................................................................................................. 900 900 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM ............................................................................... 652 652 

JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM ....................................................................................................... 753 753 

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM, NM ..................... 2,500 2,500 

SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM ........................................................................................... 1,583 1,583 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM ........................................................................... 383 383 

TWO RIVERS DAM, NM ............................................................................................................ 592 592 

UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY, NM ............................................... 1,300 1,300 

NEW YORK 

ALMOND LAKE, NY ................................................................................................................... 488 488 

ARKPORT DAM, NY .................................................................................................................. 345 345 

BAY RIDGE AND RED HOOK CHANNELS, NY ........................................................................... 50 50 

BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY ......................................................... 1,834 1,834 

BRONX RIVER, NY ................................................................................................................... 100 100 

BROWNS CREEK, NY ................................................................................................................ 30 30 

BUFFALO HARBOR, NY ............................................................................................................. 2,500 2,500 

BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY ..................................................................................................... 50 50 

EAST RIVER, NY ....................................................................................................................... 100 100 

EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY .................................................................................................... 100 100 

EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY ........................................................................................................... 797 797 

EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY ....................................................................................................... 10 10 

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY ................................................................................ 50 50 

GLEN COVE CREEK, NY ........................................................................................................... 20 20 

GREAT KILLS HARBOR, NY ...................................................................................................... 50 50 

GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY ........................................................................................................... 50 50 

HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY ................................................................................................. 250 250 

HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT) ................................................................................................... 6,900 6,900 

HUDSON RIVER, NY (O & C) ................................................................................................... 2,450 2,450 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY ................................................................................ 1,351 1,351 

JAMAICA BAY, NY .................................................................................................................... 250 250 

JONES INLET, NY ..................................................................................................................... 420 420 

LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY .................................................................................................. 250 250 

LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY ........................................................................ 270 270 

MATTITUCK HARBOR, NY ......................................................................................................... 20 20 

MORICHES INLET, NY .............................................................................................................. 150 150 

MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY ....................................................................................................... 3,892 3,892 

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY & NJ ............................................................... 400 400 

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY & NJ ................................................................... 760 760 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY .......................................................................................................... 7,743 7,743 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL) ................................................................... 9,850 9,850 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) .................................... 1,300 1,300 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY ......................................................................................... 2,323 2,323 

SHINNECOCK INLET, NY ........................................................................................................... 150 150 

SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY ........................................................ 726 726 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY ........................................................ 610 610 

WESTCHESTER CREEK, NY ...................................................................................................... 10 10 

WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY ....................................................................................................... 960 960 

NORTH CAROLINA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC .............................................................................. 2,812 2,812 

B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC ................................................................................ 2,385 2,385 

CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC ........................................................................... 462 462 

FALLS LAKE, NC ....................................................................................................................... 2,494 2,494 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC ............................................................................... 205 205 

MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC ........................................................................................... 4,790 4,790 

MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC .......................................................... 50 50 
34 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC ................................................................................................ 5,570 5,570 

NEW RIVER INLET, NC ............................................................................................................. 250 250 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC ........................................................................................ 700 700 

ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC ....................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000 

SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC ...................................................................................................... 500 500 

W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC ............................................................................. 3,363 3,363 

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ...................................................................................................... 14,739 14,739 

NORTH DAKOTA 

BOWMAN HALEY, ND ............................................................................................................... 249 249 

GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND .................................................................................. 19,938 19,938

HOMME LAKE, ND .................................................................................................................... 338 338 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND ............................................................................... 374 374 

LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND ............................................................................ 1,747 1,747 

PIPESTEM LAKE, ND ................................................................................................................ 716 716 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND ............................................................................ 121 121 

SOURIS RIVER, ND .................................................................................................................. 1,584 1,584 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND ........................................................ 82 82 

OHIO 

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................... 1,592 1,592 

BERLIN LAKE, OH .................................................................................................................... 3,093 3,093 

CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH ....................................................................................................... 2,315 2,315 

CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH ................................................................................................ 1,324 1,324 

CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ........................................................................................................ 6,200 6,200 

CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH ......................................................................................................... 2,800 2,800 

DEER CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................... 2,231 2,231 

DELAWARE LAKE, OH ............................................................................................................... 1,535 1,535 

DILLON LAKE, OH ..................................................................................................................... 1,489 1,489 

FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH ........................................................................................................... 1,150 1,150 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH ............................................................................... 874 874 

MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ....................................................................... 89 89 

MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH ...................................................................... 2,243 2,243 

MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH ................................................................................................... 1,216 1,216 

MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH ............................................................................................... 11,836 11,836 

NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH .......................................................................... 705 705 

OHIO–MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH ................................................................................ 1,818 1,818 

PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................... 1,459 1,459 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH ........................................................................................ 305 305 

ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ........................................................................ 35 35 

SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH .......................................................................................................... 1,650 1,650 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH ........................................................ 255 255 

TOLEDO HARBOR, OH .............................................................................................................. 6,102 6,102 

TOM JENKINS DAM, OH ............................................................................................................ 798 798 

WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH ................................................................................... 770 770 

WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH ................................................................................................. 1,281 1,281 

OKLAHOMA 

ARCADIA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................. 724 724 

BIRCH LAKE, OK ...................................................................................................................... 3,450 3,450 

BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK .......................................................................................................... 7,427 7,427 

CANTON LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................... 2,148 2,148 

COPAN LAKE, OK ..................................................................................................................... 2,556 2,556 

EUFAULA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................. 18,621 18,621 

FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................... 5,974 5,974 

FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................... 1,306 1,306 

GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK ................................................................................................ 360 360 

HEYBURN LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................. 747 747 

HUGO LAKE, OK ....................................................................................................................... 1,622 1,622 

HULAH LAKE, OK ...................................................................................................................... 907 907 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK ................................................................................ 239 239 

KAW LAKE, OK ......................................................................................................................... 2,398 2,398 
35 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

KEYSTONE LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................ 5,073 5,073 

MCCLELLAN–KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK ............................................ 29,364 29,364 

OOLOGAH LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................. 2,811 2,811 

OPTIMA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................... 61 61 

PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK ....................................................... 165 165 

PINE CREEK LAKE, OK ............................................................................................................. 1,439 1,439 

SARDIS LAKE, OK ..................................................................................................................... 2,245 2,245 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK ............................................................................ 1,200 1,200 

SKIATOOK LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................. 1,999 1,999 

TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK .................................................................................................... 4,881 4,881 

WAURIKA LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................. 1,630 1,630 

WISTER LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................... 781 781 

OREGON 

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR .............................................................................................................. 1,058 1,058 

BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................. 1,152 1,152 

BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA ................................................................................. 10,041 10,041 

CHETCO RIVER, OR ................................................................................................................. 809 809 

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA .......................................................................... 24,131 24,131 

COOS BAY, OR ......................................................................................................................... 7,655 7,655 

COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR ..................................................................................................... 2,247 2,247 

COUGAR LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................... 2,160 2,160 

DETROIT LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................... 5,510 5,510 

DORENA LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................... 2,337 2,337 

ELK CREEK LAKE, OR .............................................................................................................. 359 359 

FALL CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................. 1,527 1,527 

FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................ 2,231 2,231 

GREEN PETER—FOSTER LAKES, OR ....................................................................................... 2,115 2,115 

HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR ........................................................................................................... 1,177 1,177 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OR ............................................... 60 60 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR ............................................................................... 1,082 1,082 

JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA ..................................................................................... 5,262 5,262 

LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR ...................................................................................................... 1,842 1,842 

LOST CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................ 3,695 3,695 

MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA ....................................................................................... 13,042 13,042 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR ........................................................................................ 400 400 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR ............................................................................ 98 98 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR ........................................................ 525 525 

UMPQUA RIVER, OR ................................................................................................................. 921 921 

WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR ..................................................................... 64 64 

WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR ........................................................................... 200 200 

WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR ....................................................................................................... 1,299 1,299 

YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR ............................................................................................. 3,096 3,096 

PENNSYLVANIA 

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA ............................................................................................................ 12,043 12,043 

ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA .......................................................................................................... 970 970 

AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA ............................................................................................... 624 624

BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA .............................................................................................................. 1,305 1,305 

BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA ........................................................................................................... 3,090 3,090 

CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA ................................................................................................. 1,345 1,345 

COWANESQUE LAKE, PA .......................................................................................................... 2,956 2,956 

CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA ..................................................................................................... 1,777 1,777 

CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA ........................................................................................................ 900 900 

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ ......................................................... 4,980 4,980 

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA ............................................................................... 1,399 1,399 

FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA .......................................................................................... 2,537 2,537 

FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA .................................................................................................. 875 875 

GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA .............................................................. 395 395 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, PA ............................................... 10 10 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA ................................................................................ 1,117 1,117 

JOHNSTOWN, PA ....................................................................................................................... 46 46 
36 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA ...................................................................... 1,770 1,770 

LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................ 4,649 4,649 

MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA ................................................................................................... 1,291 1,291 

MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ....................................................................................................... 16,759 16,759 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH & WV ....................................................................... 39,511 39,511 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH & WV ................................................................ 800 800 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA ......................................................................................... 170 170 

PROMPTON LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................... 985 985 

PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA ................................................................................................................ 15 15 

RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................... 22,030 22,030 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA ............................................................................ 37 37 

SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA .................................................................................................... 2,464 2,464 

STILLWATER LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................. 843 843 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA ........................................................ 105 105 

TIOGA—HAMMOND LAKES, PA ................................................................................................ 3,084 3,084 

TIONESTA LAKE, PA ................................................................................................................. 2,398 2,398 

UNION CITY LAKE, PA .............................................................................................................. 471 471 

WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA .................................................................................................. 1,015 1,015 

YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA .................................................................................................. 16,952 16,952 

YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD .................................................................................. 2,708 2,708 

PUERTO RICO 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PR ................................................................................ 228 228 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PR ......................................................................................... 150 150 

SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR ........................................................................................................... 100 100 

RHODE ISLAND 

FOX POINT BARRIER, NARRANGANSETT BAY, RI ..................................................................... 2,816 2,816 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, RI ................................................ 25 25 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI ................................................................................. 45 45 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI .......................................................................................... 300 300 

WOONSOCKET, RI ..................................................................................................................... 402 402 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC ............................................................................... 199 199 

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ...................................................................................................... 16,109 16,109 

COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ........................................................................... 5,007 5,007 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC ................................................................................ 65 65 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC ......................................................................................... 875 875 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD ......................................................................................... 10,467 10,467 

COLD BROOK LAKE, SD ........................................................................................................... 370 370 

COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD ........................................................................................... 226 226 

FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD ...................................................................... 12,576 12,576 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD ................................................................................ 279 279 

LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN ..................................................................................................... 693 693 

OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD & ND .......................................................................................... 13,829 13,829 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD ............................................................................ 102 102 

TENNESSEE 

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN ............................................................................................................ 10,347 10,347 

CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN .............................................................................................. 8,243 8,243 

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ......................................................................... 6,067 6,067 

CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ............................................................................. 7,702 7,702 

DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN .......................................................................................................... 9,071 9,071 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ................................................................................ 334 334 

J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ............................................................................ 5,592 5,592 

NORTHWEST TENNESSEE REGIONAL HARBOR, LAKE COUNTY, TN .......................................... 10 10 

OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN ......................................................................................... 10,326 10,326 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN ......................................................................................... 1 1 

TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ............................................................................................................ 22,578 22,578 
37 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN ....................................................................................................... 1,385 1,385 

TEXAS 

AQUILLA LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................... 1,080 1,080 

ARKANSAS—RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL—AREA VIII, TX ................................. 1,794 1,794 

BARDWELL LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................ 3,236 3,236 

BELTON LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................... 4,655 4,655 

BENBROOK LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................... 3,368 3,368 

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX .................................................................................................. 2,700 2,700 

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX ................................................................................. 2,818 2,818 

CANYON LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................... 3,449 3,449 

CHANNEL TO HARLINGEN, TX .................................................................................................. 2,400 2,400 

CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX ............................................................................................. 50 50 

CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ...................................................................................... 10,800 10,800 

DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX ........................................................................................... 8,581 8,581 

ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX ................................................................. 35 35 

FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O’ THE PINES, TX ................................................................... 4,041 4,041 

FREEPORT HARBOR, TX ........................................................................................................... 5,600 5,600 

GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX ................................................................................ 5,000 5,000 

GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX .......................................................................................... 3,500 3,500 

GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX ................................................................................................. 2,311 2,311 

GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................... 4,294 4,294 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX ...................................................................................... 34,094 34,094 

HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX .......................................................................................................... 2,036 2,036 

HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX .................................................................................................. 31,300 31,300 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX ................................................................................ 1,587 1,587 

JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX ........................................................................................................... 1,975 1,975 

JOE POOL LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................. 2,248 2,248 

LAKE KEMP, TX ........................................................................................................................ 291 291 

LAVON LAKE, TX ...................................................................................................................... 3,766 3,766 

LEWISVILLE DAM, TX ............................................................................................................... 4,614 4,614 

MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................. 5,900 5,900 

NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX ....................................................................................................... 2,546 2,546 

NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX ....................................................... 2,558 2,558 

O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX ............................................................................................. 1,091 1,091 

PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................... 1,234 1,234 

PROCTOR LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................. 2,392 2,392 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX ......................................................................................... 323 323 

RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX .......................................................................................................... 2,091 2,091 

SABINE—NECHES WATERWAY, TX .......................................................................................... 7,725 7,725

SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX .............................................................................. 7,415 7,415 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX ............................................................................. 332 332 

SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................. 4,159 4,159 

STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX ................................................................................................ 5,068 5,068 

TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................... 50 50

TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX ...................................................................... 4,754 4,754 

WACO LAKE, TX ....................................................................................................................... 6,956 6,956 

WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................. 2,806 2,806 

WHITNEY LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................... 5,722 5,722 

WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX ..................................................................................... 3,958 3,958 

UTAH 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT ................................................................................ 24 24 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT ............................................................................ 554 554 

VERMONT 

BALL MOUNTAIN, VT ................................................................................................................ 1,019 1,019 

GORDONS LANDING, VT ........................................................................................................... 250 250 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT ................................................................................ 172 172 

NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT & NY .............................................................................. 50 50 

NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT .................................................................................................... 1,311 1,311 

NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT ................................................................................................ 936 936 
38 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT ............................................................................................................. 1,900 1,900 

UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT ......................................................................................................... 1,495 1,495 

VIRGIN ISLANDS 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VI ................................................................................. 24 24 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VI .......................................................................................... 100 100 

VIRGINIA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—ACC, VA .................................................................... 3,627 3,627 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—DSC, VA .................................................................... 1,852 1,852 

CHINCOTEAGUE HARBOR OF REFUGE, VA ............................................................................... 65 65 

CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA ....................................................................................................... 566 566 

GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA .............................................................................. 2,347 2,347 

HAMPTON ROADS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS HARBOR, VA (DRIFT REMOVAL) ................. 1,470 1,470 

HAMPTON ROADS, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) ......................................... 170 170 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA ................................................................................ 364 364 

JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA .................................................................................................... 2,729 2,729 

JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC ................................................................................................ 16,229 16,229 

JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA ..................................................................... 3,443 3,443 

LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA ............................................................................................................. 600 600 

NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ............................................................................................................ 9,420 9,420 

NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA ............................................................................... 590 590 

PHILPOTT LAKE, VA .................................................................................................................. 4,871 4,871 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA ......................................................................................... 1,195 1,195 

RUDEE INLET, VA ..................................................................................................................... 520 520 

WASHINGTON 

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA .......................................................................................................... 636 636 

COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS BELOW VANCOUVER, WA & PORTLAND, OR ... 46,767 46,767 

COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA & OR .......................................................................... 1,809 1,809 

COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, OR .................................... 1,246 1,246 

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID ................................................................. 1,907 1,907 

EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA ..................................................................... 2,281 2,281 

GRAYS HARBOR, WA ................................................................................................................ 11,710 11,710 

HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA .................................................................................................... 3,819 3,819 

ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA .......................................................................................... 5,510 5,510 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WA ............................................... 70 70 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA ............................................................................... 1,057 1,057 

LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ...................................................................................... 9,870 9,870

LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA ........................................................................................ 2,836 2,836 

LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA .................................................................................... 4,532 4,532 

LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................................................ 3,636 3,636 

MILL CREEK LAKE, WA ............................................................................................................ 4,492 4,492 

MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ................................................................... 268 268 

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA ....................................................................................................... 4,962 4,962 

PORT TOWNSEND, WA .............................................................................................................. 3 3 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA ........................................................................................ 779 779 

PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA ......................................................................... 1,913 1,913 

QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA ........................................................................................................... 283 283 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA ............................................................................ 425 425 

SEATTLE HARBOR, WA ............................................................................................................. 389 389 

STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA ..................................................................................................... 303 303 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA ........................................................ 64 64 

SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA ...................................................................................................... 1,528 1,528 

TACOMA HARBOR, WA ............................................................................................................. 5 5 

TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA .............................................................................................. 226 226

THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA & OR ................................................................................. 3,776 3,776 

WEST VIRGINIA 

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV ........................................................................................................... 1,846 1,846 

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................. 2,283 2,283 

BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................ 2,495 2,495 
39 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

EAST LYNN LAKE, WV .............................................................................................................. 2,347 2,347 

ELKINS, WV .............................................................................................................................. 15 15 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV ............................................................................... 463 463 

KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV ................................................................................ 13,249 13,249 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY & OH ....................................................................... 26,835 26,835 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY & OH ................................................................ 2,724 2,724 

R D BAILEY LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................. 2,636 2,636 

STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV ............................................................................................. 1,265 1,265 

SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV ....................................................................................................... 2,453 2,453 

SUTTON LAKE, WV ................................................................................................................... 2,440 2,440 

TYGART LAKE, WV .................................................................................................................... 3,283 3,283 

WISCONSIN 

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI .................................................................................................... 2,199 2,199 

FOX RIVER, WI ......................................................................................................................... 5,758 5,758 

GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ......................................................................................................... 3,911 3,911 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI ................................................................................ 55 55 

KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI .......................................................................................................... 12 12 

MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI ......................................................................................................... 1,280 1,280 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI ......................................................................................... 321 321 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI ......................................................... 596 596 

WYOMING 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WY ............................................... 10 10 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY ............................................................................... 80 80 

JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY .................................................................................................... 1,814 1,814 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY ............................................................................ 80 80 

SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER STATES .......................................................... 2,936,254 2,936,254 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................ ........................ 23,000 

DEEP–DRAFT HARBOR AND CHANNEL .................................................................. ........................ 287,000 

DONOR AND ENERGY TRANSFER PORTS ............................................................... ........................ 50,000 

INLAND WATERWAYS ............................................................................................. ........................ 13,500 

SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE NAVIGATION .................................................. ........................ 51,000 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ..................................................................................... ........................ 2,500 

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH .............................................................................. 675 675 

ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND EQUIP MAINT (FEM) .................................................... 3,650 3,650 

BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M BUSINESS PROGRAMS: 

STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM ............................................................................... 900 900 

PERFORMANCE–BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM ............................................. 4,200 4,200 

RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM .......................................................... 1,550 1,550 

OPTIMIZATION TOOLS FOR NAVIGATION ......................................................................... 322 322 

CIVIL WORKS WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CWWMS) ......................................................... 10,000 10,000 

COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM .................................................................................... 2,700 2,975 

COASTAL OCEAN DATA SYSTEM (CODS) ................................................................................. 2,500 6,000 

CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION) ......................................................................... 1,000 1,000 

DREDGE MCFARLAND READY RESERVE .................................................................................. 11,690 11,690 

DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE ...................................................................................... 15,000 15,000

DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM ....................................... 1,120 1,120 

DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER) ....................................... 6,450 6,450 

DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM (DOTS) .......................................... 2,820 2,820 

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM ...................................................................... 300 300 

FACILITY PROTECTION ............................................................................................................. 4,500 4,500 

FISH & WILDLIFE OPERATING FISH HATCHERY REIMBURSEMENT .......................................... 5,400 5,400 

HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION ..................................................................... 795 795 

INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS ............................................................................... 4,500 4,500 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS ...................................... 20,000 20,000 

MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS ............................................................ 3,300 8,000 

NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM ................................................................................ 6,300 6,300 
40 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM (PORTFOLIO RISK ASSESSMENT) ...................................... 10,000 10,000 

NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (NEPP) ................................................... 5,500 5,500 

NATIONAL (LEVEE) FLOOD INVENTORY .................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 

NATIONAL (MULTIPLE PROJECT) NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ................ 3,700 3,700 

NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR REALLOCATIONS ..................................................... 800 800 

REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................................... 3,500 3,500 

REVIEW OF NON–FEDERAL ALTERATIONS OF CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS (SECTION 408) ......... 8,500 8,500 

SUSTAINABLE RIVERS PROGRAM (SRP) .................................................................................. 400 400 

VETERAN’S CURATION PROGRAM AND COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT ..................................... 6,500 6,500 

WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS ................................................................................... 4,670 4,670 

WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS) ................................................................ 500 5,500 

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ................................................................................... 163,742 604,217 

ACCOUNTING ADJUSTMENT ...................................................................................................... 4 4 

SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .......................................................................................................... ........................ ¥59,000 

TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ..................................................................... 3,100,000 3,481,475 

Beneficial Use of Dredged Materials.—The Committee directs the 

Corps to complete its Implementation Guidance for the Beneficial 

Use of Dredged Material program authorized in section 1122 of the 

WIIN Act and move into timely implementation, including selection 

of pilot projects. The Committee supports the Corps’ efforts to proceed with beneficial use as a regular part of its dredging activities 

in order to achieve efficiencies and cost reductions. 

Coastal Inlets Research Program.—Additional funding is recommended in the Coastal Inlets Research Program for the Corps 

to work with the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration’s 

National Water Center on protecting the Nation’s water resources. 

Dam Optimization.—The Corps is urged not to carry out any reservoir reoperation or reallocation for authorized purposes at any 

Corps facilities with funds from any non-Federal entity other than 

the non-Federal sponsor until the Corps has completed all public 

outreach and coordination and submitted to the relevant authorizing and appropriations Committees and the congressional delegation representing such facility, a detailed analysis of the change in 

operations of the reservoir, and specific information on whether the 

activities would alter availability of water for existing authorized 

purposes at such facility, as well as compensation for lost water 

that would be necessary to make users whole if such activities were 

carried out. 

Donor Ports and Energy Transfer Ports.—The additional funding 

recommended in this account for donor and energy transfer ports 

shall be allocated in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 2238c. 

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 

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, which-
41 

ever first occurs, provided that the site conditions remain suitable 

for such purpose and that the site may not be used for disposal of 

more than 80,000 cubic yards from any single dredging project. 

Kennebec River Federal Navigation Channel.—The Committee is 

concerned that the Kennebec River Federal Navigation Channel required emergency dredging in 2017 to allow the safe passage of a 

newly constructed Navy guided missile destroyer to the Atlantic 

Ocean. The Committee believes the development of a long-term, 

resourced plan for the periodic sounding and dredging of the Kennebec River is necessary to prevent potential future impacts to the 

fleet and national security. Accordingly, the Committee directs the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), in consultation with 

the Navy, to submit a report within 270 days after the date of enactment of this act to the Committees on Appropriations of both 

Houses of Congress, proposing a long-term plan for regular maintenance dredging of the Kennebec River. This report shall include detailed information on funding requirements and sources, as well as 

any legislative proposals for new authorities necessary to implement the proposed plan. 

Medium Size Ports.—The Committee emphasizes the importance 

of ensuring the continued development and maintenance of our 

country’s medium size ports. The Committee urges the Corps to 

consider projects proposed at medium size ports relative to the 

needs and potential impact of their surrounding communities in 

the fiscal year 2018 Work Plan. 

Monitoring of Completed Navigation Projects.—The Committee 

supports the Corps’ efforts to significantly improve the safety, efficiency, reliability and cost of performing inspections of critical and 

aging infrastructure. To accelerate the delivery and deployment of 

innovative technologies for infrastructure inspection on the national level, the Committee urges the Corps to continue to 

prioritize funding for the validation of proven innovative practices 

and technologies. 

Of the funding provided, $3,700,000 shall be for the Structural 

Health Monitoring Program to facilitate research and maximize operations, efficiency, and to protect asset life through catastrophic 

failure mitigation. 

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 ability of a number of endangered, threatened and game fish species 

to migrate through waterways, particularly during critical spawning periods. The Committee is aware of preliminary research that 

indicates reduced lock operations on certain Corps designated lowuse 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 

river migrations that may well be critical to species survival. In fiscal year 2017, Congress provided funding to continue preliminary 

research on the impact of reduced lock operations on riverine fish. 

The Committee understands the research underway is proving valuable and, within available funds for ongoing work, recommends 

$2,000,000 for the Corps to continue this research. The goal of the 
42 

continued funding is to support the continuing research and, where 

appropriate, expand the work to look at ecosystem level impacts 

and additional waterways, lock structures, lock operation methods, 

and fish species that will more fully inform Corps operations. 

Section 408 Reviews.—The Committee directs the Corps to complete section 408 reviews as expeditiously as possible, in a transparent manner, and in a reasonable timeframe. In recognition of 

the current, significant backlog in this program and the lag in review times, the Committee recommends $8,500,000, the same as 

the budget request and $5,200,000 above fiscal year 2017 enacted 

levels for section 408 reviews. Not later than 90 days after the date 

of enactment of this act, the Corps shall submit a report to the 

Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on the 

number of non-Federal projects in each Corps district that requested approval to alter existing Civil Works projects in fiscal 

years 2016 and 2017, and the average review time for such requests for each District. 

The Committee is concerned that the Corps exhausted its fiscal 

year 2017 funds used to review section 408 packages, but the administration failed to identify additional funds for this purpose in 

its fiscal year 2017 work plan. As a result, the Corps halted section 

408 reviews, leaving several projects in limbo at least until the 

start of fiscal year 2018. The Corps shall expedite the review of section 408 submissions wherever possible, including using the WRDA 

2000 section 214 process where available. The Committee also directs the Corps to consider policies that would free up Corps resources to review section 408 submissions more expeditiously in the 

future, such as accepting certifications from private engineers and 

land surveyors, similar to processes used by the Federal Highway 

Administration, and to approve section 408 requests at the division 

level rather than the headquarters level wherever possible. 

Lower Yellowstone Intake Project.—The Committee is concerned 

regarding continued delays in resolving issues surrounding the 

Lower Yellowstone Intake Project. The Committee strongly encourages the Corps and Bureau of Reclamation to assure the community and stakeholders of the agencies’ continued support for resolving issues impacting local agriculture producers and fisheries. Further, the Committee directs the Corps and Bureau of Reclamation 

to refrain from reallocating funding from the proposed fish passage 

project until judicial challenges to the project are resolved. 

Water Operations Technical Support.—Funding in addition to the 

budget request is recommended to continue research into atmospheric rivers first funded in fiscal year 2015. 

WRRDA Section 4001.—Congress has made clear its intent that 

the Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basin Commissions be supported, and the Corps is encouraged to budget accordingly. 

WRRDA Section 6002.—The Committee supports the Corps’ performing a review of its inventory, in accordance with section 6002 

of the WRRDA 2014, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this act. 

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 
43 

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 is disappointed the fiscal year 2018 budget request does 

not adequately fund operation and maintenance of our Nation’s 

ports. WRRDA 2014, as amended by the WIIN Act, included an annual appropriation target for use of the HMTF. Despite providing 

a budget request that was near the fiscal year 2017 enacted levels, 

the administration failed to include projects in the budget request 

that are HMTF reimbursable commensurate with the targets established by law. Additional funding is recommended for dredging 

activities to restore navigation channels as determined by river 

stages. 

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 equitable allocation under the Operation and Maintenance account. The Committee supports including criteria to evaluate economic impact that 

these projects provide to local and regional economies. 

The Committee recommendation includes additional funds for 

projects and activities to enhance the Nation’s economic growth 

and international competitiveness. 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. 

For deep-draft harbor and channel maintenance, the Corps shall 

give priority to funding strategic commercial seaports, as des-
44 

ignated by the Department of Defense, in the fiscal year 2018 work 

plan. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $200,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 200,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 200,000,000 

The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Regulatory 

Program, the same as the budget request. 

Aquaculture Activities.—The Committee is encouraged by the 

progress the Corps has made to process permit requests from shellfish growers in the State of Washington to initiate or expand aquaculture activities. The Committee is aware that the Corps initiated 

a process through which permits recently issued under the 2012 

Nationwide Permit 48 can be verified under the 2017 Nationwide 

Permit 48 that went into effect on March 19, 2017. The Corps is 

directed to expeditiously process these requests using the final Biological Opinion and in accordance with the 2017 Nationwide Permit 

48. The Corps is encouraged to communicate directly with the regulated industry and other interested stakeholders to ensure all have 

clarity on permitting requirements. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $112,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 118,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 117,000,000 

The Committee recommends $117,000,000 for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, $1,000,000 below the budget 

request. 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $32,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 35,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 21,904,000 

The Committee recommends $21,904,000 for Flood Control and 

Coastal Emergencies a decrease of $13,096,000 from the budget request. The Corps is directed to use $10,096,000 from prior year balances. 

EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $181,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 185,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 185,000,000 

The Committee recommends $185,000,000 for Expenses, the 

same as the budget request. This appropriation finances the expenses for the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, 

and certain research and statistical functions of the Corps. No 

funding is recommended for creation of an Office of Congressional 

Affairs. 
45 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $4,764,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,406,000 

The Committee recommends $4,406,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), $594,000 below the 

budget request. 

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, and 

statistics that inform these decisions are not subject to the same 

sensitivity and are critical to the budget 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 language concerning reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 102. The bill includes language concerning execution of 

funds. 

Section 103. The bill includes language concerning award or 

modifications of funding. 

Section 104. The bill includes language concerning funding transfers related to fish hatcheries. 

Section 105. The bill includes language concerning the open lake 

placement of dredged material. 

Section 106. The bill includes language concerning acquisitions 

consistent with the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Section 107. The bill includes language regarding Wolf Creek 

Dam, Lake Cumberland, KY. 

Section 108. The bill includes language regarding submission of 

an interim report. 

Section 109. The bill includes language regarding Rough River 

Lake. 

Section 110. The bill includes language regarding cost-sharing of 

projects. 
(46) 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $10,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 8,983,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,500,000 

The Committee recommends $10,500,000 for the Central Utah 

Project Completion Account, which includes $8,152,000 for Central 

Utah Project construction, $898,000 for transfer to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for use by the Utah 

Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, $1,450,000 

for necessary expenses of the Secretary of the Interior, and up to 

$1,500,000 for the Commission’s administrative expenses. This program 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, the fastest growing 

region in the United States. The Committee remains committed to 

completing the Central Utah Project, which would enable the 

project to initiate repayment to the Federal Government. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,287,725,000 for the Bureau of 

Reclamation [Reclamation], an increase of $190,332,000 from the 

budget request. The Committee recommendation sets priorities by 

supporting our Nation’s water infrastructure. 

INTRODUCTION

In addition to the traditional missions of bringing water and 

power to the West, Reclamation continues to develop programs, initiatives, and activities that will help meet new water needs and 

balance the multitude of competing uses of water in the West. Reclamation is the largest wholesaler of water in the country, operating 348 reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 245 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. 
47 

FISCAL YEAR 2018 WORK PLAN

The Committee has recommended 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 of Congress proposing its allocation of these additional 

funds. Reclamation is directed not to obligate any funding above 

the budget request for studies or projects until the Committees 

have approved the work plan for fiscal year 2018. The work plan 

shall be consistent with the following general guidance: 

—None of the funds may be used for any item for which the 

Committee 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. 

REPROGRAMMING

The Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation provided in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2017. 

DROUGHT RESILIENCY

The Committee has invested approximately $300,000,000 over 

the past 3 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 in 

finding opportunities for agencies to combine water supply benefits 

with other mission priorities. In the fiscal year 2017 Energy and 

Water Appropriations bill, the Committee began the transition 

from mitigating an ongoing drought in the West to preparing for 

the next one. The Committee continues that approach in this year’s 

bill by recommending another $98,000,000 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 Service, 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 in 

the 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 the 
48 

way in increasing the water that is available from year to year and 

to incentivize more efficient use of the water that is available. 

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 in 

prior years, and are described in more detail in their respective sections below. 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $1,155,894,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 960,017,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,150,349,000 

The Committee recommends $1,150,349,000 for Water and Related Resources, an increase of $190,332,000 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 

resources. Work will be done in partnership and cooperation with 

non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies. 

The Committee has recommended increased funding in the 

Water and Related Resources account on a number of line items to 

better allow Reclamation to address the immediate impacts of the 

drought. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R 

ARIZONA 

AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT 

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

COLORADO RIVER BASIN—CENTRAL ARIZONA 

PROJECT ................................................................... 6,272 648 6,272 648 

COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM .. 2,303 ........................ 2,303 ........................

SALT RIVER PROJECT .................................................... 649 250 649 250 

SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT 

PROJECT ................................................................... 1,550 ........................ 1,550 ........................

YUMA AREA PROJECTS .................................................. 1,332 23,032 1,332 23,032 

CALIFORNIA 

CACHUMA PROJECT ....................................................... 747 874 747 874 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: ........................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................
49 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R 

AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, FOLSOM DAM UNIT/ 

MORMON ISLAND ............................................. 1,577 9,138 1,577 9,138 

AUBURN–FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT ............................ 35 2,184 35 2,184 

DELTA DIVISION .................................................... 6,308 6,520 6,308 6,520 

EAST SIDE DIVISION ............................................. 1,290 2,772 1,290 2,772 

FRIANT DIVISION .................................................. 1,649 3,301 1,649 3,301 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION ..................... 34,000 ........................ 34,000 ........................

MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS ................ 8,771 400 8,771 400 

REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINT. PROGRAM ............................... ........................ 17,444 ........................ 17,444 

SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION ............................. 1,307 595 1,307 595 

SAN FELIPE DIVISION ........................................... 232 75 232 75 

SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION ........................................ 52 ........................ 52 ........................

SHASTA DIVISION ................................................. 720 9,007 720 9,007 

TRINITY RIVER DIVISION ...................................... 12,309 5,177 12,309 5,177 

WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS ........................ 5,989 10,793 5,989 10,793 

WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT .... 3,357 6,026 3,357 6,026 

ORLAND PROJECT .......................................................... ........................ 930 ........................ 930

SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT ................................ 300 ........................ 300 ........................

SOLANO PROJECT .......................................................... 1,329 2,367 1,329 2,367 

VENTURA RIVER PROJECT ............................................. 313 33 313 33 

COLORADO 

ANIMAS–LA PLATA PROJECT ......................................... 941 3,004 941 3,004 

ARMEL UNIT, P–SMBP .................................................. 5 1,738 5 1,738 

COLLBRAN PROJECT ...................................................... 247 1,984 247 1,984 

COLORADO–BIG THOMPSON PROJECT .......................... 726 13,372 726 13,372 

FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT ..................................... 93 131 93 131 

FRYINGPAN–ARKANSAS PROJECT .................................. 167 10,091 167 10,091 

FRYINGPAN–ARKANSAS PROJECT—ARKANSAS VALLEY 

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

GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ....................... 486 1,809 486 1,809 

LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT ....... ........................ 1,935 ........................ 1,935 

MANCOS PROJECT ......................................................... 76 240 76 240 

NARROWS UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................. ........................ 38 ........................ 38 

PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ................... 389 3,003 389 3,003 

PINE RIVER PROJECT .................................................... 141 432 141 432 

SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CLOSED BASIN ................. 301 3,219 301 3,219 

SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CONEJOS DIVISION ........... 16 34 16 34 

UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT .............................................. 728 163 728 163 

UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ....... 1,570 ........................ 1,570 ........................

IDAHO 

BOISE AREA PROJECTS ................................................. 3,383 4,522 3,383 4,522 

COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY 

PROJECT ................................................................... 19,000 ........................ 19,000 ........................

LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS .................................. 1,400 27 1,400 27 

MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS ........................................... 2,442 2,438 2,442 2,438 

PRESTON BENCH PROJECT ........................................... 17 8 17 8 

KANSAS 

ALMENA UNIT, P–SMBP ................................................ 43 480 43 480 

BOSTWICK UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................. 370 884 370 884 

CEDAR BLUFF UNIT, P–SMBP ....................................... 40 552 40 552 

GLEN ELDER UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................... 65 2,581 65 2,581 

KANSAS RIVER UNIT, P–SMBP ...................................... ........................ 102 ........................ 102 

KIRWIN UNIT, P–SMBP .................................................. 37 461 37 461 

WEBSTER UNIT, P–SMBP .............................................. 15 500 15 500 

WICHITA PROJECT—CHENEY DIVISION ......................... 98 391 98 391 
50 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R 

MONTANA 

BLACKFEET IWRS .......................................................... 10,000 ........................ ........................ ........................

CANYON FERRY UNIT, P–SMBP .................................... 249 5,047 249 5,047 

CROW TRIBE WATER RIGHTS ........................................ 12,772 ........................ ........................ ........................

EAST BENCH UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................... 205 675 205 675 

FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER 

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

HELENA VALLEY UNIT, P–SMBP .................................... 19 165 19 165 

HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT ............................................. ........................ 453 ........................ 453 

HUNTLEY PROJECT ........................................................ 12 46 12 46 

LOWER MARIAS UNIT, P–SMBP ..................................... 103 1,507 103 1,507 

LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT ................................... 716 16 716 16 

MILK RIVER PROJECT .................................................... 553 2,951 553 2,951 

MISSOURI BASIN O&M, P–SMBP .................................. 1,045 167 1,045 167 

ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MT RURAL WATER SYSTEM ........................................................................... 4,850 ........................ 4,850 ........................

SUN RIVER PROJECT ..................................................... 154 283 154 283 

YELLOWTAIL UNIT, P–SMBP .......................................... 22 8,021 22 8,021 

NEBRASKA 

AINSWORTH UNIT, P–SMBP ........................................... 71 98 71 98 

FRENCHMAN–CAMBRIDGE UNIT, P–SMBP .................... 326 1,860 326 1,860 

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT ............................................... 13 93 13 93 

NORTH LOUP UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................... 90 124 90 124 

NEVADA 

LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT ........................................... 4,992 4,859 4,992 4,859 

LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ....... 115 ........................ 115 ........................

LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM ..................... 700 ........................ 700 ........................

NEW MEXICO 

AAMODT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT ................................. 8,000 ........................ ........................ ........................

CARLSBAD PROJECT ...................................................... 2,790 1,339 2,790 1,339 

EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY ........... 1,875 ........................ 1,875 ........................

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT ..................................... 12,682 11,836 12,682 11,836 

NAVAJO GALLUP WATER SUPPLY ................................... 67,772 25 ........................ ........................

RIO GRANDE PROJECT .................................................. 1,906 4,750 1,906 4,750 

RIO GRANDE PEUBLOS PROJECT .................................. 1,000 ........................ 1,000 ........................

TUCUMCARI PROJECT .................................................... 15 16 15 16 

NORTH DAKOTA 

DICKINSON UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................ 214 435 214 435 

GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT, P–SMBP .......................... 13,235 12,934 13,235 12,934 

HEART BUTTE UNIT, P–SMBP ....................................... 82 1,322 82 1,322 

OKLAHOMA 

ARBUCKLE PROJECT ...................................................... 67 174 67 174 

MCGEE CREEK PROJECT ............................................... 188 802 188 802 

MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT ............................................ 53 617 53 617 

NORMAN PROJECT ......................................................... 71 301 71 301 

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT .............................................. 58 554 58 554 

W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT ................................................... 242 1,091 242 1,091 

OREGON 

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT ............................................ 403 533 403 533 

DESCHUTES PROJECT .................................................... 384 230 384 230 

EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS ....................................... 533 213 533 213 

KLAMATH PROJECT ........................................................ 13,514 4,486 13,514 4,486 

ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION ........ 2,072 686 2,072 686 
51 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R 

TUALATIN PROJECT ........................................................ 201 218 201 218 

UMATILLA PROJECT ....................................................... 556 2,931 556 2,931 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

ANGOSTURA UNIT, P–SMBP .......................................... 249 694 249 694 

BELLE FOURCHE UNIT, P–SMBP ................................... 271 730 271 730 

KEYHOLE UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................... 198 610 198 610 

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM .................. 3,650 ........................ 3,650 ........................

MID–DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT .......................... ........................ 15 ........................ 15 

MNI WICONI PROJECT ................................................... ........................ 13,475 ........................ 13,475 

OAHE UNIT, P–SMBP ..................................................... 37 73 37 73 

RAPID VALLEY PROJECT ................................................ ........................ 71 ........................ 71 

RAPID VALLEY UNIT, P–SMBP ....................................... ........................ 200 ........................ 200 

SHADEHILL UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................ 75 466 75 466 

TEXAS 

BALMORHEA PROJECT ................................................... 37 13 37 13 

CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT ........................................... 58 108 58 108 

LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAM ......................................................... 50 ........................ 50 ........................

NUECES RIVER PROJECT ............................................... 107 803 107 803 

SAN ANGELO PROJECT .................................................. 38 596 38 596 

UTAH 

HYRUM PROJECT ........................................................... 183 158 183 158 

MOON LAKE PROJECT .................................................... 28 92 28 92 

NEWTON PROJECT ......................................................... 67 103 67 103 

OGDEN RIVER PROJECT ................................................ 242 233 242 233 

PROVO RIVER PROJECT ................................................. 1,224 718 1,224 718 

SANPETE PROJECT ........................................................ 73 10 73 10 

SCOFIELD PROJECT ....................................................... 304 81 304 81 

STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT .................................... 433 100 433 100 

WEBER BASIN PROJECT ................................................ 1,047 860 1,047 860 

WEBER RIVER PROJECT ................................................ 131 102 131 102 

WASHINGTON 

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT ........................................... 3,961 9,414 3,961 9,414 

WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS ...................................... 445 63 445 63 

YAKIMA PROJECT ........................................................... 744 6,083 744 6,083 

YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT 17,136 ........................ 17,136 ........................

WYOMING 

BOYSEN UNIT, P–SMBP ................................................ 232 1,875 232 1,875 

BUFFALO BILL DAM, DAM MODIFICATION, P–SMBP ...... 32 2,731 32 2,731 

KENDRICK PROJECT ...................................................... 78 5,626 78 5,626 

NORTH PLATTE PROJECT ............................................... 178 1,197 178 1,197 

NORTH PLATTE AREA, P–SMBP ..................................... 97 5,266 97 5,266 

OWL CREEK UNIT, P–SMBP .......................................... 6 93 6 93 

RIVERTON UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................. 8 572 8 572 

SHOSHONE PROJECT ..................................................... 77 746 77 746 

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ................... 330,603 297,740 232,059 297,715 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

RURAL WATER ...................................................... ........................ ........................ 48,000 ........................

FISH PASSAGE AND FISH SCREENS ..................... ........................ ........................ 5,000 ........................

WATER CONSERVATION AND DELIVERY ............... ........................ ........................ 84,000 ........................
52 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND COMPLIANCE ................................................................ ........................ ........................ 15,000 ........................

FACILITIES OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REHABILITATION ................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 1,800 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, 

TITLE I ...................................................................... 250 15,203 250 15,203 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, 

TITLE II ..................................................................... 8,374 ........................ 8,374 ........................

COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP), SECTION 5 ...................................................................... 4,153 6,485 4,153 6,485 

COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP), SECTION 8 ...................................................................... 2,770 ........................ 2,770 ........................

COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT 

PROJECT ................................................................... 640 ........................ 640 ........................

DAM SAFETY PROGRAM: 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DAM SAFETY 

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

INITIATE SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION ........................ 66,500 ........................ 66,500 

SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS ............. ........................ 20,284 ........................ 20,284 

EMERGENCY PLANNING & DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM ........................................................................ ........................ 1,250 ........................ 1,250 

ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION 

PROGRAM ................................................................. 19,645 ........................ 19,645 ........................

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION .............. 1,844 ........................ 1,844 ........................

EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ..................... ........................ 8,873 ........................ 8,873 

GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES .................................... 2,124 ........................ 2,124 ........................

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS: 

AAMODT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT ........................ ........................ ........................ 8,000 ........................

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

CROW TRIBE RIGHTS ........................................... ........................ ........................ 12,772 ........................

NAVAJO–GALLUP ................................................... ........................ ........................ 67,772 25 

LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................ 9,996 ........................ 9,996 ........................

LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ...... 33,433 ........................ 33,433 ........................

MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS .......... ........................ 927 ........................ 927 

NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM ......................... 10,425 ........................ 11,425 ........................

NEGOTIATION & ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING ...................................................................... 1,981 ........................ 1,981 ........................

OPERATION & PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ....................... 901 2,764 901 2,764 

POWER PROGRAM SERVICES ........................................ 2,391 307 2,391 307 

PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM ...................... 597 206 597 206 

RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION ........................... 2,173 ........................ 2,173 ........................

RECREATION & FISH & WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION .................................................................... 6,497 ........................ 6,497 ........................

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: 

DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM ............................................................... 1,753 1,150 10,653 1,150 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ............... 11,065 ........................ 22,765 ........................

SITE SECURITY ACTIVITIES ............................................ ........................ 26,220 ........................ 26,220 

UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES—TECHNICAL 

SUPPORT ................................................................... 90 ........................ 90 ........................

WATERSMART PROGRAM: 

WATERSMART GRANTS ......................................... 23,365 ........................ 24,000 ........................

WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM ............................................................... 4,038 ........................ 4,179 ........................

COOPERATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ........... 1,750 ........................ 2,250 ........................

BASIN STUDIES .................................................... 5,200 ........................ 5,200 ........................

DROUGHT RESPONSE & COMPREHENSIVE 

DROUGHT PLANS ............................................. 3,250 ........................ 4,000 ........................
53 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R 

TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION & REUSE PROGRAM ............................................................... 21,500 ........................ 34,406 ........................

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ......................... 180,205 151,469 467,281 153,294 

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

TOTAL ............................................................... 510,808 449,209 699,340 451,009 

GRAND TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES ..................................................... ........................ 960,017 ........................ 1,150,349 

Indian Water Settlements.—The Committee notes that funding is 

recommended for Indian water rights settlements, which meet 

trust and treaty obligations to tribes and resolve significant tribal 

water-related claims against the Federal government. In December 

2016, Congress authorized a number of important Indian water settlements as part of the WIIN Act, including the Blackfeet Water 

Rights Settlement Act. To meet the Blackfeet settlement’s enforcement date of January 21, 2025, significant additional funding will 

be required after fiscal year 2018. The Committee therefore encourages Reclamation to budget accordingly for Indian water rights settlements in its budget request for fiscal year 2019. 

San Joaquin River Restoration Program.—The Committee is 

deeply concerned by the lack of tangible progress in river channel 

reconstruction despite Federal expenditures of $172,000,000 

through September 30, 2016, and an anticipated additional 

$390,000,000 to $700,000,000 necessary to complete the program. 

The Committee directs Reclamation to work with the settling parties and the Exchange Contractors to develop a plan to successfully 

implement the program, which shall identify funding sources to 

match projected program expenditures; ensure that the program is 

on track to achieve goals that are technically, scientifically, and financially achievable; reevaluate the program’s 2025 reopener date, 

given extensive delays in river project implementation; and improve the program’s relationship with third parties, while working 

within projected budgets and timelines. The Committee directs 

Reclamation to achieve substantial progress toward developing the 

plan by November 15, 2017, and to brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on the progress achieved by 

that date. 

Salton Sea.—Pursuant to recent agreements between the Department of the Interior and the State of California, the Committee encourages the Department to prioritize implementation of the Salton 

Sea Memorandum of Understanding [MOU]. The Committee urges 

the Department to include specific funding requests for implementation of the MOU in future budget submissions and directs the 

Department to provide semiannual briefings to the Committees on 

Appropriations of both Houses of Congress regarding Federal ef-
54 

forts to implement the MOU and other Salton Sea mitigation efforts. 

Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project, Oregon.—The Committee supports the administration’s budget request for preconstruction activities at Scoggins Dam under the Safety of Dams program. Consistent with the Tualatin 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, 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 2018. The Committee understands 

that a replacement structure downstream could significantly reduce 

project costs for both the Federal Government and local stakeholders. Reclamation may accept contributed funds from non-Federal contractors to expedite completion of any level of review. 

Rural Water Projects.—Voluntary funding in excess of legally required cost shares for rural water projects is acceptable but shall 

not be used by Reclamation as a criterion for allocating additional 

funding recommended by the Committee or for budgeting in future 

years. 

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. 

Research and Development: Desalination and Water Purification 

Program.—Of the funding recommended for this program, $6,000,000 shall be for desalination projects as authorized in section 4009(a) of Public Law 114–322. 

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 resilience 

in the western States. Such a system will allow a diverse group of 

water managers and users to better leverage the Federal Government’s investment in producing water supply data on river levels, 

snow pack, weather, and climate. 

WaterSMART Program: Title XVI Water Reclamation & Reuse 

Program.—Of the funding recommended for this program, 

$10,000,000 shall be for water recycling and reuse projects as authorized in section 4009(c) of Public Law 114–322. 
55 

Additional Funding for Water and Related Resources Work.—The 

Committee recommendation includes an additional $190,332,000 

above the budget request for Water and Related Resources studies, 

projects, and activities. Priority in allocating these funds should be 

given to advance and complete ongoing work; 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. Funding 

recommended under the heading Additional Funding for Ongoing 

Work may be utilized for ongoing work, including pre-construction 

activities, on projects which provide new or existing water supplies 

through additional infrastructure. Reclamation shall give priority 

in allocating funds to ongoing work on authorized projects for 

which environmental compliance has been completed. Reclamation 

is encouraged to allocate 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’’, $5,000,000 is allocated to fund Colorado River water conservation, including the Pilot System Conservation Program as authorized in section 206 of Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015. Of the additional funding 

recommended under the heading ‘‘Water Conservation and Delivery’’, $67,000,000 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’’, $15,000,000 shall be for activities authorized under 

sections 4001 and 4010 of Public Law 114–322 or as set forth in 

Federal-State plans for restoring threatened and endangered fish 

species affected by the operation of Reclamation’s water projects. 

The Committee is concerned that Reclamation’s criteria for allocating funding have not adequately accounted for projects that 

would directly benefit military base operations and national security facilities in the past. The Committee directs the Department 

of the Interior to consult with the Department of Defense to develop a plan to adequately allocate Water and Related Resources 

funding that directly benefits military base operations and national 

security facilities. 

Reclamation is encouraged to prioritize funding to help irrigation 

districts with junior water rights to plan and develop water conservation plans to comply with ESA requirements. 

Buried Metallic Water Pipe.—Reclamation shall continue following its temporary design guidance. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $55,606,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 41,376,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 41,376,000 

The Committee recommends $41,376,000 for the Central Valley 

Project Restoration Fund, the same as the budget request. This appropriation is fully offset by a scorekeeping adjustment from revenues. 

The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized in 

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of Public Law 
56 

102–575. This fund uses revenues from payments by project beneficiaries and donations for habitat restoration, improvement and 

acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the 

Central 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, 2017 ............................................................................. $36,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 37,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 37,000,000 

The Committee recommends $37,000,000 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, 2017 ............................................................................. $59,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 59,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 59,000,000 

The Committee recommends $59,000,000 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 under 

other appropriations. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Section 201. The bill includes language concerning reprogramming. 

Section 202. The bill includes language concerning the San Luis 

Unit. 

Section 203. The bill includes language concerning the Reclamation States Emerging Drought Relief Act of 1991. 

Section 204. The bill includes language concerning industrial 

hemp. 
(57) 

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $31,967,986,000 for the Department of Energy, an increase of $3,587,029,000 above the budget request. 

The recommendation includes recessions of $510,360,000 of unobligated prior year balances, resulting in a net appropriation of 

$31,457,626,000. 

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, the 

Secretary of Energy [Secretary] relies on a world-class network of 

national laboratories, private industry, universities, States, and 

Federal 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, grid 

modernization and resiliency, and the Office of Science), power 

marketing administrations, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and administrative expenses. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee’s recommendation includes control points to ensure that the Secretary spends taxpayer funds in accordance with 

congressional direction. The Committee’s recommendation also includes reprogramming guidelines to allow the Secretary to request 
58 

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 the 

direction 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 the 

Committees 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 the 

proposed funding adjustments with specificity. The Secretary shall 

not, pending approval from the Committee, obligate any funds for 

the 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 when 

a 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, or 

organization described in the agency’s budget justification as 

presented 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 of 

an 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 prior 

year deobligations. 

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 a 

whole. These initiatives, which address the Energy-Water Nexus; 

grid modernization; subsurface science, technology and engineering 

research, development, and deployment; cybersecurity; and advanced materials, have allowed for a more comprehensive review of 

complex issues. 

Grid Modernization.—The Department is directed to continue to 

support ongoing work between the national laboratories, industry, 

and universities to improve grid reliability and resiliency. Given 

that much of the Nation’s grid is privately owned, there are significant challenges to modernizing the grid, which make it difficult to 

develop, test, and deploy new technologies. To address these challenges, Congress has provided funding for the Grid Modernization 

Initiative [GMI] over the past 2 fiscal years. The budget request 

does not address the GMI comprehensively even though in January 

2016, the Department announced up to $220,000,000 for the GMI 

over 3 years, subject to appropriations from Congress. Within the 
59 

GMI, the Committee supports the Grid Modernization Laboratory 

Consortium’s [GMLC] leadership of a comprehensive, multidisciplinary research and development program managed through a 

consortium of the national laboratories, leveraging national laboratory assets and partnering with non-Federal entities. The Committee is pleased that the Department has recently undertaken 

peer review processes to evaluate the GMLC’s progress. The Committee supports the strategic goals of the Grid Modernization 

Multi-Year Program Plan [MYPP], which reflects a 5-year integrated strategy across the Department to guide investment and leverage the expertise of our national laboratories, while working 

with industry and States. The Committee directs the Department 

to continue implementation of the MYPP, as in previous years. 

The Committee recognizes the opportunities and challenges associated with grid modernization, as well as the gaps in our current 

understanding not addressed by existing studies, and accordingly 

directs the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct an evaluation of the expected medium- and longterm evolution of the grid. This evaluation shall focus on developments that include the emergence of new technologies, planning 

and operating techniques, grid architecture, and business models. 

This study will provide critical insight into the future of the grid, 

particularly with respect to the distribution network and its interface with the rest of the grid, and will inform decisions regarding 

strategic investment of Federal funds and other policies, including 

ensuring proper steps are taken to address cybersecurity. 

Subsurface Crosscut.—The Committee supports the ongoing Subsurface Technology and Engineering Research [SubTER] Initiative, 

which is focused on revolutionizing sustainable subsurface energy 

production and storage through transformational improvements in 

the ability to access, characterize, predict, and adaptively manipulate subsurface fracture and flow processes. SubTER aims to double 

reservoir recovery, decrease the environmental footprint, and enhance energy security and public safety. The Committee supports 

the 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 

field tests of promising technologies with university and industry 

partners to reduce permeability and control the flow of fluids in the 

subsurface with targets of blocking highly permeable pathways 

that reduce sweep efficiency in porous rock and plugging fractures 

in 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 Departmentwide crosscut on advanced materials, which focuses on lightweight 

materials and composites and corrosion and materials under ex-
60 

tremes. The Committee understands in previous years, other program offices independently had standalone existing materials programs, and continues to support formal coordination across offices 

through the Materials Working Group. This is an unprecedented 

opportunity 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 budget proposes to develop a Multi-Year Program 

Plan for the Energy Sector, which will complement the energy sector-developed Roadmap to Achieve Energy Delivery Systems 

Cybersecurity. While that effort is important, it is not sufficient. 

The Committee directs the Department to develop a plan that integrates all of the Department’s cybersecurity investments, and brief 

the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on 

that plan before delivery of the fiscal year 2019 budget request. 

Arctic Energy Office.—The Committee supports the promotion of 

research, development, and deployment of electric power technology 

that is cost-effective and well-suited to meet the needs of rural and 

remote regions of the United States, especially where permafrost is 

present 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 associated 

transportation 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 to 

support a renewed focus on the Arctic region, and as a cross-cutting activity, use the Arctic Energy Office as a centralized area to 

support the use of energy resources, but also innovative activities, 

including microgrids and integrated energy systems. 

Regional Initiatives.—The Committee urges the Department to 

utilize investments through existing regional capabilities that include industry, universities, and State and regional economic development assets. The Committee further encourages the national laboratories to expand their geographic outreach through people and 

access to specialized equipment and user facilities in order 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 from 

municipal solid waste or collected as part of a collection system 

that commingles commonly recycled paper with other solid waste 

at any point from the time of collection through materials recovery. 
61 

FIVE-YEAR PLAN

The Secretary is required by 42 U.S.C. 7279a, enacted by the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, to include in the Department’s annual budget request proposed funding levels for the request year and 4 subsequent years, at a level of detail commensurate with the current budget justification documents. This requirement is to ensure that the Secretary is proposing a current budget 

that takes into account realistic budget constraints in future years, 

and that Congress has full visibility into the future implications of 

current budget decisions across the Department’s energy programs. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to submit a report, not later 

than September 30, 2018, to the Committees on Appropriations of 

both Houses of Congress, on a plan to comply with 42 U.S.C. 

7279a. Failure to provide this report may result in more directive 

measures to ensure the Secretary complies with the law and engages in practices that safeguard taxpayer dollars. 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $2,090,200,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 636,149,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,936,988,000 

The Committee recommends $1,936,988,000 for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy [EERE], an increase of $1,300,839,000 

above the budget request. Within available funds, the Committee 

recommends $153,500,000 for program direction. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of the development 

and deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, which are critical to expanding U.S. energy security and 

global leadership. The Committee directs that within available 

funding, the Department shall support the reduction of costs for 

consumers, while also improving grid reliability. 

Early-Stage Research and Development.—The President’s 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 earlystage research and development into the U.S. energy system and 

thus will not adequately deliver innovative energy technologies, 

practices, and information to American consumers and companies. 

Notably, this is the case with complex systems and structures such 

as America’s homes, offices and other buildings. The Committee 

provides funding to support a comprehensive and real-world strategy that includes medium- and later-stage research and development; deployment and demonstration activities; and other approaches that are designed to utilize the most effective means to 

increase buildings’ energy efficiency in order to promote their affordability, sustainability, resilience, and productivity. 

Workforce Development.—The development of a skilled workforce 

is critical to the successful deployment and long-term sustainability 

of energy efficient and renewable energy technologies. The Committee encourages funding within EERE programs to be allocated 
62 

to training and workforce development programs that assist and 

support 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. 

Energy Star.—In 2009, the Department and the Environmental 

Protection Agency [EPA] signed a Memorandum of Understanding 

[MOU] related to the Energy Star Program, which shifted some 

functions related to home appliance products from the Department 

to the EPA. The Department shall work with the EPA to review 

the 2009 MOU and report to the Committees on Appropriations of 

both Houses of Congress within 90 days after enactment of this Act 

on whether the expected efficiencies for home appliance products 

have been achieved. 

Sustainable Transportation Initiative.—The Committee encourages the Department to continue the Sustainable Transportation 

(Mobility) Initiative, including the Co-Optima and SMART Mobility 

Initiatives. These investments are critical to expanding U.S. energy 

security. 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, which is vital to 

economic development. 

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $277,988,000 for Vehicle Technologies. 

Within this amount, the Committee recommends not less than 

$140,000,000 for Electric Drive Technologies Research and Development, $42,988,000 for Advanced Combustion Engine Research 

and Development, $25,000,000 for Materials Technology, and 

$16,000,000 for Vehicle Systems. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than 

$10,000,000 for continued funding of section 131 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act for transportation electrification. The Committee encourages the Department, when making 

grants through the Vehicle Technologies Program, to expand opportunities for the demonstration of zero-emissions technologies that 

will be of practical use in areas of extreme non-attainment with national ambient air quality standards. The Committee also supports 

early stage research to lower the cost of batteries for electric vehicles through battery processing science, materials research, and 

modeling and simulation of battery performance, including research on extreme fast and wireless charging, and using high performance computing for electric motor multi-physics discovery for 

electric drive technologies. 

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the SuperTruck II 

program to further improve the efficiency of heavy-duty class 8 

long- and regional-haul vehicles and continue support of the fiscal 

year 2016 SuperTruck II awards. The Department is directed to 

make five awards using the multi-year allocation process that was 

used successfully by the SuperTruck I program. 
63 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $34,000,000 

for Outreach, Deployment, and Analysis to support the Clean Cities 

Alternative Fuels and Vehicles Deployment Program. Within this 

amount, $28,000,000 is provided for deployment through the Clean 

Cities Program, of which not less than $24,000,000 shall be for 

funding opportunity awards to Clean Cities Coalitions and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Community Partner projects. The Department 

is encouraged to ensure balance in the 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 to prioritize projects in States where the 

transportation sector is responsible for a higher percentage of the 

State’s total energy consumption and is their largest source of 

greenhouse gases. 

The Committee supports the EcoCAR 3 competition, which provides hands-on, real-world experience to demonstrate a variety of 

advanced technologies and designs, and supports development of a 

workforce trained in advanced vehicles. The Committee recommends $2,500,000 for the third year of a 4-year collegiate engineering competition, EcoCAR 3. 

The Committee recognizes that the commercial off-road vehicle 

sector, including industrial, mining, and farm equipment, consumes 

over 2 Quads of energy per year and directs the Department to continue activities to reduce the energy consumption of commercial offroad vehicles. The Committee recommends $5,000,000 to continue 

improving the energy efficiency of fluid power systems for commercial off-road vehicles. 

The Committee encourages the Department to support research 

on natural gas storage, natural gas engines, and fueling infrastructure optimization. The Committee is also supportive of efforts 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, storing, and dispensing natural gas. 

BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $190,000,000 for Bioenergy Technologies. 

Within available funds, the Committee directs the Secretary to 

provide a total of $30,000,000 for algal biofuels, and expects the 

Department to sustain the investment in development of algal 

biofuels. When awarding grants and cooperative agreements for 

algal biofuels research and development, not less than 50 percent 

of the dollar value of awards shall be for university- or industryled consortia. The Committee further recommends $20,000,000 for 

Feedstock Supply and Logistics, $50,000,000 for Demonstration 

and Market Transformation, and $5,000,000 for Strategic Analysis 

and Cross-cutting Sustainability. 

The Committee further recommends $85,000,000 for Conversion 

Technologies. Within this amount, $20,000,000 is recommended to 

continue 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 lead 

times. 
64 

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, and municipal solid waste. 

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. Research, development, 

and demonstration activities are needed to help lower upfront development costs and promote smaller-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. 

The Committee continues to support the Secretary’s participation 

in the Farm to Fly 2 Initiative with the Federal Aviation Administration’s Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels and the Environment. The Committee reiterates to the Federal entities involved that this is a cost-sharing research partnership among academia, industry, and the Federal Government, and urges full collaboration between the Departments of Energy and Agriculture 

and other Federal agencies in the Initiative. 

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

has recognized that bioenergy with carbon capture sequestration 

[BECCS] has technical potential to provide a significant portion of 

the world’s energy supply by the end of the century. If commercialized further, BECCS could be a baseload electricity resource 

with a net-negative carbon emission profile. The Committee encourages the Bioenergy Technologies Office to continue its collaboration 

with the Office of Fossil Energy on BECCS research, as well as research to advance net carbon-negative transportation fuels. 

HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $85,000,000 for Hydrogen and Fuel 

Cell Technologies. 

The Committee recognizes the progress of the program and continues to support stationary, vehicle, motive, and portable power 

applications. Within the amounts recommended, $27,000,000 is for 

Fuel Cell Research and Development, $36,000,000 is for Hydrogen 

Research and Development and $1,000,000 is for systems analysis 

activities. The Committee recommends $14,000,000 for Technology 

Acceleration activities, including $3,000,000 for manufacturing research and 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. The Committee further recommends $7,000,000 for Safety, 

Codes, and Standards. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to work with the Secretary of Transportation and industry on coordinating efforts to deploy hydrogen fueling infrastructure. The Department is further 

encouraged to identify competitive opportunities to help develop affordable hydrogen infrastructure components. The Department is 

directed to use funds to improve hydrogen measurement devices for 

retail fueling stations and work to reduce costs for hydrogen compressors and carbon fiber tanks. 
65 

SOLAR ENERGY

The Committee recommends $167,500,000 for Solar Energy. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $48,000,000 

for Concentrating Solar Power research, development, and demonstration of technologies that 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 $12,000,000 is recommended for 

competitively selected projects focused on advanced thermal desalination techniques. 

The Committee recommends $48,000,000 for Photovoltaic Research and Development. Research programs for high efficiency 

thin-film photovoltaics and processes are encouraged to include cooperation between industry and academia, and to include advanced 

optical characterization that enables development of strong correlations between materials and cell optical properties, and the photovoltaic power performance of the working solar cells. 

Further, the Committee recommends $45,000,000 for Systems Integration, $10,500,000 for Balance of System Soft Cost Reduction, 

and $16,000,000 for Innovations in Manufacturing Competitiveness. 

The Committee recognizes that solar energy is one of the fastest 

growing industries in the United States, and employs over 260,000 

workers today. Within available funds, the Committee recommends 

$1,000,000 for the Secretary’s contribution to the joint Solar Ready 

Vets program within the Department of Defense as a way to train 

America’s veterans to fill this growing skill need. 

WIND ENERGY

The Committee recommends $72,500,000 for Wind Energy. 

The Committee supports research using high-performance computing, modeling and simulation—including the Atmosphere to 

Electrons initiative program—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 testing facilities and provides not 

less than $30,000,000 for the National Wind Technology Center. 

The Committee notes that, despite the rapid growth of the wind 

power industry, the distributed wind segment has remained limited 

in its applications in the United States. The Committee encourages 

the Department to prioritize work on distributed wind technologies 

that reduce costs and improve performance, and to work with industry to invest in the development and demonstration of technologies and practices that advance distributed wind. Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than $2,500,000 

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. The Committee directs the Department to continue to support the previously awarded innovative Offshore Wind 

Advanced Technology Demonstration Projects, funded by previous 

appropriations bills, and further supports efforts to optimize their 
66 

design, construction methods, testing plans, and economic value 

proposition. The Committee expects project development and other 

funds for the offshore wind demonstration projects to be allocated 

equitably between the approved projects. The Committee further 

directs the Department to support the deployment and testing of 

scale floating wind turbines designed to reduce energy costs. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than 

$15,000,000 for the Department to prioritize early stage 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 research and development, such as those that target technology and deployment challenges unique to U.S. waters. 

WATER POWER

The Committee recommends $82,000,000 for Water Power. 

Hydropower Technologies.—Within available funds, the Committee recommends $25,000,000 for conventional hydropower and 

pumped storage activities, including up to $6,600,000 for the purposes of section 242 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Within available funds, $10,000,000 is recommended for a competitive funding 

opportunity for multiple awardees to test the commercial viability 

of new use cases for pumped storage hydropower at locations to enhance grid reliability and manage variable generation. 

Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology Research, Development, and 

Deployment.—The Committee recommends $57,000,000 for marine 

and hydrokinetic technology research, development, and deployment activities, including research into mitigation of marine ecosystem impacts of these technologies. Within available funds, not less than $5,000,000 and not more 

than $10,000,000 is recommended to continue construction of the 

previously awarded open-water wave energy test facility. The Committee is concerned that the Secretary is not utilizing a 20 percent 

cost share, as previously directed. Given the importance of this facility in testing and advancing early-stage marine and hydrokinetic 

technologies and the tremendous potential these technologies have 

to provide long-term clean energy, the Department is again directed to ensure that the cooperative agreement reflects the appropriate cost share of 20 percent. 

Within available funds, the Department is directed to continue 

competitive solicitations to increase energy capture, reliability, and 

survivability at lower costs for a balanced portfolio of wave and 

current (ocean, river, tidal) energy conversion systems and components. Therefore, the Committee recommends $30,000,000 for industry and university led basic and applied research, development, 

and validation projects encompassing a pipeline of higher and 

lower technology readiness levels. The funds shall be used for new 

awards or to bring existing test and validation awards toward completion. Given the early stage nature of marine energy technologies, the Committee encourages the Department to consider reducing and/or waiving cost share requirements for small businesses. 
67 

The Committee recommends not less than $4,000,000 to support 

collaborations between the previously designated university-based 

Marine Renewable Energy Centers and the national laboratories, 

including personnel exchanges, to support industry by conducting 

research, development and deployment of marine energy components and systems. In addition, the Department is directed to continue its coordination with the U.S. Navy on marine energy technology development for national security applications at the Wave 

Energy Test Site and other locations. 

Within available funds, the Department is directed to prioritize 

the necessary infrastructure upgrades at marine industry testing 

sites operated by the national laboratories or the National Marine 

Renewable Energy Centers. Within available funds, not less than 

$1,000,000 is provided for these projects in fiscal year 2018. 

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 TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $67,500,000 for Geothermal Technologies. 

Within available funds, $43,000,000 shall be for Enhanced Geothermal Systems, $14,000,000 shall be for Hydrothermal, 

$8,000,000 for Low-Temperature and Coproduced Resources, and 

$2,500,000 for Systems Analysis. 

To facilitate necessary technology development and expand understanding of subsurface dynamics, the Committee 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, fullscale well drilling, and technology research and development to accelerate the commercial pathway to large-scale enhanced geothermal systems power generation. 

The Committee recognizes that enhanced geothermal systems are 

versatile, inherently modular, and scalable from residential utilization to district heating opportunities and large power parks that 

can provide base-load capacity. The Committee encourages the Department to support enhanced geothermal system applications for 

industrial 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 $252,000,000 for Advanced Manufacturing. 

The Committee recommends $80,500,000 for the Advanced Manufacturing Research and Development Projects, $145,000,000 for 

Advanced Manufacturing Research and Development Facilities, 

and $26,500,000 for Industrial Technical Assistance. 
68 

Within available funds for Advanced Manufacturing Research 

and Development Facilities, the Committee recommends 

$20,000,000 for the Manufacturing Demonstration Facility [MDF], 

which supports the development of additive manufacturing processes, low-cost carbon fiber, and other manufacturing technologies 

to reduce the energy intensity and life-cycle energy consumption of 

domestic manufactured products, thereby increasing the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing industries. The Committee notes 

the ongoing emphasis on assisting small- and medium-sized businesses to overcome the risks and challenges of investing in specialized, high-technology equipment at the MDF. The Department is 

directed to continue this emphasis in the coming year. 

The Committee supports the development of additive manufacturing involving nanocellulose feedstock materials made from forest 

products, and encourages the Department to leverage expertise and 

capabilities for large scale additive manufacturing. The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the second 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 recommends $70,000,000 to support five Clean Energy Manufacturing Institutes [CEMIs], including $14,000,000 

each for the Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation Institute, 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 has received 

$70,000,000 over the past 5 years to stand up a sustainable effort, 

and encourages the Department to work with one or more national 

laboratories and universities to build a sustainable plan. The Committee is pleased with the ongoing work of the innovative advanced 

manufacturing opportunities through the CEMIs, and directs the 

Department to continue funding and support for the institutes. 

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 to continue for the Critical Materials Hub. The Committee supports the Hub’s continued 

focus on technologies that will enable domestic manufacturers to 

make better use of the critical materials to which they have access, 

as well as to reduce or eliminate the need for materials that are 

subject to supply disruptions. The Committee notes that the Hub 

has focused on high-priority problems and has developed strong 

milestones. The Committee supports the Hub’s goal of developing 

at least one technology adopted by U.S. companies within each of 

its three focus areas: diversifying and expanding production; reducing wastes; and developing substitutes. 

The Committee recognizes the important role additive manufacturing can play in helping to advance the deployment of clean energy technologies. The Committee directs the Department to further foster the partnership between the national laboratories, universities, and industry to use thermoplastics composites and 3–D 

printing for renewable energy to overcome challenges to the development and implementation of innovative offshore wind technologies. 
69 

Within available funds for the Industrial Technical Assistance 

program, 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 

recognizes the great potential for energy savings in municipal, industrial, and agricultural wastewater treatment systems and encourages the Secretary to expand on the technical assistance provided by the Industrial Assessment Centers to address these needs 

by equipping the directors of the Industrial Assessment Centers 

with the training and tools necessary to provide technical assistance on energy savings to those facilities. Within the funds provided for the Industrial Assessment Centers, the Committee recommends not less than $1,500,000 for wastewater treatment technical assistance. The Committee encourages the Department to 

prioritize 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. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 

for district heating. The Committee further directs the Secretary to 

collaborate with industry to submit a report to the Committees on 

Appropriations of both Houses of Congress no later than 90 days 

after enactment that assesses the potential energy efficiency and 

energy security gains to be realized with district energy systems. 

The Committee supports research and development on improving 

foundational materials and processes applicable to aluminum and 

other primary metal industries. 

BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $195,000,000 for Building Technologies. 

The Committee supports ongoing efforts to work with State and 

local agencies to incorporate the latest technical knowledge and 

best practices into construction requirements. 

The Committee recommends $23,000,000 for the Residential 

Building Integration Program. Within this amount, 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 $32,000,000 for Commercial Buildings Integration. The Committee encourages a program of core research and development of more cost-effective integration techniques and technologies that could help the transition towards deep 

retrofits. In addition, the Committee encourages that the Department increase engagement with private sector stakeholders to develop market transforming policies and investments in commercial 

building retrofits. 
70 

The Committee recommends $90,000,000 for the Emerging Technologies subprogram. Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than $23,000,000 for transactive controls research and development, within which $5,000,000 is to continue 

promoting regional demonstrations of new, utility-led, residential 

Connected Communities advancing smart grid systems. Within 

available funds, the Committee recommends $25,000,000 for research, development, demonstration, and commercial application 

activities related to advanced solid-state lighting technology development. If the Secretary finds 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 made available 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 to the 

direct use of natural gas in residential applications, including gas 

heat pump heating and water heating, onsite combined heat and 

power, and natural gas appliance venting. Within available funds 

for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration research 

and development, the Committee is supportive of early-stage research in thermodynamic processes and cycles, materials research, 

component development, and systems and manufacturing techniques that enable performance advances in building equipment 

technologies. 

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for Equipment and 

Buildings Standards. 

Energy efficiency is a critical component of infrastructure development strategy. The Committee recognizes the importance of the 

Transformation in Cities initiative for local government planning 

and directs the Department to continue to support the goals of the 

initiative. 

WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $265,000,000 for the Weatherization 

and Intergovernmental Program. 

Within this amount, $215,000,000 is for the Weatherization Assistance Program [WAP], including $212,000,000 for Weatherization Assistance Grants and $3,000,000 for Training and Technical 

Assistance; and $50,000,000 is for State Energy Program grants. 

WAP grant funds are to be allocated on a statutory formula 

basis. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of providing Federal 

funds under the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program to 

States and tribes in a timely manner in order to avoid any undue 

delay of services to eligible low-income households, and to encourage local high-impact energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives and energy emergency preparedness. Therefore, the full 

amount of the funds appropriated for WAP and the State Energy 

Program shall be obligated to States, tribes, and other direct grantees no later than 60 days after enactment of this act. 

The Committee recognizes WAP as a critical program for creating jobs and addressing energy and environmental challenges of 

low-income households. Furthermore, the Committee notes the 
71 

health risks posed by the presence of vermiculite in home insulation and the thousands of households unable to access WAP services as a result of the high cost of the remediation of vermiculite. 

The Committee directs the Department to make $500,000 available 

to current WAP grant recipients via the Weatherization Innovation 

Pilot Program to develop and implement strategies to treat harmful 

substances, including vermiculite. 

CORPORATE SUPPORT PROGRAMS

Within amounts recommended for Corporate Support, $6,000,000 

is for the U.S.-Israel energy cooperative agreement, of which 

$4,000,000 is provided to establish the U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in Energy Engineering and Water Technology as authorized 

by the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act (Public Law 

113–296), and $2,000,000 is recommended to continue cooperative 

and collaborative work with the Israel-U.S. Binational Industrial 

Research and Development Foundation. This joint research and development center between the 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. 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $230,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 120,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 213,141,000 

The Committee recommends $213,141,000 for Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability, an increase of $93,141,000 from the budget 

request. Within available funds, the Committee recommends 

$27,000,000 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 not 

support 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. 

TRANSMISSION RELIABILITY

The Committee recommends $36,000,000 for Transmission Reliability. 

The Committee encourages the Department to prioritize the development of computer simulation tools that can predict the behavior of new technologies, such as variable generation and electronic 
72 

controls, on the grid. The Committee supports continued investment in advanced grid modeling algorithms and tool development 

to ensure resilient grid controls and protection systems that meet 

the challenges of the emerging smart grid. 

RESILIENT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for Resilient Distribution Systems. 

Within available funding, $5,000,000 is recommended for field 

validation of sensors using data analytics for utilities 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 Committee recommends that funds provided for the Advanced Grid Integration Division 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. 

CYBERSECURITY FOR ENERGY DELIVERY SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $53,000,000 for Cybersecurity for 

Energy Delivery Systems. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than 

$5,000,000 to develop cyber and cyber-physical solutions for advanced control concepts for distribution and municipal utility companies. The Committee encourages the Department to explore ways 

to get the Nation’s critical infrastructure off the Internet to shield 

the Nation’s electricity infrastructure from disruptive cyber penetration. Within available funds, the Department is directed to fund 

the third and final year of the Department of Energy Cooperative 

Agreement Projects DE–OE–00000807, ‘‘Improving the Cyber and 

Physical Security Posture of the Electric Sector’’, and DE–OE– 

0000811, ‘‘Improving the Cyber Resiliency and Security Posture of 

Public Power’’. 

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 encourages the Department 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. 

ENERGY STORAGE

The Committee recommends $37,141,000 for Energy Storage. 
73 

Within available funds, the Committee supports developing an 

operational energy storage test facility capable of performance-driven data in a utility environment. 

Within available funding, the Committee encourages the Department to further the development and demonstration of non-battery 

advanced storage components, including compressed air energy 

storage development and demonstration 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 from 

power interruptions; and improve grid security and reliability. 

The Committee supports grid-scale field demonstrations of energy storage projects, either as single facilities or as aggregations 

of units, with a focus on new use cases rather than new battery 

chemistry. The Committee encourages the Department to support 

State energy offices with energy storage planning and deployment, 

as well universities and to participate in industry-led safety codes 

and standards development. The Committee also supports funding 

for development of analytical methods for including energy storage 

in electric system planning, as well as for development of software 

tools to better value energy storage technologies. The Committee 

encourages the Department to consider expanding research and development partnerships related to the development and deployment 

of energy storage with stakeholders in diverse geographic regions 

with unique market dynamics and policy challenges that can help 

to inform nationwide efforts to improve grid resiliency, reliability, 

and security, empower consumers, and increase integration of a 

broad range of generation sources. 

The Committee is supportive of research for novel materials and 

system 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, as 

well 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 to 

continue 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 elec-
74 

tronics to control electromagnetic devices and enable improved controllability, flexibility, and resiliency. 

INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AND ENERGY RESTORATION

The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration. The Committee recommends an additional $3,000,000 above the request in recognition of the importance of the security of the energy sector. 

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 sources 

of data. 

The Committee encourages the Department to continue to develop implementation strategies and analysis in partnership with 

industry, universities, and laboratories to address potential impacts 

to the electric grid from cyber-attacks, geomagnetic disturbances, 

and electromagnetic pulse threats. The Committee directs the Department to provide within 90 days of enactment of this act a report identifying strategic laboratory, university, and industry partnerships that would enhance national security and assist industry 

in addressing critical threats, including electromagnetic pulse, geomagnetic disturbances, cyber-attacks, and supply chain disruptions. 

The Committee encourages the Department to consider existing assets that can be used for testing to support operational awareness, 

situational security, and recovery of the Nation’s critical grid infrastructure. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $1,016,616,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 703,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 917,020,000 

The Committee recommends $917,020,000 for Nuclear Energy, 

an increase of $214,020,000 from the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation for nuclear power prioritizes funding for programs, projects and activities 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 99 operating nuclear 

power plants is critical to our national security, economy, and way 

of life. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Integrated University Program. The Committee notes the administration repeatedly attempts to defund this program, despite continued success in 

developing highly qualified nuclear specialists to meet national 

needs. 
75 

NUCLEAR ENERGY ENABLING TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommends $120,600,000 for Nuclear Energy 

Enabling Technology. Within this amount, the Committee recommends $37,000,000 for Crosscutting Technology Development, 

$28,200,000 for Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation, $31,100,000 for National Scientific User Facilities, and 

$24,300,000 for the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation. Funding for nuclear cybersecurity and hybrid electric systems is recommended only within Crosscutting Technology Development, as in previous years. Further, the Committee notes that 

the budget request made the short-sighted recommendation to cancel the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation, 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. 

REACTOR CONCEPTS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION

The Committee recommends $132,000,000 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. Absent a clear 

set of goals for completing a program that demonstrates new technology can be deployed, the Department will continue to research 

concepts that never make it to the marketplace. The Committee directs the Department to provide a report to Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 180 days of the date 

of enactment of this act that sets aggressive, but achievable goals 

to demonstrate a variety of private-sector advanced reactor designs 

and fuel types by the late 2020s. The report shall include anticipated costs, both Federal and private, needed to achieve the goals. 

The Department shall collaborate with national laboratories, nuclear vendors, utilities, potential end users (such as petrochemical 

companies), and other stakeholders to identify subprogram priorities necessary to meet the identified goals. 

Advanced Reactor Technology.—Within available funds, the Committee recommends $92,000,000, including $18,000,000 for the 

third year of the advanced reactor concepts program and 

$3,000,000 for testing and development of dynamic convection technology. No funds are provided for engineering, design, or regulatory 

development for next generation light water reactor technologies. 

Versatile Fast Reactor.—The Committee recommends no funding 

for the Versatile Fast Reactor. The Department continues to recommend new programs or projects without showing any commitment to follow through with existing programs, especially key programs that show promise, or providing a detailed rationale for canceling those programs or projects. Accordingly, the Committee is reluctant to support a new multi-billion dollar project. The Committee directs the Department to provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 90 days 

after the date of enactment of this act that details all current programs and projects within the Office of Nuclear Energy, whether 

the Department plans to continue to support each program or 
76 

project, and the expected out-year funding through completion of 

the program or project. 

Light Water Reactor Sustainability.—Within available funds, the 

Committee recommends $40,000,000. 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 this 

activity to continue research and development work on the technical basis for subsequent license renewal. The Secretary shall 

focus 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 research 

and development in this area. 

FUEL CYCLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $213,500,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and Development. No defense function funds are provided. 

Within available funds, $14,000,000 is for Material Recovery and 

Waste Form Development, $6,000,000 is for Materials Protection, 

Accountancy, and Controls for Transmutation, and $8,500,000 is 

for Systems Analysis and Integration. 

The Committee continues to strongly support the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future 

and believes that near-term action is needed to address the accumulating inventory of spent nuclear fuel. The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for Integrated Waste Management System 

activities. Funding should be used to implement plans to consolidate spent nuclear fuel from around the United States to one or 

more 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 provided, 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 does not adopt the budget proposal to eliminate 

research and development activities previously funded in this account. The Committee recommends $65,000,000 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 

new solution to the waste problem. Priority shall be placed on the 

ongoing study 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 in order to significantly mitigate the potential consequences of 
77 

a nuclear accident. The Committee urges the Secretary to maintain 

focus and priority on achieving results in these efforts. The Committee recommends $85,000,000 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 to 

commercial reactor fuel assembly testing by 2022. Within this 

amount not less than $55,600,000 is recommended to continue the 

participation 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 other facilities, 

including at the Advanced Test Reactor, the Transient Reactor Test 

Facility, and the Halden reactor. In addition to amounts awarded 

through the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs, $3,000,000 is to continue of 

the previously awarded small business projects to develop ceramic 

cladding for accident tolerant fuels. 

INFRASTRUCTURE

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for Radiological Facilities Management, including $15,000,000 for continued safe operations and maintenance of Oak Ridge National Laboratory hot 

cells. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $216,202,000 for Idaho Facilities 

Management, which includes $12,000,000 above the requested level 

for operations and maintenance of the Advanced Test Reactor. The 

Advanced Test Reactor [ATR] is a vital asset that provides research 

capability across the Department. The Committee does not agree 

with the Department’s proposal to shift additional costs for ATR 

operations to Defense function funds, particularly without any justification for the change. The Committee directs the Department to 

provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations of both 

Houses of Congress not later than December 31, 2017, that lists all 

current and planned users for the ATR for the next 3 years, the 

operating cost attributed to each user, and the source of funds that 

will be applied to cover the costs for each user. Further, the Committee encourages the Department to fully fund ATR operations 

within the budget request for the Office of Nuclear Energy, including both Defense and non-Defense function funding. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $668,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 280,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 572,701,000 

The Committee recommends $572,701,000 for Fossil Energy Research and Development, an increase of $292,701,000 above the 

budget request. Within available funds, the Committee rec-
78 

ommends $57,000,000 for program direction. The Committee directs the use of $29,236,000 from prior year balances. 

Early-Stage Research and Development.—The Fossil Energy Research and Development program advances transformative scientific research, development, and deployment of technologies that 

enable the reliable, efficient, affordable, and environmentally sound 

use of fossil fuels. Fossil energy is an essential part of the United 

States’ 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 innovation and development, and would reduce the number of energy 

technologies adopted in the marketplace. 

Fossil Energy Roadmap.—The Committee directs the Department to develop a cohesive policy strategy and supporting roadmap 

or long term plan for its Fossil Energy Research and Development 

portfolio and supporting infrastructure to guide the discovery or advancement of technological solutions that incorporate lessons 

learned for the future of research, development, and demonstration 

efforts on advanced carbon capture and storage [CCS] technologies, 

advanced fossil energy systems, and crosscutting fossil energy research, as well as guide the discovery or advancement of technological solutions for the prudent and sustainable development of 

unconventional oil and gas. The Department is directed to deliver 

the ‘‘Fossil Energy Roadmap’’ to the Committees on Appropriations 

of both Houses of Congress within 1 year of enactment of this act. 

NETL.—No funds provided in by this Act shall be used for the 

closure of NETL sites. The Committee is supportive of NETL’s mission to discover, develop, and deploy new technologies to support 

a strong domestic fossil energy path. The Committee directs 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 

assessment will include an examination of the roles and responsibilities of staff within the Headquarters program, operations offices, and NETL to ensure the fossil energy research and development portfolio and supporting infrastructure are responsive to a cohesive policy strategy. 

National Carbon Capture Center.—The Committee recommends 

funding for the Department’s National Carbon Capture Center consistent with the cooperative agreement and fiscal year 2017. The 

Committee continues to encourage the Department to establish 

university partnerships to support ongoing fossil energy programs, 

to promote broader 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 on an established research base to support ongoing research 

and to address 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. 
79 

COAL CCS AND POWER SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $342,054,000 for Coal CCS and 

Power Systems. 

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 activities 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. 

Carbon Storage.—Within available funds for Carbon Storage, the 

Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Carbon Use and Reuse to 

continue 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 Department. The 

Committee urges the Department to support carbon dioxide utilization technologies and direct air capture technologies, including 

using carbon dioxide to produce algae. The Committee encourages 

the Office of Fossil Energy to collaborate with the Bioenergy Technologies program within EERE to support projects that utilize carbon dioxide in the production of algae and other potentially marketable products. Within the Storage Infrastructure subprogram, 

the Committee recemmends not less than $40,000,000 and directs 

the Department to issue a new solicitation for the Regional Carbon 

Sequestration Partnerships and CarbonSAFE. The Committee encourages the Department to focus on value-added business case opportunities and to address potential changing markets related to 

natural gas power generation and emissions from industrial 

sources. Further, the Committee supports the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships’ focus on infrastructure development 

strategies for regional and national carbon dioxide transportation 

and distribution systems that will be the catalyst for commercial 

ventures in carbon storage and utilization. 

Advanced Energy Systems.—Within funds available for Advanced 

Energy Systems, the Committee recommends not less than 

$30,000,000 for solid oxide fuel cell systems, which support research and development to enable efficient, cost-effective electricity 

generation with minimal use of water. The Committee recommends 

$23,250,000 for Gasification Systems, of which $7,440,000 is for the 

Advanced Air Separation Program to continue activities improving 

advanced air separation technologies. The Committee encourages 

the Department to support research and development efforts for 

new, higher efficiency gas turbines used in power generation systems to upgrade and increase the resiliency of the Nation’s elec-
80 

trical grid system, while reducing the cost of electricity and emissions. This should include partnerships with industry, small businesses, universities, and other appropriate parties. The Committee 

supports advancing the maturity of affordable clean energy technology for new plants and upgrading existing plants. The Committee is concerned with the lack of funding for wastewater treatment at existing power plants and supports conducting techno-economic studies and pilot tests of combustion technology to treat coal 

plant wastewater while generating excess electricity to offset the 

water treatment costs. 

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. 

NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $45,018,000 for Natural Gas Technologies. The Committee encourages the Department to support the 

research and demonstration of natural gas conversion technologies, 

which include waste-gas heat-to-electricity applications to create 

energy self-sufficient, high-efficiency, low-emission, oil and gas production sites on Federal and tribal lands. The Department is encouraged to address technical challenges to offshore oil and gas exploration and production, focusing on the development of technologies that enhance safe drilling operations, improving well integrity, improving riser designs and integrity, and safely extending 

the life and productivity of aging offshore oil and gas infrastructure. The Committee encourages the Department to support work 

related to blowout prevention. 

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 related 

data, 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 

$19,800,000 for methane hydrates, and notes that the request includes no money for actual research into the methods for producing 

methane hydrates. The Committee recommendation encourages the 

Secretary to perform a long-term methane hydrate production test 

in the Arctic, as proposed in the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee’s May 21, 2014, recommendations to the Secretary. 

Ethane Storage Hub.—The Committee understands the Department is conducting a study on the feasibility of establishing an ethane storage and distribution hub in central Appalachia. The Department is further directed to identify the Federal agencies with 

jurisdictional oversight of such a project and to coordinate with the 
81 

liaisons of those agencies to streamline the permitting application 

and approval process for a central Appalachian ethane storage and 

distribution hub. 

Environmentally Prudent Development.—The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for the Environmentally Prudent Development subprogram. 

Emissions Mitigation from Midstream Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for the Emissions Mitigation from 

Midstream Infrastructure subprogram. The Committee believes 

that the development, production, and transportation of natural 

gas should be done safely, without contamination, and in a way 

that reduces fugitive methane emissions. These practices are essential for mitigating environmental harms from shale gas development and reducing waste contamination. The Committee encourages the Department to continue developing advanced pipeline inspection technologies to aid in cleaner and safer oil and gas development. 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 this field, so that it shall complement the Emissions Mitigation from Midstream Infrastructure 

subprogram. 

Emissions Quantification from Natural Gas Infrastructure.—The 

Committee recommends $4,018,000 for the Emissions Quantification from Natural Gas Infrastructure research subprogram. 

UNCONVENTIONAL FOSSIL ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $26,319,000 for Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies. The Committee notes the importance of 

providing research support that will assure sustainable, reliable, 

affordable, and environmentally sound supplies of domestic unconventional fossil energy resources. 

The Secretary is encouraged to fund high-priority research, development, and deployment activities for unconventional oil, gas, 

and coal resources, including oil shale, as outlined in the September 2011 Domestic Unconventional Fossil Energy Resource Opportunities and Technology Applications report. 

The Committee recommends $7,660,000 for research to better understand reservoirs and to improve low recovery factors from unconventional natural gas and oil wells through more efficient well 

completion methods. An additional $7,659,000 is provided to continue research toward enhanced recovery technologies in shale oil, 

low permeability reservoirs, residual oil zone reservoirs and technology transfer methods. These efforts should be coordinated by the 

Department on a nationwide basis through a consortium of researchers and industry. Funds shall be awarded to a not-for-profit 

or university consortium comprised of multidisciplinary teams from 

industry, academia, and stakeholder groups that may also include 

State organizations. The projects will 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 
82 

effective solutions, and develop a better understanding of these reservoirs’ resource potential. 

The Committee directs the Department, in consultation with the 

Department of Transportation, to complete the crude oil characterization study to improve the safety of crude oil transported by rail. 

The Committee recommends up to $1,000,000 for completion of the 

study. The Committee recommends not less than $10,000,000 for the 

Unconventional Field Test Sites. 

The Committee supports research and development for drilling 

technologies that use little to no water. Further, the Committee 

supports research on multipronged approaches for characterizing 

the constituents of and managing the cleaning of water produced 

during the extraction of oil and natural gas, and encourages the 

Department to partner with research universities engaged in the 

study of characterizing, cleaning, treating, and managing produced 

water and industry partners to develop and assess commercially 

viable technology to achieve the same. The Committee encourages 

the Department to work with industry to identify and develop technologies that can characterize, clean, and effectively treat produced 

water to have beneficial reuse. 

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 can 

be 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 to 

natural 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 LABORATORY

The Committee recommends $72,663,000 for NETL Research and 

Development and $58,683,000 for NETL Infrastructure and Operations. 

The Committee remains supportive of the reorganization and 

budget restructuring of NETL, as it increases consistency with 

other national laboratories. The structure highlights research and 

development, as well as infrastructure and operational funding requirements, reflects increased transparency in how funds are utilized, and promotes enhanced visibility and oversight into cost drivers and more efficient resource allocation decisions. 

Within NETL Research and Development, the Committee commends the Department for including in their request support for 

the Feasibility of Recovering Rare Earth Elements. The Committee 

recommends $15,000,000 for the Department to expand its external 

agency activities to develop and test commercially viable advanced 

separation technologies at proof-of-concept or pilot scale that can be 

deployed near term for the extraction and recovery of rare earth 

elements and minerals from U.S. coal and coal byproduct sources 

having the highest potential for success. The Committee encourages the Department to leverage the capabilities of outside applied 
83 

researchers in implementing these activities. The Committee directs the Department to establish university partnerships to support efforts to increase production of unconventional fossil fuels 

through innovative seismic research, including optimizing high resolution and time-lapse geophysical methods for improved resource 

detection and better rock characterization. The objective of this research is to facilitate necessary technology development, expand 

understanding of subsurface dynamics, encourage prudent development and develop best practices and tools. 

Within NETL Infrastructure and Operations, the Committee directs the Department to prioritize funds to provide site-wide upgrades for safety, avoid an increase in deferred maintenance, and 

provide for the continued update and refresh of Joule through the 

second year of a 3-year lease. 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $14,950,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 4,900,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,900,000 

The Committee recommends $4,900,000 for Naval Petroleum and 

Oil Shale Reserves, the same as the budget request. The Committee directs the use of $15,300,000 from prior year balances. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $223,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 180,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 180,000,000 

The Committee recommends $180,000,000 for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the same as the budget request. 

The Committee understands the importance of the major maintenance projects and preventive/corrective maintenance activities 

needed at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve storage facilities and related facilities, and encourages the Department, when carrying out 

these maintenance and other construction projects to use as much 

American-made iron, steel, and other manufactured goods as possible. 

ENERGY SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION FUND

SALE OF CRUDE OIL

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $340,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 350,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 350,000,000 

USE OF SALE PROCEEDS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $340,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 350,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 350,000,000 

The Committee’s recommendation includes direction to the Department to draw down and sell not more than $350,000,000 of 

crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in fiscal year 2018. 

The proceeds from such drawdown shall be deposited in the Energy 
84 

Security and Infrastructure Modernization Fund during fiscal year 

2018, and shall be available until expended. 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $6,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 6,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,500,000 

The Committee recommends $6,500,000 for the Northeast Home 

Heating Oil Reserve, the same as the request. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $122,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 118,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 122,000,000 

The Committee recommends $122,000,000 for the Energy Information Administration [EIA], an increase of $4,000,000 above the 

budget request. 

The Committee supports the EIA’s efforts to expand its monthly 

State-level estimates of generation and capacity of small-scale distributed generation systems. 

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 the 

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Surveys to a real-time 

data collection system with rapid reporting of results, without compromising statistical validity or data security. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $247,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 218,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 266,000,000 

The Committee recommends $266,000,000 for Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, an increase of $47,600,000 above the budget 

request. 

Small Sites.—The Committee recommends $87,456,000 for Small 

Sites. Within the available funds, the Committee recommends 

$8,000,000 for work required pursuant to the agreement reached in 

2012 between the Department of Energy, the Advisory Council on 

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 

Manhattan Project National Historical 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. The new park has locations in Hanford, Washington, 

Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. It is administered and operated by the National Park Service in conjunction 

with the Department of Energy, which is working towards cleanup 

of these nuclear waste sites. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $21,000,000 

to continue to deactivate, decommission, and demolish facilities at 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and $38,456,000 for Moab. 
85 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $768,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 752,749,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 788,000,000 

The Committee recommends $788,000,000 for Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning [UED&D] activities, 

an increase of $35,251,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes $194,673,000 for East 

Tennessee Technology Park, $205,530,000 for Paducah, and 

$351,271,000 for Portsmouth. 

The Committee recommends $13,732,000 for the Title X Uranium 

and Thorium Reimbursement Program. Title X of the Energy Policy 

Act of 1992 authorizes the Secretary to reimburse eligible licensees 

for the Federal Government’s share of the cost associated with 

cleaning up former uranium and thorium processing sites across 

the country. 

SCIENCE

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $5,392,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 4,472,516,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,550,000,000 

The Committee recommends $5,550,000,000 for Science, an increase of $1,077,484,000 above the budget request. 

Distinguished Scientist Program.—The Committee recommends 

$2,000,000 to support the Department’s Distinguished Scientist 

Program, as authorized in section 5011 of Public Law 110–69 to 

promote scientific and academic excellence through collaborations 

between institutions of higher education and national laboratories 

to be funded from across all Office of Science programs. 

Interagency Collaborations.—The Committee continues to support the Department’s partnerships with the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of 

Homeland Security, and national security agencies. 

The Committee supports the Department’s contributions to the 

BRAIN initiative through the development of imaging and sensing 

tools and technologies at x-ray light sources and nanoscale research 

centers, as well as computational expertise, high performance computing, and data management. This complementary, multi-agency 

initiative is encouraged to take advantage of existing Department 

investments and infrastructure while engaging closely with the 

neuroscience community to accelerate our understanding of the 

brain. 

The Committee also encourages and supports the use of national 

laboratory user facilities for the National Cancer Moonshot Initiative. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $763,000,000 for Advanced Scientific Computing Research. 
86 

The Committee is supportive of the plan to accelerate delivery of 

at least one exascale-capable system in 2021, reasserting U.S. leadership in this critical area. The Committee recommends $184,000,000 for the Exascale Computing Project. In addition, the Committee recommends 

$150,000,000 for the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, 

$100,000,000 for the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, 

$94,000,000 for the National Energy Research Scientific Computing 

Center, and $79,000,000 for ESnet. Further, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Computational Sciences Graduate 

Program. The Committee recommends $24,559,000 for Research 

and Evaluation Prototypes. The Committee recommends not less 

than $117,392,000 for Mathematical, Computational, and Computer Sciences Research. 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $1,980,300,000 for Basic Energy 

Sciences [BES], and includes an accompanying table regarding control points, which the Department shall follow in expending these 

funds. 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

MATERIALS SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING: 

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH ............................. ........................ 20,000 

ENERGY FRONTIER RESEARCH CENTERS ....................................................................... 50,809 55,800 

ENERGY INNOVATION HUB, BATTERIES AND ENERGY STORAGE .................................... ........................ 24,088 

COMPUTATIONAL MATERIALS SCIENCES ........................................................................ ........................ 12,000 

OTHER MATERIALS SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING ......................................................... 255,828 254,857 

SUBTOTAL, MATERIALS SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING .............................................. 306,637 366,745 

CHEMICAL SCIENCES, GEOSCIENCES, AND BIOSCIENCES: 

ENERGY FRONTIER RESEARCH CENTERS ....................................................................... 48,065 54,200 

ENERGY INNOVATION HUB, FUELS FROM SUNLIGHT ...................................................... ........................ 15,000 

COMPUTATIONAL CHEMICAL SCIENCES .......................................................................... ........................ 13,489 

OTHER CHEMICAL SCIENCES, GEOSCIENCES, AND BIOSCIENCES ................................. 217,550 247,995 

SUBTOTAL, CHEMICAL SCIENCES, GEOSCIENCES, AND BIOSCIENCES ...................... 265,615 330,684 

SCIENTIFIC USER FACILITIES: 

SYNCHROTRON RADIATION LIGHT SOURCES: 

ADVANCED LIGHT SOURCE .................................................................................... 59,010 65,950 

ADVANCED PHOTON SOURCE ................................................................................ 122,075 133,995 

NATIONAL SYNCHROTRON LIGHT SOURCE–II ........................................................ 102,952 111,834 

STANFORD SYNCHROTRON RADIATION LIGHTSOURCE .......................................... 20,000 41,986 

LINAC COHERENT LIGHT SOURCE ......................................................................... 124,169 142,294 

SUBTOTAL, SYNCHROTRON RADIATION LIGHT SOURCES .................................. 428,206 496,059 

HIGH–FLUX NEUTRON SOURCES: 

SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE ............................................................................ 168,847 193,200 

HIGH FLUX ISOTOPE REACTOR .............................................................................. 56,773 65,000 

SUBTOTAL, HIGH–FLUX NEUTRON SOURCES .................................................... 225,620 258,200 

NANOSCALE SCIENCE RESEARCH CENTERS: 

CENTER FOR NANOSCALE MATERIALS .................................................................. 22,913 25,205 

CENTER FOR FUNCTIONAL NANOMATERIALS ......................................................... ........................ 21,418 

MOLECULAR FOUNDRY .......................................................................................... 25,823 31,500 
87 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

CENTER FOR NANOPHASE MATERIALS SCIENCES ................................................. 22,399 24,638 

CENTER FOR INTEGRATED NANOTECHNOLOGIES .................................................. ........................ 22,605 

SUBTOTAL, NANOSCALE SCIENCE RESEARCH CENTERS .................................. 71,135 125,366 

OTHER PROJECT COSTS: 

LINAC COHERENT LIGHT SOURCE II ...................................................................... 7,900 ........................

RESEARCH: 

ACCELERATOR AND DETECTOR RESEARCH ........................................................... 19,724 23,517 

LONG TERM SURVEILLANCE AND MAINTENANCE .................................................. ........................ 7,000 

SUBTOTAL, RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 19,724 30,517 

SBIR/STTR ....................................................................................................................... 27,563 33,729 

SUBTOTAL, SCIENTIFIC USER FACILITIES ................................................................... 780,148 943,871 

CONSTRUCTION: 

13–SC–10 LINAC COHERENT LIGHT SOURCE II (LCLS–II), SLAC .................................. 182,100 200,000 

18–SC–10 ADVANCED PHOTON SOURCE UPGRADE (APS–U), ANL ............................... 20,000 93,000 

18–SC–11 SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE PROTON POWER UPGRADE (PPU), ORNL .. ........................ 26,000 

18–SC–12 ADVANCED LIGHT SOURCE UPGRADE (ALS–U), LBNL ................................. ........................ 20,000 

SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................... 202,100 339,000 

TOTAL, BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES ............................................................................. 1,554,500 1,980,300 

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 challenges. The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR], and 

rejects the proposed termination of the program. The Committee 

understands the Department has either delayed or does not intend 

to initiate a renewal for the Batteries and Energy Storage Hub, the 

Joint Center for Energy Storage Research [JCESR]. The Committee 

directs the Department to move forward with the review and renewal process to support the next 5-year charter for next-generation battery and storage technologies. Recognizing the critical role 

battery and energy storage technologies play in both the transportation and electricity sectors, the Committee recommends not less 

than $24,088,000 for JCESR. In addition, the Committee recommends not less than $15,000,000 for the Fuels from Sunlight 

Hub, the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis [JCAP] to continue to perform research on the fundamental science of carbon dioxide reduction needed to enable efficient, sustainable solar-driven 

production of liquid transportation fuels. The Committee recommends not less than $125,366,000 to continue the five existing 

Nanoscale Science Research Centers, and rejects the proposed termination of both the Center for Functional Nanomaterials and the 

Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies. 

The Committee recommends $496,059,000 for the five BES light 

sources to fully support research and allow the facilities to proceed 

with necessary maintenance, routine accelerator and instrumentation improvements, and crucial staff hires or replacements. The 

Committee recognizes the critical role that light sources play in the 
88 

Nation’s innovation ecosystem, and the growing support for them 

by U.S. researchers and industry. In light of increased international investment in these unique scientific resources and the 

consequences for U.S. innovation leadership, the Committee continues to support efforts to upgrade and renew these facilities 

across the full spectrum of x-ray capabilities. In support of the priority recommendations from recent Basic Energy Sciences Advisory 

Committee reports, the Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the 

High Energy Upgrade at LCLS II. In addition, the Committee recommends $93,000,000 for the Advanced Photon Source Upgrade. The Committee recommends $258,200,000 for high-flux neutron 

sources, which will allow for both Spallation Neutron Source [SNS] 

and High Flux Isotope Reactor [HFIR] to proceed with 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. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends funding for two new 

projects as shown in the table below. Within the amounts recommended for construction, the Committee recommends 

$26,000,000 for preliminary engineering and design of the Proton 

Power Upgrade project at SNS, and to continue work towards a 

project baseline. In addition, the Committee recommends 

$20,000,000 for the Advanced Light Source Upgrade. 

The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for ongoing surveillance 

and monitoring activities designed to detect groundwater contamination at or near Brookhaven National Laboratory from the legacy 

High Flux Beam Reactor. The Committee recommends $26,000,000 

for exascale systems. 

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 Secretary to continue funding to support research and development needs of graduate and post-graduate science programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $633,000,000 for Biological and Environmental Research. The Committee rejects the short-sighted reductions proposed in the budget request. The Committee recognizes 

the unique and beneficial role that the Department plays for the 

Nation in the advancement of biosciences to address core departmental missions in energy and the environment. The Department 

is directed to give priority to optimizing the operation of Biological 

and Environmental Research User Facilities. 

The Committee recommends $321,721,000 for Biological Systems 

Science, including not less than $90,000,000 for the four recentlyselected Bioenergy Research Centers for the first year of their renewal funding period, including $25,000,000 for the three existing 

centers and $15,000,000 for the new awardee. The Committee directs the Department to maintain Genomic Science as a top priority, and continues to support the Mesoscale to Molecules activity. 
89 

The Committee recommends $69,300,000 for the Joint Genome Institute, an essential component for genomic research. The Committee recommends $311,279,000 for Earth and Environmental Systems Sciences. Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than $43,200,000 for the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, not less than $65,400,000 

for the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement User Facility, not less 

than $10,000,000 for NGEE–Arctic, and not less than $8,300,000 

for the SPRUCE field site. The Committee also recommends 

$3,000,000 to support ongoing research and discovery related to 

mercury biogeochemical transformations in the environment. The 

Committee recommends $10,000,000 to support the exascale computing initiative. The Committee directs the Department to expend 

appropriated funds for critical research on environmental science. 

In addition, the Committee remains concerned about the delay in 

the current review process, and directs the Department to continue 

to move forward in awarding grants. 

The Committee encourages the Department to increase funding 

for academia to perform climate model studies that include the collection and evaluation of atmospheric data sets from satellite observations obtained in cooperation with NASA. Satellite observations 

of the atmosphere, within the context of the Earth as a global system, provide information that is critical in the interpretation of 

Earth-based observations. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $232,000,000 for Fusion Energy 

Sciences. 

U.S. Contribution to ITER.—The Committee recommends no 

funding for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 

[ITER] project, as this funding would come at the expense of other 

Office of Science priorities. 

The Committee recommends the Department prioritize operations and research for DIII–D tokomak facility. 

The Committee remains concerned about the timeline of facility 

repair and recovery actions for the National Spherical Torus Experiment Upgrade [NSTX–U], as operations have ceased through at 

least fiscal year 2019. The Committee directs the Department to 

assess science drivers for the NSTX–U to support future planning 

and reconfiguration for the Fusion Energy Sciences program, and 

provide a briefing to the Committees on Appropriations of both 

Houses of Congress upon completion. 

The Committee supports continued research in the Fusion Energy Sciences Program on 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. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $860,000,000 for High Energy Physics. The Committee strongly supports the Secretary’s efforts to advance the recommendations of the Particle Physics Project 

Prioritization Panel Report, which established clear priorities for 

the domestic particle physics program. 
90 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $82,000,000 

for the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility/Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment. The Committee recommends funding for the 

Muon to Electron Conversion Experiment (Mu2e) consistent with 

the approved baseline funding profile and $5,000,000 to continue 

the upgrade of the Facility for Advanced Accelerator Experimental 

Tests II. In addition, the Committee continues to strongly support 

U.S. participation in the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] at CERN, 

and directs the Department to prioritize and provide optimal funding for the LHC accelerator upgrades and the LHC CMS and 

ATLAS collaboration activities. 

Within Cosmic Frontier Experimental Physics, the Committee recommends $17,500,000 for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument and $14,100,000 for the G2 Dark Matter Experiment LUX 

ZEPLIN. The Committee recommends $9,800,000 for the Large 

Synoptic Survey Telescope Camera. The Committee recommends 

$24,100,000 for the Proton Improvement Project II at Fermi National Laboratory. This funding will advance design work for accelerator upgrades that will support the LBNF project. The Committee also recommends $7,400,000 for SuperCDMS–SnoLab. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $639,200,000 for Nuclear Physics, 

and strongly supports the 2015 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 $97,200,000 

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 

$5,000,000 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 $3,200,000 for the Gamma-Ray Energy Tracking 

Array [GRETA], which will enable advanced, high resolution 

gamma ray detection capabilities for FRIB. The Committee further recommends $174,600,000 for operations 

at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, and optimal operations for 

the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, the Argonne 

Tandem Linac Accelerator System, and the Brookhaven Linac Isotope Producer Facility. 

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS

The Committee recommends $19,500,000 for Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists. 

Within available funds, $8,300,000 is for the Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internship; $1,000,000 is for the Community 

College Institute of Science and Technology; $2,500,000 is for the 

Graduate Student Research Program; $1,700,000 is for the Visiting 

Faculty Program; $1,200,000 is for the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship; $2,900,000 is for the National 
91 

Science Bowl; $750,000 is for Technology Development and Online 

Application; $600,000 is for Evaluation Studies; $500,000 is for 

Outreach; and $50,000 is for the Laboratory Equipment Donation 

Program. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $143,000,000 for Science Laboratories Infrastructure. 

Within these funds, the Committee recommends $26,000,000 for 

nuclear operations at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. In future 

budget requests, the Committee directs the Office of Science to 

work 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, 2017 ............................................................................. $306,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ¥26,367,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 330,000,000 

The Committee recommends $330,000,000 for the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy [ARPA–E], an increase of 

$356,367,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, the 

Committee recommends $29,250,000 for program direction. 

ARPA–E was established by the America COMPETES Act of 

2007 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 development of transformational, high-impact energy technologies to ensure the Nation’s economic and energy security and technological 

leadership. Project sponsors continue to form strategic partnerships 

and new companies, as well as secure private sector funding to 

help move ARPA–E technologies closer to the market. 

The budget request proposes to terminate ARPA–E and use 

funds appropriated in fiscal year 2017 for oversight and management. The Committee definitively rejects this short-sighted proposal, and instead increases investment in this transformational 

program and directs the Department to continue to spend funds 

provided on research and development and program direction. The 

Department shall not use any appropriated funds to plan or execute the termination of ARPA–E. In addition, the Committee remains concerned about the timeliness of the current review process, and directs the Department to continue to move forward on approving Funding Opportunity Announcements. 

OFFICE OF INDIAN ENERGY POLICY AND PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $16,000,000 

The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for the Office of Indian 

Energy Policy and Programs. The activities of this office have previously been funded through Departmental Administration. The 

Committee encourages the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Pro-
92 

grams to facilitate better communication among different Federal 

agencies regarding rules, regulations issued, and actions taken by 

other Federal agencies impacting energy development on Indian 

lands. 

TRIBAL ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $9,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000 

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the Tribal Energy 

Loan Guarantee Program. 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $37,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 2,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,000,000 

OFFSETTING RECEIPTS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. ¥$30,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ¥2,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥2,000,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $7,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

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

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 in funding for the Loan 

Guarantee Program, the same as the request. This funding is offset 

by $2,000,000 in receipts from loan guarantee applicants, for a net 

appropriation of $0. An additional $15,000,000 in prior receipts 

from loan guarantee applicants is credited to the bill as a 

scorekeeping adjustment. Section 309 of the General Provisions rescinds all remaining loan authority and subsidy cost except for 

$2,000,000,000 in fossil loan authority to accommodate the current 

conditional commitment. 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN

PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 2,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000 

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, an increase of 

$3,000,000 above the budget request. 
93 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $246,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 241,652,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 238,736,000 

(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. ¥$103,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ¥96,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥96,000,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $143,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 145,652,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 142,736,000 

The Committee recommends $238,736,000 in funding for Departmental Administration including the Department’s activities related to implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. This funding is offset by $96,000,000 in revenue for 

a net appropriation of $142,736,000. 

The Committee has reduced the number of control points in this 

account in order 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 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 Programs is funded in a separate account. 

Compliance with State Laws.—The Committee directs the Department to submit a report, no later than 30 days after enactment 

of this act, detailing projects approved under 42 U.S.C. 16421 and 

the Department’s efforts to ensure compliance with State laws, as 

applicable under 42 U.S.C. 16421(d)(2). 

Nonprofit Cost Share.—The Committee notes that the Secretary 

may reduce or eliminate the research and development match requirement established in section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, where necessary and appropriate. The Committee encourages 

the Secretary to consider the use of this discretion if the research 

goals of the Department would be advanced by reducing or eliminating the match requirement for nonprofit organizations and institutions. 

Small Refinery Exemption.—Under section 211(o)(9)(B) of the 

Clean Air Act, a small refinery may petition the EPA Administrator for an exemption from the Renewable Fuel Standard [RFS] 

on the basis that the refinery experiences a disproportionate economic hardship under the RFS. When evaluating a petition, the 

Administrator consults with the Secretary of Energy to determine 

whether disproportionate economic hardship exists. According to 
94 

the Department’s March 2011 Small Refinery Exemption Study, 

disproportionate economic hardship must encompass two broad 

components: a high cost of compliance relative to the industry average disproportionate impacts, and an effect sufficient to cause a 

significant impairment of the refinery operations’ viability. If the 

Secretary finds that either of these two components exists, the 

Committee directs the Secretary to recommend to the EPA Administrator at least a 50-percent waiver of RFS requirements for the 

petitioner. The Committee also directs the Secretary to score all of 

the metrics in the study and to score the metrics according to the 

2011 study scoring criteria and not any later addendum to the 

study. The Secretary is directed to seek small refinery comment before making changes to its scoring metrics for small refinery petitions for RFS waivers, and to notify the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress prior to making any final changes 

to scoring metrics. Only the impact on the small refinery’s transportation fuel margins is pertinent to measuring RFS impacts on 

relative refining margins. The Committee notes that the conference 

report accompanying the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, addressed similar issues 

and directed the Secretary to redo an earlier study done to evaluate whether the RFS program imposes a disproportionate economic 

hardship on small refineries. In calling for the Secretary to redo 

the study, the conference report cited the lack of small refinery 

input into the earlier study, concerns about regional RFS compliance cost disparities, small refinery dependence on the purchase of 

renewable fuel credits [RINs], and increasing RIN costs. Since 

then, the dramatic rise in RIN prices has amplified RFS compliance and competitive disparities, especially where unique regional 

factors exist, including high diesel demand production, no export 

access, and limited biodiesel infrastructure and production. In response to recent petitions in prior years, the Secretary determined 

that the RFS program would impose a disproportionate economic 

and structural impact on several small refineries. Despite this determination, the Secretary did not recommend, and EPA did not 

provide, any RFS relief because it determined the refineries were 

profitable enough to afford the cost of RFS compliance without substantially impacting their viability. The Committee reminds the 

Secretary that the RFS program may impose a disproportionate 

economic hardship on a small refinery even if the refinery makes 

enough profit to cover the cost of complying with the program. 

Small refinery profitability does not justify a disproportionate regulatory burden where Congress has explicitly given EPA authority, 

in consultation with the Secretary, to reduce or eliminate this burden. 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $44,424,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 49,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 49,000,000 

The Committee recommends $49,000,000 for the Office of the Inspector General, the same as the request. 
95 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

The Committee recommendation for the National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA] continues funding for recapitalization 

of our nuclear weapons infrastructure, while modernizing and 

maintaining a safe, secure, and credible nuclear deterrent without 

testing. This is among our most important national security priorities. 

At the same time, the Committee supports continuing important 

efforts to secure and permanently eliminate remaining stockpiles of 

nuclear and radiological materials overseas and in the United 

States that can 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. 

INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM

The Committee directs the Secretary to carry out the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 16274a in support of university research and 

development 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 the 

next generation of leaders in nonproliferation, nuclear security, and 

international 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 Secretary to request funding for this program in future budget years, and specifically highlight the source of funds within the budget request. Further, funding for this program shall not come from prior year 

funds. 

In addition to the Integrated University Program within Defense 

Nuclear Nonproliferation, NNSA manages several university-related programs, ranging from fellowships and scholarships to university research. NNSA has not been able to provide a clear accounting of these various programs, and is directed to provide a report annually with the budget request that lists all of the university programs requested, the recommended funding level, and the 

value that program provides the NNSA. 

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Committee is concerned about NNSA’s ability to properly estimate costs and timelines for large projects. The NNSA is encouraged to assess current performance on projects costing more than 

$750,000,000, and make appropriate project management changes. 

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 of Congress in 

a timely manner. 
96 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $9,245,567,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 10,239,344,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,000,071,000 

The Committee recommends $10,000,071,000 for Weapons Activi- ties, a decrease of $239,273,000 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 WORK

The Committee recommends $3,912,617,000 for Directed Stockpile Work. 

Life Extension Programs.—The Committee recommends 

$1,744,088,000 for Life Extension Programs [LEPs] and Major Alterations, which fully funds all LEPs and major alterations in the 

budget request, consistent with the plan of record approved by the 

Nuclear Weapons Council. NNSA needs to ensure that LEPs are 

completed on time and on budget to prevent impact on other high 

priorities, such as modernizing aging infrastructure, critical nonproliferation activities to combat nuclear terrorism, and naval nuclear propulsion. 

W76 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$224,134,000 for the W76 LEP. Completing the W76 LEP, which 

makes up the largest share of the country’s nuclear weapon deterrent on the most survivable leg of the Triad, is this Committee’s 

highest priority for LEPs. 

B61 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$788,572,000 for the B61 LEP. The Committee supports the Nuclear Weapons Council plan to retire the B83, the last megaton 

class weapon in the stockpile, by 2025. 

W88 Alt 370.—The Committee recommends $332,292,000 for the 

W88 Alt 370. 

W80–4 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$399,090,000 for the W80–4 LEP. 

Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition.—The Committee recommends $56,000,000 for the dismantlement of retired nuclear 

weapons removed from the stockpile. Further, the Committee supports accelerated dismantlements now as a way of preparing its 

workforce for necessary stockpile production work beginning later 

this decade. 

Stockpile Systems.—The Committee recommends $475,000,000 

for stockpile systems. Funds are no longer controlled at the system 

level, but should continue to be reflected in the future budget requests at the system level. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING

The Committee recommends $1,963,962,000 for Research, Development, Technology, and Engineering. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield Campaign.—The Committee recommends $544,934,000 for the inertial 

confinement fusion ignition and high-yield campaign. Within the 

amount provided, $344,000,000 shall be for inertial confinement fusion activities at the National Ignition Facility, $61,600,000 shall 
97 

be for Sandia National Laboratory’s Z facility, and $75,000,000 

shall be for the University of Rochester’s Omega facility. 

Within the Inertial Confinement Fusion program, the Committee 

is concerned that NNSA’s contracting practices are leading to instability in the target design and fabrication vendor base. The Committee encourages NNSA to review all current and planned target 

supply contracts to ensure its actions support a robust, innovative 

and cost-effective target design and fabrication capability from multiple vendors, including small businesses. 

Advanced Simulation and Computing.—The Committee recommends $734,244,000 for advanced simulation and computing. 

Within these funds, the Committee recommends no less than 

$161,000,000 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. 

Advanced Manufacturing Development.—The Committee recommends $85,540,000 for Advanced Manufacturing Development. 

Within the amount provided, $34,896,000 is recommended for Process Technology Development, including $5,000,000 above the budget request to modernize and upgrade legacy applications at weapons production facilities in order to improve manufacturing and 

safety. 

Stockpile Responsiveness Program.—The Committee recommendation supports the important goals of the Stockpile Responsiveness Program. The bill includes a provision that provides 

special reprogramming authority of up to $40,000,000 for the 

Stockpile Responsiveness Program, subject to the Committee’s normal notification guidelines. 

Engineering.—The Committee supports the request to begin recapitalization of the NNSA’s trusted strategic microelectronics capability. However, the Committee urges NNSA to maintain focus 

on developing a cross-government approach to ensure that both 

NNSA and multiple customer needs are satisfied. No later than 90 

after the date of enactment of this act, NNSA is directed to submit 

a report to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 

Congress detailing the technical requirements for trusted microelectronics, an analysis of alternatives for meeting those requirements among public and private sector entities, and preliminary 

cost and schedule estimates for the various alternatives. 

Academic Alliances and Partnerships.—Within available funds, 

not less than $2,000,000 shall be for Tribal Colleges and Universities. 

INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $2,722,137,000 for Infrastructure 

and Operations. 

Project 06–D–141, Uranium Processing Facility, Y–12, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee.—The Committee recommends $663,000,000 to continue 

design and engineering work as well as site readiness and site 

preparation projects for the Uranium Processing Facility. 

The Committee supports efforts to replace existing enriched uranium capabilities currently residing in Building 9212 by 2025 for 

not more than $6,500,000,000. The Committee supports the strat-
98 

egy of breaking the project into more manageable sub-projects. This 

practice is specifically permitted by DOE Order 413.3B, and is a 

practical approach for any project of this magnitude. The Committee expects the Secretary to ensure full compliance with the Department’s requirement to have a design that is at least 90 percent 

complete before approving the start of construction for the nuclear 

facilities. The Committee understands that the NNSA must complete enough design work before it can set a performance baseline 

for each subproject, which includes an accurate cost and schedule 

for completion. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY

The Committee recommends $691,977,000 for Defense Nuclear 

Security, within which $5,000,000 is recommended to continue the 

design work for the West End Protected Area Reduction at Y–12. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $1,902,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 1,842,310,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,852,310,000 

The Committee recommends $1,852,310,000 for Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation, an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget request. To preserve and advance uranium and engineering expertise 

for purposes of national security and nonproliferation, the Committee encourages the ongoing collaboration between the Department’s Office of Intelligence and the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation provides a vitally important 

component 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 proliferation 

of technologies that simplify production, manufacturing, and design 

of nuclear materials and weapons. The Committee recognizes the 

importance 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. 

Global Material Security.—The Committee recommends 

$357,108,000 for Global Material Security to increase the security 

of vulnerable stockpiles of nuclear weapons, weapons-usable nuclear materials, and radiological materials and to improve partner 

countries’ abilities to deter, detect, and interdict illicit trafficking. 

The Committee finds that unlike the materials needed for a nuclear weapon, which are located in fewer than 25 countries, the 

materials needed to build a dirty bomb can be found in thousands 

of hospitals, medical centers, research labs, and businesses in more 

than 150 countries. The most effective way to significantly reduce 

the threat of a radiological dispersal device, or dirty bomb, is, 

where feasible, to replace the radiological sources with safe, effective alternative technologies. For example, alternative x-ray technologies to replace cesium-137 blood irradiators are commercially 
99 

available, offer equivalent medical outcomes, and have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. There are approximately 850 cesium blood and research irradiators in the 

United States, with over 500 being cesium blood irradiators. Therefore, within the funds provided, the Committee recommends not 

less than $20,000,000 for the Cesium Irradiator Replacement Program. Furthermore, the Secretary is directed to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress no later than 

90 days after the date of enactment of this act a report on the Cesium Irradiator Replacement Program, including a description of 

progress to date in reducing the use of cesium–137 based irradiation devices; identification of the universe of cesium–137 devices, 

including the number, general location, and user type; a 

prioritization scheme for replacement of devices; and estimated annual funding needs to replace all devices within 10 years through 

the existing voluntary, cost-shared program with devices users. 

Materials Management and Minimization.—Within Materials 

Management and Minimization, the Committee recommends 

$130,500,000 for Conversion, of which no less than $40,000,000 

shall be for the Molybdenum-99 [Moly-99] program. The Committee 

continues to place a high priority on the development of domestic 

supplies of the medical isotope Moly-99 on a schedule adequate to 

meet public health needs. The Committee notes the need for ongoing encouragement of private sector production of Moly-99 without 

the use of highly enriched uranium. New entrants to the program, 

particularly those utilizing existing infrastructure at the national 

laboratories or other facilities, should be encouraged. In addition, 

the Committee has followed closely the progress of current cooperative agreement awardees and notes that a number of first-of-a-kind 

regulatory and technological issues have delayed and increased the 

cost of these projects. Therefore, the Secretary is directed to provide up to $35,000,000 or 50 percent of total project cost, consistent 

with American Medical Isotope Production Act provisions, whichever is less, in cost sharing funds for cooperative agreement awardees or award new cooperative agreements that leverage existing resources within the Department. Lastly, the NNSA shall ensure 

that its financial contributions to projects are made on a timely 

basis commensurate with the private parties’ expenditures. NNSA 

shall not delay payment of matching contributions simply to remain involved in the projects through completion. 

Nonproliferation and Arms Control.—The Committee recommends $124,703,000 for Nonproliferation and Arms Control activities. Within available amounts, the Committee recommends not 

less than $3,000,000 for international cooperation between governmental and non-governmental organizations at the national and 

sub-national levels to implement robust export control protocols. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development.— 

The Committee recommends $436,095,000 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 our 

ability to detect the production and movement of these materials 

is vitally important. Research and development in this area is espe-
100 

cially important. The Committee recommendation also supports 

continued research and development of novel enrichment technologies to support nonproliferation goals, and recommends 

$2,000,000 for this purpose. 

MOX Construction.—The Committee recommends $270,000,000, 

and supports the budget request proposal to terminate the construction of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility as early as practicable. No funds are provided to continue construction of the MOX 

Fuel Fabrication facility. 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $1,419,813,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 1,479,751,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,436,651,000 

The Committee recommends $1,436,651,000 for Naval Reactors, 

a decrease of $43,100,000 below the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation fully funds important national priorities, including the Columbia-class replacement submarine design and the 

prototype refueling. Naval Reactors relies on high-enriched uranium from weapons that have been removed from the stockpile to 

fuel the Navy’s aircraft carriers and submarines. The Committee 

directs Naval Reactors to provide a report to the Committees on 

Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on the long-term sustainability of high-enriched uranium for Naval Reactor Propulsion 

for the Navy. The report shall include any impacts that may arise 

from changes to the shipbuilding plan under consideration and any 

outcomes of the Nuclear Posture Review. The report shall be provided within 60 days after completion of the Nuclear Posture Review. 

COLUMBIA-CLASS REACTOR SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $156,700,000 for Columbia-Class 

Reactor Systems Development. Funds for this program were included last year as Ohio-Class Replacement Reactor Systems Development. Columbia-class submarines must be delivered on time 

to maintain our survivable deterrent. The Committee directs Naval 

Reactors to provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations 

of both Houses of Congress by February 1, 2018, that outlines key 

technical risks to delivering the lead submarine on time, and mitigation strategies for those risks. At a minimum, the report shall include qualification of the fuel design and any major components in 

the propulsion plant. 

NAVAL REACTORS DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $461,267,000 for Naval Reactors Development. Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends 

$70,000,000 for the Advanced Test Reactor. 

Future Fuel Systems.—The Committee directs Naval Reactors to 

provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations of both 

Houses of Congress by June 1, 2018, on its plans to design improved fuel systems. The report shall include any planned efforts 

to design a low enriched uranium fuel system, including the linkage between any planned future fuel system and a Navy fleet re-
101 

quirement. The report shall also discuss planned needs and schedule for irradiation testing and post irradiation examination. 

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee recommends $117,700,000 for Construction. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $102,000,000 

for the Spent Fuel Handling Facility in Idaho and $15,000,000 for 

the Fire System Upgrade at KAPL. 

FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $390,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 418,595,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 396,000,000 

The Committee recommends $396,000,000, a decrease of 

$22,595,000 below the budget request. 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $5,405,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 5,537,186,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,579,968,000 

The Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental 

Cleanup is $5,579,968,000, an increase of $42,782,000 above the 

budget request. Within available funds, the Department is directed 

to fund the Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program. 

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 the 

total cost and time to complete each site. 

Richland.—The Committee recognizes that significant progress 

has been made at the Hanford Site, including 984 contaminated 

waste sites remediated, 18 million tons of contaminated soil and 

debris removed, 2,300 tons of spent nuclear fuel removed and 

placed in dry storage, 16 billion gallons of contaminated groundwater remediated, and 428 facilities demolished. The Committee 

recommends $826,192,000 for Richland Operations to continue critical cleanup work and ensure compliance with Tri-Party Agreement 

milestones. Additional funding is provided for cleanup of the 300– 

296 waste site, risk-reduction activities associated with legacy 

waste sites, K-West facility cleanup and deactivation, and community and regulatory support. Within available funds in the River 

Corridor control point, the Department is directed to carry out 

maintenance and public safety efforts at the B Reactor, the Manhattan Project National Historical Park, and the Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response facilities. Further, 

within available funds the Department is directed to work with 

contractors, labor, and the State of Washington to establish a resource center to provide education and advocacy to current and 

former Hanford employees on all available Federal and State compensation programs. 

NNSA Sites.—The Committee recommends $283,240,000 for 

NNSA sites. Within available funds, the Committee recommends 

$217,529,000 for cleanup at Los Alamos National Laboratory. 
102 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommends 

$275,219,000 for the Oak Ridge Reservation, including $10,000,000 

to support preliminary design of a new landfill for the Oak Ridge 

Reservation. The existing on-site disposal facility is expected to 

reach capacity before all cleanup activities are completed. Planning 

for a new landfill is necessary to ensure that there is no interruption of cleanup activities. Within funds available for Cleanup and 

Waste Disposition, the Committee recommends $52,000,000 for 

continuing transuranic waste processing and storage to meet contractual and regulatory commitments. 

U–233 Disposition Program.—The Committee recommends 

$50,311,000 for the cleanup of Building 3019. Removal of legacy 

material from this building, an aging facility in the heart of the 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory central campus, must remain 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 safety issues, and 

make the campus more conducive to collaborative science. The 

Committee encourages the Department to seek opportunities to expedite cleanup of Building 3019, including public private partnerships that may reduce the overall cost of cleanup. 

Mercury Treatment Facility.—The Committee recommends 

$17,100,000 for 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 a high priority for the Environmental Management program. 

Office of River Protection.—The Committee recommends 

$1,590,000,000 for the Office of River Protection. Funds above the 

budget request are provided to resume full engineering, procurement, and construction work on the High-Level Waste Treatment 

facility, to resolve the five remaining technical issues on the PreTreatment facility, to ensure compliance with the 2016 Consent Decree and Tri-Party Agreement milestones, and to continue tank 

waste retrievals. 

The Committee recognizes the Department’s efforts to improve 

working conditions in the tank farms and address chemical vapor 

exposures by implementing recommendations from the 2014 Hanford Tank Vapor Assessment Report. The Committee is aware of 

three subsequent reviews conducted by the Department’s Office of 

the Inspector General and Office of Enterprise Assessments, and 

the 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 the three additional reviews, and maintain a safe work environment for Hanford 

employees. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommends 

$1,260,000,000 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 is concerned there is a lack of coordination and consistency among the Office of Environmental Management, NNSA, and the Office of Management and Budget when 

planning for retiree pension payments at the Savannah River Site. 
103 

The Department is directed to provide a report to the Committees 

on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress with the fiscal year 

2019 budget request that describes the assumptions made in determining the anticipated retiree pension payments, including the anticipated out-year costs for retiree pension payments. The report 

shall also include the Department’s plan for ensuring the Savannah River Site out-year retiree pension obligations are met, including any proposed changes in the manner funding is projected or requested. 

Idaho.—The Committee recommends $350,226,000 for cleanup of 

Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee remains concerned 

about the lack of progress in starting operations at the Integrated 

Waste Treatment Unit. Completed in 2012 at a cost of 

$571,000,000, the facility is intended to treat 900,000 gallons of sodium-bearing radioactive waste. Unfortunately, design flaws and 

other problems have led to another $281,000,000 being spent without startup of the facility. Treating this waste is necessary for 

cleanup of the Idaho site and to meet regulatory commitments to 

the State. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.—The Committee recommends 

$300,971,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [WIPP]. Worker 

safety must continue to be a priority for the Department and its 

contractors, and the Committee encourages the Secretary to not 

prioritize waste emplacement schedules over safe operations and 

infrastructure improvements at the facility. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 above the budget request to address maintenance backlog issues. The restart of limited operations and the ongoing improvements to site infrastructure at the WIPP facility provide an opportunity to assess the status of current and future disposal requirements. The Committee directs the Secretary to submit 

to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 

not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act a 

long-term, consolidated plan for disposing of waste at WIPP. The 

plan shall include an analysis of the remaining capacity of WIPP 

under volumetric and radionuclide caps authorized under the Land 

Withdrawal Act. The plan shall also include an analysis of current 

and future waste streams that are eligible for disposal in WIPP 

and shall include steps to be taken to involve the state of New 

Mexico in any recommended changes. 

Excess Facilities.—The Committee supports efforts to address the 

backlog of excess, high-risk facilities in the nuclear weapons complex. The Committee recommends $55,000,000 for this effort. Within available funds, $15,000,000 shall be for planning and permitting for cleanup of facilities at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and $40,000,000 shall be for cleanup of facilities at the Y– 

12 National Security Complex. 

Safeguards and Security.—The Committee recommends 

$304,102,000 for safeguards and security activities at cleanup sites, 

within which $43,342,000 is for cybersecurity activities. 

Technology Development and Demonstration.—The Committee 

recommends $25,000,000 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. Further, the 
104 

Committee supports the Department’s efforts to award merit-based 

research at the national laboratories to address long-term cleanup 

mission needs. The Committee believes it is in the best interest of 

all sites that these funds are competitively awarded and managed 

by Department of Energy Headquarters. Within the amount provided, no less than $5,000,000 shall be made available for work on 

qualification, testing and research to advance the state of the 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 center for that 

purpose. No new funds are provided for the National Spent Fuel 

Database. This effort should be funded within the Office of Nuclear 

Energy. 

DEFENSE URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND

DECOMMISSIONING

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $563,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 788,000,000 

The Committee recommends $788,000,000 to fully offset the fiscal year 2018 appropriation for the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning account. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $784,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 815,512,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 784,000,000 

The Committee recommends $784,000,000 for Other Defense Activities, a decrease of $31,512,000 from the budget request. Within 

available funds, the Committee recommends $238,170,000 for Specialized Security Activities. Within the funds available 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 

The Committee recognizes the important role the Power Marketing Administrations play in delivering affordable power, maintaining grid reliability, and supporting the Nation’s Federal multipurpose water projects. The Department’s proposal to divest the 

transmission assets of the Bonneville Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and Western Area Power Administration could increase costs for millions of consumers, decrease grid 

reliability, and reduce services to rural communities. Further, the 

Committee notes the Department’s proposal violates the Urgent 

Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1986 (Public Law 99–349) which 

prevents the use of any Federal funding by the executive branch 

to solicit proposals, prepare or review studies, or draft proposals 

designed to ‘‘transfer out of Federal ownership, management or 

control in whole or in part the facilities and functions of the Federal power marketing administrations located within the contiguous 48 States, and the Tennessee Valley Authority’’ unless explic-
105 

itly authorized by an Act of Congress. Therefore, the Committee rejects the Department’s proposal and directs the Department to fully 

comply with existing Federal law. 

In addition, there have been questions raised by the Congressional Budget Office and others as to whether the Power Marketing 

Administrations have the legal authority to execute the current receipt authority provided in this and prior year appropriations acts 

to create carryover of unobligated balances for purchase power and 

wheeling expenditures. The Committee includes a general provision 

requiring a report, using specific receipts data and legal authorities, to provide a detailed response to those questions. The Committee would like to provide the full budget request for purchase 

power and wheeling expenditures, but until the Committee receives 

information confirming these funds are being properly executed, 

the Committee will continue to be unable to do so. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $11,057,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 11,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,400,000 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $11,400,000 

for the Southwestern Power Administration. 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $95,581,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 93,372,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 93,372,000 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $93,372,000 

for the Western Area Power Administration. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $232,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 228,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 228,000 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $228,000 for 

the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $346,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 367,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 367,600,000 

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. ¥$346,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ¥367,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥367,600,000 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $0 for the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC]. The Committee 

encourages FERC to prioritize meaningful opportunities for public 
106 

engagement and coordination with State and local governments in 

the Federal permitting and review processes of energy infrastructure proposals. Specifically, FERC is encouraged to remain transparent and consistent, and ensure the health, safety, and security 

of the environment of each affected community. 
107 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

Sustainable Transportation: 

Vehicle technologies .................................................................................................................................................... 306,959 82,000 277,988 ¥28,971 ∂195,988 Bioenergy technologies ................................................................................................................................................ 205,000 56,600 190,000 ¥15,000 ∂133,400 Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies ........................................................................................................................... 101,000 45,000 85,000 ¥16,000 ∂40,000 

Subtotal, Sustainable Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 612,959 183,600 552,988 ¥59,971 ∂369,388 

Renewable Energy: 

Solar energy ................................................................................................................................................................. 207,600 69,700 167,500 ¥40,100 ∂97,800 Wind energy ................................................................................................................................................................. 90,000 31,700 72,500 ¥17,500 ∂40,800 Water power ................................................................................................................................................................. 84,000 20,400 82,000 ¥2,000 ∂61,600 Geothermal technologies ............................................................................................................................................. 69,500 12,500 67,500 ¥2,000 ∂55,000 

Subtotal, Renewable Energy ................................................................................................................................... 451,100 134,300 389,500 ¥61,600 ∂255,200 

Energy Efficiency: 

Advanced manufacturing ............................................................................................................................................ 257,500 82,000 252,000 ¥5,500 ∂170,000 Building technologies .................................................................................................................................................. 199,141 67,500 195,000 ¥4,141 ∂127,500 Federal energy management program ........................................................................................................................ 27,000 10,000 25,000 ¥2,000 ∂15,000 Weatherization and intergovernmental: 

Weatherization: 

Weatherization assistance grants ............................................................................................................. 225,000 .......................... 212,000 ¥13,000 ∂212,000 Training and technical assistance ........................................................................................................... 3,000 .......................... 3,000 .......................... ∂3,000 

Subtotal, Weatherization assistance program ...................................................................................... 228,000 .......................... 215,000 ¥13,000 ∂215,000 

State energy program grants ...................................................................................................................................... 50,000 .......................... 50,000 .......................... ∂50,000 

Subtotal, Weatherization and intergovernmental program .................................................................................... 278,000 .......................... 265,000 ¥13,000 ∂265,000 Subtotal, Energy Efficiency ..................................................................................................................................... 761,641 159,500 737,000 ¥24,641 ∂577,500 
108 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Corporate Support: 

Facilities and infrastructure: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] ................................................................................................. 92,000 92,000 92,000 .......................... ..........................

Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 153,500 125,849 153,500 .......................... ∂27,651 Strategic programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 19,000 .......................... 12,000 ¥7,000 ∂12,000 

Subtotal, Corporate Support ................................................................................................................................... 264,500 217,849 257,500 ¥7,000 ∂39,651 Subtotal, Energy efficiency and renewable energy ................................................................................................ 2,090,200 695,249 1,936,988 ¥153,212 ∂1,241,739 

Use of Prior Year Balances .................................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥59,100 .......................... .......................... ∂59,100 

TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ......................................................................................... 2,090,200 636,149 1,936,988 ¥153,212 ∂1,300,839 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY 

Research and development: 

Transmission Reliability .............................................................................................................................................. 36,000 13,000 36,000 .......................... ∂23,000 Resilient Distribution Systems .................................................................................................................................... 50,000 10,000 35,000 ¥15,000 ∂25,000 Cyber security for energy delivery systems ................................................................................................................. 62,000 42,000 53,000 ¥9,000 ∂11,000 Energy storage ............................................................................................................................................................. 31,000 8,000 37,141 ∂6,141 ∂29,141 Transformer resilience and advanced components .................................................................................................... 6,000 5,000 7,000 ∂1,000 ∂2,000 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 185,000 78,000 168,141 ¥16,859 ∂90,141 

Transmission Permitting and Technical Assistance ............................................................................................................ 7,500 6,000 6,000 ¥1,500 ..........................Infrastructure security and energy restoration .................................................................................................................... 9,000 9,000 12,000 ∂3,000 ∂3,000 Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 28,500 27,000 27,000 ¥1,500 ..........................

Subtotal, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability .............................................................................................. 230,000 120,000 213,141 ¥16,859 ∂93,141 TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY ..................................................................................... 230,000 120,000 213,141 ¥16,859 ∂93,141 
109 

NUCLEAR ENERGY 

Research and development: 

Integrated university program ..................................................................................................................................... 5,000 .......................... 5,000 .......................... ∂5,000 STEP R&D .................................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 ..........................Small modular reactor licensing technical support ................................................................................................... 95,000 .......................... .......................... ¥95,000 ..........................Nuclear energy enabling technologies ........................................................................................................................ 115,100 105,360 120,600 ∂5,500 ∂15,240 Reactor concepts RD&D .............................................................................................................................................. 132,000 94,000 132,000 .......................... ∂38,000 Fuel cycle research and development ......................................................................................................................... 207,500 88,500 213,500 ∂6,000 ∂125,000 International nuclear energy cooperation ................................................................................................................... 3,000 2,500 2,500 ¥500 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 562,600 290,360 473,600 ¥89,000 ∂183,240 

Infrastructure: 

Radiological facilities management: 

Space and defense infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 10,000 .......................... 15,000 ∂5,000 ∂15,000 Research reactor infrastructure ......................................................................................................................... 7,000 9,000 9,000 ∂2,000 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 17,000 9,000 24,000 ∂7,000 ∂15,000 

INL facilities management: 

INL operations and infrastructure ...................................................................................................................... 231,713 198,140 210,202 ¥21,511 ∂12,062 Construction: 

16–E–200 Sample preparation laboratory ................................................................................................ 6,000 6,000 6,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, INL facilities management .................................................................................................... 237,713 204,140 216,202 ¥21,511 ∂12,062 Subtotal, Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................ 254,713 213,140 240,202 ¥14,511 ∂27,062 

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security .............................................................................................................................. 129,303 133,000 129,000 ¥303 ¥4,000 Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 80,000 66,500 74,218 ¥5,782 ∂7,718 Use of prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... ¥10,000 .......................... .......................... ∂10,000 ..........................

TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................... 1,016,616 703,000 917,020 ¥99,596 ∂214,020 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

Coal CCS and power systems: 

Carbon capture ............................................................................................................................................................ 101,000 16,000 93,930 ¥7,070 ∂77,930 Carbon storage ............................................................................................................................................................ 95,300 15,000 88,629 ¥6,671 ∂73,629 Advanced energy systems ........................................................................................................................................... 105,000 46,000 97,650 ¥7,350 ∂51,650 Cross cutting research ................................................................................................................................................ 45,500 37,800 42,315 ¥3,185 ∂4,515 NETL coal research and development ......................................................................................................................... 53,000 50,000 .......................... ¥53,000 ¥50,000 
110 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

STEP (Supercritical CO2) ............................................................................................................................................. 24,000 .......................... 19,530 ¥4,470 ∂19,530 

Subtotal, Coal CCS and power systems ................................................................................................................. 423,800 164,800 342,054 ¥81,746 ∂177,254 

Natural Gas Technologies: 

Research ...................................................................................................................................................................... 43,000 5,500 45,018 ∂2,018 ∂39,518 

Unconventional fossil energy technologies from petroleum—oil technologies ................................................................... 21,000 15,000 26,319 ∂5,319 ∂11,319 Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 60,000 65,205 57,000 ¥3,000 ¥8,205 Special recruitment programs .............................................................................................................................................. 700 200 200 ¥500 ..........................NETL Research and Development ........................................................................................................................................ 43,000 44,577 72,663 ∂29,663 ∂28,086 NETL Infrastructure and Operations .................................................................................................................................... 40,500 39,896 58,683 ∂18,183 ∂18,787 

Subtotal, Fossil Energy Research and Development .............................................................................................. 632,000 335,178 601,937 ¥30,063 ∂266,759 

Fossil proviso ........................................................................................................................................................................ 50,000 .......................... .......................... ¥50,000 ..........................Use of prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... ¥14,000 ¥55,178 ¥29,236 ¥15,236 ∂25,942 

TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 668,000 280,000 572,701 ¥95,299 ∂292,701 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES ................................................................................................................... 14,950 20,200 20,200 ∂5,250 ..........................Use of prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥15,300 ¥15,300 ¥15,300 ..........................

TOTAL, NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES ......................................................................................... 14,950 4,900 4,900 ¥10,050 ..........................

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE ........................................................................................................................................ 223,000 180,000 180,000 ¥43,000 ..........................Sale of crude oil ................................................................................................................................................................... ¥340,000 ¥350,000 ¥350,000 ¥10,000 ..........................Use of sale proceeds ............................................................................................................................................................ 340,000 350,000 350,000 ∂10,000 ..........................

TOTAL, STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE .............................................................................................................. 223,000 180,000 180,000 ¥43,000 ..........................

SPR PETROLEUM ACCOUNT 

SPR Petroleum Account ........................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 11,400 .......................... .......................... ¥11,400 
111 

Use of prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥3,000 .......................... .......................... ∂3,000 

TOTAL, SPR PETROLEUM ACCOUNT ......................................................................................................................... .......................... 8,400 .......................... .......................... ¥8,400 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE ........................................................................................................................... 10,500 10,000 10,000 ¥500 ..........................Use of prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... ¥4,000 ¥3,500 ¥3,500 ∂500 ..........................

TOTAL, NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE ................................................................................................. 6,500 6,500 6,500 .......................... ..........................

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION .............................................................................................................................. 122,000 118,000 122,000 .......................... ∂4,000 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA) .................................................................................................................................... 2,240 2,240 2,240 .......................... ..........................Gaseous Diffusion Plants ..................................................................................................................................................... 101,304 100,575 101,304 .......................... ∂729 Small sites ........................................................................................................................................................................... 77,043 55,000 87,456 ∂10,413 ∂32,456 West Valley Demonstration Project ...................................................................................................................................... 66,413 60,585 75,000 ∂8,587 ∂14,415 

TOTAL, NON–DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP ................................................................................................. 247,000 218,400 266,000 ∂19,000 ∂47,600 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATIONAND DECOMMISSIONING FUND 

Oak Ridge ............................................................................................................................................................................. 194,673 145,726 194,673 .......................... ∂48,947 Paducah: 

Nuclear facility D&D, Paducah ................................................................................................................................... 205,530 202,958 205,530 .......................... ∂2,572 

Total, Paducah ........................................................................................................................................................ 205,530 202,958 205,530 .......................... ∂2,572 

Portsmouth: 

Nuclear facility D&D, Portsmouth ............................................................................................................................... 274,000 312,389 312,389 ∂38,389 ..........................Construction: 

15–U–408 On-site waste disposal facility, Portsmouth ................................................................................... 41,168 38,882 38,882 ¥2,286 ..........................

Total, Portsmouth .................................................................................................................................................... 315,168 351,271 351,271 ∂36,103 ..........................

Pension and community and regulatory support ................................................................................................................. 22,953 22,794 22,794 ¥159 ..........................Title X uranium/thorium reimbursement program ............................................................................................................... 30,000 30,000 13,732 ¥16,268 ¥16,268 Use of prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... ¥324 .......................... .......................... ∂324 ..........................

TOTAL, UED&D FUND ............................................................................................................................................... 768,000 752,749 788,000 ∂20,000 ∂35,251 
112 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

SCIENCE 

Advanced scientific computing research ............................................................................................................................. 483,000 525,430 579,000 ∂96,000 ∂53,570 

Construction: 17–SC–20 SC Exascale Computing Project ................................................................................................................ 164,000 196,580 184,000 ∂20,000 ¥12,580 

Subtotal, Advanced scientific computing research ................................................................................................ 647,000 722,010 763,000 ∂116,000 ∂40,990 

Basic energy sciences: 

Research ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,681,500 1,352,400 1,641,300 ¥40,200 ∂288,900 Construction: 

13–SC–10 LINAC coherent light source II, SLAC .............................................................................................. 190,000 182,100 200,000 ∂10,000 ∂17,900 18–SC–10 APS Upgrade, ANL ............................................................................................................................ .......................... 20,000 93,000 ∂93,000 ∂73,000 18–SC–11 Spallation Newtron Source Proton Power Upgrade (PPU), ORNL ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 26,000 ∂26,000 ∂26,000 18–SC–12 Advanced Light Soures Upgrade (ALS–U), LBNL ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 20,000 ∂20,000 ∂20,000 

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................... 190,000 202,100 339,000 ∂149,000 ∂136,900 Subtotal, Basic energy sciences .................................................................................................................... 1,871,500 1,554,500 1,980,300 ∂108,800 ∂425,800 

Biological and environmental research ............................................................................................................................... 612,000 348,950 633,000 ∂21,000 ∂284,050 Fusion energy sciences: 

Research ...................................................................................................................................................................... 330,000 246,940 232,000 ¥98,000 ¥14,940 Construction: 

14–SC–60 ITER .................................................................................................................................................. 50,000 63,000 .......................... ¥50,000 ¥63,000 

Subtotal, Fusion energy sciences ........................................................................................................................... 380,000 309,940 232,000 ¥148,000 ¥77,940 

High energy physics: 

Research ...................................................................................................................................................................... 731,500 573,400 733,600 ∂2,100 ∂160,200 Construction: 

11–SC–40 Long baseline neutrino facility / deep underground neutrino experiment, FNAL ........................... 50,000 54,900 82,000 ∂32,000 ∂27,100 11–SC–41 Muon to electron conversion experiment, FNAL ............................................................................... 43,500 44,400 44,400 ∂900 ..........................
113 

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................... 93,500 99,300 126,400 ∂32,900 ∂27,100 Subtotal, High energy physics ....................................................................................................................... 825,000 672,700 860,000 ∂35,000 ∂187,300 

Nuclear physics: 

Operations and maintenance ...................................................................................................................................... 522,000 422,700 542,000 ∂20,000 ∂119,300 Construction: 

14–SC–50 Facility for rare isotope beams, Michigan State University ............................................................ 100,000 80,000 97,200 ¥2,800 ∂17,200 

Subtotal, Nuclear physics .............................................................................................................................. 622,000 502,700 639,200 ∂17,200 ∂136,500 

Workforce development for teachers and scientists ............................................................................................................ 19,500 14,000 19,500 .......................... ∂5,500 Science laboratories infrastructure: 

Infrastructure support: 

Payment in lieu of taxes .................................................................................................................................... 1,764 1,713 1,713 ¥51 ..........................Oak Ridge landlord ............................................................................................................................................ 6,182 6,082 6,082 ¥100 ..........................Facilities and infrastructure .............................................................................................................................. 32,603 5,105 32,855 ∂252 ∂27,750 Oak Ridge nuclear operations ............................................................................................................................ 26,000 10,000 26,000 .......................... ∂16,000 

Subtotal, Infrastructure support .................................................................................................................... 66,549 22,900 66,650 ∂101 ∂43,750 

Construction: 

18–SC–71 Energy Science Capability, PNNL ..................................................................................................... .......................... 1,000 6,000 ∂6,000 ∂5,000 17–SC–71 Integrated Engineering Research Center, FNAL ............................................................................... 2,500 1,500 2,500 .......................... ∂1,000 17 SC–73 Core Facility Revitalization, BNL ...................................................................................................... 1,800 1,500 5,000 ∂3,200 ∂3,500 15–SC–78 Integrative genomics building, LBNL ............................................................................................... 19,561 24,800 38,350 ∂18,789 ∂13,550 15–SC–77 Photon science laboratory building, SLAC ....................................................................................... 20,000 .......................... .......................... ¥20,000 ..........................15–SC–76 Materials design laboratory, ANL ..................................................................................................... 19,590 24,500 24,500 ∂4,910 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 63,451 53,300 76,350 ∂12,899 ∂23,050 Subtotal, Science laboratories infrastructure ................................................................................................ 130,000 76,200 143,000 ∂13,000 ∂66,800 

Safeguards and security ...................................................................................................................................................... 103,000 103,000 103,000 .......................... ..........................Science program direction ................................................................................................................................................... 182,000 168,516 177,000 ¥5,000 ∂8,484 

Subtotal, Science .................................................................................................................................................... 5,392,000 4,472,516 5,550,000 ∂158,000 ∂1,077,484 TOTAL, SCIENCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 5,392,000 4,472,516 5,550,000 ∂158,000 ∂1,077,484 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL .................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 90,000 .......................... .......................... ¥90,000 
114 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY 

ARPA–E projects ................................................................................................................................................................... 276,750 .......................... 300,750 ∂24,000 ∂300,750 Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 29,250 65,000 29,250 .......................... ¥35,750 

Subtotal, ARPA–E .................................................................................................................................................... 306,000 65,000 330,000 ∂24,000 ∂265,000 

Use of prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥45,000 .......................... .......................... ∂45,000 Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥46,367 .......................... .......................... ∂46,367 

TOTAL, ARPA–E ....................................................................................................................................................... 306,000 ¥26,367 330,000 ∂24,000 ∂356,367 

OFFICE OF INDIAN ENERGY POLICY AND PROGRAMS 

Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 4,800 ∂4,800 ∂4,800 Indian energy policy and programs ..................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 11,200 ∂11,200 ∂11,200 

TOTAL, OFFICE OF INDIAN ENERGY POLICY AND PROGRAMS ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 16,000 ∂16,000 ∂16,000 

TITLE 17—INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PGM 

Administrative expenses ....................................................................................................................................................... 37,000 2,000 2,000 ¥35,000 ..........................Offsetting collection ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥30,000 ¥2,000 ¥2,000 ∂28,000 ..........................Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥250,000 .......................... .......................... ∂250,000 

TOTAL, TITLE 17—INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ......................................................... 7,000 ¥250,000 .......................... ¥7,000 ∂250,000 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PGM 

Administrative expenses ....................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 2,000 5,000 .......................... ∂3,000 

TOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM .................................................... 5,000 2,000 5,000 .......................... ∂3,000 

TRIBAL ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................... 9,000 .......................... 1,000 ¥8,000 ∂1,000 Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥9,000 .......................... .......................... ∂9,000 ..........................
115 

TOTAL, TRIBAL ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ........................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION 

Administrative operations: 

Salaries and expenses: 

Office of the Secretary: Program direction ............................................................................................................................................... 5,089 5,300 5,300 ∂211 ..........................Chief Financial Officer ....................................................................................................................................... 49,242 48,484 48,484 ¥758 ..........................Chief Information Officer ................................................................................................................................... 74,492 91,443 .......................... ¥74,492 ¥91,443 Office of Indian energy policy and programs .................................................................................................... 16,000 10,000 .......................... ¥16,000 ¥10,000 Congressional and intergovernmental affairs ................................................................................................... 6,200 6,200 6,200 .......................... ..........................Economic impact and diversity .......................................................................................................................... 10,169 10,000 .......................... ¥10,169 ¥10,000 Other Departmental Administration ................................................................................................................... 185,134 173,225 258,468 ∂73,334 ∂85,243 

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................... 346,326 344,652 318,452 ¥27,874 ¥26,200 Subtotal, Administrative operations .............................................................................................................. 346,326 344,652 318,452 ¥27,874 ¥26,200 

Strategic partnership projects .................................................................................................................................... 40,000 40,000 40,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Departmental administration .................................................................................................................. 386,326 384,652 358,452 ¥27,874 ¥26,200 

Use of prior-year balances ................................................................................................................................................... ¥20,610 .......................... .......................... ∂20,610 ..........................Funding from other defense activities ................................................................................................................................. ¥119,716 ¥143,000 ¥119,716 .......................... ∂23,284 

Total, Departmental administration (gross) ........................................................................................................... 246,000 241,652 238,736 ¥7,264 ¥2,916 

Miscellaneous revenues ........................................................................................................................................................ ¥103,000 ¥96,000 ¥96,000 ∂7,000 ..........................

TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net) ...................................................................................................... 143,000 145,652 142,736 ¥264 ¥2,916 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Office of the inspector general ............................................................................................................................................ 44,424 49,000 49,000 ∂4,576 ..........................

TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ......................................................................................................... 44,424 49,000 49,000 ∂4,576 ..........................TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................... 11,283,690 7,510,899 11,100,986 ¥182,704 ∂3,590,087 
116 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES 

Directed stockpile work: 

B61 Life extension program ........................................................................................................................................ 616,079 788,572 788,572 ∂172,493 ..........................W76 Life extension program ....................................................................................................................................... 222,880 224,134 224,134 ∂1,254 ..........................W88 Alteration program .............................................................................................................................................. 281,129 332,292 332,292 ∂51,163 ..........................W80–4 Life extension program ................................................................................................................................... 220,253 399,090 399,090 ∂178,837 ..........................Stockpile systems ........................................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 475,000 ∂475,000 ∂475,000 

B61 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 57,313 59,729 .......................... ¥57,313 ¥59,729 W76 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 38,604 51,400 .......................... ¥38,604 ¥51,400 W78 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 56,413 60,100 .......................... ¥56,413 ¥60,100 W80 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 64,631 80,087 .......................... ¥64,631 ¥80,087 B83 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 41,659 35,762 .......................... ¥41,659 ¥35,762 W87 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 81,982 83,200 .......................... ¥81,982 ¥83,200 W88 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 103,074 131,576 .......................... ¥103,074 ¥131,576 

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 443,676 501,854 475,000 ∂31,324 ¥26,854 

Weapons dismantlement and disposition ................................................................................................................... 56,000 52,000 56,000 .......................... ∂4,000 Stockpile services: 

Production support ............................................................................................................................................. 447,527 470,400 470,400 ∂22,873 ..........................Research and Development support .................................................................................................................. 34,187 31,150 31,150 ¥3,037 ..........................R and D certification and safety ....................................................................................................................... 156,481 196,840 180,000 ∂23,519 ¥16,840 Management, technology, and production ......................................................................................................... 251,978 285,400 285,400 ∂33,422 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 890,173 983,790 966,950 ∂76,777 ¥16,840 

Strategic materials: 

Uranium sustainment ......................................................................................................................................... 20,988 20,579 20,579 ¥409 ..........................Plutonium sustainment ...................................................................................................................................... 184,970 210,367 200,000 ∂15,030 ¥10,367 Tritium sustainment ........................................................................................................................................... 109,787 198,152 190,000 ∂80,213 ¥8,152 
117 

Domestic uranium enrichment ........................................................................................................................... 50,000 60,000 60,000 ∂10,000 ..........................Strategic materials sustainment ....................................................................................................................... 212,092 206,196 200,000 ¥12,092 ¥6,196 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 577,837 695,294 670,579 ∂92,742 ¥24,715 Subtotal, Directed stockpile work ........................................................................................................................... 3,308,027 3,977,026 3,912,617 ∂604,590 ¥64,409 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E): 

Science: 

Advanced certification ........................................................................................................................................ 60,000 57,710 57,710 ¥2,290 ..........................Primary assessment technologies ...................................................................................................................... 99,000 89,313 89,313 ¥9,687 ..........................Dynamic materials properties ............................................................................................................................ 106,000 122,347 110,000 ∂4,000 ¥12,347 Advanced radiography ........................................................................................................................................ 45,700 37,600 37,600 ¥8,100 ..........................Secondary assessment technologies .................................................................................................................. 76,000 76,833 76,833 ∂833 ..........................Academic alliances and partnerships ............................................................................................................... 49,800 52,963 40,000 ¥9,800 ¥12,963 Enhanced capabilities for subcritical experiments ........................................................................................... .......................... 50,755 40,105 ∂40,105 ¥10,650 

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 436,500 487,521 451,561 ∂15,061 ¥35,960 

Engineering: 

Enhanced surety ................................................................................................................................................. 37,196 39,717 37,196 .......................... ¥2,521 Weapons system engineering assessment technology ...................................................................................... 16,958 23,029 23,029 ∂6,071 ..........................Nuclear survivability ........................................................................................................................................... 36,100 45,230 45,230 ∂9,130 ..........................Enhanced surveillance ....................................................................................................................................... 42,228 45,147 42,228 .......................... ¥2,919 Stockpile responsiveness .................................................................................................................................... .......................... 40,000 .......................... .......................... ¥40,000 

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 132,482 193,123 147,683 ∂15,201 ¥45,440 

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield: 

Ignition ............................................................................................................................................................... 77,932 79,575 79,575 ∂1,643 ..........................Support of other stockpile programs ................................................................................................................. 23,363 23,565 23,565 ∂202 ..........................Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support ........................................................................................... 64,196 77,915 77,915 ∂13,719 ..........................Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion ......................................................................................................... 5,616 7,596 7,596 ∂1,980 ..........................Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas ................................................................................ 9,492 9,492 9,492 .......................... ..........................Facility operations and target production ......................................................................................................... 342,360 334,791 346,791 ∂4,431 ∂12,000 

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 522,959 532,934 544,934 ∂21,975 ∂12,000 

Advanced simulation and computing ......................................................................................................................... 663,184 709,244 709,244 ∂46,060 ..........................

Construction: 

18–D–670 Exascale class computer cooling equipment, LLNL ................................................................................. .......................... 22,000 22,000 ∂22,000 ..........................18–D–620 Exascale computing facility modernization project .................................................................................. .......................... 3,000 3,000 ∂3,000 ..........................
118 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Advanced manufacturing development: 

Additive manfacturing ................................................................................................................................................. 12,000 12,000 12,000 .......................... ..........................Component manufacturing development .................................................................................................................... 46,583 38,644 38,644 ¥7,939 ..........................Process technology development ................................................................................................................................. 28,522 29,896 34,896 ∂6,374 ∂5,000 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 87,105 80,540 85,540 ¥1,565 ∂5,000 Subtotal, RDT&E ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,842,230 2,028,362 1,963,962 ∂121,732 ¥64,400 

Infrastructure and Operations (formerly RTBF): 

Operations of facilities ................................................................................................................................................ 824,000 868,000 824,000 .......................... ¥44,000 Safety and environmental operations ......................................................................................................................... 110,000 116,000 110,000 .......................... ¥6,000 Maintenance and repair of facilities .......................................................................................................................... 324,000 360,000 324,000 .......................... ¥36,000 

Recapitalization: 

Infrastructure and safety ............................................................................................................................................ 430,509 312,492 312,492 ¥118,017 ..........................Capability based investments ..................................................................................................................................... 112,639 114,850 114,850 ∂2,211 ..........................Bannister federal complex disposition ........................................................................................................................ 200,000 .......................... .......................... ¥200,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Recapitalization ....................................................................................................................................... 743,148 427,342 427,342 ¥315,806 ..........................

Construction: 

18–D–650 Material staging facility, PX ............................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................18–D–660 Fire station, Y–12 ............................................................................................................................ .......................... 28,000 28,000 ∂28,000 ..........................18–D–620 Lithium production capability .......................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,000 ∂5,000 ∂5,000 18–D–650 Tritium production capability, SRS .................................................................................................. .......................... 6,800 6,800 ∂6,800 ..........................17–D–125 RLUOB reconfiguration project, LANL .............................................................................................. 1,000 .......................... .......................... ¥1,000 ..........................17–D–126 PF–4 reconfiguration project, LANL ................................................................................................. 8,000 .......................... .......................... ¥8,000 ..........................17–D–640 U1a complex enhancements project, NNSA ..................................................................................... 11,500 22,100 22,100 ∂10,600 ..........................17–D–630 Electrical distribution system, LLNL ................................................................................................ 25,000 6,000 6,000 ¥19,000 ..........................16–D–515 Albuquerque Complex project .......................................................................................................... 15,047 98,000 98,000 ∂82,953 ..........................15–D–613 Emergency Operations Center, Y–12 ............................................................................................... 2,000 7,000 7,000 ∂5,000 ..........................15–D–302 TA–55 Reinvestment project III, LANL ............................................................................................. 2,000 .......................... .......................... ¥2,000 ..........................07–D–220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility, LANL .......................................................................... .......................... 2,100 2,100 ∂2,100 ..........................
119 

07–O–220–04 TRU liquid waste facility, LANL ................................................................................................. 17,053 17,895 17,895 ∂842 ..........................06–D–141 Uranium Processing Facility, Y–12 .................................................................................................. 575,000 663,000 663,000 ∂88,000 ..........................

Chemistry and metallurgy replacement (CMRR): 

04–D–125 Chemistry and metallurgy replacement project, LANL .................................................................... .......................... 180,900 180,900 ∂180,900 ..........................04–D–125–04 RLUOB equipment installation, phase 2 ................................................................................... 75,000 .......................... .......................... ¥75,000 ..........................04–D–125–05 PF–4 equipment installation ..................................................................................................... 75,615 .......................... .......................... ¥75,615 ..........................

Subtotal, CMRR .............................................................................................................................................. 150,615 180,900 180,900 ∂30,285 ..........................Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................... 807,215 1,031,795 1,036,795 ∂229,580 ∂5,000 

Subtotal, Infrastructure and Operations ................................................................................................................ 2,808,363 2,803,137 2,722,137 ¥86,226 ¥81,000 

Secure transportation asset: 

Operations and equipment .......................................................................................................................................... 151,771 219,464 185,000 ∂33,229 ¥34,464 Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 97,118 105,600 105,600 ∂8,482 ..........................

Subtotal, Secure transportation asset .................................................................................................................... 248,889 325,064 290,600 ∂41,711 ¥34,464 

Defense nuclear security: 

Defense nuclear security ............................................................................................................................................. 670,000 686,977 686,977 ∂16,977 ..........................Security improvements program ................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Construction: 

17–D–710 West end protected area reduction project, Y–12 .......................................................................... 2,500 .......................... 5,000 ∂2,500 ∂5,000 14–D–710 Device assembly facility argus installation project, NV ................................................................. 13,000 .......................... .......................... ¥13,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Defense nuclear security ................................................................................................................ 685,500 686,977 691,977 ∂6,477 ∂5,000 

Information technology and cyber security .......................................................................................................................... 176,592 186,728 186,728 ∂10,136 ..........................Legacy contractor pensions .................................................................................................................................................. 248,492 232,050 232,050 ¥16,442 ..........................

Subtotal, Weapons Activities .................................................................................................................................. 9,318,093 10,239,344 10,000,071 ∂681,978 ¥239,273 

Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥64,126 .......................... .......................... ∂64,126 ..........................Budget amendment rescission ............................................................................................................................................. ¥8,400 .......................... .......................... ∂8,400 ..........................

TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................. 9,245,567 10,239,344 10,000,071 ∂754,504 ¥239,273 
120 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs: Global material security: 

International nuclear security ..................................................................................................................................... 66,027 46,339 46,339 ¥19,688 ..........................Domestic radiologic security ....................................................................................................................................... 87,199 85,764 97,433 ∂10,234 ∂11,669 International radiologic security ................................................................................................................................. 68,907 60,576 68,907 .......................... ∂8,331 Nuclear smuggling detection ...................................................................................................................................... 144,975 144,429 144,429 ¥546 ..........................

Subtotal, Global material security .......................................................................................................................... 367,108 337,108 357,108 ¥10,000 ∂20,000 

Material management and minimization: 

Conversion ................................................................................................................................................................... 75,615 125,500 130,500 ∂54,885 ∂5,000 Nuclear material removal ............................................................................................................................................ 68,902 32,925 32,925 ¥35,977 ..........................Material disposition ..................................................................................................................................................... 143,833 173,669 173,669 ∂29,836 ..........................

Subtotal, Material management and minimization ............................................................................................... 288,350 332,094 337,094 ∂48,744 ∂5,000 

Nonproliferation and arms control ....................................................................................................................................... 124,703 129,703 124,703 .......................... ¥5,000 Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D: 

Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D ........................................................................................................................ 469,750 446,095 436,095 ¥33,655 ¥10,000 Proliferation detection ................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Nuclear detonation detection ...................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................LEU fuels development ................................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D ................................................................................................... 469,750 446,095 436,095 ¥33,655 ¥10,000 

Nonproliferation construction: 

99–D–143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility, SRS .......................................................................... 335,000 270,000 270,000 ¥65,000 ..........................18–D–150 Surplus plutonium disposition project, SRS .................................................................................... .......................... 9,000 9,000 ∂9,000 ..........................18–D–150 Plutonium removal project, SRS ...................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Nonproliferation construction ......................................................................................................... 335,000 279,000 279,000 ¥56,000 ..........................
121 

Legacy contractor pensions .................................................................................................................................................. 83,208 40,950 40,950 ¥42,258 ..........................Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response ................................................................................................................. 271,881 277,360 277,360 ∂5,479 ..........................Use of prior-year balances ................................................................................................................................................... ¥38,000 .......................... .......................... ∂38,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........................................................................................................... 1,902,000 1,842,310 1,852,310 ¥49,690 ∂10,000 

Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥19,128 ¥49,000 .......................... ∂19,128 ∂49,000 

TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ..................................................................................................... 1,882,872 1,793,310 1,852,310 ¥30,562 ∂59,000 

NAVAL REACTORS 

Naval reactors development ................................................................................................................................................. 440,338 473,267 461,267 ∂20,929 ¥12,000 Columbia-class reactor systems development .................................................................................................................... 213,700 156,700 156,700 ¥57,000 ..........................S8G Prototype refueling ........................................................................................................................................................ 124,000 190,000 190,000 ∂66,000 ..........................Naval reactors operations and infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 449,682 466,884 466,884 ∂17,202 ..........................Construction: 

17–D–911 BL Fire System Upgrade ........................................................................................................................... 1,400 .......................... .......................... ¥1,400 ..........................15–D–904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3 ......................................................................................................... 700 13,700 700 .......................... ¥13,000 15–D–903 KL Fire System Upgrade ............................................................................................................................ .......................... 15,000 15,000 ∂15,000 ..........................15–D–902 KS Engineroom team trainer facility ........................................................................................................ 33,300 .......................... .......................... ¥33,300 ..........................14–D–901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, NRF ................................................................................... 100,000 116,000 102,000 ∂2,000 ¥14,000 10–D–903 Security upgrades, KAPL ........................................................................................................................... 12,900 .......................... .......................... ¥12,900 ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................................ 148,300 144,700 117,700 ¥30,600 ¥27,000 

Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 44,100 48,200 44,100 .......................... ¥4,100 Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥307 .......................... .......................... ∂307 ..........................

TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS ........................................................................................................................................ 1,419,813 1,479,751 1,436,651 ∂16,838 ¥43,100 

FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES ..................................................................................................................................... 390,000 418,595 396,000 ∂6,000 ¥22,595 

TOTAL, FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES ............................................................................................................ 390,000 418,595 396,000 ∂6,000 ¥22,595 TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................................... 12,938,252 13,931,000 13,685,032 ∂746,780 ¥245,968 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

Closure sites administration ................................................................................................................................................ 9,389 4,889 4,889 ¥4,500 ..........................
122 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Richland: 

River corridor and other cleanup operations .............................................................................................................. 143,755 58,692 163,692 ∂19,937 ∂105,000 Central plateau remediation ....................................................................................................................................... 659,818 637,879 637,879 ¥21,939 ..........................RL Community and regulatory support ....................................................................................................................... 24,701 5,121 10,121 ¥14,580 ∂5,000 RL Safeguards and security ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Construction: 

18–D–404 WESF Modifications and capsule storage ....................................................................................... .......................... 6,500 6,500 ∂6,500 ..........................15–D–401 Containerized sludge removal annex, RL ........................................................................................ 11,486 8,000 8,000 ¥3,486 ..........................

Subtotal, Richland ......................................................................................................................................... 839,760 716,192 826,192 ¥13,568 ∂110,000 

Office of River Protection: 

Waste treatment and immobilization plant commissioning ....................................................................................... 3,000 8,000 8,000 ∂5,000 ..........................Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ................................................................................................. 733,965 713,311 719,000 ¥14,965 ∂5,689 Construction: 

15–D–409 Low activity waste pretreatment system ......................................................................................... 73,000 93,000 93,000 ∂20,000 ..........................01–D–16 A–D, Waste treatment and immobilization plant .............................................................................. 593,000 655,000 680,000 ∂87,000 ∂25,000 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 ...................................................................................................................... 97,000 35,000 90,000 ¥7,000 ∂55,000 

Total, Construction ......................................................................................................................................... 763,000 783,000 863,000 ∂100,000 ∂80,000 Subtotal, Office of river protection ................................................................................................................ 1,499,965 1,504,311 1,590,000 ∂90,035 ∂85,689 

Idaho National Laboratory: 

Idaho cleanup and waste disposition ......................................................................................................................... 379,088 346,155 346,155 ¥32,933 ..........................Idaho community and regulatory support ................................................................................................................... 3,000 4,071 4,071 ∂1,071 ..........................

Total, Idaho National Laboratory ............................................................................................................................ 382,088 350,226 350,226 ¥31,862 ..........................

NNSA sites and Nevada offsites: 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory .................................................................................................................... 1,396 1,175 1,175 ¥221 ..........................Separations Process Research Unit ............................................................................................................................ 3,685 1,800 1,800 ¥1,885 ..........................
123 

Nevada ......................................................................................................................................................................... 62,176 60,136 60,136 ¥2,040 ..........................Sandia National Laboratory ......................................................................................................................................... 4,130 2,600 2,600 ¥1,530 ..........................Los Alamos National Laboratory ................................................................................................................................. 194,000 191,629 217,529 ∂23,529 ∂25,900 

Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites ................................................................................................................. 265,387 257,340 283,240 ∂17,853 ∂25,900 

Oak Ridge Reservation: 

OR Nuclear facility D&D .............................................................................................................................................. 131,851 77,479 118,203 ¥13,648 ∂40,724 U233 disposition program ........................................................................................................................................... 43,311 33,784 50,311 ∂7,000 ∂16,527 OR Cleanup and waste disposition ............................................................................................................................ 68,457 66,632 71,000 ∂2,543 ∂4,368 Construction: 

17–D–401 On-site waste disposal facility ........................................................................................................ 6,000 5,000 10,000 ∂4,000 ∂5,000 14–D–403 Outfall 200 mercury treatment facility ............................................................................................ 5,100 17,100 17,100 ∂12,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................... 11,100 22,100 27,100 ∂16,000 ∂5,000 

OR Community & regulatory support .......................................................................................................................... 5,500 4,605 5,605 ∂105 ∂1,000 OR Technology development and deployment ............................................................................................................. 3,000 3,000 3,000 .......................... ..........................

Total, Oak Ridge Reservation ................................................................................................................................. 263,219 207,600 275,219 ∂12,000 ∂67,619 

Savannah River Site: 

SR Site risk management operations ......................................................................................................................... 448,980 .......................... .......................... ¥448,980 ..........................Nuclear Material Management .................................................................................................................................... .......................... 323,482 311,015 ∂311,015 ¥12,467 Environmental Cleanup ............................................................................................................................................... .......................... 159,478 159,478 ∂159,478 ..........................SR Community and regulatory support ....................................................................................................................... 11,249 11,249 11,249 .......................... ..........................SR Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ............................................................................... 600,123 597,258 597,258 ¥2,865 ..........................Construction: 

18–D–401 Saltstone disposal unit #8/9 ........................................................................................................... .......................... 500 500 ∂500 ..........................18–D–402 Energency Operations Center Replacement, SR .............................................................................. .......................... 500 500 ∂500 ..........................17–D–402 Saltstone disposal Unit #7, SRS ..................................................................................................... 5,500 40,000 30,000 ∂24,500 ¥10,000 15–D–402 Saltstone disposal Unit #6, SRS ..................................................................................................... 7,577 .......................... .......................... ¥7,577 ..........................05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, SRS ................................................................................................. 160,000 150,000 150,000 ¥10,000 ..........................

Total, Savannah River Site ............................................................................................................................ 1,233,429 1,282,467 1,260,000 ∂26,571 ¥22,467 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant .......................................................................................................................................... 260,188 250,971 260,971 ∂783 ∂10,000 Construction: 

15–D–411 Safety significant confinement ventilation system, WIPP ............................................................... 2,532 46,000 20,000 ∂17,468 ¥26,000 15–D–412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP ......................................................................................................................... 30,000 19,600 20,000 ¥10,000 ∂400 
124 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Total, Waste isolation pilot plant .................................................................................................................. 292,720 316,571 300,971 ∂8,251 ¥15,600 

Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 290,050 300,000 290,150 ∂100 ¥9,850 Program support ................................................................................................................................................................... 14,979 35,088 14,979 .......................... ¥20,109 Safeguards and Security ...................................................................................................................................................... 262,189 269,160 304,102 ∂41,913 ∂34,942 Technology development ....................................................................................................................................................... 25,025 25,000 25,000 ¥25 ..........................CB–0101 Economic assistance to the state of NM ............................................................................................................ 26,800 .......................... .......................... ¥26,800 ..........................Cyber security ....................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 43,342 .......................... .......................... ¥43,342 Excess facilities .................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 225,000 55,000 ∂55,000 ¥170,000 

Subtotal, Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................................................................. 5,405,000 5,537,186 5,579,968 ∂174,968 ∂42,782 TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP ........................................................................................................ 5,405,000 5,537,186 5,579,968 ∂174,968 ∂42,782 

DEFENSE URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING ................................................................. 563,000 .......................... 788,000 ∂225,000 ∂788,000 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

Environment, health, safety and security: 

Environment, health, safety and security ................................................................................................................... 126,972 130,693 126,972 .......................... ¥3,721 Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 64,000 68,765 64,000 .......................... ¥4,765 

Subtotal, Environment, Health, safety and security .............................................................................................. 190,972 199,458 190,972 .......................... ¥8,486 

Independent enterprise assessments: 

Independent enterprise assessments .......................................................................................................................... 24,580 24,068 24,068 ¥512 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 51,000 50,863 50,863 ¥137 ..........................

Subtotal, Independent enterprise assessments ..................................................................................................... 75,580 74,931 74,931 ¥649 ..........................

Specialized security activities .............................................................................................................................................. 237,912 237,912 238,170 ∂258 ∂258 Office of Legacy Management: 

Legacy management ................................................................................................................................................... 140,306 137,674 137,674 ¥2,632 ..........................
125 

Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 14,014 16,932 16,932 ∂2,918 ..........................

Subtotal, Office of Legacy Management ................................................................................................................ 154,320 154,606 154,606 ∂286 ..........................

Defense related administrative support .............................................................................................................................. 119,716 143,000 119,716 .......................... ¥23,284 Office of hearings and appeals ........................................................................................................................................... 5,500 5,605 5,605 ∂105 ..........................

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................................... 784,000 815,512 784,000 .......................... ¥31,512 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL .................................................................................................................................. .......................... 30,000 .......................... .......................... ¥30,000 

TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 19,690,252 20,313,698 20,837,000 ∂1,146,748 ∂523,302 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS 1

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Purchase power and wheeling .................................................................................................................................... 78,929 75,055 75,055 ¥3,874 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 6,000 6,379 6,379 ∂379 ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................................... 84,929 81,434 81,434 ¥3,495 ..........................

Less alternative financing [PPW] ......................................................................................................................................... ¥18,169 ¥15,070 ¥15,070 ∂3,099 ..........................Offsetting collections (for PPW) ........................................................................................................................................... ¥60,760 ¥59,985 ¥59,985 ∂775 ..........................Offsetting collections (PD) ................................................................................................................................................... ¥1,000 ¥6,379 ¥6,379 ¥5,379 ..........................Use of prior-year balances ................................................................................................................................................... ¥5,000 .......................... .......................... ∂5,000 ..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Operating expenses ..................................................................................................................................................... 13,896 16,680 16,680 ∂2,784 ..........................Purchase power and wheeling .................................................................................................................................... 83,000 93,000 93,000 ∂10,000 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 31,516 31,335 31,335 ¥181 ..........................Construction ................................................................................................................................................................ 12,486 14,932 14,932 ∂2,446 ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................................... 140,898 155,947 155,947 ∂15,049 ..........................

Less alternative financing (for O&M) .................................................................................................................................. ¥6,269 ¥9,042 ¥9,042 ¥2,773 ..........................Less alternative financing (for PPW) ................................................................................................................................... ¥10,000 ¥10,000 ¥10,000 .......................... ..........................Less alternative financing (Const) ...................................................................................................................................... ¥5,986 ¥9,417 ¥9,417 ¥3,431 ..........................Offsetting collections (PD) ................................................................................................................................................... ¥29,271 ¥16,035 ¥16,035 ∂13,236 ..........................
126 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Offsetting collections (for O&M) .......................................................................................................................................... ¥5,315 ¥2,853 ¥2,853 ∂2,462 ..........................Offsetting collections (for PPW) ........................................................................................................................................... ¥73,000 ¥83,000 ¥83,000 ¥10,000 ..........................Use of prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥14,200 ¥14,200 ¥14,200 ..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................. 11,057 11,400 11,400 ∂343 ..........................

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Construction and rehabilitation .................................................................................................................................. 62,442 52,272 52,272 ¥10,170 ..........................Operation and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................ 76,697 72,407 72,407 ¥4,290 ..........................Purchase power and wheeling .................................................................................................................................... 581,634 597,997 597,997 ∂16,363 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 226,497 235,722 235,722 ∂9,225 ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................................... 947,270 958,398 958,398 ∂11,128 ..........................

Less alternative financing (for O&M) .................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Less alternative financing (for Construction) ...................................................................................................................... ¥43,884 ¥40,500 ¥40,500 ∂3,384 ..........................Less alternative financing (for Program Dir.) ..................................................................................................................... ¥6,343 ¥8,056 ¥8,056 ¥1,713 ..........................Less alternative financing (for PPW) ................................................................................................................................... ¥214,625 ¥289,072 ¥289,072 ¥74,447 ..........................Offsetting collections (for program direction) ..................................................................................................................... ¥150,441 ¥150,392 ¥150,392 ∂49 ..........................Offsetting collections (for O&M) .......................................................................................................................................... ¥27,122 ¥23,922 ¥23,922 ∂3,200 ..........................Offsetting collections (Public Law 108–477, Public Law 109–103) .................................................................................. ¥367,009 ¥308,925 ¥308,925 ∂58,084 ..........................Offsetting collections (Public Law 98–381) ........................................................................................................................ ¥8,265 ¥9,306 ¥9,306 ¥1,041 ..........................Use of prior-year balances ................................................................................................................................................... ¥34,000 ¥34,853 ¥34,853 ¥853 ..........................

TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................. 95,581 93,372 93,372 ¥2,209 ..........................

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND 

Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................................................................. 4,393 5,048 5,048 ∂655 ..........................Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................................... ¥3,838 ¥3,948 ¥3,948 ¥110 ..........................Less alternative financing ................................................................................................................................................... ¥323 ¥872 ¥872 ¥549 ..........................
127 

TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD O&M FUND ............................................................................................................. 232 228 228 ¥4 ..........................TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS ....................................................................................................... 106,870 105,000 105,000 ¥1,870 ..........................

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ............................................................................................................................... 346,800 367,600 367,600 ∂20,800 ..........................FERC revenues ...................................................................................................................................................................... ¥346,800 ¥367,600 ¥367,600 ¥20,800 ..........................

General Provisions 

Title III Rescissions: 

Fossil Energy Research and Development .................................................................................................................. ¥240,000 .......................... .......................... ∂240,000 ..........................Energy Programs and PMAs ........................................................................................................................................ ¥81,063 .......................... .......................... ∂81,063 ..........................Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................................................................................................ ¥13,740 .......................... .......................... ∂13,740 ..........................

Uranium lease and take-back revolving fund ..................................................................................................................... .......................... 10,000 .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 Uranium lease and take-back revolving fund initial capitalization ................................................................................... .......................... 1,000 1,000 ∂1,000 ..........................Northeast gasoline supply reserve sale ............................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥70,000 ¥70,000 ¥70,000 ..........................Weapons activities (rescission) ............................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥64,000 ¥64,000 ¥64,000 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (rescission) ..................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥49,000 ¥49,000 ¥49,000 Sec. 309(a) (rescission) ....................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥236,700 ¥236,700 ¥236,700 Sec. 309(b) (rescission) ....................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥160,660 ¥160,660 ¥160,660 

Total, General Provisions ........................................................................................................................................ ¥334,803 ¥59,000 ¥579,360 ¥244,557 ¥520,360 GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ............................................................................................................... 30,746,009 27,870,597 31,463,626 ∂717,617 ∂3,593,029 

(Total amount appropriated) ......................................................................................................................... (31,181,773 ) (28,215,964 ) (31,973,986 ) (∂792,213 ) (∂3,758,022 ) (Rescissions) .................................................................................................................................................. (¥435,764 ) (¥345,367 ) (¥510,360 ) (¥74,596 ) (¥164,993 ) 

SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTS 

Energy efficiency and renewable energy .............................................................................................................................. 2,090,200 636,149 1,936,988 ¥153,212 ∂1,300,839 Electricity delivery and energy reliability ............................................................................................................................. 230,000 120,000 213,141 ¥16,859 ∂93,141 Nuclear energy ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,016,616 703,000 917,020 ¥99,596 ∂214,020 Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................................................................................................... 668,000 280,000 572,701 ¥95,299 ∂292,701 Naval Petroleum & Oil Shale Reserves ................................................................................................................................ 14,950 4,900 4,900 ¥10,050 ..........................Strategic petroleum reserve ................................................................................................................................................. 223,000 180,000 180,000 ¥43,000 ..........................SPR Petroleum Account ........................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 8,400 .......................... .......................... ¥8,400 Northeast home heating oil reserve ..................................................................................................................................... 6,500 6,500 6,500 .......................... ..........................Energy Information Administration ...................................................................................................................................... 122,000 118,000 122,000 .......................... ∂4,000 Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ................................................................................................................................... 247,000 218,400 266,000 ∂19,000 ∂47,600 
128 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Uranium enrichment D&D fund ........................................................................................................................................... 768,000 752,749 788,000 ∂20,000 ∂35,251 Nuclear Waste Disposal ....................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 90,000 .......................... .......................... ¥90,000 Science ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5,392,000 4,472,516 5,550,000 ∂158,000 ∂1,077,484 Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ........................................................................................................................ 306,000 ¥26,367 330,000 ∂24,000 ∂356,367 Departmental administration ............................................................................................................................................... 143,000 145,652 142,736 ¥264 ¥2,916 Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................ 44,424 49,000 49,000 ∂4,576 ..........................Title 17 Innovative technology loan guarantee program ..................................................................................................... 7,000 ¥250,000 .......................... ¥7,000 ∂250,000 Advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loan pgm .................................................................................................... 5,000 2,000 5,000 .......................... ∂3,000 Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee program ............................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 Atomic energy defense activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons activities ............................................................................................................................................. 9,245,567 10,239,344 10,000,071 ∂754,504 ¥239,273 Defense nuclear nonproliferation ....................................................................................................................... 1,882,872 1,793,310 1,852,310 ¥30,562 ∂59,000 Naval reactors .................................................................................................................................................... 1,419,813 1,479,751 1,436,651 ∂16,838 ¥43,100 Federal Salaries and Expenses .......................................................................................................................... 390,000 418,595 396,000 ∂6,000 ¥22,595 

Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Admin ................................................................................................... 12,938,252 13,931,000 13,685,032 ∂746,780 ¥245,968 

Defense environmental cleanup .................................................................................................................................. 5,405,000 5,537,186 5,579,968 ∂174,968 ∂42,782 Defense uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning ..................................................................... 563,000 .......................... 788,000 ∂225,000 ∂788,000 Other defense activities .............................................................................................................................................. 784,000 815,512 784,000 .......................... ¥31,512 Defense nuclear waste disposal ................................................................................................................................. .......................... 30,000 .......................... .......................... ¥30,000 

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................................................................................. 19,690,252 20,313,698 20,837,000 ∂1,146,748 ∂523,302 

Power marketing administrations (1): 

Southeastern Power Administration ............................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Southwestern Power Administration ............................................................................................................................ 11,057 11,400 11,400 ∂343 ..........................Western Area Power Administration ............................................................................................................................ 95,581 93,372 93,372 ¥2,209 ..........................Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ............................................................................................. 232 228 228 ¥4 ..........................

Total, Power Marketing Administrations ................................................................................................................. 106,870 105,000 105,000 ¥1,870 ..........................
129 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 346,800 367,600 367,600 ∂20,800 ..........................Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥346,800 ¥367,600 ¥367,600 ¥20,800 ..........................

General Provisions ................................................................................................................................................................ ¥334,803 ¥59,000 ¥579,360 ¥244,557 ¥520,360 

Total Summary of Accounts, Department of Energy .............................................................................................. 30,746,009 27,870,597 31,463,626 ∂717,617 ∂3,593,029 

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. 
130 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Section 301. Language is included on the execution of appropriations, including reprogramming, and congressional notification. 

Section 302. Language is included specifically authorizing intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 2018 Intelligence Authorization Act. 

Section 303. The bill includes a provision related to nuclear safety requirements. 

Section 304. The bill includes language related to independent 

cost estimates. 

Section 305. The bill includes language concerning full funding 

of awards. 

Section 306. The bill includes language concerning Uranium 

Lease and Take-Back Fund. 

Section 307. The bill includes language concerning a pilot program related to consolidated storage of spent nuclear fuel. 

Section 308. The bill includes language regarding reprogramming 

authority. 

Section 309. The bill includes a rescission. 

Section 310. The bill includes a rescission. 

Section 311. The bill includes a rescission. 

Section 312. The bill includes language concerning the Strategic 

Petroleum Reserve. 

Section 313. The bill includes language concerning a report by 

the Secretary of Energy. 
(131) 

TITLE IV 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

The budget request proposes to eliminate several independent 

agencies, including the Appalachian Regional Commission, Delta 

Regional Authority, Denali Commission, and Northern Border Regional Commission. The budget requests funding to conduct closeout of the agencies in fiscal year 2018. The Committee strongly opposes the termination 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 in this report. No funds shall be used for the planning of 

or implementation of termination of these agencies. 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $152,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 26,700,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 142,000,000 

The Committee recommends $142,000,000 for the Appalachian 

Regional Commission [ARC]. 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, $70,000,000 is provided for 

base 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 supplier 

sector and the aviation sector. Up to $13,500,000 of that amount 

is recommended for activities in Southern Appalachia. The funds 

shall be distributed according to the Commission’s Distressed 

Counties Formula, which is comprised of land area, population estimates, and a proportion of the number of distressed counties. 

Within available funding, the Committee recommends $6,000,000 

for a program of basic infrastructure improvements in distressed 

counties in Central Appalachia. Funds shall be distributed according to ARC’s distressed counties formula and shall be in 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 providing resources for economic diversification, job creation, job training, and other employment services. 
132 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $30,872,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 30,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 30,000,000 

The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for the Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board. 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 $1,131,000 within 

the Office of Inspector General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to perform these services. 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $25,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 2,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,000,000 

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Delta Regional 

Authority [DRA]. The 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 shall be 

used 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 and transportation infrastructure before allocating funding toward other priority areas. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $15,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 7,300,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,000,000 

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Denali Commission. The Denali Commission is a Federal-State partnership responsible for promoting infrastructure development, job training, 

and other economic support services in rural areas throughout 

Alaska. 

NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 850,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,000,000 

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Northern Border Regional Commission. Within available funds, no less than 

$3,000,000 is for initiatives that seek to address the decline in forest-based economies throughout the region. 
133 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $905,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 939,137,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 914,137,000 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. ¥$794,580,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... ¥803,409,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥807,848,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $110,420,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 135,728,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 106,221,000 

The Commission’s mission is to ensure the safety and security of 

the nation’s use of nuclear power and nuclear materials and protect 

the workers and public who use and benefit from these materials 

and facilities. The Committee recommends $914,137,000 for the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission [Commission], a decrease of 

$25,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation requires the use of $10,000,000 of unobligated balances from prior appropriations. This amount is offset by estimated 

revenues of $807,848,000, resulting in a net appropriation of 

$106,221,000. In developing this recommendation, the Committee 

has consulted with the Commission to ensure it maintains its goldstandard health and safety mission while reducing low-priority 

work. The Committee recommends that the unobligated balance of 

$68,076.04 provided to the Commission from the United States 

Agency for International Development in 1994 pursuant to section 

632(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for which there is no 

currently authorized use, be rescinded. 

Budget Execution Plan.—The Commission is directed to provide 

the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress with 

a specific budget execution plan no later than 30 days after the 

date of enactment of this act. This plan shall provide details at the 

product line level within each of the control points, as applicable, 

included in the table after the Office of Inspector General heading 

below. 

Budget Control Points.—The recommendation includes budget 

control points for fiscal year 2018 to ensure the Commission’s budget execution follows congressional intent. These budget control 

points are included in the table following the heading of Office of 

Inspector General. As it did for fiscal year 2017, the Committee includes statutory language incorporating the new control points by 

reference into law, and notes that any breaches are now 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, 2017, for the Commission 

between the budget control points, subject to prior congressional 

approval, with a provision made for emergency circumstances. This 
134 

reprogramming authority supersedes the Commission’s existing 

guidance on internal reprogrammings. 

Unobligated Balances from Prior Appropriations.—The Committee notes that the Commission carries unobligated balances 

from appropriations received prior to fiscal year 2018. The Committee’s recommendation requires the use of $10,000,000 of these balances, derived from fee-based activities. Because the Commission 

has already collected fees corresponding to these activities in prior 

years, the Committee does not include these funds within the fee 

base calculation for determining authorized revenues, and does not 

provide authority to collect additional offsetting receipts for their 

use. 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. 

Reductions from Efficiencies.—In the past few years, the Commission’s budget has included potential savings identified by the 

Commission’s staff based on discontinuation, de-prioritization, or 

incremental reductions of activities. According to the Commission’s 

staff, including these savings has not adversely affected the Commission’s safety mission. The Committee applauds the Commission’s reviews of its programs to find these efficiencies, and urges 

the Commission to continue to identify additional efficiencies in 

management practices, work control processes, and staffing. 

Integrated University Program.—The Committee recommends 

$15,000,000 for the Integrated University Program, of which not 

less 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. 

Rulemaking.—The Committee directs the Commission to provide 

to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 

within 90 days after the date of enactment of this act, and quarterly thereafter, an update of appendix G of the budget request regarding planned rulemakings. 

Reporting Requirement.—The Committee directs the Commission 

to continue the reporting required in the explanatory statement for 

the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2017, relating to progress against the Commission’s licensing goals and 

right-sizing commitments. 

Modeling and Simulation Tools.—The continued operation of the 

nation’s current fleet of nuclear power reactors is vitally important 

to our energy infrastructure. The Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors [CASL] has developed modeling and 

simulation tools, including for the use of accident tolerant fuels, 

which can result in more efficient and cost-effective plant operations. Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 

act, the Commission is directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the Commission’s potential 

uses of CASL’s tools in its licensing process and safety reviews. 
135 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $12,129,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 12,859,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,859,000 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $10,044,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 10,555,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,555,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $2,085,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 2,304,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,304,000 

The Committee recommends $12,859,000 for the Office of Inspector General, the same as the budget request, which is offset by revenues estimated at $10,555,000, for a net appropriation of 

$2,304,000. The Office of Inspector General serves both the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board, and the recommendation includes $1,131,000 for that purpose that is not available from fee revenues. 

In line with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s recent Project 

Aim activities, the Committee encourages the Office of Inspector 

General to examine its own program to identify savings and efficiencies that could be realized within the Office of Inspector General without negatively impacting its mission. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

Committee 

recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES .......................................................................... 939,137 ........................ ¥939,137 

NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY .............................................................. ........................ 466,655 ∂466,655 

NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY ....................................... ........................ 113,145 ∂113,145 

DECOMMISSIONING AND LOW–LEVEL WASTE .................................... ........................ 27,980 ∂27,980 

CORPORATE SUPPORT ....................................................................... ........................ 301,357 ∂301,357 

INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM ................................................. ........................ 15,000 ∂15,000 

SUBTOTAL ..................................................................................... 939,137 924,137 ¥15,000 

USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES .......................................... ........................ ¥10,000 ¥10,000 

TOTAL, SALARIES AND EXPENSES ................................... 939,137 914,137 ¥25,000 

RESCISSION ................................................................................................ ........................ ¥68 ¥68 

REVENUES ......................................................................................... ¥803,409 ¥807,848 ¥4,439 

SUBTOTAL ..................................................................................... 135,728 106,221 ¥29,507 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL: 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ...................................................... 12,859 12,859 ........................

REVENUES ......................................................................................... ¥10,555 ¥10,555 ........................

SUBTOTAL ..................................................................................... 2,304 2,304 ........................

TOTAL, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .............................. 138,032 108,525 ¥29,507 

APPROPRIATIONS ................................................................. (138,032) (108,593) (¥29,439) 
136 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

Committee 

recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

RECISSIONS ......................................................................... ........................ (¥68) (¥68) 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriations, 2017 ............................................................................. $3,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2018 ........................................................................... 3,600,000 

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

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Section 401. The Committee includes language regarding Congressional requests for information. 

Section 402. The Committee includes reprogramming language 

for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
(137) 

TITLE V 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The following list of general provisions is recommended by the 

Committee: 

Section 501. The provision prohibits the use of any funds provided in this bill from being used to influence congressional action. 

Section 502. The provision addresses transfer authority under 

this act. 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

In fiscal year 2018, for purposes of the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177), as 

amended, the following information provides the definition of the 

term ‘‘program, project or activity’’ for departments and agencies 

under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Development and 

Related 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, 2018 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 2018 pursuant to the provisions 

of 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 2018 budget estimates as modified by 

congressional action. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires Committee reports on general 

appropriations bills to identify each Committee amendment to the 

House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is not 

made 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 programs 

or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2018: 
138 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW—FISCAL YEAR 2018 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Agency/Program Last Year of 

Authorization 

Authorization 

Level 

Appropriation in 

Last Year of 

Authorization 

Net Appropriation 

in this Bill 

Corps FUSRAP ..................................................................... ...................... (1) ...................... 117,000 

EERE Program Direction ..................................................... 2006 110,500 164,198 153,500 

EERE Weatherization Activities ........................................... 2012 1,400,000 68,000 215,000 

EERE State Energy Programs ............................................. 2012 125,000 50,000 50,000 

EERE Marine and Hydrokinetic R&D .................................. 2012 50,000 34,000 57,000 

Nuclear Energy .................................................................... 2009 495,000 792,000 788,020 

Nuclear Energy Infrastructure and Facilities ..................... 2009 145,000 245,000 240,202 

Fossil Energy ....................................................................... 2009 641,000 727,320 572,701 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves .......................... 2014 20,000 20,000 4,900 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve .............................................. 2003 not specified 172,856 180,000 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ................................. 2003 not specified 6,000 6,500 

Energy Information Administration ..................................... 1984 not specified 55,870 122,000 

Office of Science ................................................................ 2013 6,007,000 4,876,000 5,550,000 

Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program ..... 2012 not specified 6,000 5,000 

Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ...................... 2013 312,000 265,000 330,000 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup: 

West Valley Demonstration ........................................ 1981 5,000 5,000 75,000 

Departmental Administration ............................................. 1984 246,963 185,682 142,736 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons Activities ............................................ 2017 9,429,029 9,245,567 10,000,071 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ..................... 2017 1,886,916 1,882,872 1,852,310 

Naval Reactors ................................................. 2017 1,417,620 1,419,813 1,436,651 

Federal Salaries and Expenses ........................ 2017 395,517 390,000 396,000 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ........................................ 2017 5,273,558 5,405,000 5,579,968 

Other Defense Activities ..................................................... 2017 789,552 784,000 784,000 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Southwestern ............................................................. 1984 40,254 36,229 11,400 

Western Area .............................................................. 1984 259,700 194,630 93,372 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ............................. 1984 not specified 29,582 ........................

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ............................ 2017 31,000 30,872 30,000 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ......................................... 1985 460,000 448,200 108,525 

1 Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization. 
139 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 20, 2017, the 

Committee ordered favorably reported a bill (S. 1609) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other 

purposes, provided, that the bill be subject to amendment and that 

the bill be consistent with the subcommittee funding guidance, and 

provided that the Chairman of the Committee or his designee be 

authorized to offer 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 as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Cochran Mr. Graham 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Alexander 

Ms. Collins 

Ms. Murkowski 

Mr. Blunt 

Mr. Moran 

Mr. Hoeven 

Mr. Boozman 

Mrs. Capito 

Mr. Lankford 

Mr. Daines 

Mr. Kennedy 

Mr. Rubio 

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 
140 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-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.’’ 

TITLE 33—NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS 

CHAPTER 36—WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

SUBCHAPTER V—GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 2340. Revision of project partnership agreement; cost sharing 

(a) Federal allocation 

* * * * * * * 

ø(c) Cost estimates 

The estimated Federal and non-Federal costs of water resources 

projects authorized to be carried out by the Secretary before, on, or 

after November 8, 2007, are for informational purposes only and 

shall not be interpreted as affecting the cost-sharing responsibilities established by law.¿ 

TITLE 43—PUBLIC LANDS 

CHAPTER 40—RECLAMATION STATES EMERGENCY DROUGHT

RELIEF

SUBCHAPTER I—DROUGHT PROGRAM

§ 2214. Applicable period of drought program 

(a) In general 

* * * * * * * 

(c) Termination of authority 

The authorities established under this subchapter shall terminate on September 30, ø2017¿ 2022. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER III—GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

§ 2241. Authorization of appropriations 

Except as otherwise provided in section 2243 of this title (relating to temperature control devices at Shasta Dam, California), 
141 

there is authorized to be appropriated not more than ø$90,000,000¿ 

$120,000,000 in total for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 

ø2017¿ 2022. 

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 Outlays 

Committee 

guidance 1

Amount 

in bill 

Committee 

guidance 1

Amount 

in bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee guidance to 

its subcommittees of amounts for 2018: Subcommittee on 

Energy and Water Development: 

Mandatory ............................................................................ .................... .................... .................... ....................

Discretionary ........................................................................ 38,400 38,400 38,860 2 38,860 

Security ....................................................................... 21,000 21,000 NA NA 

Nonsecurity ................................................................. 17,400 17,400 NA NA 

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2018 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3 22,776 

2019 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 10,968 

2020 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3,658 

2021 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 799 

2022 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 515 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2018 ......................................................................................... NA 168 NA .................. 3

1 There is no section 302(a) allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2018. 

2 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

3 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
142 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2017 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2017 

appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Corps of Engineers—Civil 

Investigations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 121,000 86,000 113,465 ¥7,535 ∂27,465 Construction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,876,000 1,020,000 1,703,150 ¥172,850 ∂683,150 

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥35,000 ¥35,000 ¥35,000 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,876,000 1,020,000 1,668,150 ¥207,850 ∂648,150 

Mississippi River and Tributaries ........................................................................................................................................ 362,000 253,000 375,000 ∂13,000 ∂122,000 Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................................................................................. 3,149,000 3,100,000 3,481,475 ∂332,475 ∂381,475 Regulatory Program .............................................................................................................................................................. 200,000 200,000 200,000 .......................... ..........................Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) ............................................................................................... 112,000 118,000 117,000 ∂5,000 ¥1,000 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .............................................................................................................................. 32,000 35,000 21,904 ¥10,096 ¥13,096 Expenses ............................................................................................................................................................................... 181,000 185,000 185,000 ∂4,000 ..........................Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ..................................................................................................... 4,764 5,000 4,406 ¥358 ¥594 

Total, title I, Department of Defense—Civil .......................................................................................................... 6,037,764 5,002,000 6,166,400 ∂128,636 ∂1,164,400 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (6,037,764 ) (5,002,000 ) (6,201,400 ) (∂163,636 ) (∂1,199,400 ) Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... (¥35,000 ) (¥35,000 ) (¥35,000 ) 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Central Utah Project 

Central Utah Project Completion Account ........................................................................................................................... 10,500 8,983 10,500 .......................... ∂1,517 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Water and Related Resources .............................................................................................................................................. 1,155,894 960,017 1,150,349 ¥5,545 ∂190,332 Central Valley Project Restoration Fund .............................................................................................................................. 55,606 41,376 41,376 ¥14,230 ..........................
143 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ......................................................................................................................................... 36,000 37,000 37,000 ∂1,000 ..........................Policy and Administration .................................................................................................................................................... 59,000 59,000 59,000 .......................... ..........................

Total, Bureau of Reclamation ................................................................................................................................. 1,306,500 1,097,393 1,287,725 ¥18,775 ∂190,332 Total, title II, Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................... 1,317,000 1,106,376 1,298,225 ¥18,775 ∂191,849 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Energy Programs 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ............................................................................................................................ 2,090,200 636,149 1,936,988 ¥153,212 ∂1,300,839 Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ........................................................................................................................... 230,000 120,000 213,141 ¥16,859 ∂93,141 Nuclear Energy ..................................................................................................................................................................... 880,000 570,000 788,020 ¥91,980 ∂218,020 

Defense function ......................................................................................................................................................... 136,616 133,000 129,000 ¥7,616 ¥4,000 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,016,616 703,000 917,020 ¥99,596 ∂214,020 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................................................................................................... 618,000 280,000 572,701 ¥45,299 ∂292,701 

Fossil proviso ............................................................................................................................................................... 50,000 .......................... .......................... ¥50,000 ..........................

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................................................................................................ 14,950 4,900 4,900 ¥10,050 ..........................Strategic Petroleum Reserve ................................................................................................................................................ 223,000 180,000 180,000 ¥43,000 ..........................

Sale of crude oil .......................................................................................................................................................... ¥340,000 ¥350,000 ¥350,000 ¥10,000 ..........................Use of sale proceeds ................................................................................................................................................... 340,000 350,000 350,000 ∂10,000 ..........................

SPR petroleum account ........................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 8,400 .......................... .......................... ¥8,400 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 8,400 .......................... .......................... ¥8,400 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ................................................................................................................................... 6,500 6,500 6,500 .......................... ..........................Energy Information Administration ...................................................................................................................................... 122,000 118,000 122,000 .......................... ∂4,000 Non-defense Environmental Cleanup ................................................................................................................................... 247,000 218,400 266,000 ∂19,000 ∂47,600 Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund .................................................................................. 768,000 752,749 788,000 ∂20,000 ∂35,251 Science ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5,392,000 4,472,516 5,550,000 ∂158,000 ∂1,077,484 Nuclear Waste Disposal ....................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 90,000 .......................... .......................... ¥90,000 Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ........................................................................................................................ 306,000 20,000 330,000 ∂24,000 ∂310,000 

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥46,367 .......................... .......................... ∂46,367 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 306,000 ¥26,367 330,000 ∂24,000 ∂356,367 

Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program ................................................................................................... 37,000 2,000 2,000 ¥35,000 ..........................

Offsetting collection .................................................................................................................................................... ¥30,000 ¥2,000 ¥2,000 ∂28,000 ..........................
144 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2017 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2017 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥250,000 .......................... .......................... ∂250,000 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 7,000 ¥250,000 .......................... ¥7,000 ∂250,000 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans program ........................................................................................... 5,000 2,000 5,000 .......................... ∂3,000 Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program ............................................................................................................................... 9,000 .......................... 1,000 ¥8,000 ∂1,000 

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... ¥9,000 .......................... .......................... ∂9,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 

Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs ...................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 16,000 ∂16,000 ∂16,000 Departmental Administration ............................................................................................................................................... 246,000 241,652 238,736 ¥7,264 ¥2,916 

Miscellaneous revenues ............................................................................................................................................... ¥103,000 ¥96,000 ¥96,000 ∂7,000 ..........................

Net appropriation ............................................................................................................................................... 143,000 145,652 142,736 ¥264 ¥2,916 

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................ 44,424 49,000 49,000 ∂4,576 ..........................

Total, Energy programs ........................................................................................................................................... 11,283,690 7,510,899 11,100,986 ¥182,704 ∂3,590,087 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National Nuclear Security Administration 

Weapons Activities ............................................................................................................................................................... 9,318,093 10,239,344 10,000,071 ∂681,978 ¥239,273 

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... ¥64,126 .......................... .......................... ∂64,126 ..........................Budget amendment rescission .................................................................................................................................... ¥8,400 .......................... .......................... ∂8,400 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 9,245,567 10,239,344 10,000,071 ∂754,504 ¥239,273 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ......................................................................................................................................... 1,902,000 1,842,310 1,852,310 ¥49,690 ∂10,000 

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... ¥19,128 ¥49,000 .......................... ∂19,128 ∂49,000 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,882,872 1,793,310 1,852,310 ¥30,562 ∂59,000 
145 

Naval Reactors ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,420,120 1,479,751 1,436,651 ∂16,531 ¥43,100 

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... ¥307 .......................... .......................... ∂307 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,419,813 1,479,751 1,436,651 ∂16,838 ¥43,100 

Federal Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................................................................................ 390,000 418,595 396,000 ∂6,000 ¥22,595 

Total, National Nuclear Security Administration .................................................................................................... 12,938,252 13,931,000 13,685,032 ∂746,780 ¥245,968 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities 

Defense Environmental Cleanup .......................................................................................................................................... 5,405,000 5,537,186 5,579,968 ∂174,968 ∂42,782 Defense Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning ............................................................................. 563,000 .......................... 788,000 ∂225,000 ∂788,000 Other Defense Activities ....................................................................................................................................................... 784,000 815,512 784,000 .......................... ¥31,512 Defense nuclear waste disposal .......................................................................................................................................... .......................... 30,000 .......................... .......................... ¥30,000 

Total, Environmental and Other Defense Activities ............................................................................................... 6,752,000 6,382,698 7,151,968 ∂399,968 ∂769,270 Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................................................................................. 19,690,252 20,313,698 20,837,000 ∂1,146,748 ∂523,302 

Power Marketing Administrations 1

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ...................................................................................... 1,000 6,379 6,379 ∂5,379 ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥1,000 ¥6,379 ¥6,379 ¥5,379 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ..................................................................................... 45,643 30,288 30,288 ¥15,355 ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥34,586 ¥18,888 ¥18,888 ∂15,698 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 11,057 11,400 11,400 ∂343 ..........................

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration ....................................... 273,144 267,686 232,276 ¥40,868 ¥35,410 

Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥177,563 ¥174,314 ¥138,904 ∂38,659 ∂35,410 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 95,581 93,372 93,372 ¥2,209 ..........................

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund ...................................................................................................... 4,070 4,176 4,176 ∂106 ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥3,838 ¥3,948 ¥3,948 ¥110 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 232 228 228 ¥4 ..........................
146 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2017 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2017 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Total, Power Marketing Administrations ................................................................................................................. 106,870 105,000 105,000 ¥1,870 ..........................

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 346,800 367,600 367,600 ∂20,800 ..........................Revenues applied ................................................................................................................................................................. ¥346,800 ¥367,600 ¥367,600 ¥20,800 ..........................

Total, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ....................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

General Provisions 

Title III Rescissions: 

Department of Energy: Energy Programs and PMAs ........................................................................................................................................ ¥81,063 .......................... .......................... ∂81,063 ..........................Atomic Energy Defense Activities (050) ...................................................................................................................... ¥13,740 .......................... .......................... ∂13,740 ..........................Fossil Energy Research and Development .................................................................................................................. ¥240,000 .......................... .......................... ∂240,000 ..........................Weapons activities (rescission) ................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥64,000 ¥64,000 ¥64,000 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (rescission) ............................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥49,000 ¥49,000 ¥49,000 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... ¥334,803 .......................... ¥113,000 ∂221,803 ¥113,000 

Uranium lease and take-back revolving fund ..................................................................................................................... .......................... 10,000 .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 Uranium lease and take-back revolving fund initial capitalization ................................................................................... .......................... 1,000 1,000 ∂1,000 ..........................Northeast gasoline supply reserve sale ............................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥70,000 ¥70,000 ¥70,000 ..........................Sec. 309(a) (rescission) ....................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥236,700 ¥236,700 ¥236,700 Sec. 309(b) (rescission) ....................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥160,660 ¥160,660 ¥160,660 

Total, title III, Department of Energy ..................................................................................................................... 30,746,009 27,870,597 31,463,626 ∂717,617 ∂3,593,029 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (31,181,773 ) (28,215,964 ) (31,973,986 ) (∂792,213 ) (∂3,758,022 ) Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥435,764 ) (¥345,367 ) (¥510,360 ) (¥74,596 ) (¥164,993 ) 
147 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Appalachian Regional Commission ...................................................................................................................................... 152,000 26,660 142,000 ¥10,000 ∂115,340 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board .............................................................................................................................. 30,872 30,600 30,000 ¥872 ¥600 Delta Regional Authority ...................................................................................................................................................... 25,000 2,500 25,000 .......................... ∂22,500 Denali Commission ............................................................................................................................................................... 15,000 7,300 15,000 .......................... ∂7,700 Northern Border Regional Commission ................................................................................................................................ 10,000 850 15,000 ∂5,000 ∂14,150 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .......................................................................................................................... 250 .......................... .......................... ¥250 ..........................Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 905,000 939,137 914,137 ∂9,137 ¥25,000 Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥794,580 ¥803,409 ¥807,848 ¥13,268 ¥4,439 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 110,420 135,728 106,289 ¥4,131 ¥29,439 

(Rescission) ................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥68 ¥68 ¥68 Office of Inspector General ......................................................................................................................................... 12,129 12,859 12,859 ∂730 ..........................Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥10,044 ¥10,555 ¥10,555 ¥511 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 2,085 2,304 2,304 ∂219 ..........................Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................................................................................................................... 112,505 138,032 108,525 ¥3,980 ¥29,507 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (112,505 ) (138,032 ) (108,593 ) (¥3,912 ) (¥29,439 ) Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... (¥68 ) (¥68 ) (¥68 ) 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ............................................................................................................................... 3,600 3,600 3,600 .......................... ..........................

Total, title IV, Independent agencies ..................................................................................................................... 349,227 209,542 339,125 ¥10,102 ∂129,583 
148 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2017 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2017 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Grand total .............................................................................................................................................................. 38,450,000 34,188,515 39,267,376 ∂817,376 ∂5,078,861 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (38,885,764 ) (34,533,882 ) (39,812,804 ) (∂927,040 ) (∂5,278,922 ) Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥435,764 ) (¥345,367 ) (¥545,428 ) (¥109,664 ) (¥200,061 ) 

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 purchase 

wheeling. 

Æ