30–148 PDF 

Calendar No. 437 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 115–258 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2019 

MAY 24, 2018.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. ALEXANDER, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted 

the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2975] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2975) making appropriations for energy and water development and related 

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for 

other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the 

bill do pass. 

New obligational authority 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $43,766,000,000 

Amount of 2018 appropriations ............................... 60,582,716,000 

Amount of 2019 budget estimate ............................ 31,610,121,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2018 appropriations .......................................... ¥16,816,716,000 

2019 budget estimate ........................................ ∂12,155,879,000 
(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 ..................................................................................... 11 

Construction ....................................................................................... 17 

Mississippi River and Tributaries .................................................... 25 

Operation and Maintenance .............................................................. 27 

Regulatory Program ........................................................................... 47 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ......................... 47 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .......................................... 48 

Expenses ............................................................................................. 48 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) .......... 48 

General Provisions—Corps of Engineers—Civil ..................................... 49 

Title II: 

Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project Completion Account .............................................. 49 

Bureau of Reclamation: 

Water and Related Resources ........................................................... 51 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ......................................... 59 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ...................................................... 60 

Policy and Administration ................................................................. 60 

General Provisions—Department of the Interior .................................... 61 

Title III: 

Department of Energy: 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ............................................... 65 

Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response .................. 78 

Nuclear Energy .......................................................................................... 81 

Fossil Energy Research and Development .............................................. 84 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................... 91 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve .................................................................... 91 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ..................................................... 91 

Energy Information Administration ........................................................ 91 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ..................................................... 91 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund .. 92 

Science ........................................................................................................ 92 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ........................................ 98 

Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program .................................. 99 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program ............. 99 

Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program ................................................ 100 

Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs ......................................... 100 

Departmental Administration .................................................................. 100 

Office of the Inspector General ................................................................ 101 

Weapons Activities .................................................................................... 102 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........................................................... 105 

Naval Reactors .......................................................................................... 107 

Federal Salaries and Expenses ................................................................ 108 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................. 108 

Other Defense Activities ........................................................................... 111 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ................................................................................................... 112 
Page

3 

Title III—Continued 

Department of Energy—Continued 

Power Marketing Administrations—Continued 

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration .................................................... 113 

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund ................. 113 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ................................................. 113 

General Provisions—Department of Energy ........................................... 138 

Title IV: 

Independent Agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission .......................................................... 138 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ................................................. 139 

Delta Regional Authority .......................................................................... 139 

Denali Commission ................................................................................... 140 

Northern Border Regional Commission ................................................... 140 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............................................................. 140 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................ 141 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board .................................................. 142 

General Provisions ........................................................................................... 143 

Title V: General Provisions ..................................................................................... 144 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 144 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 146 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 147 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 147 

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 148 
(4) 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for fiscal 

year 2019, beginning October 1, 2018 and ending September 30, 

2019, for energy and water development, and for other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources development programs 

and related activities of the Corps of Engineers’ civil works program in title I; for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation and Central Utah Project in title II; for the 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 2019 budget estimates for the bill total 

$31,610,121,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The recommendation of the Committee totals $43,766,000,000. This is 

$12,155,879,000 above the budget estimates and $16,816,716,000 

below the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year. 

The Committee notes the enacted appropriation for the current 

fiscal year includes $17,419,716,000 in supplemental appropriation 

for disaster relief requirements. 

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

To develop this recommendation, the Committee held three budget hearings in April 2018 in connection with the fiscal year 2019 

budget requests for the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Administration, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The hearings provided officials from the agencies with an opportunity to present the 

administration’s most pressing priorities to the Committee. The 

Committee also invited and received recommendations from Senators and outside witnesses. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development’s 302(b) 

allocation totals $43,766,000,000 of net budget authority for fiscal 

year 2019, including adjustments, which represents an increase of 

$566,000,000 above fiscal year 2018 enacted levels. Within the 

amount recommended, $21,892,000,000 is classified as defense 

(050) spending and $21,874,000,000 is classified as non-defense 

(non-050) spending. 
5 

The Committee’s recommendation includes funding for the highest priority activities across the agencies funded in the bill. The 

recommendation includes funds for critical water infrastructure, including our Nation’s inland waterways, ports, and harbors; agricultural water supply and drought relief in the West; groundbreaking 

scientific research and development, including world-class supercomputing; support for the Nation’s nuclear weapons, non-proliferation, and nuclear Navy programs; and critical economic development. 
(6) 

TITLE I 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $6,927,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers [Corps], an increase of $2,142,417,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee’s recommendation sets priorities by supporting 

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

estimated fiscal year 2019 revenues for the fifth consecutive year, 

from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and for the fifth consecutive year meets the target prescribed in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 [WRRDA], as amended, for 

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 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. 

ONGOING CORPS REFORM EFFORTS

The Committee commends the Corps for its several ongoing internal initiatives to change itself and improve how it delivers Civil 

Works water infrastructure and related programs. Recent efforts to 

streamline the processing of section 408 actions for alterations or 

use of Corps Civil Works projects are vitally important. Important 

changes include maximum delegation of decision-making to the 

field, narrowed scope for evaluating impacts and elimination of certain procedural requirements. For example, the requirement for a 

section 408 action for routine Operation and Maintenance was 

eliminated; the requirement for developing a 60-percent design before submitting an application for a 408 action has been eliminated; and a more limited application of navigational servitude to 

408 actions which eliminated the need for numerous permits in 

coastal areas. The Director of Civil Works has also issued formal 

direction to, among other things, operationalize risk-informed decisionmaking to change behavior by shifting from a more 

regimented- and compliance-based paradigm to a more agile approach that allows for more project- and situation-specific adaptation based on risk after documenting any associated risks. The 

Corps is also pursuing 12 specific actions to improve permitting efficiencies, including aggressive implementation of Executive Order 

13807 (One Federal Decision); clarification of policy to consider removal of obsolete structures as creditable mitigation bank actions; 

alignment of section 404 or section 10 permits with section 408 actions; and establishment of a Lead District approach for projects 

that cross multiple jurisdictions such as pipeline projects. The 

Committee strongly encourages the continuation of these and other 

aggressive actions to improve program and project delivery. 

BUDGET STRUCTURE CHANGES

The fiscal year 2019 budget request for the Corps proposed numerous structural changes, including creation of two new accounts—Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund—and the shifting of various studies and projects between accounts. The Committee rejects all such proposed changes 

and instead recommends funding for the requested studies and 

projects in the accounts in which funding has traditionally been 

provided. Unless expressly noted, the Committee recommends studies and projects remain at the funding levels included in the budget 

request, but in different accounts than in the budget request. In 

particular: 

—Projects requested in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund account are shown in the Construction, Mississippi River and 

Tributaries, or Operation and Maintenance accounts, as appropriate; 

—Projects requested in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund account are shown in the Construction account; 
8 

—Dredged material management plans requested in the Investigations account are shown in the Operation and Maintenance 

account; 

—Dam safety modification studies requested in the Investigations account are shown in the Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program in the Construction account; 

—Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program management costs requested in the Expenses account are shown in 

the Construction account; and 

—Sand mitigation projects requested in the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund account are shown in the Construction account. 

Additionally, the recommendation includes the Poplar Island, 

Maryland beneficial use of dredged material project within the Environmental Restoration business line as in previous years. 

If the Corps proposes budget structure changes in future fiscal 

years, the proposal shall be accompanied by a display of the funding request in the traditional budget structure. 

DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION

The budget request this year fails to adequately fund our nation’s harbors. The Committee is disappointed the fiscal year 2019 

budget request only proposes to spend $965 million for Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF]-related activities, which is $477 

million below the spending target of $1,442,000,000 established by 

WRRDA, as amended. For fiscal year 2019, the Committee recommends an estimated $1,528,401,000 for HMTF-related activities, 

which exceeds the WRRDA spending target. 

INLAND WATERWAYS SYSTEM

The Committee notes that the budget request only proposed to 

spend $5,250,000 of the estimated $105,000,000 deposits for fiscal 

year 2019 into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund [IWTF]. This 

would leave an estimated $99,750,000 of fiscal year 2019 deposits 

unspent. By only proposing to fund one of the four ongoing construction projects that were funded last year, the budget request 

disregards the existing Capital Investment Strategy and the advice 

and recommendations of industry experts and professional engineers. 

The Committee rejects the budget request’s proposal to reform 

inland waterways financing by increasing the amount paid by commercial navigation users of inland waterways, particularly when 

the administration fails to make full use of the fees already collected for this purpose. 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING

The Committee recommends funding above the budget request 

for Investigations, Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and 

Mississippi River and Tributaries. This funding is for additional 

work (including new starts) that either was not included in the 

budget request or was inadequately budgeted. A study or project 

may not be excluded from evaluation for additional funding for 

being inconsistent with administration policy. 
9 

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 2019. 

Funding associated with each category may be allocated to any 

eligible study or project, as appropriate, within that category; funding associated with each subcategory may be allocated only to eligible studies or projects, as appropriate, within that subcategory. 

Work Plan.—Not later than 60 days after the date of 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 

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 the study or project’s remaining cost to 

complete (excluding Operation and Maintenance); and (4) a list of 

all studies and projects that were considered eligible for funding 

but did not receive funding, including an explanation of whether 

the study or project could have used funds in fiscal year 2019 and 

the specific reasons each study or project was considered as being 

less competitive for an allocation of funds. 

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

any item for which the Committee has specifically denied funding. 

The Committee urges the Corps within its Flood and Coastal 

Storm Damage Reduction mission to strive for a balance between 

inland and coastal projects. 

New Starts.—The recommendation includes seven new study 

starts and six new construction starts to be distributed across the 

authorized mission areas of the Corps. Of the new starts in Investigations, two shall be for navigation studies, two shall be for flood 

and storm damage reduction studies, one shall be for an environmental restoration study, and two shall be for navigation, flood and 

storm damage reduction, environmental restoration, or multi-purpose studies. Of the new study starts for navigation, one shall be 

for a Small, Remote, or Subsistence Harbor. Of the new study 

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

multi-purpose watershed study to assess coastal resiliency. Of the 

new construction starts, one shall be for a navigation project, one 

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

be for an additional navigation or flood and storm damage reduction project, two shall be for environmental restoration projects, 

and one shall be for a navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, environmental restoration, or multi-purpose project. 

As all new starts are to be chosen by the Corps, all shall be considered of equal importance, and the expectation is that future 

budget submissions will include appropriate funding for all new 

starts selected. 

A study is not completed until preconstruction engineering and 

design [PED] is completed. No new start or new investment decision shall be required when moving from feasibility to PED. When 
10 

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 Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall make every effort to submit to Congress the Report of 

the Chief of Engineers for the Brandon Road feasibility study according to the original published schedule of February 2019. The 

Corps is encouraged to allocate sufficient funding provided in this 

act to ensure the Report of the Chief of Engineers for the Brandon 

Road feasibility study is published in this timeframe. The Corps is 

also 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. 

The Corps shall continue to collaborate with the U.S. Coast 

Guard, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of Illinois, and 

members of the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee to 

identify and evaluate whether navigation protocols would be beneficial or effective in reducing the risk of vessels inadvertently carrying aquatic invasive species, including Asian carp, through the 

Brandon Road Lock and Dam in Joliet, Illinois. Any findings of 

such an evaluation shall be included in the quarterly briefings to 

the Committees. The Corps is further directed to implement navigation protocols shown to be effective at reducing the risk of entrainment without jeopardizing the safety of vessels and crews 

within 90 days of enactment of this act. The Corps and other Federal and State agencies are conducting ongoing research on potential solutions. 

UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS

The Committee is concerned by a U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement bulletin published in 2017 that confidently assesses 

that a Chinese unmanned aerial systems (UAS) manufacturer was 

using its products to provide critical infrastructure data to the Chinese Government. The Corps shall immediately determine whether 

UAS that were the subject of the August 2017 bulletin are currently in use and report back to the Committee within 180 days. 

Due to the critical infrastructure funded in this bill that has an extensive national security component, any vulnerability to foreign 

surveillance is a serious concern to this Committee and the Corps 

shall prioritize purchases of American-made UAS in the future. 
11 

REPROGRAMMING

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

Appropriations Act, 2018. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

The Committee did not accept or include congressionally directed 

spending, as defined in section 5(a) of rule XLIV of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate. However, the Committee has recommended 

additional programmatic funds for Investigations, Construction, 

Operations and Maintenance, and Mississippi River and Tributaries to address deficiencies in the budget request. In some cases, 

these additional funds have been included within defined categories, as in prior years, and are described in more detail in 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 

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, 2018 ............................................................................. $123,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 82,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 123,000,000 

The Committee recommends $123,000,000 for Investigations, an 

increase of $41,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee’s 

recommendation allows the Corps to begin seven new feasibility 

study starts. 

INTRODUCTION

Funding in this account is used to develop feasibility and PED 

studies to address the Nation’s water infrastructure needs, in support of project authorization. The Committee recognizes that the 

budget request does not provide adequate funding for Investigations, and specifically PED funding, to allow many of America’s 

most important waterways to move efficiently from planning 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’’. 
12 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

recommendation for Investigations. 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

ALABAMA 

BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL ...................................................................... 100 ........................

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL ...................................................................................... 250 ........................

CALIFORNIA 

EAST SAN PEDRO BAY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA .......................................................... 298 298 

ILLINOIS 

INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES–MISSISSIPPI RIVER.

AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES, IL, IN, OH & WI (BRANDON ROAD) ................................ 200 200 

INDIANA 

MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN .......................................................................................................... 1,500 ........................

IOWA 

GRAND RIVER BASIN, IA & MO ............................................................................................... 100 100 

NEW MEXICO 

RIO GRANDE, SANDIA PUEBLO TO ISLETA PUEBLO, NM ......................................................... 825 825 

NEW YORK 

BUFFALO HARBOR, NY ............................................................................................................. 300 ........................

HUDSON RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION, NY ........................................................................... 355 355 

OHIO 

CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ........................................................................................................ 350 ........................

DELAWARE LAKE, OH ............................................................................................................... 750 ........................

OREGON 

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY 2024 IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................. 10,265 ........................

COUGAR LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................... 1,500 ........................

HILLS CREEK, OR .................................................................................................................... 1,500 ........................

LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR ...................................................................................................... 1,500 ........................

TEXAS 

COASTAL TEXAS PROTECTION AND RESTORATION STUDY, TX ................................................ 2,675 2,675 

CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ...................................................................................... 250 ........................

GIWW– BRAZOS RIVER FLOODGATES & COLORADO RIVER LOCK, TX .................................... 50 50 

GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................... 1,500 ........................

HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX .................................................................................................. 603 603 

MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................. 200 200 

PROCTOR LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................. 1,500 ........................

VIRGINIA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AT NORTH LANDING, VA ........ 1,600 1,600 

NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ............................................................................................................ 300 ........................

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ............................................................................. 28,471 6,906 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK 

FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION ...................................................................... ........................ 7,500 

FLOOD CONTROL ................................................................................................... ........................ 5,000 

SHORE PROTECTION .............................................................................................. ........................ 2,000 

NAVIGATION .................................................................................................................... ........................ 9,823 
13 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

COASTAL AND DEEP–DRAFT .................................................................................. ........................ 9,000 

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

OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES ..................................................................... ........................ 5,000 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE ................................................ ........................ 5,500 

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 8,000 

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 ............................................................................................... 16,258 25,000 

OTHER—MISCELLANEOUS 

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

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

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

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

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

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ................................................................................... 53,528 116,093 

ACCOUNTING ADJUSTMENT .................................................................................... 1 1 

GRAND TOTAL ................................................................................................... 82,000 123,000 

Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project.—The Committee continues to support this vital project to protect drinking water supplies in eastern Miami-Dade County from saltwater intrusion and 

to enhance the coastal and marine ecology of Biscayne Bay and the 

offshore coral reef system. The Committee notes support from 

Miami-Dade County and the South Florida Water Management 

District to incorporate highly treated, reclaimed wastewater as an 

additional source of freshwater to assist the rehydration of these 

coastal wetlands. The Committee encourages the Corps to consider 

the incorporation of this potential source of freshwater into further 

study, design, and construction of the project and to evaluate the 

potential to use additional volumes of reclaimed wastewater to restore freshwater artesian springs within the Bay through underground injection to the shallow, underlying aquifer. 
14 

Bubbly Creek.—The Committee encourages the Corps to resume 

its study of the revitalization of the South Fork of the South 

Branch of the Chicago River (known as ‘‘Bubbly Creek’’) now that 

the Environmental Protection Agency has completed its evaluation 

of the study area and removed the site from its Superfund program. 

Disposition of Completed Projects.—Disposition studies not included in the budget request that have a non-federal interest who 

has expressed interest in assuming responsibility for a facility shall 

be considered eligible for additional funding provided in this account. The Committee understands the Corps recommended no action for the Upper Monongahela and Allegheny River Studies in 

2017. No funds provided may be used to take any action on the recommendations from the Upper Monongahela and Allegheny River 

Studies. 

Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island.—The Corps has completed the supplemental chief’s report and is awaiting approval from the administration before budgeting for the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island 

Project (James and Barren Islands). The Committee encourages the 

Corps to provide funding for PED for this project through the annual budget process or with additional funds. 

Puget Sound Nearshore Study.—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 further directed to recognize the Puget Sound Nearshore Study as the feasibility component 

for the purposes of Section 544 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The Committee notes that the WIIN Act authorized construction of the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project, and reminds the Corps that no new start, new investment decision, or new phase decision shall be required to move 

this project from feasibility to PED. 

Rahway River Basin (Upper Basin), New Jersey.—There has been 

an agreement to provide further analysis of the Rahway River 

Basin Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study led by the Corps’ 

New England District. The Corps is encouraged to include funding 

in the fiscal year 2019 work plan to complete the necessary detailed analysis in conjunction with cost sharing agreements with 

the non-federal sponsor. 

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

advance the capability 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’ Flood & 

Coastal Systems research and development [R&D] program to continue its focus on the management of water resources infrastructure and projects that promote public safety, reduce risk, improve 

operational efficiencies, reduce flood damage, sustain the environment, and position our water resource infrastructure to be managed as adaptable systems due to the implications of hydrologic uncertainties. The R&D program shall also continue its focus on 
15 

science and technology efforts to address needs for resilient water 

resources infrastructure, specifically as impacted by post-wildfire 

conditions including increased sedimentation and debris flow. The 

tools and technologies developed under this program shall also be 

applicable to other parts of the country. 

Research and Development, Additional Topic.—The Committee 

recognizes the importance of sustainable oyster reefs for protecting 

vital navigation channels and coastal infrastructure, supporting 

commercial fisheries, and maintaining healthy ecosystems. Recent 

restoration efforts have not achieved the intended success for U.S. 

oyster populations, and the identification of effective restoration 

strategies remains a critical gap. The Corps is encouraged to develop partnerships with research universities to leverage expertise 

and enhance the Engineer Research and Development Center’s 

mission. 

San Francisco Waterfront Seawall.—The Committee is deeply 

concerned that the seawall protecting over three miles of San Francisco’s waterfront and the city’s financial district is in disrepair and 

at risk of failure. The Seawall provides essential flood protection 

for 24 million residents and visitors, $100,000,000,000 in real estate and economic activity, and the confluence of several rail transportation lines. The Committee understands the Corps first determined there was a Federal interest in the project in 2016 and has 

begun the Continuing Authorities Program section 103 project to 

address the highest priority areas first. Given expected sea level 

rise, increasing earthquake risk, and the unstable nature of the 

Seawall’s Bay Mud infill foundation, the Committee strongly urges 

the Corps to prioritize work on this critical life safety project. 

Study of Water Resources Development Projects by Non-Federal 

Interests.—Section 1126 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements 

for the Nation Act of 2016 [WIIN Act] allows the Secretary, at the 

request of a non-federal interest, to provide technical assistance relating to any aspect of a feasibility study if the non-federal interest 

contracts with the Secretary to pay all costs of providing such technical assistance. The Committee has heard concerns that the Corps 

is not providing technical assistance consistent with the spirit of 

this provision and directs the Corps to brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on the perceived limitations to providing (1) review and comment of a non-federal interest’s draft work products by Corps staff at the District and Division 

levels, (2) Corps District staff preparation of work products and assistance to the non-federal interest in preparing work products, (3) 

assistance in obtaining public review and comments, and (4) consultation and coordination with other State and Federal agencies 

and affected Native American Tribes on environmental, permitting, 

and cultural resource compliance matters. 

Study on Performance of Innovative Materials.—Section 1173 of 

the WIIN Act required the Secretary to enter into a contract with 

the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of 

Sciences ‘‘to develop a proposal to study the use and performance 

of innovative materials in water resources development projects 

carried out by the Corps of Engineers.’’ The Committee encourages 

the Corps to prioritize commencing this work with the National 

Academy of Sciences. 
16 

Upper Des Plaines River and Tributaries Project.—The Committee is aware that the project area was flooded with record high 

crests overflowing the Des Plaines River last summer, resulting in 

damage to more than 3,200 residences. The Committee urges the 

Corps to move forward with design of the flood damage reduction 

project, while the non-federal sponsor prepares a proposal for advance work on a number of flood features under Section 204 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended. 

Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System.—The Committee is concerned that despite longstanding bipartisan support 

from Congress for the Navigation Ecosystem Sustainability Program [NESP], the Corps has failed to move forward on this project. 

The Committee recognizes that an updated economic analysis of 

the project is necessary to produce a benefit-to-cost ratio [BCR], 

which will inform how the Corps is able to move forward to construction of the project. The Corps is directed to determine the necessary cost and scope of this analysis and report to the Committees 

on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on their findings 

within 30 days of enactment of this act. This analysis shall also 

consider the benefits of potentially re-scoping the project. 

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

Willamette River.—The Committee directs the Corps to prioritize 

the restoration floodplain and aquatic habitat through cost-effective 

and tested means, such as fish-passage and culvert enhancement 

for salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee recommendation includes $41,000,000 in additional funds for Investigations. From these additional funds, the Corps is authorized to 

begin seven new feasibility studies. The Corps is directed to allocate these additional funds in accordance with the direction in the 

front matter under the heading ‘‘Additional Funding’’. Of the additional funding provided in this account, not less than $16,500,000 

shall be allocated to PED activities. Of the additional funding recommended in this account for Navigation and Coastal and Deep 

Draft Navigation, the Corps shall allocate not less than $2,500,000 

for Navigation PED. Additionally, the Corps shall comply with 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 or to initiating new studies that will enhance the Nation’s economic development, job growth, and international competitiveness; are 

for projects located in areas that have suffered recent natural 

disasters; are for projects the protect life and property; or are 

for projects to address legal requirements. 
17 

—The Corps shall consider giving priority to flood and storm 

damage reduction studies related to preserving National Historic Landmarks that are threatened by shoreline erosion. 

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

initiated in fiscal year 2019. The Corps shall prepare the budget to reflect study completions, defined as completion of PED. 

—Funding shall be available for existing studies, including studies in the PED phase, and the updating of economic analyses 

and cost estimates for studies that have received appropriations. Ongoing studies that are actively progressing and can 

utilize the funding in a timely manner are eligible for these additional funds. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $2,085,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 871,733,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,161,000,000 

The Committee recommends $2,161,000,000 for Construction, an 

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

INTRODUCTION

Funding in this account is used for construction, major rehabilitation, and related activities for water resources development 

projects having navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, 

water supply, hydroelectric, environmental restoration, and other 

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

HMTF will be applied to cover the Federal share of the Dredged 

Material Disposal Facilities Program. 

NEW STARTS

The Corps is directed to designate new starts in accordance 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 Construction HMTF IWTF 

CALIFORNIA 

AMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES, NATOMAS 

BASIN, CA ................................................................. 42,000 ........................ ........................ 42,000 

HAMILTON CITY, CA ...................................................... 6,000 ........................ ........................ 6,000 

ISABELLA LAKE, CA ....................................................... 118,000 ........................ ........................ 118,000 

SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA ................................ 15,000 ........................ ........................ 15,000 

YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA ................................................ 35,500 ........................ ........................ 35,500 
18 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation Construction HMTF IWTF 

DELAWARE 

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET TO 

LEWIS BEACH, DE ..................................................... ........................ 150 ........................ 150 

FLORIDA 

HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL) ....... 96,000 ........................ ........................ 96,000 

SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (EVERGLADES), FL .............................................................. 67,500 ........................ ........................ 67,500 

GEORGIA 

SAVANNAH HARBOR DISPOSAL AREAS, GA & SC ......... ........................ 10,500 ........................ 10,500 

SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA ............................ 49,000 ........................ ........................ 49,000 

ILLINOIS 

OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY ....... 29,750 ........................ 5,250 35,000 

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

KENTUCKY 

ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY ................................................ 40,000 ........................ ........................ 40,000 

MARYLAND 

ASSATEAGUE, MD .......................................................... ........................ 600 ........................ 600

POPLAR ISLAND, MD ..................................................... ........................ 21,000 ........................ 21,000 

MASSACHUSETTS 

BOSTON HARBOR, MA ................................................... 15,105 ........................ ........................ 15,105 

NEW JERSEY 

CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ ................. ........................ 7,200 ........................ 7,200 

RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB–BASIN, NJ 5,000 ........................ ........................ 5,000 

OREGON 

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA ............... 28,000 ........................ ........................ 28,000 

PENNSYLVANIA 

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA ..................... 14,000 ........................ ........................ 14,000 

TEXAS 

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX ....................... 11,908 ........................ ........................ 11,908 

CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ........................... 13,000 ........................ ........................ 13,000 

LEWISVILLE DAM, TX ..................................................... 55,000 ........................ ........................ 55,000 

WASHINGTON 

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID 

(CRFM) ...................................................................... 46,000 ........................ ........................ 46,000 

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA ............................................. 25,000 ........................ ........................ 25,000 

WEST VIRGINIA 

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ................................................... 7,810 ........................ ........................ 7,810 

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ................... 762,743 39,450 5,250 807,443 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING.

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

FLOOD CONTROL ......................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 150,000 
19 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation Construction HMTF IWTF 

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

NAVIGATION .......................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 500,250 

INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND REVENUES .... ........................ ........................ ........................ 122,750 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES ........... ........................ ........................ ........................ 70,000 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE .................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 50,000 

ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE ............ ........................ ........................ ........................ 75,000 

AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM ........................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 12,000 

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM 

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 

206) ................................................................. 1,500 ........................ ........................ 10,000 

BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204) ........................................................ ........................ 500 ........................ 8,317 

EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE 

PROTECTION (SECTION 14) ............................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 8,000 

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) ........ 500 ........................ ........................ 8,000 

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

NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107) ................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 8,000 

PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF 

THE ENVIRONMENT (SECTION 1135) ............... 1,000 ........................ ........................ 8,000 

SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103) .................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 3,000

DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION 

PROGRAM ................................................................. 88,655 ........................ ........................ 100,405 

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 ........................................................ 108,990 500 ........................ 1,353,557 

TOTAL ............................................................... 871,733 39,950 5,250 2,161,000 

Aquatic Plant Control Program.—Of the funding recommended for the Aquatic Plant Control Program, $1,000,000 shall be for activities for the control of flowering rush. Of the funding recommended for the Aquatic Plant Control Program, $5,000,000 shall 

be for nationwide research and development to address invasive 

aquatic plants; within this funding, the Corps is encouraged to support cost-shared aquatic plant management programs. Of the funding recommended for the Aquatic Plant Control Program, 

$6,000,000 shall be for watercraft inspection stations, as authorized 

by section 1039 of the WRRDA, and related monitoring. 

Camp Ellis Beach, Saco, Maine.—The Committee is concerned by 

the continued delay in implementing a solution at Camp Ellis 

Beach in Saco, Maine. To address continued erosion which has destroyed 37 homes to date, the Committee is aware that the Corps’ 

initial study recommended a shore damage mitigation project consisting of a 750-foot-long spur jetty, and placement of about 

360,000 cubic yards of beach fill along the beach. The Committee 

is further aware that the project’s design and costs are under review and being updated in preparation of a new report to Congress 

detailing a path ahead on the project. Accordingly, the Committee 

directs the Secretary to expeditiously submit this report to the 

Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. This re-
20 

port shall include any additional legislative authorities necessary 

for the project to be approved and constructed. 

Can ̃ o Martı ́n Pen ̃a Ecosystem Restoration Project, San Juan, 

Puerto Rico.—The Committee recognizes the importance of the 

Can ̃ o Martı ́n Pen ̃ a Ecosystem Restoration Project to residents’ 

health and wellbeing, the local economy and environment, and the 

reduction of coastal flood and storm damage risk. The Committee 

encourages the Corps to include appropriate funding in future 

budget requests and to coordinate closely with non-federal interests 

in Puerto Rico to minimize project planning and construction 

delays. 

Central Everglades Planning Project.—The Committee recognizes 

the importance of restoring America’s Everglades, and urges the 

Corps to expedite the required validation report for the Central Everglades Planning Project and begin PED work and construction on 

PPA South as soon as practicable to complement the efforts of the 

South Florida Water Management District. 

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. 

Columbia River Fish Mitigation.—The Committee understands 

the Pacific Lamprey are a culturally and ecologically important fish 

species to Pacific Northwest Tribal nations. The Corps and several 

Tribal nations have worked in partnership for years to develop and 

execute a Pacific Lamprey conservation program in the Columbia 

River basin, focused on implementing passage improvements. In 

part these activities have made it unnecessary for this species to 

be listed under the Endangered Species Act, however, adult returns 

remain low. The Committee understands the Corps is currently 

crafting a status report on these Pacific Lamprey improvements, 

and identifying possible activities to support Pacific Lamprey passage. The Committee directs the Corps to uphold the agency’s Tribal treaty responsibilities by working with relevant Tribal nations to 

develop and implement a plan based on the status report to support efforts to restore the Pacific Lamprey. 

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

$53,817,000 for the Continuing Authorities Program [CAP], an increase of $50,817,000 from the budget request. CAP is a useful tool 

for the Corps to undertake small localized projects without being 

encumbered by the lengthy study and authorization phases typical 

of most Corps projects. 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 manage-
21 

ment of CAP should continue consistent with direction provided in 

previous fiscal years. 

Cook County Environmental Infrastructure.—The Committee is 

aware of the high level of interest in Cook County for additional 

resources for the Section 219 Cook County Infrastructure Project. 

Given Cook County’s population of 5.2 million people, the Committee urges the Corps to support the project at a higher funding 

level to address the wide and expansive range of needs in this 

County. 

Dam Safety Assurance and Seepage/Static Instability Correction 

Program.—The Committee rejects the budget request proposal regarding Herbert Hoover Dike, which would make funds provided in 

this program available only if the State of Florida commits certain 

funds. Consistent with long-standing congressional direction, the 

Corps may not require funding in excess of legally required costshares for studies and projects as a criterion for funding decisions. 

The Corps shall apply dam safety funds to the highest priority 

projects. 

Howard Hanson Dam.—The Committee is aware that the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] is preparing a Biological 

Opinion [BiOp] to determine the impact of ongoing operations of 

Howard Hanson Dam, including the Howard Hanson Dam—Additional Water Storage Project, on Endangered Species Act [ESA]- 

listed species and is engaging in consultations with the Corps. The 

Committee is also aware that an updated BiOp is anticipated in 

fiscal year 2018. The Committee encourages the Corps to continue 

consultations with NMFS and urges the Corps to work with resource co-managers to develop interim and long-term measures to 

maintain fish runs past Howard Hanson Dam, while upholding 

ESA and municipal and industrial water supply responsibilities. 

La Grange Lock and Dam.—The Corps is directed to brief the 

Committee not later than 30 days after the enactment of this act 

on the current status of this project. 

Levee Safety Program.—The Committee noted in the report for 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 that it is concerned that 

the Corps has not taken steps to implement the levee safety initiatives required under WRRDA. The Committee directed the Corps, 

in conjunction with FEMA, to put together a plan of action by June 

21, 2018, that includes tangible milestones for how the Agencies 

will meet the requirements under WRRDA section 3016. The Committee has not yet received a progress report and directs the Corps 

to provide an update within 30 days after enactment of this act. 

McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.—The Committee encourages the Corps to use McCook Reservoir as a test pilot for the 

Non-Federal Implementation Pilot Program under WRRDA section 

1043. 

Metro East Levees.—The Committee is disappointed by the 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 2019 work plan. 

Mud Mountain Dam.—The Committee commends the Corps for 

initiating construction to support the October 2014 Mud Mountain 
22 

BiOp and mitigate the impact of the ongoing operation of Mud 

Mountain Dam on species listed under ESA by replacing the barrier structure and building a new fish passage facility. The Committee notes with interest that the Corps awarded a contract for 

the construction of the fish passage facility in March 2018, and reminds the Corps that complex, multi-year construction projects require consistent funding. Therefore, the Committee encourages the 

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

by requesting sufficient funding in future budgets to complete construction of the fish passage facility by 2020 and fully implement 

the BiOp requirements. 

Napa River.—The Committee urges the Corps to expeditiously 

complete the Determination of Federal Interest in coordination 

with the local sponsor and to continue construction through completion of the justified and necessary elements of the project. The 

Committee also urges the Corps to prioritize repairs of the defective floodgates. 

Natural Infrastructure Options.—The Committee directs the 

Corps to engage with State and local government and non-profit organizations, where appropriate, on projects in diverse geographic 

areas to evaluate the effectiveness of a variety of natural infrastructure options, such as shellfish reef and natural vegetation, in 

order to promote resiliency and reduce damage from coastal erosion, storm surge, and flooding. Such features should be incorporated into approved projects where appropriate and effective. 

Oyster Restoration.—The Committee supports Gulf Coast oyster 

restoration efforts and the Chesapeake Bay Oyster Restoration Program and encourages the Corps to provide sufficient funding in future budget submissions or the fiscal year 2019 work plan. 

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

would alleviate water supply issues in areas that have been afflicted by severe droughts in the last three fiscal years, to include 

projects focused on the treatment of brackish water. 

Project Modifications for Improvement of the Environment.— 

Within the Section 1135 Continuing Authorities Program authority 

and to the extent already authorized by law, the Committee urges 

the Corps to give priority to projects that restore degraded wetland 

habitat and stream habitat impacted by construction of Corps levees with executed Feasibility Cost Share Agreements. 

Public-Private Partnerships.—The Committee notes that the 

Chief of Engineers continues to express strong support for publicprivate partnerships as a method to reduce the Federal cost of future construction projects. In 2018, Congress directed the Corps to 

issue its policy on how proposals for public-private partnerships 

will be considered by the Corps and how these partnerships will be 

incorporated into budget policy. The Corps is directed to prioritize 

completion of this policy to meet the September 18, 2018 deadline. 

Rehabilitation of Corps Constructed Dams.—The Committee is 

aware that implementation guidance for section 1177 of the WIIN 

Act is awaiting approval from the administration. The Corps is directed to submit this implementation guidance to the Committees 

on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress as expeditiously as 

possible. 
23 

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Justification Sheet Accuracy.—The Committee, the Department of the Interior, and nonfederal project sponsors rely on accurate and timely budget information for South Florida Ecosystem Restoration [SFER] projects 

from the Corps. The Committee directs the Corps to carefully ensure the accuracy of all budget justification sheets that inform 

SFER Integrated Financial Plan documents for fiscal year 2019 by 

September 30, 2018. 

South San Francisco Bay Shoreline.—The Committee was deeply 

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

year 2019 budget request for the first phase of the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline project and the lack of funding for a feasibility 

study of the next phase of the project. This project provides critical 

flood protection to communities, businesses, and municipal structures in Santa Clara County. In addition, this project will restore 

approximately 2,900 acres of former salt production ponds to tidal 

marsh habitat and improve recreational access to surrounding communities. The Committee strongly urges the Corps to prioritize 

progress on this project with additional funding allocated through 

the fiscal year 2019 work plan or with recently appropriated disaster funds. 

The Dalles Dam.—The Committee is aware that Section 204 of 

the Flood Control Act of 1950 (Public Law 81–516) authorized the 

construction of the Dalles Dam on the Columbia River. The original 

project authorization recognized that construction of the Dalles 

would result in population dislocations and that Indian villages 

would necessarily have to be relocated. The original authorization 

intended that the Corps would build a new Indian village in response to the dislocation of Tribes. It is not the Committee’s intent 

to expand the Corps’ mission. Rather, the Committee intends that 

the Corps uphold its responsibility to Tribes as was originally intended when Congress authorized the Dalles by mitigating the impacts of a Corps project to Tribes. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,289,267,000 in additional funds for Construction above the budget request. The Corps shall allocate these 

additional funds in accordance with the direction in the front matter under the heading ‘‘Additional Funding’’. Of the additional 

funding provided for flood and storm damage reduction, flood control, and environmental restoration or compliance, the Corps shall 

allocate not less than $15,400,000 for projects for hurricane and 

storm damage risk reduction and environmental restoration 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, the Corps shall allocate not less 

than $30,000,000 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 addi-
24 

tional funds recommended in this account, no less than $1,800,000 

is to complete a plan for a purpose outside of the Corps’ traditional 

mission. 

When allocating the additional funding provided in this account, 

the Corps is encouraged to evaluate authorized reimbursements in 

the same manner as if the projects were being evaluated for new 

or ongoing construction and shall consider giving priority to the following: 

—Benefits of the funded work to the national economy; 

—Extent to which the work will enhance national, regional, or 

local economic development; 

—Number of jobs created directly by the funded activity; 

—Ability to obligate the funds allocated within the calendar year, 

including consideration of the ability of the non-Federal sponsor to provide any required cost share; 

—Ability to complete the project, separable element, or project 

phase with the funds allocated; 

—Legal requirements, including responsibilities to Tribes; 

—For flood and storm damage reduction projects (including authorized nonstructural measures and periodic beach renourishments), 

—Population, economic activity, or public infrastructure at risk, 

as appropriate, and 

—The severity of risk of flooding or the frequency with which an 

area as experienced flooding; 

—For shore protection projects, projects in areas that have suffered severe beach erosion requiring additional sand placement 

outside of the normal beach renourishment cycle or in which 

the normal beach renourishment cycle has been delayed; 

—For navigation projects, the number of jobs or level of economic 

activity to be supported by completion of the project, separable 

element, or project phase; 

—For projects cost hared with the IWTF, the economic impact on 

the local, regional, and national economy if the project is not 

funded, as well as discrete elements of work that can be completed within the funding provided in this line item; 

—For other authorized project purposes and environmental restoration or compliance projects, to include the beneficial use of 

dredged material; and 

—For environmental infrastructure, projects in rural communities, projects with greater economic impact, projects in counties or parishes with high poverty rates, projects owed past reimbursements, and projects that will provide substantial benefits to water quality improvement. 

The Committee recommendation includes the full use of all estimated fiscal year 2019 annual revenues in the IWTF as well as the 

sufficient additional IWTF prior year revenues to ensure ongoing 

new construction projects may proceed with an efficient funding 

profile. Funds recommended herein for inland waterways shall only 

be available for ongoing new construction projects, which have a 

fiscal year 2019 estimate of $246,000,000 above the administration’s budget request. The Corps shall allocate all funds recommended in the IWTF Revenues line item along with the statutory cost share from funds provided in the Navigation line item 
25 

prior to allocating the remainder of funds in the Navigation line 

item. 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $425,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 244,735,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 350,000,000 

The Committee recommends $350,000,000 for Mississippi River 

and Tributaries, an increase of $105,265,000 above the budget request. Funds recommended in this account are for planning, construction, and operation and maintenance activities associated 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 MR&T HMTF 

CONSTRUCTION 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ........................... 75,847 ........................ 75,847 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &TN ........................ 32,885 ........................ 32,885 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ........................................... 200 ........................ 200 

SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION .......................................................... 108,932 ........................ 108,932 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ........................... 54,680 ........................ 54,680 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &TN ........................ 8,984 ........................ 8,984 

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ................................................... ........................ 715 715 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................... 364 ........................ 364 

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR ............................................. 304 ........................ 304 

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR ............................................. 187 ........................ 187 

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

TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA ............................ 2,123 ........................ 2,123 

WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR ................................................................... 1,000 ........................ 1,000

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL .................................................... 38 ........................ 38 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................... 95 ........................ 95 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ............................................................................ 8,865 ........................ 8,865 

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ........................................... 1,755 ........................ 1,755 

BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA .............................................. ........................ 555 555 

BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA .................................................. 48 ........................ 48 

BONNET CARRE, LA .................................................................................... 3,821 ........................ 3,821 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................... 807 ........................ 807 

LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA .......................................... 498 ........................ 498 

MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA ................................................................. 490 ........................ 490 

OLD RIVER, LA ........................................................................................... 9,246 ........................ 9,246 

TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA ............................................. 2,750 ........................ 2,750 

GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS .......................................................................... ........................ 930 930 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS .................................................. 135 ........................ 135 

VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS ........................................................................... ........................ 940 940 

YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ........................................................ 5,509 ........................ 5,509 

YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS .............................................. 168 ........................ 168 

YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS ................................................................... 5,296 ........................ 5,296 

YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS ............................................................... 799 ........................ 799 

YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS ........................................................... 5,334 ........................ 5,334 

YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS .................................................................. 1,201 ........................ 1,201

YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS ............................................................... 6,231 ........................ 6,231 

YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS ............................................................... 901 ........................ 901 

YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS ............................... 357 ........................ 357 
26 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation MR&T HMTF 

YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS ........................................... 538 ........................ 538 

YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS ................................................................. 737 ........................ 737 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO .................................................. 208 ........................ 208 

WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO .............................................................................. 4,878 ........................ 4,878 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ................................................... 47 ........................ 47 

MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN .................................................. ........................ 2,125 2,125 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................. 134,294 5,265 139,559 

REMAINING ITEMS 

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

FLOOD CONTROL ............................................................................... ........................ ........................ 55,000 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ........................................................ ........................ ........................ 40,000 

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA .................................................. 600 ........................ 600 

MAPPING ..................................................................................................... 819 ........................ 819 

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

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ...................................................... 1,509 ........................ 101,509 

TOTAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES .............................. 244,735 5,265 350,000 

Lower Mississippi River Main Stem.—The budget request proposes to consolidate several activities across multiple States into 

one line item. The Committee does not support this change and instead recommends continuing to fund these activities as separate 

line items. 

MAT Sinking Unit.—The MAT Sinking Unit [MSU] has been a 

key component in maintaining the Mississippi River channel for 70 

years. The Committee understands that without a timely replacement, the current Mississippi River channel alignment is at risk of 

migrating, threatening levees, endangering the public, and interrupting river commerce. Because this vital equipment can be utilized nationwide to protect riverbank erosion and sloughing, it is 

unclear why the Corps proposes to fund its replacement out of the 

Mississippi Rivers and Tributaries account rather than the Plant 

Replacement and Improvement Program [PRIP]. Therefore, the 

Corps shall brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 

of Congress on why the replacement must be funded in the MR&T 

account instead of PRIP. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—When allocating the additional funding recommended in this account, the Corps shall consider giving priority to completing or accelerating ongoing 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 
27 

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. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $3,630,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 2,076,733,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,740,000,000 

The Committee recommends $3,740,000,000 for Operation and 

Maintenance, an increase of $1,663,267,000 above the budget request. 

INTRODUCTION

Funding in this account is used to fund operations, maintenance, 

and related activities at water resource projects that the Corps operates and maintains. These activities include dredging, repair, 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 O&M HMTF 

ALABAMA 

ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL ........................................................................ 17,121 ........................ 17,121 

BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL ......................................... 23,336 ........................ 23,436 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL ......................................................... 7,515 ........................ 7,765 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL ................................................... 198 ........................ 198 

MOBILE HARBOR, AL .................................................................................. ........................ 22,240 22,240 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL ............................................................ ........................ 110 110 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL ................................................ 85 ........................ 85 

TENNESSEE—TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL & MS ... 1,800 ........................ 1,800 

TENNESSEE—TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL & MS ...................................... 27,996 ........................ 27,996 

WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & GA .......................................... 8,926 ........................ 8,926 

WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, AL ............................................. ........................ 70 70 

ALASKA 

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK .......................................................................... ........................ 9,265 9,265 

CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK ........................................................................... 6,292 ........................ 6,292 

DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK .......................................................................... ........................ 970 970 

HOMER HARBOR, AK .................................................................................. ........................ 770 770 

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

NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK .............................................................................. ........................ 600 600 

NOME HARBOR, AK .................................................................................... ........................ 2,055 2,055 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK ............................................................ ........................ 750 750 
28 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation O&M HMTF 

ARIZONA 

ALAMO LAKE, AZ ........................................................................................ 3,342 ........................ 3,342 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ ................................................... 534 ........................ 534 

PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ ............................................................................ 3,086 ........................ 3,086 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ ............................................... 107 ........................ 107 

WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ ......................................................................... 935 ........................ 935 

ARKANSAS 

BEAVER LAKE, AR ...................................................................................... 8,791 ........................ 8,791 

BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR .................................................... 9,131 ........................ 9,131 

BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ......................................................................... 1,870 ........................ 1,870 

BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR ............................................................................. 7,761 ........................ 7,761 

DEGRAY LAKE, AR ...................................................................................... 7,438 ........................ 7,438 

DEQUEEN LAKE, AR .................................................................................... 1,433 ........................ 1,433 

DIERKS LAKE, AR ....................................................................................... 1,506 ........................ 1,506 

GILLHAM LAKE, AR ..................................................................................... 1,305 ........................ 1,305 

GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR .......................................................................... 7,840 ........................ 7,840 

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

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................... 646 ........................ 646 

MCCLELLAN–KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR ............... 50,995 ........................ 50,995 

MILLWOOD LAKE, AR .................................................................................. 4,335 ........................ 4,335 

NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR ......................................................... 5,751 ........................ 5,751 

NIMROD LAKE, AR ...................................................................................... 2,340 ........................ 2,340 

NORFORK LAKE, AR .................................................................................... 6,134 ........................ 6,134 

OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR ............................................................................... ........................ 15 15 

OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA .................................................. 7,979 ........................ 7,979 

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

YELLOW BEND PORT, AR ............................................................................ ........................ 100 100

CALIFORNIA 

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA ............................................................................. 2,620 ........................ 2,620 

BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA .................................................. 2,104 ........................ 2,104 

CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA ................................................................ ........................ 6,290 6,290 

COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA ........................................... 3,540 ........................ 3,540 

CRESCENT CITY HARBOR, CA .................................................................... ........................ 200 200 

DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA ........................... 7,494 ........................ 7,494 

FARMINGTON DAM, CA ............................................................................... 478 ........................ 478 

HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA .............................................................. 2,182 ........................ 2,182 

HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA ............................................................ ........................ 4,510 4,510 

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

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA ................................................... 3,450 ........................ 3,450 

ISABELLA LAKE, CA .................................................................................... 1,389 ........................ 1,389 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA ............................................. 22,633 ........................ 22,633 

MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA ................................................................ 458 ........................ 458 

MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA ............................................................................ 2,092 ........................ 2,092 

MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA .......................................................................... ........................ 2,400 2,400 

NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA ............................................................................... 2,878 ........................ 2,878 

NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA .................................. 1,652 ........................ 1,652 

OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA .............................................. ........................ 19,076 19,076 

OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA ........................................................................... ........................ 2,470 2,470 

PINE FLAT LAKE, CA ................................................................................... 4,437 ........................ 4,437 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA ............................................................ ........................ 1,350 1,350 

REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA ..................................................................... ........................ 5,950 5,950

RICHMOND HARBOR, CA ............................................................................ ........................ 10,145 10,145 

SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA ........................................... ........................ 2,300 2,300 

SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA .............. 1,095 ........................ 1,095 

SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA (NAV) ... ........................ 798 798 

SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA ................................ ........................ 210 210 

SAN DIEGO HARBOR, CA ............................................................................ ........................ 4,400 4,400 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA ............................... 1,191 ........................ 1,191 

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL) ...................... ........................ 3,101 3,101 
29 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation O&M HMTF 

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA .................................................................... ........................ 4,335 4,335

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON, CA .......................................... ........................ 5,000 5,000 

SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA ....................................... ........................ 3,049 3,049 

SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA .................................................................... 12,537 ........................ 12,537 

SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ................................................................... ........................ 3,360 3,360 

SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CA ......................................................................... ........................ 15 15 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA ............................................... 1,344 ........................ 1,344 

SUCCESS LAKE, CA .................................................................................... 3,543 ........................ 3,543 

SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA ........................................................................ ........................ 3,664 3,664 

TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA (DAM SAFETY) ................................... 2,785 ........................ 2,785 

VENTURA HARBOR, CA ............................................................................... ........................ 5,370 5,370 

YUBA RIVER, CA ......................................................................................... 180 ........................ 180 

YUBA RIVER, CA (NAV) .............................................................................. ........................ 1,435 1,435 

COLORADO 

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO .............................................................................. 587 ........................ 587 

CHATFIELD LAKE, CO .................................................................................. 1,889 ........................ 1,889 

CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO .......................................................................... 6,479 ........................ 6,479 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, CO .................. 17 ........................ 17 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO .................................................. 347 ........................ 347 

JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO ................................................................... 4,071 ........................ 4,071

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO ............................................... 560 ........................ 560 

TRINIDAD LAKE, CO .................................................................................... 1,775 ........................ 1,775 

CONNECTICUT 

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT ............................................................................... 671 ........................ 671 

COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT ..................................................................... 2,583 ........................ 2,583 

HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT ....................................................................... 821 ........................ 821 

HOP BROOK LAKE, CT ................................................................................ 1,285 ........................ 1,285 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT ................................................... 474 ........................ 474 

MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT ................................................................... 784 ........................ 784 

NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT ................................................................... 391 ........................ 391 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT ............................................................ ........................ 900 900 

STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT ........................................................ 572 ........................ 572 

THOMASTON DAM, CT ................................................................................. 1,022 ........................ 1,022 

WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT ........................................................................ 893 ........................ 893 

DELAWARE 

INDIAN RIVER INLET & BAY, DE ................................................................ ........................ 7 7 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DE ................................................... 70 ........................ 70 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, DE 

& MD ..................................................................................................... ........................ 12,450 12,450 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY DELAWARE BAY ................... ........................ 30 30 

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

WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE ......................................................................... ........................ 5,491 5,491 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC .................................................. 80 ........................ 80 

POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL) ....................... ........................ 930 930 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC ........................................................... ........................ 30 30 

FLORIDA 

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ............................................................................ ........................ 4,149 4,149 

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL ..................................................... 14,429 ........................ 14,429 

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL (NAV) ........................................... ........................ 1,033 1,033 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL ................................................... 814 ........................ 814 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL ......................... 2,980 ........................ 2,980 

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ........................................................................ ........................ 6,560 6,560 

JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA ............... 7,560 ........................ 7,560 

MANATEE HARBOR, FL ............................................................................... ........................ 3,845 3,845 

MIAMI HARBOR, FL ..................................................................................... ........................ 6,070 6,070 
30 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation O&M HMTF 

OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL ..................................................................... 1,229 ........................ 1,229

OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL (NAV) .......................................................... ........................ 1,091 1,091 

PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL ......................................................................... ........................ 2,785 2,785 

PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL ......................................................................... ........................ 55 55 

PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL ............................................................................ ........................ 1,390 1,390 

PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL ................................................................ ........................ 5,850 5,850 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL ............................................................ ........................ 1,275 1,275 

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL .......................................................... ........................ 3,290 3,290 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL ................................................ 132 ........................ 132 

TAMPA HARBOR, FL .................................................................................... ........................ 980 980 

WATER / ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, FL .......................................... ........................ 180 180 

GEORGIA 

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA ................................................................................. 9,257 ........................ 9,257 

APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL & FL ......... 1,332 ........................ 1,332 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA .................................................. 3,000 ........................ 3,000 

BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA .......................................................................... ........................ 5,258 5,258 

BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA ............................................ 11,395 ........................ 11,395 

CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA .................................................................... 7,591 ........................ 7,591

HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC ......................................................................... 11,119 ........................ 11,119 

HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC (NAV) .............................................................. ........................ 40 40 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA ................................................... 196 ........................ 196 

J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC ........................................................ 11,069 ........................ 11,069 

J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC (NAV) .............................................. ........................ 59 59 

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

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC ....................................... 9,681 ........................ 9,681 

SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA ............................................................................. ........................ 34,312 34,312 

SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA .................................................... ........................ 201 201 

WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA & AL ...................................................... 7,828 ........................ 7,828 

HAWAII 

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI ..................................................................... 295 ........................ 295 

HONOLULU HARBOR, HI ............................................................................. ........................ 7,300 7,300 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI .................................................... 278 ........................ 278 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI ............................................................. ........................ 663 663 

IDAHO 

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID ............................................................................... 1,182 ........................ 1,182 

DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID ....................................................... 4,902 ........................ 4,902 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID .................................................... 377 ........................ 377 

LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID ................................................................................ 10,292 ........................ 10,292 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID ................................................ 716 ........................ 716 

ILLINOIS 

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN .................................................... ........................ 4,616 4,616 

CARLYLE LAKE, IL ...................................................................................... 5,719 ........................ 5,719 

CHICAGO HARBOR, IL ................................................................................. ........................ 3,583 3,583 

CHICAGO RIVER, IL .................................................................................... 286 ........................ 286 

CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL ................ 18,920 ........................ 18,920 

FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL ................................................................... 413 ........................ 413 

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL & IN ........................................... 43,727 ........................ 43,727 

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL & IN ........................................... 2,060 ........................ 2,060 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, IL .................... 50 ........................ 50 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL .................................................... 1,973 ........................ 1,973 

KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL ............................................................. 2,222 ........................ 2,222 

LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL .................................................................. ........................ 851 851 

LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL ................................................................................ 6,272 ........................ 6,272 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR 

PORTION), IL .......................................................................................... 70,824 ........................ 70,824 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS 

PORTION), IL .......................................................................................... 39,140 ........................ 39,140 
31 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation O&M HMTF 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL ............................................................. ........................ 106 106 

REND LAKE, IL ............................................................................................ 5,542 ........................ 5,542 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL ............................. ........................ 680 680 

WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL ............................................................................. ........................ 1,526 1,526 

INDIANA 

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN ................................................................................ 1,813 ........................ 1,813 

BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN ................................................................ ........................ 4,619 4,619 

CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN ............................................................................... 1,195 ........................ 1,195 

CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN ........................................................................ 1,243 ........................ 1,243 

INDIANA HARBOR, IN .................................................................................. ........................ 10,998 10,998 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN .................................................... 1,051 ........................ 1,051 

J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN ....................................................................... 1,375 ........................ 1,375 

MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN ............................................................................. 1,274 ........................ 1,274 

MONROE LAKE, IN ...................................................................................... 1,374 ........................ 1,374 

PATOKA LAKE, IN ........................................................................................ 1,498 ........................ 1,498 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN ............................................................. ........................ 190 190 

SALAMONIE LAKE, IN .................................................................................. 1,313 ........................ 1,313 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN ............................ ........................ 55 55 

IOWA 

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA ................................................................................. 5,599 ........................ 5,599 

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

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA .................................................... 1,282 ........................ 1,282 

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, 

ND & SD ................................................................................................ 4,829 ........................ 4,829 

MISSOURI RIVER—SIOUX CITY TO THE MOUTH, IA, KS, MO & NE ........... 13,200 ........................ 13,200 

RATHBUN LAKE, IA ..................................................................................... 2,974 ........................ 2,974 

RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA ................................................. 5,954 ........................ 5,954 

SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA ............................................................................... 7,934 ........................ 7,934 

KANSAS 

CLINTON LAKE, KS ...................................................................................... 2,354 ........................ 2,354 

COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS ......................................................................... 1,378 ........................ 1,378 

EL DORADO LAKE, KS ................................................................................. 738 ........................ 738 

ELK CITY LAKE, KS ..................................................................................... 1,031 ........................ 1,031 

FALL RIVER LAKE, KS ................................................................................. 1,145 ........................ 1,145 

HILLSDALE LAKE, KS .................................................................................. 967 ........................ 967 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, KS .................. 4 ........................ 4 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS ................................................... 1,250 ........................ 1,250 

JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS ............................................... 1,727 ........................ 1,727 

KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS .................................................................................. 4,134 ........................ 4,134 

MARION LAKE, KS ....................................................................................... 1,833 ........................ 1,833 

MELVERN LAKE, KS .................................................................................... 3,146 ........................ 3,146 

MILFORD LAKE, KS ..................................................................................... 2,153 ........................ 2,153 

PEARSON—SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS ................................................... 1,397 ........................ 1,397 

PERRY LAKE, KS ......................................................................................... 2,495 ........................ 2,495 

POMONA LAKE, KS ...................................................................................... 2,063 ........................ 2,063 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS ............................................... 472 ........................ 472 

TORONTO LAKE, KS .................................................................................... 733 ........................ 733 

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS ............................................................................ 2,399 ........................ 2,399 

WILSON LAKE, KS ....................................................................................... 1,844 ........................ 1,844 

KENTUCKY 

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & TN ........................................... 17,631 ........................ 17,631 

BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY ........................................................................... 3,622 ........................ 3,622 

BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY ............................................................................ ........................ 1,960 1,960 

BUCKHORN LAKE, KY ................................................................................. 2,079 ........................ 2,079 

CARR CREEK LAKE, KY .............................................................................. 1,869 ........................ 1,869 

CAVE RUN LAKE, KY ................................................................................... 1,155 ........................ 1,155 

DEWEY LAKE, KY ........................................................................................ 3,780 ........................ 3,780 
32 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation O&M HMTF 

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

FALLS OF THE OHIO NATIONAL WILDLIFE, KY & IN .................................... 34 ........................ 34 

FISHTRAP LAKE, KY .................................................................................... 1,858 ........................ 1,858 

GRAYSON LAKE, KY .................................................................................... 1,211 ........................ 1,211 

GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY .............................................................. 2,735 ........................ 2,735 

GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................. 4,849 ........................ 4,849 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................... 1,015 ........................ 1,015 

KENTUCKY RIVER, KY ................................................................................. 22 ........................ 22 

LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................ 2,343 ........................ 2,343 

MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY ........................................................................... 1,697 ........................ 1,697 

MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY ........................................ 266 ........................ 266 

NOLIN LAKE, KY .......................................................................................... 2,853 ........................ 2,853 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN & OH ...................................... 68,524 ........................ 68,524 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN, OH, PA & WV .................. 7,639 ........................ 7,639 

PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY ................................................................................ 1,282 ........................ 1,282 

ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................. 3,461 ........................ 3,461 

TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY ............................................................................. 1,148 ........................ 1,148 

WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY .............................................. 10,313 ........................ 10,313 

YATESVILLE LAKE, KY ................................................................................. 1,889 ........................ 1,889 

LOUISIANA 

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF & BLACK, LA ............. ........................ 12,675 12,675 

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

BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA ................................................................ 1,289 ........................ 1,289 

BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA ..................... ........................ 100 100 

BAYOU PIERRE, LA ..................................................................................... 33 ........................ 33 

BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA ............................................................. ........................ 10 10 

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

CADDO LAKE, LA ........................................................................................ 208 ........................ 208 

CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA ............................................................... ........................ 18,639 18,639 

FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA ........................................................................... ........................ 759 759 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA ......................................................... 30,185 ........................ 30,185 

HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA ................................................................. ........................ 100 100 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................... 1,068 ........................ 1,068 

J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA ....................................................... 11,881 ........................ 11,881 

LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA ................................................................ ........................ 1,315 1,315 

MERMENTAU RIVER, LA .............................................................................. ........................ 1,540 1,540 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA ............................................. ........................ 200 200 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LA ............ ........................ 89,169 89,169 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA ............................................................ ........................ 11 11 

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA .......................................................... ........................ 250 250 

WALLACE LAKE, LA ..................................................................................... 245 ........................ 245 

WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA ............................................. ........................ 14 14 

MAINE 

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

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME .................................................. 100 ........................ 100 

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

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

MARYLAND 

BACK CREEK, MD ....................................................................................... ........................ 13 13 

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD ............................... ........................ 23,645 23,645 

BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL) ............................................. ........................ 415 415 

CLAIBORNE HARBOR, MD ........................................................................... ........................ 5 5 

CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV ..................................................... 201 ........................ 201 

FISHING CREEK, MD ................................................................................... ........................ 10 10 

HERRING CREEK, TALL TIMBERS, MD ........................................................ ........................ 10 10 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD .................................................. 126 ........................ 126 

JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV ...................................................... 6,285 ........................ 6,285 

KNAPPS NARROWS, MD .............................................................................. ........................ 5 5 
33 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation O&M HMTF 

LOWER THOROFARE, DEAL ISLAND, MD ..................................................... ........................ 5 5 

MIDDLE RIVER & DARK HEAD CREEK, MD ................................................ ........................ 3 3 

NEAVITT HARBOR, MD ................................................................................ ........................ 3 3 

OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD .................. ........................ 5 5 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD ........................................................... ........................ 485 485 

ROCK HALL HARBOR, MD ........................................................................... ........................ 5 5 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD .............................................. 173 ........................ 173 

WICOMICO RIVER, MD ................................................................................ ........................ 4,000 4,000 

MASSACHUSETTS 

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA .............................................................................. 888 ........................ 888 

BIRCH HILL DAM, MA ................................................................................. 886 ........................ 886 

BOSTON HARBOR, MA ................................................................................ ........................ 7,150 7,150 

BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA ............................................................................. 731 ........................ 731 

CAPE COD CANAL, MA ............................................................................... 2,535 ........................ 2,535 

CAPE COD CANAL, MA (NAV) ..................................................................... ........................ 5,207 5,207 

CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA ............................ 391 ........................ 391 

CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA ......................................................................... 334 ........................ 334 

EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA ........................................................................ 684 ........................ 684 

HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA ........................................................................ 725 ........................ 725 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA .................................................. 348 ........................ 348 

KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA ............................................................................... 1,252 ........................ 1,252 

LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA ................................................................................ 721 ........................ 721 

NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER, MA ... 505 ........................ 505 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA ........................................................... ........................ 950 950 

TULLY LAKE, MA ......................................................................................... 914 ........................ 914 

WEST HILL DAM, MA .................................................................................. 1,034 ........................ 1,034 

WESTVILLE LAKE, MA ................................................................................. 1,050 ........................ 1,050 

MICHIGAN 

CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI .............................................................. ........................ 190 190 

DETROIT RIVER, MI .................................................................................... 72 ........................ 72 

DETROIT RIVER, MI (NAV) .......................................................................... ........................ 6,810 6,810 

GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI ....................................................................... 18 ........................ 18 

GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI (NAV) ............................................................. ........................ 1,750 1,750 

HOLLAND HARBOR, MI ............................................................................... ........................ 600 600 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI ................................................... 260 ........................ 260 

KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI ........................................................................ 27 ........................ 27 

LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI ............................................................................ ........................ 500 500

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI ............................................................ ........................ 833 833 

ROGUE RIVER, MI ....................................................................................... ........................ 1,200 1,200 

SAGINAW RIVER, MI ................................................................................... ........................ 2,425 2,425 

SEBEWAING RIVER, MI ............................................................................... 531 ........................ 531 

ST CLAIR RIVER, MI ................................................................................... ........................ 1,510 1,510 

ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI ............................................................................. ........................ 1,500 1,500 

ST MARYS RIVER, MI ................................................................................. 3,153 ........................ 3,153 

ST MARYS RIVER, MI (NAV) ....................................................................... ........................ 25,179 25,179 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI ............................ ........................ 3,138 3,138 

MINNESOTA 

BIGSTONE LAKE—WHETSTONE RIVER, MN & SD ...................................... 462 ........................ 462 

DULUTH—SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI .................................................. 750 ........................ 750 

DULUTH—SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI (NAV) ........................................ ........................ 6,790 6,790 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN .................................................. 240 ........................ 240 

LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ........................................ 1,349 ........................ 1,349 

MINNESOTA RIVER, MN .............................................................................. ........................ 260 260 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND 

MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION), MN ................................................... 71,737 ........................ 71,737 

ORWELL LAKE, MN ..................................................................................... 508 ........................ 508 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN ........................................................... ........................ 103 103 
34 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation O&M HMTF 

RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN ........................................................................ 143 ........................ 143 

RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN ....................... 5,244 ........................ 5,244 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN .......................... ........................ 246 246 

MISSISSIPPI 

BILOXI HARBOR, MS ................................................................................... ........................ 1,748 1,748 

EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS .......................................................... 290 ........................ 290 

GULFPORT HARBOR, MS ............................................................................. ........................ 3,215 3,215 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS .................................................. 116 ........................ 116 

MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS .................................................................... ........................ 30 30 

OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS ................................................................................. 1,740 ........................ 1,740 

PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS ........................................................................ ........................ 6,151 6,151 

PEARL RIVER, MS & LA ............................................................................. 89 ........................ 89 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS ........................................................... ........................ 131 131 

ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS ............................................................................ ........................ 935 935 

WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, MS ............................................ ........................ 40 40 

YAZOO RIVER, MS ...................................................................................... ........................ 30 30 

MISSOURI 

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO ................................................................. ........................ 615 615 

CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO ............................ 6,955 ........................ 6,955 

CLEARWATER LAKE, MO ............................................................................. 3,740 ........................ 3,740 

HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO .......................................... 11,638 ........................ 11,638 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, MO ................. 2 ........................ 2 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO .................................................. 1,512 ........................ 1,512 

LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO ................................................................. 1,347 ........................ 1,347

LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO ........................................................................... 3,282 ........................ 3,282 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS (REG 

WORKS), MO & IL .................................................................................. 30,821 ........................ 30,821 

POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO ..................................................................... 2,767 ........................ 2,767

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO .............................................. 172 ........................ 172 

SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO ................................................................................ 1,606 ........................ 1,606 

SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MO .............................. ........................ 409 409 

STOCKTON LAKE, MO .................................................................................. 5,691 ........................ 5,691 

TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO & AR .................................................................... 10,331 ........................ 10,331 

MONTANA 

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT ..................................................................... 5,534 ........................ 5,534 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT .................................................. 154 ........................ 154 

LIBBY DAM, MT .......................................................................................... 2,636 ........................ 2,636 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT ............................................... 125 ........................ 125 

NEBRASKA 

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE & SD ........................... 10,087 ........................ 10,087 

HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE ........................................................................ 2,337 ........................ 2,337 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, NE .................. 3 ........................ 3 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE ................................................... 466 ........................ 466 

MISSOURI RIVER—KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA .................... 46 ........................ 46 

PAPILLION CREEK, NE ................................................................................ 858 ........................ 858 

SALT CREEKS AND TRIBUTARIES, NE ......................................................... 3,347 ........................ 3,347 

NEVADA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV ................................................... 77 ........................ 77 

MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV & CA ................................................................. 1,278 ........................ 1,278 

PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV ................................................ 816 ........................ 816 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

BLACKWATER DAM, NH .............................................................................. 823 ........................ 823

EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH ................................................................ 732 ........................ 732 

FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH ......................................................................... 1,017 ........................ 1,017 

HOPKINTON—EVERETT LAKES, NH ............................................................ 1,857 ........................ 1,857 
35 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation O&M HMTF 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH .................................................. 90 ........................ 90 

OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH ............................................................................ 1,395 ........................ 1,395 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH ........................................................... ........................ 300 300 

SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH ...................................................................... 801 ........................ 801 

NEW JERSEY 

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ .................................................................................. ........................ 8 8

CHEESEQUAKE CREEK, NJ .......................................................................... ........................ 50 50 

COLD SPRING INLET, NJ ............................................................................. ........................ 3 3 

DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ ............................................................. ........................ 15 15 

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE ................... ........................ 27,785 27,785 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, NJ ................... 45 ........................ 45 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ ................................................... 487 ........................ 487 

MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ .............................................................................. ........................ 2 2 

NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ ............................................. ........................ 50 50 

NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ ............................. ........................ 8,000 8,000 

PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ ......................................... 667 ........................ 667 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ ............................................................ ........................ 2,223 2,223 

RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT–OFF, NJ ......................................... ........................ 20 20 

RARITAN RIVER, NJ .................................................................................... ........................ 50 50 

SANDY HOOK BAY AT LEONARD, NJ ........................................................... ........................ 10 10 

SHOAL HARBOR AND COMPTON CREEK, NJ ............................................... ........................ 10 10 

SHREWSBURY RIVER, MAIN CHANNEL, NJ ................................................. ........................ 25 25 

NEW MEXICO 

ABIQUIU DAM, NM ...................................................................................... 3,715 ........................ 3,715 

COCHITI LAKE, NM ..................................................................................... 3,585 ........................ 3,585 

CONCHAS LAKE, NM ................................................................................... 2,726 ........................ 2,726 

GALISTEO DAM, NM .................................................................................... 935 ........................ 935 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, NM ................. 27 ........................ 27 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM .................................................. 561 ........................ 561 

JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM .......................................................................... 849 ........................ 849 

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM, 

NM ......................................................................................................... 2,117 ........................ 2,117 

SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM .............................................................. 1,385 ........................ 1,385 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM .............................................. 199 ........................ 199 

TWO RIVERS DAM, NM ............................................................................... 1,056 ........................ 1,056 

UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY, NM .................. 746 ........................ 746 

NEW YORK 

ALMOND LAKE, NY ...................................................................................... 741 ........................ 741 

ARKPORT DAM, NY ..................................................................................... 330 ........................ 330 

BAY RIDGE AND RED HOOK CHANNELS, NY .............................................. ........................ 25 25 

BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY ............................ 5 ........................ 5 

BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY (NAV) ................. ........................ 6,229 6,229 

BRONX RIVER, NY ...................................................................................... ........................ 30 30 

BROWNS CREEK, NY .................................................................................. ........................ 30 30

BUFFALO HARBOR, NY ............................................................................... ........................ 2,754 3,055 

BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY ........................................................................ ........................ 400 400 

EAST RIVER, NY ......................................................................................... ........................ 10 10 

EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY .............................................................................. 766 ........................ 766 

EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY .......................................................................... ........................ 5 5 

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY ................................................... ........................ 50 50 

FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY ................................................................. ........................ 30 30 

GLEN COVE CREEK, NY .............................................................................. ........................ 15 15 

GREAT KILLS HARBOR, NY ......................................................................... ........................ 20 20 

GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY .............................................................................. ........................ 25 25 

HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY .................................................................... ........................ 100 100 

HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT) ...................................................................... ........................ 9,650 9,650 

HUDSON RIVER, NY (O & C) ...................................................................... ........................ 2,704 2,704 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY ................................................... 1,391 ........................ 1,391 
36 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation O&M HMTF 

JONES INLET, NY ........................................................................................ ........................ 50 50 

LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY ........................................... ........................ 50 50 

MATTITUCK HARBOR, NY ............................................................................ ........................ 15 15 

MORICHES INLET, NY ................................................................................. ........................ 50 50 

MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY .......................................................................... 3,785 ........................ 3,785 

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY & NJ .................................. ........................ 9,000 9,000 

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY & NJ ...................................... ........................ 16,000 16,000 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY ............................................................................ ........................ 8,548 8,548 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL) ...................................... ........................ 10,373 10,373 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) ....... ........................ 1,416 1,416 

PORTCHESTER HARBOR, NY ....................................................................... ........................ 50 50 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY ............................................................ ........................ 2,522 2,522 

ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY .......................................................................... ........................ 1,200 1,200 

SHINNECOCK INLET, NY ............................................................................. ........................ 50 50 

SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY ........................... 854 ........................ 854 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY ........................... ........................ 610 610 

WESTCHESTER CREEK, NY ......................................................................... ........................ 5 5 

WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY .......................................................................... 1,386 ........................ 1,386 

NORTH CAROLINA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC ................................................. 5,590 ........................ 5,590 

B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC ................................................... 4,780 ........................ 4,780 

CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC .............................................. 84 ........................ 84 

CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC (NAV) ................................... ........................ 317 317 

FALLS LAKE, NC ......................................................................................... 3,275 ........................ 3,275 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC .................................................. 190 ........................ 190 

MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC .............................................................. ........................ 1,550 1,550 

MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC ............................. 50 ........................ 50 

MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC ................................................................... ........................ 5,570 5,570 

NEW RIVER INLET, NC ................................................................................ 3,555 ........................ 3,555 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC ........................................................... ........................ 700 700 

ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC .......................................................................... ........................ 790 790 

SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC ......................................................................... ........................ 1,085 1,085 

W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC ................................................ 3,417 ........................ 3,417 

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ......................................................................... ........................ 14,715 14,715 

NORTH DAKOTA 

BOWMAN HALEY, ND .................................................................................. 328 ........................ 328 

GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND ..................................................... 15,769 ........................ 15,769 

HOMME LAKE, ND ....................................................................................... 337 ........................ 337 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND .................................................. 530 ........................ 530 

LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND ............................................... 1,999 ........................ 1,999 

PIPESTEM LAKE, ND ................................................................................... 503 ........................ 503 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND ............................................... 123 ........................ 123 

SOURIS RIVER, ND ..................................................................................... 2,029 ........................ 2,029 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND ........................... ........................ 85 85 

OHIO 

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH .............................................................................. 2,236 ........................ 2,236 

ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH ........................................................................... ........................ 2,359 2,359 

BERLIN LAKE, OH ....................................................................................... 3,098 ........................ 3,098 

CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH .......................................................................... 2,145 ........................ 2,145 

CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH ................................................................... 1,268 ........................ 1,268 

CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ........................................................................... ........................ 6,789 7,139 

CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH ............................................................................ ........................ 1,130 1,130 

DEER CREEK LAKE, OH .............................................................................. 1,664 ........................ 1,664 

DELAWARE LAKE, OH .................................................................................. 2,393 ........................ 2,393 

DILLON LAKE, OH ....................................................................................... 1,495 ........................ 1,495 

FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH .............................................................................. ........................ 1,158 1,158 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH .................................................. 736 ........................ 736 

MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH .......................................... 101 ........................ 101 
37 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation O&M HMTF 

MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH ......................................... 1,466 ........................ 1,466 

MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH ...................................................................... 1,857 ........................ 1,857 

MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH .................................................................. 17,127 ........................ 17,127 

NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH ............................................. 556 ........................ 556 

OHIO–MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH ................................................... 1,699 ........................ 1,699 

PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH .............................................................................. 1,523 ........................ 1,523 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH ........................................................... ........................ 306 306 

ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ........................................... 37 ........................ 37 

SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH ............................................................................ ........................ 1,313 1,313 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH ........................... ........................ 255 255 

TOLEDO HARBOR, OH ................................................................................. ........................ 4,427 4,427 

TOM JENKINS DAM, OH .............................................................................. 825 ........................ 825 

WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH ...................................................... 2,412 ........................ 2,412 

WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH .................................................................... 2,665 ........................ 2,665 

OKLAHOMA 

ARCADIA LAKE, OK ..................................................................................... 615 ........................ 615 

BIRCH LAKE, OK ......................................................................................... 778 ........................ 778 

BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK ............................................................................. 2,074 ........................ 2,074 

CANTON LAKE, OK ...................................................................................... 2,119 ........................ 2,119 

COPAN LAKE, OK ........................................................................................ 1,171 ........................ 1,171 

EUFAULA LAKE, OK ..................................................................................... 6,828 ........................ 6,828 

FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK ............................................................................. 4,998 ........................ 4,998 

FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK ............................................................................. 917 ........................ 917 

GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK ................................................................... 298 ........................ 298 

HEYBURN LAKE, OK .................................................................................... 861 ........................ 861 

HUGO LAKE, OK .......................................................................................... 2,524 ........................ 2,524 

HULAH LAKE, OK ........................................................................................ 735 ........................ 735 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK ................................................... 650 ........................ 650 

KAW LAKE, OK ............................................................................................ 2,215 ........................ 2,215 

KEYSTONE LAKE, OK ................................................................................... 4,539 ........................ 4,539 

MCCLELLAN–KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK ............... 20,810 ........................ 20,810 

OOLOGAH LAKE, OK .................................................................................... 2,320 ........................ 2,320 

OPTIMA LAKE, OK ....................................................................................... 63 ........................ 63 

PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK .......................... 164 ........................ 164 

PINE CREEK LAKE, OK ................................................................................ 1,671 ........................ 1,671 

SARDIS LAKE, OK ....................................................................................... 1,285 ........................ 1,285 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK ............................................... 1,360 ........................ 1,360 

SKIATOOK LAKE, OK .................................................................................... 1,697 ........................ 1,697 

TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK ...................................................................... 4,318 ........................ 4,318 

WAURIKA LAKE, OK ..................................................................................... 1,859 ........................ 1,859 

WISTER LAKE, OK ....................................................................................... 758 ........................ 758 

OREGON 

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR ................................................................................. 1,042 ........................ 1,042 

BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR ............................................................................... 1,014 ........................ 1,014 

BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA .................................................... 2,084 ........................ 2,084 

BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA (NAV) .......................................... ........................ 5,915 5,915 

CHETCO RIVER, OR .................................................................................... ........................ 785 785 

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA ............................................. ........................ 23,535 23,535 

COOS BAY, OR ........................................................................................... ........................ 6,958 6,958 

COQUILLE RIVER, OR ................................................................................. ........................ 26 26 

COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR ........................................................................ 1,261 ........................ 1,261 

COUGAR LAKE, OR ..................................................................................... 2,360 ........................ 2,360 

DEPOE BAY, OR .......................................................................................... ........................ 10 10 

DETROIT LAKE, OR ..................................................................................... 5,894 ........................ 5,894 

DORENA LAKE, OR ...................................................................................... 1,281 ........................ 1,281 

ELK CREEK LAKE, OR ................................................................................. 174 ........................ 174 

FALL CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................... 1,475 ........................ 1,475 

FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR ............................................................................... 2,013 ........................ 2,013 

GREEN PETER—FOSTER LAKES, OR .......................................................... 2,147 ........................ 2,147 
38 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation O&M HMTF 

HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR .............................................................................. 1,483 ........................ 1,483 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OR .................. 60 ........................ 60 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR .................................................. 628 ........................ 628 

JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA ........................................................ 5,688 ........................ 5,688 

LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR ......................................................................... 2,052 ........................ 2,052 

LOST CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................... 3,621 ........................ 3,621 

MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA .......................................................... 9,623 ........................ 9,623 

NEHALEM BAY, OR ..................................................................................... ........................ 5 5

PORT ORFORD, OR ..................................................................................... ........................ 5 5

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR ........................................................... ........................ 400 400 

ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR .......................................................... ........................ 5 5 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR ............................................... 99 ........................ 99 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR ........................... ........................ ........................ 10,265 

SIUSLAW RIVER, OR ................................................................................... ........................ 10 10 

SKIPANON CHANNEL, OR ............................................................................ ........................ 5 5 

TILLAMOOK BAY & BAR, OR ....................................................................... ........................ 5 5 

UMPQUA RIVER, OR ................................................................................... ........................ 939 939 

WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR ........................................ 161 ........................ 161 

WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR .............................................. 170 ........................ 170 

WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR .......................................................................... 748 ........................ 748 

YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR ................................................................ ........................ 3,080 3,080 

PENNSYLVANIA 

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA ............................................................................... 7,863 ........................ 7,863 

ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA ............................................................................. 874 ........................ 874 

AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA .................................................................. 416 ........................ 416 

BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA ................................................................................. 1,640 ........................ 1,640 

BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA .............................................................................. 3,682 ........................ 3,682 

CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA .................................................................... 1,703 ........................ 1,703

COWANESQUE LAKE, PA ............................................................................. 2,664 ........................ 2,664 

CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA ........................................................................ 2,955 ........................ 2,955 

CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA ........................................................................... 1,060 ........................ 1,060 

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ ............................ ........................ 3,850 3,850 

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA .................................................. 5,891 ........................ 5,891 

FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA ............................................................. 2,165 ........................ 2,165 

FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA ..................................................................... 2,720 ........................ 2,720 

GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA ................................. 337 ........................ 337 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, PA .................. 60 ........................ 60 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA ................................................... 1,110 ........................ 1,110 

JOHNSTOWN, PA ......................................................................................... 1,581 ........................ 1,581 

KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA ......................................... 1,550 ........................ 1,550 

LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA ............................................................................... 1,529 ........................ 1,529 

MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA ...................................................................... 1,457 ........................ 1,457 

MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ......................................................................... 15,183 ........................ 15,183 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH & WV .......................................... 45,472 ........................ 45,472 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH & WV ................................... 1,765 ........................ 1,765 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA ............................................................ ........................ 170 170 

PROMPTON LAKE, PA .................................................................................. 850 ........................ 850 

PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA ................................................................................... 719 ........................ 719 

RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA .................................................................................. 5,281 ........................ 5,281 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA ............................................... 76 ........................ 76 

SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA .............................................................................. ........................ 100 100 

SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA ....................................................................... 3,080 ........................ 3,080 

STILLWATER LAKE, PA ................................................................................ 872 ........................ 872 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA ........................... ........................ 105 105 

TIOGA—HAMMOND LAKES, PA ................................................................... 3,480 ........................ 3,480 

TIONESTA LAKE, PA .................................................................................... 2,699 ........................ 2,699 

UNION CITY LAKE, PA ................................................................................. 611 ........................ 611 

WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA ..................................................................... 1,156 ........................ 1,156

YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA ..................................................................... 1,396 ........................ 1,396 

YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD ..................................................... 2,827 ........................ 2,827 
39 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation O&M HMTF 

PUERTO RICO 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PR ................................................... 134 ........................ 134 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PR ............................................................ ........................ 100 100 

SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR .............................................................................. ........................ 630 630 

RHODE ISLAND 

BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE, RI .................................................... ........................ 2,550 2,550 

FOX POINT BARRIER, NARRANGANSETT BAY, RI ........................................ 2,335 ........................ 2,335 

GREAT SALT POND, BLOCK ISLAND, RI ...................................................... ........................ 350 350 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI .................................................... 134 ........................ 134 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI ............................................................. ........................ 300 300 

WOONSOCKET, RI ....................................................................................... 1,424 ........................ 1,424 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC .................................................. 3,487 ........................ 3,487 

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ......................................................................... ........................ 20,564 20,564 

COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC .............................................. ........................ 3,867 3,867 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC ................................................... 75 ........................ 75 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC ............................................................ ........................ 875 875 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD ............................................................ 9,900 ........................ 9,900 

COLD BROOK LAKE, SD .............................................................................. 345 ........................ 345 

COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD .............................................................. 260 ........................ 260 

FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD ......................................... 12,178 ........................ 12,178 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD ................................................... 356 ........................ 356 

LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN ........................................................................ 827 ........................ 827 

OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD & ND ............................................................. 12,865 ........................ 12,865 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD ............................................... 144 ........................ 144 

TENNESSEE 

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN .............................................................................. 7,719 ........................ 7,719 

CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN ................................................................. 8,384 ........................ 8,384 

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ............................................ 3,253 ........................ 3,253 

CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ................................................ 8,571 ........................ 8,571 

DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN ............................................................................. 7,828 ........................ 7,828 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ................................................... 328 ........................ 328 

J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ............................................... 5,623 ........................ 5,623 

OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN ............................................................ 11,491 ........................ 11,491 

TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ............................................................................... 25,952 ........................ 25,952 

WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN .......................................................................... ........................ 920 920 

TEXAS 

AQUILLA LAKE, TX ...................................................................................... 1,140 ........................ 1,140 

ARKANSAS—RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL—AREA VIII, TX .... 1,799 ........................ 1,799 

BARDWELL LAKE, TX .................................................................................. 2,045 ........................ 2,045 

BELTON LAKE, TX ....................................................................................... 4,752 ........................ 4,752 

BENBROOK LAKE, TX .................................................................................. 4,159 ........................ 4,159 

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX .................................................................... ........................ 85 85 

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX .................................................... 3,343 ........................ 3,343 

CANYON LAKE, TX ...................................................................................... 5,070 ........................ 5,070 

CHANNEL TO HARLINGEN, TX ..................................................................... ........................ 650 650 

CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX ................................................................ ........................ 100 100 

CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ......................................................... ........................ 5,050 5,300 

DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX .............................................................. 7,980 ........................ 7,980 

ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX .................................... 39 ........................ 39 

FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O’ THE PINES, TX ...................................... 4,159 ........................ 4,159 

FREEPORT HARBOR, TX .............................................................................. ........................ 4,700 4,700 

GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX ................................................... ........................ 6,630 6,630 

GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX ............................................................. ........................ 30 30 

GIWW, CHANNEL TO CHOCOLATE BAYOU, TX ............................................. ........................ 30 30 
40 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation O&M HMTF 

GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX .................................................................... 6,772 ........................ 6,772

GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX .................................................................................. 5,185 ........................ 5,185 

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX ......................................................... 25,500 ........................ 25,500 

HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX ............................................................................ 1,619 ........................ 1,619 

HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX ..................................................................... ........................ 23,300 23,300 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX ................................................... 1,657 ........................ 1,657 

JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX ............................................................................. 1,895 ........................ 1,895 

JOE POOL LAKE, TX .................................................................................... 2,645 ........................ 2,645 

LAKE KEMP, TX ........................................................................................... 280 ........................ 280 

LAVON LAKE, TX ......................................................................................... 3,932 ........................ 3,932 

LEWISVILLE DAM, TX .................................................................................. 7,557 ........................ 7,557 

MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX ................................................................ ........................ 6,450 6,450 

NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX .......................................................................... 2,042 ........................ 2,042 

NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX .......................... 4,231 ........................ 4,231 

O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX ................................................................ 2,851 ........................ 2,851 

PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX ................................................................................. 1,397 ........................ 1,397 

PROCTOR LAKE, TX .................................................................................... 2,666 ........................ 2,666 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX ............................................................ ........................ 325 325 

RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX ............................................................................. 2,172 ........................ 2,172 

SABINE—NECHES WATERWAY, TX ............................................................. ........................ 11,250 11,250 

SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX ................................................. 8,963 ........................ 8,963 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX ................................................ 295 ........................ 295 

SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX ................................................................................ 4,904 ........................ 4,904 

STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX ................................................................... 6,621 ........................ 6,621

TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX ................................................................. ........................ 50 50 

TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX ......................................... 7,582 ........................ 7,582 

WACO LAKE, TX .......................................................................................... 5,669 ........................ 5,669 

WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX ................................................................................ 2,232 ........................ 2,232 

WHITNEY LAKE, TX ..................................................................................... 10,253 ........................ 10,253 

WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX ........................................................ 5,418 ........................ 5,418 

UTAH 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT ................................................... 24 ........................ 24 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT ............................................... 477 ........................ 477 

VERMONT 

BALL MOUNTAIN, VT ................................................................................... 1,434 ........................ 1,434 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT ................................................... 174 ........................ 174 

NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT ....................................................................... 1,171 ........................ 1,171 

NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT ................................................................... 739 ........................ 739 

TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT ................................................................................ 1,577 ........................ 1,577 

UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT ............................................................................ 860 ........................ 860 

VIRGIN ISLANDS 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VI .................................................... 49 ........................ 49 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VI ............................................................. ........................ 50 50 

VIRGINIA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—ACC, VA ....................................... 2,644 ........................ 2,644 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—DSC, VA ....................................... 1,438 ........................ 1,438 

GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA ................................................. 2,709 ........................ 2,709 

HAMPTON ROADS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS HARBOR, VA (DRIFT REMOVAL) .................................................................................................. ........................ 1,500 1,500 

HAMPTON ROADS, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) ............ ........................ 38 38 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA ................................................... 432 ........................ 432 

JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA ....................................................................... ........................ 350 350 

JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC ................................................................... 13,820 ........................ 13,820 

JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA ........................................ 2,888 ........................ 2,888 

NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ............................................................................... ........................ 21,625 21,925 

NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA .................................................. 848 ........................ 848 

PHILPOTT LAKE, VA .................................................................................... 5,520 ........................ 5,520 
41 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation O&M HMTF 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA ............................................................ ........................ 1,215 1,215 

WASHINGTON 

BELLINGHAM HARBOR, WA ......................................................................... ........................ 2 2 

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA ............................................................................. 600 ........................ 600 

COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS BELOW VANCOUVER, WA & 

PORTLAND, OR ....................................................................................... ........................ 47,220 47,220 

COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA & OR ............................................. ........................ 5 5 

COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND SAND ISLAND, WA ................. ........................ 1 1 

COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, OR ....... ........................ 881 881 

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID .................................... 3,476 ........................ 3,476 

EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA ........................................ ........................ 1,980 1,980 

FRIDAY HARBOR, WA .................................................................................. ........................ 2 2 

GRAYS HARBOR, WA .................................................................................. ........................ 11,237 11,237 

HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA ....................................................................... 12,680 ........................ 12,680 

ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................................. 5,075 ........................ 5,075 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WA .................. 70 ........................ 70 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA .................................................. 922 ........................ 922 

LAKE CROCKETT (KEYSTONE HARBOR), WA ............................................... ........................ 16 16 

LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ......................................................... 1,079 ........................ 1,079 

LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA (NAV) ............................................... ........................ 6,987 6,987 

LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA ........................................................... 3,506 ........................ 3,506 

LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA ....................................................... 4,347 ........................ 4,347 

LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................... 3,430 ........................ 3,430 

MILL CREEK LAKE, WA ............................................................................... 5,486 ........................ 5,486 

MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ...................................... 135 ........................ 135 

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA .......................................................................... 6,174 ........................ 6,174 

NEAH BAY, WA ........................................................................................... ........................ 17 17 

OLYMPIA HARBOR, WA ............................................................................... ........................ 2 2 

PORT TOWNSEND, WA ................................................................................ ........................ 14 14 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA ........................................................... ........................ 1,046 1,046 

PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA ............................................ ........................ 1,485 1,485 

QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA .............................................................................. ........................ 1,673 1,673 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA ............................................... 463 ........................ 463 

SEATTLE HARBOR, WA ................................................................................ ........................ 1,816 1,816 

STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA ........................................................................ 2,917 ........................ 2,917 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA ........................... ........................ 80 80 

SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA ......................................................................... ........................ 2 2 

TACOMA HARBOR, WA ................................................................................ ........................ 15 15 

TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA ................................................................. 178 ........................ 178 

THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA & OR .................................................... 3,274 ........................ 3,274 

WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA ............................................................. ........................ 44 44 

WEST VIRGINIA 

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV .............................................................................. 1,842 ........................ 1,842 

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ................................................................................ 4,863 ........................ 4,863 

BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV ............................................................................... 3,240 ........................ 3,240 

EAST LYNN LAKE, WV ................................................................................. 2,183 ........................ 2,183 

ELKINS, WV ................................................................................................. 118 ........................ 118 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV .................................................. 474 ........................ 474 

KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV ................................................... 9,978 ........................ 9,978 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY & OH .......................................... 29,834 ........................ 29,834 

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY & OH ................................... 2,684 ........................ 2,684 

R D BAILEY LAKE, WV ................................................................................ 1,811 ........................ 1,811 

STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV ................................................................ 1,504 ........................ 1,504 

SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV .......................................................................... 2,579 ........................ 2,579 

SUTTON LAKE, WV ...................................................................................... 2,522 ........................ 2,522 

TYGART LAKE, WV ...................................................................................... 1,693 ........................ 1,693 

WISCONSIN 

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI ....................................................................... 829 ........................ 829 
42 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation O&M HMTF 

FOX RIVER, WI ............................................................................................ 4,267 ........................ 4,267 

GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ........................................................................... ........................ 3,920 3,920 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI ................................................... 41 ........................ 41 

KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI ............................................................................. 18 ........................ 18 

MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI ........................................................................... ........................ 2,570 2,570 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI ............................................................ ........................ 325 325 

STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI .............. 6 ........................ 6 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI ............................ ........................ 200 200 

WYOMING 

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

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY .................................................. 123 ........................ 123 

JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY ....................................................................... 588 ........................ 588 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY ............................................... 107 ........................ 107 

SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER STATES ............................. 1,943,355 892,425 2,847,596 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE .. ........................ ........................ 25,000 

DEEP–DRAFT HARBOR AND CHANNEL ..................................... ........................ ........................ 473,952 

DONOR AND ENERGY TRANSFER PORTS .................................. ........................ ........................ 50,000 

INLAND WATERWAYS ................................................................ ........................ ........................ 50,000 

SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE NAVIGATION ..................... ........................ ........................ 50,000 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ........................................................ ........................ ........................ 45,000 

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH ................................................. 675 ........................ 675 

ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND EQUIP MAINT (FEM) ....................... 3,650 ........................ 4,650 

BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M BUSINESS PROGRAMS STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM ............................................................... 900 ........................ 900 

PERFORMANCE–BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM ................ 2,000 ........................ 2,000 

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 ........................ 7,975 

COASTAL OCEAN DATA SYSTEM (CODS) .................................................... 2,500 ........................ 6,500 

CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION) ............................................ 1,000 ........................ 1,000 

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

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 ............................... 3,900 ........................ 10,500 

NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM ................................................... 6,300 ........................ 13,000 

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM (PORTFOLIO RISK ASSESSMENT) ......... 10,000 ........................ 15,000 

NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (NEPP) ...................... 5,500 ........................ 5,500 

NATIONAL (LEVEE) FLOOD INVENTORY ....................................................... 5,000 ........................ 5,000 

NATIONAL (MULTIPLE PROJECT) NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................. 3,700 ........................ 5,200 

NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR REALLOCATIONS ........................ 500 ........................ 500 

REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ......................................... 3,500 ........................ 3,500 

RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AT CORPS PROJECTS ............................ ........................ ........................ 1,500 

REVIEW OF NON-FEDERAL ALTERATIONS OF CIVIL WORKS 

PROJECTS (SECTION 408) ................................................................. 8,500 ........................ 8,500 

SUSTAINABLE RIVERS PROGRAM (SRP) ..................................................... 400 ........................ 400 
43 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation O&M HMTF 

VETERAN’S CURATION PROGRAM AND COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT ........ 6,500 ........................ 6,500 

WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS ...................................................... 4,670 ........................ 4,670 

WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS) ................................... 500 ........................ 6,500 

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ...................................................... 133,357 27,485 892,369 

ACCOUNTING ADJUSTMENT ......................................................................... 21 8 35 

TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................ 2,076,733 919,918 3,740,000 

Coastal Inlet Research Program.—The Committee understands 

that communities, infrastructure, commerce, and resources that are 

tied to the coastal nearshore region are all vulnerable to damage 

from extreme coastal events and long-term coastal change. The 

Committee recommends additional funding to establish a multiuniversity-led effort to identify engineering frameworks to address 

coastal resilience needs, to develop adaptive pathways that lead to 

coastal resilience, measure the coastal forces that lead to infrastructure damage and erosion during extreme storm events, and to 

improve coupling of terrestrial and coastal models. Funding in addition to the budget request is also recommended for the Corps to 

continue work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Water Center on protecting the Nation’s water 

resources. 

Debris Removal.—Funding is recommended for debris removal 

activities pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 603a, as amended by the WIIN 

Act, with priority given to urban waterways. 

Donor and Energy Transfer Ports.—The additional funding recommended in this account for donor and energy transfer ports shall 

be allocated in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 2238c. The Committee 

notes the Corps issued implementation guidance for section 1110 of 

the WIIN Act but has not completed the necessary work to execute 

all authorized uses for this funding. The Committee directs the 

Corps to fully execute subsection (c) of 33 U.S.C. 2238c within 90 

days of enactment of this act. 

Emerging Harbors.—The Committee understands that Hampton 

Harbor in New Hampshire qualifies as an emerging harbor. The 

Corps is directed to brief the Committees on Appropriation of both 

Houses of Congress within 30 days of enactment of this act on how 

the Corps prioritizes additional HMTF dollars for emerging harbors 

that experience unexpected levels of deterioration or are at severe 

risk of closing outside of their scheduled dredging cycles. 

Enhanced Options for Sand Acquisition for Beach Renourishment 

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

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

Isle of Shoals North and Cape Arundel Dredged Material Placement Site.— The Cape Arundel Disposal Site in the State of Maine 

selected by the Department of the Army as an alternative dredged 

material disposal site under section 103(b) of the Marine Protection 

Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, shall remain open until 
44 

April 15, 2024, until the remaining disposal capacity of the site has 

been utilized, or until final designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site for southern Maine under section 102(c) of the 

Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, whichever first occurs, provided that the site conditions remain suitable 

for such purpose and that the site may not be used for disposal of 

more than 80,000 cubic yards from any single dredging project. 

John W. Flannagan Dam and Reservoir.—The Committee supports efforts to optimize regional economic benefits and enhanced 

downstream recreation opportunities along the Russell Fork River. 

The Committee understands the Corps has recently completed a 

Section 216 Initial Appraisal for the John W. Flannagan Dam and 

Reservoir and found that a feasibility-level study is warranted to 

accommodate additional whitewater releases. The Committee urges 

the Corps to implement the recommendations identified in the Initial Appraisal and within the additional funds provided in this account, prioritize an optimization analysis to formulate and evaluate 

Federal interest in changing project operations at the John W. 

Flannagan Dam and Reservoir as it relates to winter drawdown to 

increase regional economic benefits and extend whitewater recreation opportunities. 

Kennebec River Long-Term Maintenance Dredging.—In fiscal 

year 2018, Congress directed the Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Civil Works), in consultation with the Navy, to submit a report to 

the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, proposing a long-term plan for regular maintenance of the Kennebec 

River. The Committee urges the Secretary to prioritize the completion of this report. Within 90 days enactment of this act, the Secretary shall brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 

of Congress on the status of ongoing discussions with the Navy and 

the identification of a long-term plan. 

Monitoring of Completed Navigation Projects—Fisheries.—The 

Committee is concerned that a reduction in or elimination of navigational lock operations on the Nation’s inland waterways is having a negative impact on river ecosystems, particularly the 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 low-use 

waterways is directly impacting migration and that there are effective means to mitigate the impacts. The Committee believes maximizing the ability of fish to use these locks to move past the dams 

has the potential to restore natural and historic long-distance river 

migrations that may well be critical to species survival. In fiscal 

year 2018, the Committee recommended funding to continue preliminary research on the impact of reduced lock operations on 

riverine fish. 

The Committee understands the research underway is proving 

valuable and, within available funds for ongoing work, directs the 

Corps to continue this research at no less than the 2017 level. The 

goal of the continued funding is to support the ongoing research 

and, where appropriate, expand the work to look at ecosystem level 

impacts and additional waterways, lock structures, lock operation 
45 

methods, and fish species that will more fully inform the Corps’ operations. 

Monitoring of Completed Navigation Projects-Non-Destructive 

Testing.—The Committee supports the Corps efforts to significantly 

improve safety, efficiency, reliability, and cost of maintaining critical and aging infrastructure, particularly post-tensioned anchorages at locks and dams along the navigable waterways and floodcontrol facilities in the United States. The Committee is also aware 

that innovative and technically advanced non-destructive testing 

[NDT] methods of inspection have been developed collaboratively 

by the Corps that will assist in performing this vital mission more 

safely and more accurately at significantly less cost than current 

methods. Of the funding provided in the Monitoring Completed 

Navigation Projects, $600,000 shall be used to continue the validation and deployment of NDT tools, modeling, and management 

practices for trunnion rods on dams of interest in navigable waterways. 

Monitoring of Completed Navigation Projects-Structural Health 

Monitoring.—Of the funding provided, $4,000,000 shall be to support the structural health monitoring program to facilitate research 

to maximize operations, enhance efficiency, and protect asset life 

through catastrophic failure mitigation. 

National Dam Safety Program.—In cooperation with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission and the Bureau of Reclamation, 

the Corps is directed to conduct a comprehensive Independent External Peer Review [IEPR] of risk-informed dam safety practices in 

these three Federal agencies with the intent to inform improvements broadly in national dam safety practices. The Corps is directed to contract with an independent peer review organization in 

accordance with its current review policy and the National Academy of Science IEPR process. The IEPR shall also consider how 

dam safety practices are affected by human factors, as well as how 

risk informed analysis in other industries may be applicable to dam 

safety practices. 

San Rafael Channel.—The Committee is aware that the last full 

dredging of the San Rafael Channel was in 2002. This lack of 

dredging is becoming a public safety issue as the San Rafael Police 

and Fire Department, who have taken over emergency services and 

search and rescue operations, are based in the Channel and need 

access and capacity for bay patrols, rescues, and other public safety 

activity. Given public safety concerns, the Committee urges the 

Corps to prioritize dredging of the San Rafael Channel. 

Soil Moisture and Snowpack Monitoring Program.—Following 

the 2011 Missouri River Flood, the Government Accountability Office released a report concluding that increased soil moisture and 

snowpack monitoring could have mitigated the impact of the flood 

on communities along the Missouri River. Accordingly, WRRDA 

section 4003 authorized a soil moisture and snowpack monitoring 

program to be administered by the Corps in coordination with the 

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the 

Bureau of Reclamation. Section 1179 of the WIIN Act identified the 

Corps as the lead agency for carrying out and coordinating this 

monitoring program. Activities necessary to carry out soil moisture 
46 

and snowpack monitoring are eligible for funds provided in this account. The Corps is also encouraged to provide sufficient funding 

in future budget submissions for this program. 

Upper Missouri River Basin.—The Committee recognizes the importance of recreation on Corps-owned sites across the upper Missouri River Basin and encourages the Corps to prioritize much 

needed repairs and other maintenance at these sites. 

Water Operations Technical Support.—Funding in addition to the 

budget request is included for research into atmospheric rivers first 

funded in fiscal year 2015. 

WIFIA Planning and Development.—The Water Infrastructure 

Finance and Innovation Act [WIFIA] is another alternative financing tool that has received strong support from many Members of 

Congress. The Environmental Protection Agency’s WIFIA program 

was initiated in fiscal year 2015, but to date, the Corps has not requested funding nor provided requested information on how a corresponding program for the Civil Works program would be implemented. Therefore, the Corps again is directed to provide to the 

Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a detailed plan for how WIFIA would be implemented, including an estimated schedule for when funding could be used to provide loans. 

The Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 in this account to continue that effort. 

WRRDA Section 4001.—The Committee urges the Secretary to 

follow through on previous direction provided by Congress to financially support the Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River 

Basin Commissions. Congress has made clear its intent and expects the Corps to budget accordingly. The Corps is directed to 

brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 

within 30 days of enactment of this act on the Federal role in the 

River Basin Commissions. 

WRRDA Section 6002.—The Committee supports the Corps’ performing a review of its inventory, in accordance with WRRDA section 6002, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 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 

continued competitiveness in a global marketplace. Federal navigation channels maintained at only a fraction of authorized dimensions and navigation locks and hydropower facilities well beyond 

their design life result in economic inefficiencies and risk infrastructure failure, which can cause substantial economic losses. The 

Committee recommendation includes additional funds for projects 

and activities to enhance the Nation’s economic growth and international competitiveness. 

The Committee is concerned that the Administration’s criteria 

for navigation maintenance disadvantage small, remote, or subsistence harbors and waterways from competing for scarce navigation 

maintenance funds. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Corps 

to revise the criteria used for determining which navigation maintenance projects are funded to develop a reasonable and equitable 

allocation under the Operation and Maintenance account. The 
47 

Committee supports including criteria to evaluate economic impact 

that these projects provide to local and regional economies. 

Any costs to cover administrative fees or any other efforts necessary to resolve encroachments that were the result of past land 

surveying errors made by the Corps shall be eligible for additional 

funding provided in this account. 

When allocating the additional funding recommended in this account, the Corps shall consider giving priority to the following: 

—Ability to complete ongoing work maintaining authorized 

depths and widths of harbors and shipping channels (including 

small, remote, or subsistence harbors), including where contaminated sediments are present. 

—Ability to address critical maintenance backlog; 

—Presence of the U.S. Coast Guard; 

—Extent to which the work will enhance national, regional, or 

local economic development; 

—Extent to which the work will promote job growth or international competitiveness; 

—Number of jobs created directly by the funded activity; 

—Ability to obligate the funds allocated within the calendar year; 

—Ability to complete the project, separable element, project 

phase, or useful increment of work within the funds allocated; 

—For harbor maintenance activities, 

—Total tonnage handled; 

—Total exports; 

—Total imports; 

—Dollar value of cargo handled; 

—Energy infrastructure and national security needs served; 

—Designation as strategic seaports; 

—Lack of alternative means of freight movement; and 

—Savings over alternative means of freight movement. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $200,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 200,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 200,000,000 

The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Regulatory 

Program, the same as the budget request. 

Salton Sea.—The Committee is concerned with the worsening air 

quality and habitat impacts related to Salton Sea and encourages 

the Corps to prioritize permitting for the Salton Sea Management 

Plan. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $139,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 120,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 120,000,000 

The Committee recommends $120,000,000 for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, the same as the budget request. 
48 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $35,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 27,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 35,000,000 

The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for Flood Control and 

Coastal Emergencies, an increase of $8,000,000 above the budget 

request. 

EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $185,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... $187,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 193,000,000 

The Committee recommends $193,000,000 for Expenses, an increase of $6,000,000 above the budget request. This appropriation 

finances the expenses for the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the 

Division Offices, and certain research and statistical functions of 

the Corps. No funding is recommended for creation of an Office of 

Congressional Affairs. 

Additional funding recommended in the Expenses account is for 

activities that were previously funded under Remaining Items and 

later migrated to the Expenses account. These include: up to 

$2,000,000 annually for the executive direction and management of 

the Dam Safety Program, which will allow for more appropriated 

Construction funds to be used on dam safety activities; not less 

than $2,000,000 annually to efficiently fund the Guidance Update 

Management Program [GUMP], providing vital up-to-date policy 

and technical guidance ensuring the excellence and quality of 

Corps Civil Works program; and not less than $2,000,000 annually 

for developing a Civil Works Data Modernization Program that focuses on improving and modernizing data management systems, 

data system integration methods, and making data publically available. 

Deauthorizations.—Within 90 days of enactment of this act, the 

Corps shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both 

Houses of Congress a list of all projects that have been deauthorized or will be deauthorized in the next two fiscal years as a result 

of section 1302 of the WIIN Act. 

Inventory of Corps Projects.—Within 120 days after enactment 

this act, the Corps shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of both houses of Congress an inventory of all authorized 

Corps studies and projects in each state. For each study and project 

identified, the Corps shall include by State, the specific authorization, respective mission area, remaining Federal cost to complete, 

and the current status. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000 

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the same as the budget request. 
49 

The Committee counts on a timely and accessible executive 

branch in the course of fulfilling its constitutional role in the appropriations process. The requesting and receiving of basic, factual 

information is vital to maintain a transparent and open governing 

process. The Committee recognizes that some discussions internal 

to the executive branch are pre-decisional in nature and, therefore, 

not subject to disclosure. However, the access to facts, figures, and 

statistics that inform these decisions are not subject to the same 

sensitivity and are critical to the appropriations process. The administration needs to do more to ensure timely and complete responses to these inquiries. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

Section 101. The bill includes a provision related to reprogramming. 

Section 102. The bill includes a provision related to transfers to 

the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Section 103. The bill includes a provision related to open Lake 

disposal of dredged material. 

Section 104. The bill includes a provision related to the acquisition of buoy chain. 

Section 105. The bill includes a provision related to permitting 

for the discharge of dredged or fill material. 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $10,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 7,983,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,000,000 

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Central Utah 

Project Completion Account, which includes $898,000 for transfer 

to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for 

use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, $1,398,675 for necessary expenses of the Secretary of the 

Interior, and up to $1,500,000 for the Commission’s administrative 

expenses. This allows the Department of the Interior to develop 

water supply facilities that will continue to sustain economic 

growth and an enhanced quality of life in the western States, the 

fastest growing region in the United States. The Committee remains committed to complete the Central Utah Project, which 

would enable the project to initiate repayment to the Federal Government. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,478,000,000 for the Bureau of 

Reclamation [Reclamation], an increase of $490,983,000 above the 

budget request. The Committee recommendation sets priorities by 

supporting our Nation’s water infrastructure. 
50 

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 338 reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 140 million 

acre-feet. Reclamation projects deliver 10 trillion gallons of water 

to more than 31 million people each year, and provide 1 out of 5 

western farmers with irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland that produce 60 percent of the Nation’s vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits and nuts. Reclamation manages, with partners, 

289 recreation sites that have 90 million visits annually. 

FISCAL YEAR 2019 WORK PLAN

The Committee recommends funding above the budget request 

for Water and Related Resources. Reclamation is directed to submit 

a work plan, not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 

this act, to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 

Congress proposing its allocation of these additional funds. The 

work plan shall be consistent with the following general guidance. 

—None of the funds may be used for any item for which 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, 2018. 

DROUGHT RESILIENCY

Congress has invested approximately $500 million over the past 

4 years in drought and water supply-related activities. The Committee remains intently focused on the need for substantially increased investment in improving drought resiliency as well as in 

finding opportunities for agencies to combine water supply benefits 

with other mission priorities. In Energy and Water Development 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, the Committee 

began the transition from mitigating an ongoing drought in the 

West to preparing for the next one. The Committee continues that 

approach in this year’s bill by recommending another $196 million 

for the drought resiliency programs authorized in the WIIN Act. 

The Committee directs Reclamation to continue working with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Serv-
51 

ice, and relevant State agencies to undertake comprehensive, 

around the clock, real-time monitoring of water supply conditions 

and their impact on endangered species during critical periods 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 

way in increasing the water that is available from year to year and 

to incentivize more efficient use of the water that is available. 

UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS

The Committee is concerned by a U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement bulletin published in 2017 that confidently assesses 

that a Chinese unmanned aerial systems [UAS] manufacturer was 

using its products to provide critical infrastructure data to the Chinese government. Reclamation shall immediately determine whether UAS that were the subject of the August 2017 bulletin are currently in use and report back to the Committee within 180 days. 

Due to the critical infrastructure funded in this bill that has an extensive national security component, any vulnerability to foreign 

surveillance is a serious concern to this Committee and Reclamation shall prioritize purchases of American-made UAS in the future. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

The Committee did not accept or include congressionally directed 

spending, as defined in section 5(a) of rule XLIV of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate. However, the Committee has recommended 

additional programmatic funds above the budget request for the 

Water and Related Resources account. In some cases, these additional funds have been included within defined categories, as in 

prior years, and are described in more detail in their respective sections below. 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $1,332,124,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 891,017,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,382,000,000 

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

INTRODUCTION

The Water and Related Resources account supports the development, management, and restoration of water and related natural 

resources in the 17 western States. The account includes funds for 

operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest 

overall level of benefits, to protect public safety, and to conduct 

studies on ways to improve the use of water and related natural 
52 

resources. Work will be done in partnership and cooperation with 

non-federal entities and other Federal agencies. 

The Committee recommends increased funding in the Water 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 .................................................. 1,183 22,626 1,183 22,626 

CALIFORNIA 

CACHUMA PROJECT ....................................................... 778 790 778 790 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: ........................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, FOLSOM DAM UNIT/ 

MORMON ISLAND ............................................. 1,377 8,838 1,377 8,838 

AUBURN–FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT ............................ 35 2,184 35 2,184 

DELTA DIVISION .................................................... 4,812 6,772 4,812 6,772 

EAST SIDE DIVISION ............................................. 1,290 2,772 1,290 2,772 

FRIANT DIVISION .................................................. 1,393 3,324 1,393 3,324 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT 35,000 ........................ 35,000 ........................

MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS ................ 8,771 400 8,771 400 

REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINT. PROGRAM ............................... ........................ 17,444 ........................ 17,444 

SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION ............................. 1,675 495 1,675 495 

SAN FELIPE DIVISION ........................................... 185 98 185 98 

SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION ........................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

SHASTA DIVISION ................................................. 474 9,460 474 9,460 

TRINITY RIVER DIVISION ...................................... 12,291 4,777 12,291 4,777 

WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS ........................ 3,989 10,793 3,989 10,793 

WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT .... 3,219 5,681 3,219 5,681 

ORLAND PROJECT .......................................................... ........................ 873 ........................ 873

SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT ................................ 300 ........................ 300 ........................

SOLANO PROJECT .......................................................... 1,162 2,534 1,162 2,534 

VENTURA RIVER PROJECT ............................................. 400 36 400 36 

COLORADO 

ANIMAS–LA PLATA PROJECT ......................................... 612 2,185 612 2,185 

ARMEL UNIT, P–SMBP .................................................. 10 393 10 393 

COLLBRAN PROJECT ...................................................... 185 2,416 185 2,416 

COLORADO–BIG THOMPSON PROJECT .......................... 198 13,727 198 13,727 

FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT ..................................... 50 139 50 139 

FRYINGPAN–ARKANSAS PROJECT .................................. 152 12,424 152 12,424 

FRYINGPAN–ARKANSAS PROJECT—ARKANSAS VALLEY 

CONDUIT ................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ....................... 506 2,326 506 2,326 

LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT ....... ........................ 2,586 ........................ 2,586 

MANCOS PROJECT ......................................................... 78 420 78 420 

NARROWS UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................. ........................ 38 ........................ 38 

PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ................... 1,502 2,811 1,502 2,811 

PINE RIVER PROJECT .................................................... 79 388 79 388 
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 

SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CLOSED BASIN ................. 118 2,832 118 2,832 

SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CONEJOS DIVISION ........... 16 34 16 34 

UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT .............................................. 767 174 767 174 

UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ....... 870 ........................ 870 ........................

IDAHO 

BOISE AREA PROJECTS ................................................. 3,014 2,571 3,014 2,571 

COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY 

PROJECT ................................................................... 19,000 ........................ 19,000 ........................

LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS .................................. 1,383 27 1,383 27 

MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS ........................................... 2,188 3,475 2,188 3,475 

PRESTON BENCH PROJECT ........................................... 14 33 14 33 

KANSAS 

ALMENA UNIT, P–SMBP ................................................ 44 481 44 481 

BOSTWICK UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................. 331 935 331 935 

CEDAR BLUFF UNIT, P–SMBP ....................................... 39 535 39 535 

GLEN ELDER UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................... 71 3,402 71 3,402 

KANSAS RIVER UNIT, P–SMBP ...................................... ........................ 102 ........................ 102 

KIRWIN UNIT, P–SMBP .................................................. 17 446 17 446 

WEBSTER UNIT, P–SMBP .............................................. 16 481 16 481 

WICHITA PROJECT—CHENEY DIVISION ......................... 88 403 88 403 

MONTANA 

CANYON FERRY UNIT, P–SMBP .................................... 238 5,009 238 5,009 

EAST BENCH UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................... 59 666 59 666 

FORT PECK RESERVATION / DRY PRAIRIE RURAL 

WATER SYSTEM ........................................................ 4,731 ........................ 4,731 ........................

HELENA VALLEY UNIT, P–SMBP .................................... 5 166 5 166 

HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT ............................................. ........................ 434 ........................ 434 

HUNTLEY PROJECT ........................................................ 7 46 7 46 

LOWER MARIAS UNIT, P–SMBP ..................................... 91 1,508 91 1,508 

LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT ................................... 716 30 716 30 

MILK RIVER PROJECT .................................................... 447 1,467 447 1,467 

MISSOURI BASIN O&M, P–SMBP .................................. 1,047 117 1,047 117 

ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MT RURAL WATER SYSTEM ........................................................................... 3,984 ........................ 3,984 ........................

SUN RIVER PROJECT ..................................................... 52 268 52 268 

YELLOWTAIL UNIT, P–SMBP .......................................... 22 8,939 22 8,939 

NEBRASKA 

AINSWORTH UNIT, P–SMBP ........................................... 69 131 69 131 

FRENCHMAN–CAMBRIDGE UNIT, P–SMBP .................... 372 1,964 372 1,964 

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT ............................................... 13 98 13 98 

NORTH LOUP UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................... 93 140 93 140 

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 

CARLSBAD PROJECT ...................................................... 2,551 1,300 2,551 1,300 

EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY ........... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT ..................................... 12,634 10,885 12,634 10,885 

RIO GRANDE PROJECT .................................................. 1,860 5,074 1,860 5,074 

RIO GRANDE PEUBLOS PROJECT .................................. 1,000 ........................ 1,000 ........................

TUCUMCARI PROJECT .................................................... 15 16 15 16 

NORTH DAKOTA 

DICKINSON UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................ ........................ 449 ........................ 449 
54 

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 

GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT, P–SMBP .......................... 9,221 12,284 9,221 12,284 

HEART BUTTE UNIT, P–SMBP ....................................... 82 1,326 82 1,326 

OKLAHOMA 

ARBUCKLE PROJECT ...................................................... 66 183 66 183 

MCGEE CREEK PROJECT ............................................... 124 835 124 835 

MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT ............................................ 34 673 34 673 

NORMAN PROJECT ......................................................... 72 310 72 310 

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT .............................................. 240 1,093 240 1,093 

W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT ................................................... 57 555 57 555 

OREGON 

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT ............................................ 268 457 268 457 

DESCHUTES PROJECT .................................................... 386 189 386 189 

EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS ....................................... 471 216 471 216 

KLAMATH PROJECT ........................................................ 13,755 3,745 13,755 3,745 

ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION ........ 1,774 615 1,774 615 

TUALATIN PROJECT ........................................................ 177 216 177 216 

UMATILLA PROJECT ....................................................... 572 2,549 572 2,549 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

ANGOSTURA UNIT, P–SMBP .......................................... 130 688 130 688 

BELLE FOURCHE UNIT, P–SMBP ................................... 385 836 385 836 

KEYHOLE UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................... 198 720 198 720 

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM .................. 100 ........................ 100 ........................

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 ................................................ ........................ 79 ........................ 79 

RAPID VALLEY UNIT, P–SMBP ....................................... ........................ 208 ........................ 208 

SHADEHILL UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................ 153 466 153 466 

TEXAS 

BALMORHEA PROJECT ................................................... 37 13 37 13 

CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT ........................................... 57 88 57 88 

LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAM ......................................................... 50 ........................ 50 ........................

NUECES RIVER PROJECT ............................................... 107 869 107 869 

SAN ANGELO PROJECT .................................................. 37 594 37 594 

UTAH 

HYRUM PROJECT ........................................................... 90 197 90 197 

MOON LAKE PROJECT .................................................... 19 105 19 105 

NEWTON PROJECT ......................................................... 50 104 50 104 

OGDEN RIVER PROJECT ................................................ 286 224 286 224 

PROVO RIVER PROJECT ................................................. 1,191 512 1,191 512 

SANPETE PROJECT ........................................................ 59 13 59 13 

SCOFIELD PROJECT ....................................................... 253 99 253 99 

STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT .................................... 751 46 751 46 

WEBER BASIN PROJECT ................................................ 1,082 959 1,082 959 

WEBER RIVER PROJECT ................................................ 100 198 100 198 

WASHINGTON 

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT ........................................... 4,436 8,473 4,436 8,473 

WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS ...................................... 329 138 329 138 

YAKIMA PROJECT ........................................................... 744 6,083 744 6,083 

YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT 13,200 ........................ 13,200 ........................

WYOMING 

BOYSEN UNIT, P–SMBP ................................................ 191 1,893 191 1,893 
55 

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 

BUFFALO BILL DAM, DAM MODIFICATION, P–SMBP ...... 33 2,764 33 2,764 

KENDRICK PROJECT ...................................................... 68 4,047 68 4,047 

NORTH PLATTE PROJECT ............................................... 78 1,209 78 1,209 

NORTH PLATTE AREA, P–SMBP ..................................... 72 5,437 72 5,437 

OWL CREEK UNIT, P–SMBP .......................................... 6 99 6 99 

RIVERTON UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................. 8 580 8 580 

SHOSHONE PROJECT ..................................................... 34 761 34 761 

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ................... 207,939 293,656 207,939 293,656 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK RURAL 

WATER ...................................................................... ........................ ........................ 86,500 ........................

FISH PASSAGE AND FISH SCREENS ..................... ........................ ........................ 10,000 ........................

WATER CONSERVATION AND DELIVERY ............... ........................ ........................ 241,844 ........................

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND COMPLIANCE ................................................................ ........................ ........................ 40,000 ........................

FACILITIES OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REHABILITATION ................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 4,000 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, 

TITLE I ...................................................................... 1,934 13,519 1,934 13,519 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, 

TITLE II ..................................................................... 6,000 ........................ 6,000 ........................

COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP), SECTION 5 ...................................................................... 3,513 6,397 3,513 6,397 

COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP), SECTION 8 ...................................................................... 3,347 ........................ 3,347 ........................

COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT 

PROJECT ................................................................... 940 ........................ 940 ........................

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

ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION 

PROGRAM ................................................................. 19,152 ........................ 19,152 ........................

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION .............. 1,844 ........................ 1,844 ........................

EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ..................... ........................ 9,123 ........................ 9,123 

GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES .................................... 2,000 ........................ 2,000 ........................

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS AAMODT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT .................................................... 8,301 ........................ 8,301 ........................

BLACKFEET IWRS ................................................. 10,000 ........................ 10,000 ........................

CROW TRIBE RIGHTS ........................................... 12,772 ........................ 12,772 ........................

NAVAJO–GALLUP ................................................... 68,932 671 68,932 671 

LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................ 10,684 ........................ 10,684 ........................

LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ...... 31,176 ........................ 31,176 ........................

MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS .......... ........................ 980 ........................ 980 

NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM ......................... 10,571 ........................ 12,425 ........................

NEGOTIATION & ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING ...................................................................... 2,462 ........................ 2,462 ........................

OPERATION & PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ....................... 1,204 2,437 1,204 2,437 

POWER PROGRAM SERVICES ........................................ 2,193 307 2,193 307 

PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM ...................... 600 206 600 206 

RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION ........................... 2,148 ........................ 2,148 ........................

RECREATION & FISH & WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION .................................................................... 6,497 ........................ 6,497 ........................

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: 

DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM ............................................................... 1,753 1,150 18,653 1,150 
56 

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 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ............... 11,014 ........................ 16,765 ........................

SITE SECURITY ACTIVITIES ............................................ ........................ 26,220 ........................ 26,220 

UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES—TECHNICAL 

SUPPORT ................................................................... 90 ........................ 90 ........................

WATERSMART PROGRAM WATERSMART GRANTS .......... 10,000 ........................ 34,000 ........................

WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM ............................................................... 1,750 ........................ 4,179 ........................

COOPERATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ........... 250 ........................ 2,250 ........................

BASIN STUDIES .................................................... 2,000 ........................ 5,200 ........................

DROUGHT RESPONSE & COMPREHENSIVE 

DROUGHT PLANS ............................................. 2,901 ........................ 4,000 ........................

TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION & REUSE PROGRAM ............................................................... 3,000 ........................ 54,406 ........................

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ......................... 239,028 150,394 726,011 154,394 

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

TOTAL ............................................................... 446,967 444,050 933,950 448,050 

Anadromous Fish Screen Program.—The Committee is concerned 

that insufficient resources are being devoted to completing work on 

the last two remaining priority unscreened diversions on the Sacramento River, both of which have been specifically identified as 

priorities in the California Natural Resources Agency Sacramento 

Valley Salmon Resiliency Strategy. The Committee strongly urges 

Reclamation to allocate sufficient resources from within available 

funds to complete the screening of these high priority diversions. 

Arkansas Valley Conduit.—The Committee understands Reclamation has proactively worked over the past year to identify cost 

savings by using existing locally owned facilities. Despite receiving 

appropriations since 2009 and the project being in its final phase, 

the fiscal year 2019 budget request includes no funding for this 

Conduit, jeopardizing the clean drinking water supply to rural 

Southeastern Colorado. The Committee further understands that 

the project could incur a delay cost of 3 percent, costing taxpayers 

more than $1,000,000 to achieve the same results. The Committee 

urges Reclamation to prioritize additional funding to build and 

maintain critical infrastructure in rural communities across the 

Nation. 

Aquifer Recharge.—The Committee is aware that many States 

have implemented new methods of recharging aquifers for increased water storage and drought mitigation. The Committee directs Reclamation to work closely with project beneficiaries to identify and resolve any barriers to aquifer recharge projects when appropriate, while utilizing full authority to prioritize funds for ongoing projects through completion. 

CALFED Water Storage Feasibility Studies.—In testimony before 

the Subcommittee, the Commissioner of Reclamation asserted that 

the agency would complete feasibility studies for the Sites and 

Temperance Flat reservoirs by the end of August 2018 and would 

complete the feasibility study for the Los Vaqueros reservoir by No-
57 

vember 2018. The Committee notes that these studies have taken 

more than 15 years and expects Reclamation to take such steps as 

are necessary to ensure that each of these studies is completed as 

soon as possible. 

Columbia Basin Project.—The Committee understands the Odessa Subarea of the Columbia Basin Project is facing significant challenges as groundwater from the aquifer has been declining. This 

rapid decline has put agriculture production and commercial, municipal, and industrial water uses at risk. The Committee commends Reclamation’s work with the State of Washington and impacted irrigation districts to prevent further depletion of the aquifer and deliver surface water to agricultural lands within the Columbia Basin Project through a pressurized delivery system. In 

May 2018, Reclamation issued a Supplemental Information Report 

for the Odessa Groundwater Replacement Program that allows 

Reclamation to request funding to support the project, which to 

date has been supported through State, local, and private investments. The Committee encourages Reclamation to request funding 

in future budgets to support projects associated with the Odessa 

Groundwater Replacement Program. 

Groundwater Recharge.—Using the funds recommended under 

the heading ‘‘Water Conservation and Delivery’’, Reclamation shall 

make funding available for water conservation programs, conjunctive use projects, and other projects to maximize groundwater storage and beneficial use. 

Projects Serving Military Installations.—The Committee is concerned that Reclamation’s criteria for allocating funding have not 

adequately accounted for projects that would directly benefit military base operations and national security facilities. The Committee directs Reclamation to brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 30 days of delivering the 

report to Congress, which was required in the fiscal year 2018 appropriations bill, on the recommendations contained within that report. 

Rural Water Projects.—Voluntary funding in excess of legally required cost shares for rural water projects is acceptable but shall 

not be used by Reclamation as a criterion for allocating additional 

funding recommended by the Committee or for budgeting in future 

years. 

Salton Sea.—The Committee encourages Reclamation to establish an interagency Salton Sea working group to coordinate Corps 

permitting, Environmental Protection Agency financing opportunities, and Department of Agriculture restoration work as well as expedite implementation of objectives set forth in the August 2016 

Memorandum of Understanding. 

Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project, Oregon.—The Committee supports the budget request for preconstruction activities at Scoggins 

Dam under the Safety of Dams program. Consistent with 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, 
58 

to address dam safety modifications and increased storage capacity. 

Considering the high risk associated with Scoggins Dam, the Committee urges Reclamation to work with local stakeholders and repayment contractors to prioritize this joint project including feasibility and environmental review of the preferred alternative in fiscal year 2019. The Committee understands that a replacement 

structure downstream could significantly reduce project costs 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. 

Research and Development: Desalination and Water Purification 

Program.—Of the funding recommended for this program, $12,000,000 shall be for desalination projects as authorized in section 4009(a) of the WIIN Act. 

Research and Development, Science and Technology Program.— 

The Committee is aware that the Reclamation Science and Technology Office has been investing in efforts under the Open Water 

Data Initiative to integrate currently fragmented water supply 

data from several Federal agencies into a connected, national water 

data framework. Furthermore, the Committee understands that 

the Science and Technology Office has a future goal to develop webbased decision support tools. The Committee urges Reclamation to 

expedite the development and testing of a web-based Water Supply 

Decision Support System that will help Federal, State, municipal, 

Tribal, and private water managers and users make better wateruse decisions to support water conservation and drought 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. 

St. Mary’s Diversion Dam and Conveyance Works.—The Committee encourages Reclamation to use additional funding for the 

Milk River Project to move forward with its design work for the St. 

Mary Canal Diversion Dam, including completion of designs, specifications, and cost estimates. The committee also encourages Reclamation to consider the replacement of the St. Mary Canal Diversion Dam as an extraordinary maintenance measure, and allow 

local stakeholders additional flexibility in paying for a dam replacement, instead of one lump sum payment. 

WaterSMART Program.—The Committee encourages Reclamation to prioritize eligible Water Conservation projects that will provide water supplies to meet the needs of threatened and endangered species. 

WaterSMART Program: Title XVI Water Reclamation & Reuse 

Program.—Of the funding recommended for this program, 

$20,000,000 shall be for water recycling and reuse projects as authorized in section 4009(c) of the WIIN Act. 

Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management 

Plan.—The Committee supports the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan [Plan]. This innovative 

water management plan represents years of collaboration in the 

Yakima River Basin among stakeholders including Reclamation, 

the State of Washington, the Yakama Nation, irrigators and farmers, conservation organizations, recreationists, and local govern-
59 

ments to address water supply needs for agriculture, fish and wildlife, and municipal use. The Committee encourages Reclamation to 

request funding in future budgets to implement additional authorized elements of the Plan. 

Additional Funding for Water and Related Resources Work.—The 

Committee recommendation includes an additional $490,983,000 

above the budget request for Water and Related Resources studies, 

projects, and activities. Priority in allocating these funds shall be 

given to advance and complete ongoing work; including 

preconstruction activities and where environmental compliance has 

been completed; improve water supply reliability; improve water 

deliveries; enhance national, regional, or local economic development; promote job growth; advance Tribal and nontribal water settlement studies and activities; or address critical backlog maintenance and rehabilitation activities. Reclamation is encouraged 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’’, $30,000,000 

is allocated to fund Colorado River water conservation, including 

the Lower Colorado River Operations Program and the Upper Colorado River Operations Program. Of the additional funding recommended under the heading ‘‘Water Conservation and Delivery’’, 

$134,000,000 shall be for water storage projects as authorized in 

section 4007 of Public Law 114–322. Of the additional funding recommended under the heading ‘‘Environmental Restoration or Compliance’’, not less than $30,000,000 shall be for activities 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. Reclamation is reminded that activities authorized under 

Indian Water Rights Settlements are eligible to compete for the additional funding under ‘‘Water Conservation and Delivery’’. 

Buried Metallic Water Pipe.—Reclamation shall continue following its temporary design guidance. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $41,376,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 62,008,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 62,008,000 

OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $41,376,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 62,008,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 62,008,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... ........................... 

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

The Committee recommends $62,008,000 for the Central Valley 

Project Restoration Fund, the same as the budget request. This appropriation is fully offset by collections, resulting in a net appropriation of $0. 
60 

The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized in 

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of Public Law 

102–575. This fund uses revenues from payments by project beneficiaries and donations for habitat restoration, improvement 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, 2018 ............................................................................. $37,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 35,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 35,000,000 

The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for California BayDelta Restoration, the same as the budget request. 

This account funds activities that are consistent with the 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18 

State and Federal agencies and representatives of California’s 

urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals of 

the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water supply 

reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California’s water distribution system. 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $59,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 61,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 61,000,000 

The Committee recommends $61,000,000 for Policy and Administration, the same as the budget request. 

This account funds the executive direction and management of 

all Reclamation activities, as performed by the Commissioner’s offices in Washington, DC; Denver, Colorado; and five regional offices. The Denver office and regional offices charge individual 

projects or activities for direct beneficial services and related administrative and technical costs. These charges are covered under 

other appropriations. 

Reclamation Project Reimbursability Decisions.— In September 

2017, the Department of the Interior’s Office of Inspector General 

released a report calling into question Reclamation’s method of financial participation in the State of California’s Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. The Committee is concerned that Reclamation was 

not satisfactorily transparent in its use of funds for activities that 

were not included in the budget request. Reclamation is directed to 

submit an annual report 60 days after the end of each fiscal year 

detailing the use of financial assistance agreements to redirect appropriated funds from their intended purpose outlined in the previous year’s budget request. Reclamation is directed to review and 

report to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 90 days after enactment of this act, on the advisability 

of developing additional financial controls and requiring more ex-
61 

tensive written justifications for determinations of what costs are 

reimbursable for complex projects involving major Federal expenditures and multiple funding sources. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Section 201. The bill includes a provision regarding reprogramming. 

Section 202. The bill includes a provision regarding the San Luis 

Unit and Kesterson Reservoir. 

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $34,990,015,000 for the Department of Energy, an increase of $9,512,377,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation sets priorities by supporting the 

Office of Science and ARPA–E, leading the world in scientific computing, addressing the Federal Government’s responsibility for environmental cleanup and disposal of used nuclear fuel, keeping 

large construction projects on time and on budget, effectively maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile, and supporting our nuclear 

Navy. 

INTRODUCTION

The mission of the Department of Energy [Department] is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, 

environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative 

science and technology solutions. To accomplish this mission, 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 the Secretary spends taxpayer funds in accordance with congressional direction. The Committee’s recommendation also in-
62 

cludes reprogramming guidelines to allow the Secretary to request 

permission from the Committee for certain expenditures, as defined 

below, which would not otherwise be permissible. The Secretary’s 

execution of appropriated funds shall be fully consistent with 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. 

DIRECTION ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

The budget request proposes a shift away from later-stage research and development activities to refocus the Department on an 

early-stage research and development mission. The Committee believes that such an approach will not successfully integrate the results of early-stage research and development into the U.S. energy 

system and thus will not adequately deliver innovative energy technologies, practices, and information to American consumers and 

companies. The Committee directs the Department to implement 

mid- and late-stage research and development activities as directed 

in this report in a timely manner. 

CROSSCUTTING INITIATIVES

The recommendation supports several crosscutting initiatives 

funded in prior years that reach outside of individual program offices to draw on the diverse disciplines within the agency as a 

whole. These initiatives, which address the Energy-Water Nexus; 

grid modernization; subsurface science, technology and engineering 
63 

research, development, and deployment; cybersecurity; advanced 

materials, and the Beyond Batteries Initiative have allowed for a 

more comprehensive review of complex issues. 

Grid Modernization.—The Department is directed to continue the 

ongoing work between the national laboratories, industry, and universities to improve grid reliability and resiliency through the strategic goals of the Grid Modernization Initiative and encourages the 

Department to include all applied energy programs to ensure broad 

energy system resilience and modernization. Further, the Committee supports the Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium 

and supports continued implementation of the Grid Multi-Year Program Plan. The Committee directs the Department to emphasize 

national grid resilience modeling and improved grid cyber resilience to address emerging national resilience challenges of the grid 

and related energy systems, planned investments in energy storage 

to improve grid flexibility and resilience, and advanced sensors and 

control paradigms that promise to improve energy system resilience 

of the future smart grid. The Committee recognizes that the inaugural projects funded for a 3-year duration will be concluding in fiscal year 2019 and therefore the Department is directed to continue 

support for the Grid Modernization Initiative and the Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium and provide a plan to Congress 

to extend the multi-year program plan to include priorities for field 

validation of the most successful research outcomes with industry 

and State stakeholders to accelerate adoption of the key Department results. 

Beyond Batteries Initiative.—The Committee is supportive of the 

Department’s approach to consider energy storage holistically, and 

focus on advances in controllable loads, hybrid systems, and new 

approaches to energy storage. The Committee agrees that advances 

in this wide range of energy storage technologies will allow for 

loads to be combined with generation from all sources to optimize 

use of existing assets to provide grid services, and increase grid reliability. The Department shall continue to use all of its capabilities 

to accelerate the development of storage technologies, including the 

basic research capabilities of the Office of Science, the technology 

expertise of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

the grid-level knowledge of the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response, and the rapid technology development capabilities of ARPA–E. The Committee directs the Department to coordinate efforts among various existing Department programs to maximize efficiency of funds and expand vital research. 

The Department is encouraged to prioritize achieving a long-term 

goal of deploying technologies at $100/kWh or less cost installed 

while being able to cycle twice per day, discharging for at least 4 

hours, with a lifetime of roughly 20 years or at least 8,000 cycles. 

Subsurface Crosscut.—The Committee supports the ongoing Subsurface Technology and Engineering Research [SubTER] Initiative, 

focused on revolutionizing sustainable subsurface energy production and storage through transformational improvements in 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 
64 

SubTER program’s approach to increasing domestic supply of oil, 

gas, and geothermal energy resources by manipulating the permeability of subsurface rock formations to injection fluids. To validate 

methods which enhance oil and gas recovery from fracking wells, 

the Committee encourages the Department to conduct pilot 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 Department’s 

attention to advanced materials research and development, focusing on lightweight materials and composites, and corrosion and materials under extremes. The Committee understands in previous 

years, other program offices independently had standalone existing 

materials programs, and continues to support formal coordination 

across offices through the Materials Working Group. Continued coordination supports the Department’s ability to impact the materials development cycle from scientific discovery to technological innovation and deployment. 

Cybersecurity Crosscut.—Cybersecurity activities within the Department cover a broad scope ranging from the protection of Department assets against cybersecurity threats to improving 

cybersecurity in the electric power and oil and natural gas sectors 

to other areas in the national security portfolio. As cybersecurity 

threats become more complex, and the Department increases its 

focus on cybersecurity research and development, it is vital that 

there be clear crosscutting objectives and coordination across the 

Department. The Committee directs the Department to develop a 

plan that integrates all of the Department’s cybersecurity research, 

development, and deployment investments, and brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 90 days 

after enactment of this act. 

Arctic Energy Office.—The Committee supports the promotion 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-cut-
65 

ting 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 continues to urge the Department to utilize investments through existing regional capabilities that include industry, universities, and State and regional economic development assets. The Committee further encourages 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. 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $2,321,778,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 695,610,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,322,000,000 

The Committee recommends $2,322,000,000 for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy [EERE], an increase of $1,626,390,000 

above the budget request. Within available funds, the Committee 

recommends $162,500,000 for program direction. 

Congressional Direction.—The Committee directs the Department 

to maintain a diverse portfolio of early-, mid-, and late-stage research, development, and market transformation activities. Regular 

consultation with industry is encouraged to avoid duplication of 

private-sector efforts. The Committee further directs the Department to fully execute the funds appropriated in this act, as directed 

in this report, in a timely manner and to keep Congress apprised 

of progress in implementing funded programs, projects, and activities. Further, the Committee directs the Department to give priority to stewarding the assets and optimizing the operations of 

EERE-designated user facilities across the Department of Energy 

complex. In future budget requests, the Committee directs EERE 

to demonstrate a commitment to operations and maintenance of facilities that support the Department’s critical missions. 

Workforce Development.—The development of a skilled workforce 

is critical to the successful deployment and long-term sustainability 

of energy efficient and renewable energy technologies. The Committee encourages funding within EERE programs to be allocated 

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. 
66 

Electrification Futures Study.—The Committee encourages continued coordination between the EERE and the Office of 

Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response to evaluate the impacts of mass electrification on the utility business model 

and the electricity distribution system of the U.S. through the Electrification Futures Study. 

Cybersecurity.—The Committee believes cybersecurity vulnerabilities must be addressed as renewable energy technologies enter 

into the marketplace. The Committee also believes there is a gap 

with respect to distributed generators and behind-the-substation 

generators, storage, smart buildings technologies and electric vehicles where the potential for cyberattacks will continue to grow and 

threaten the modern grid. Within funds recommended for EERE, 

not less than $20,000,000 is recommended to establish a program 

that will bring cybersecurity into early-stage technology R&D so 

that it is built into new technology for this effort. Within 180 days 

after enactment of this act, the Department shall submit to the 

Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a multiyear program plan for this effort to encompass all EERE programs. 

Energy Star.—The Department is encouraged to support the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to reexamine Energy Star 

guidelines and standard operating procedures to ensure transparency, predictability, and consistency for all stakeholders. 

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $337,500,000 for Vehicle Technologies, including $7,000,000 for operations and maintenance of 

the National Transportation Research Center. 

Within this amount, the Committee recommends not less than 

$163,200,000 for Battery and Electrification Technologies to lower 

the cost of batteries across light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles 

through battery processing science, advanced battery chemistries, 

materials research, and modeling and simulation of battery performance. The Committee recommends not less than $38,100,000 

for electric drive research and development including high power 

density electric drive systems, wireless charging and power electronic for extreme fast charging. The Committee also supports research and development to lower the cost of batteries for electric 

vehicles through cobalt-free materials and roll-to-roll manufacturing. Funding in this area shall also support research and development to improve electric motor technology through advanced material processing and the use of high-performance computing for 

multi-physics discovery to understand these new processes. 

The Committee further recommends $25,000,000 for Energy Efficient Mobility Systems, including the Systems and Modeling for Accelerated Research in Transportation [SMART] Mobility, Big Data 

Solutions for Mobility [Big Data], and Advanced Computing for Energy [ACE] initiatives, including HPC4Mobility and HPC-enabled 

analytics. These investments are critical to expanding U.S. energy 

security, economic vitality, and quality of life. Therefore, the Committee supports continued funding for research that allows the U.S. 

to continue its leadership in advancing state-of-the-art transportation infrastructure. 
67 

The Committee recommends $43,000,000 for Advanced Engine 

and Fuel Technologies for research focused on advanced fuel formulations that optimize engine performance. Within this amount, 

$24,500,000 is recommended for the Co-Optimization of Engine and 

Fuels Multi-Laboratory Consortium. 

The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for Materials Technology. Within this amount, $25,000,000 is recommended for earlystage research on multi-material joining and propulsion materials 

at the national laboratories, and carbon fiber-reinforced composites 

at the Carbon Fiber Technology Facility. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 

for continued funding of section 131 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act for transportation electrification. 

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 to continue the five 

awards under the SuperTruck II program and encourages the Department to provide additional early-stage research funding for 

heavy-duty vehicle technologies as part of the program. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $46,300,000 

for Outreach, Deployment, and Analysis. Within this amount, 

$37,800,000 is recommended for deployment through the Clean Cities Program. The Department is encouraged to ensure balance 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 the largest source of greenhouse gases. 

The Committee supports Advanced Vehicle Competitions, a collegiate engineering competition that provides hands-on, real-world 

experience to demonstrate a variety of advanced technologies and 

designs, and supports development of a workforce trained in advanced vehicles. The Committee recommends $2,500,000 following 

the successful EcoCAR 3 competition to support a new 4-year collegiate engineering competition, EcoCAR 4. 

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to continue improving 

the energy efficiency of commercial off-road vehicles, including up 

to $5,000,000 for fluid power systems. 

The Committee is concerned with the Department’s lack of requested funding for natural gas vehicle research and development. 

With an abundant source of low-cost domestic natural gas, this resource as a transportation fuel is becoming the alternative fuel of 

choice for high fuel use fleets and off-road vehicles. Further research is needed on natural gas storage, natural gas engines, and 

fueling infrastructure optimization. Within available funding, the 

Committee recommends $15,000,000 to address technical barriers 

to the increased use of natural gas vehicles, including the development of novel compression and liquefaction technologies, advanced 

materials, and improvements in processes for conditioning, storing 

and dispensing natural gas. The Committee directs the Department 

to undertake a comprehensive study, with stakeholder input, on 

natural gas vehicle deployment in on- and off-road transportation, 

identifying barriers to increased deployment of natural gas vehicles. 
68 

BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $215,000,000 for Bioenergy Technologies. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than 

$30,000,000 for Advanced Algal Systems to sustain the investment 

in development of algal biofuels. 

The Committee further recommends $30,000,000 for Feedstock 

Supply and Logistics, $50,000,000 for Demonstration and Market 

Transformation, and $10,000,000 for Analysis and Sustainability. 

The Committee further recommends $95,000,000 for Conversion 

Technologies. Within this amount, $20,000,000 is recommended 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. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 

within Conversion Technologies to continue the research biopower 

program, which makes full and innovative use of biomass, municipally-derived biosolids, municipal solid waste, and livestock waste. 

Within available funds the Committee recommends $5,000,000 to 

support the development and testing of new domestic manufactured low-emission, high-efficiency, residential wood heaters that 

supply easily accessed and affordable renewable energy and have 

the potential to reduce the national costs associated with thermal 

energy. 

The Committee recognizes that biomethane or anaerobic digesters can provide important solutions to meet renewable energy 

goals, as well as address environmental and economic challenges 

and divert organic waste from landfills. The Committee encourages 

the Department to fund research, development, and demonstration 

activities to help lower upfront development costs and 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. 

Within available funding, the Committee recommends not less 

than $10,000,000 to establish a multi-university partnership to 

conduct research and enhance educational programs that improve 

alternative energy production derived from urban and suburban 

wastes. The Committee further directs the Department to collaborate with institutions in Canada and Mexico to leverage capacity 

and capitalize on North American resources. 

Within available funds, the Committee supports research to develop the foundation for scalable technologies to use carbon dioxide 

produced in biorefineries to produce higher value fuels, chemicals 

or materials. 

HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $115,000,000 for Hydrogen and Fuel 

Cell Technologies. 

Within the amounts recommended, the Committee recommends 

$39,000,000 for Hydrogen Fuel Research and Development for efforts to reduce the cost and improve the performance of hydrogen 
69 

generation and storage systems, hydrogen measurement devices for 

fueling stations, hydrogen compressor components, and hydrogen 

station dispensing components. The Department shall continue to 

research novel onboard hydrogen tank systems, as well as trailer 

delivery systems to reduce cost of delivered hydrogen. Further, the 

Department is directed to support research and development activities that reduce the use of platinum group metals, provide improvements in electrodes and membranes and balance-of-plant components and systems. The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for 

Systems Analysis, including research on in-situ metrology for process control systems for manufacturing of key hydrogen system components. Within the amounts recommended, $19,000,000 is recommended 

for Hydrogen Infrastructure Research and Development. Further, 

the Department is directed to continue the H2@Scale Initiative, 

which couples current research efforts within the program with 

new opportunities for using hydrogen to provide grid resiliency and 

advance a wide range of industrial processes for the production of 

fuels, chemicals, and materials. 

The Committee recommends $19,000,000 for Technology Accel- eration 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. 

Regular consultation with industry is encouraged to avoid duplication of private-sector activities. 

The Committee further recommends $7,000,000 for Safety, 

Codes, and Standards to maintain a robust program and engage 

regulatory and code officials to support their technical needs relative to infrastructure and vehicle safety. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to work with the Secretary of Transportation and industry on coordinating efforts to deploy hydrogen fueling infrastructure. 

SOLAR ENERGY

The Committee recommends $239,500,000 for Solar Energy. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $55,000,000 

for Concentrating Solar Power research, development, and demonstration to reduce overall system costs, better integrate subsystem components, develop higher-temperature receivers, and improve the design of solar collection and thermal energy storage. 

Within this amount, $5,000,000 is recommended for competitively 

selected projects focused on advanced thermal desalination technologies. 

The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for Photovoltaic Research and Development to develop new or improved high-performance cell materials and architectures and achieve greater than 40- 

percent cell efficiencies. The Department is encouraged to cooperate 

with industry and academia in its research and development efforts. 

The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for Balance of System 

Soft Cost Reduction to reduce non-hardware costs through new 

techno-economic tools and methodologies for distributed energy resources; an assessment of the potential for block-chain technologies 
70 

to improve management of distributed solar; and standardization of 

planning, permitting, and installation tools and methodologies. 

Within this amount, the Committee recommends not less than 

$1,000,000 for the joint Solar Ready Vets program within the Department of Defense as a way to train America’s veterans to fill the 

growing need for solar industry workers. 

Within the amounts recommended for Balance of System Soft Cost Reduction, $5,000,000 is recommended to re-invigorate the 

National Community Solar Partnership program to provide technical assistance to low- and moderate-income individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and State, local, and tribal governments to increase use of community solar installations. Further, the Committee recommends $49,500,000 for Systems Integration to address the technical barriers to increased solar penetration on the grid, including grid reliability, dispatchability, power 

electronics, and communications. The Committee encourages research and development efforts to target grid storage improvements, demand-response and load-shaping technologies, and modeling and planning tools for distributed energy resources. The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for Manufacturing 

Competitiveness to develop advanced low-cost manufacturing process technologies, including thickness reduction and faster processing with fewer steps. Within this area, the Committee also supports early-stage research on photovoltaics based on earth abundant materials focusing on scalable production methods, material 

stability, and ultrahigh efficiency tandem photovoltaic cell manufacturing approaches. To directly address fundamental barriers 

that could limit new technology’s adoption, the Committee believes 

the fastest approach for rapid commercialization of new photovoltaic technologies would be to bring national laboratory capabilities and academia, in partnership with early-stage companies to 

develop a new photovoltaic U.S. manufacturing base. The Department is directed to create a 5-year domestic manufacturing capability consortium focused on inherently scalable production methods such as solution processing, roll-to-roll manufacturing, the 

science of inherent material stability, and ultrahigh efficiency 

through tandem manufacturing. Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than $10,000,000 for the first year of 

the consortium. 

WIND ENERGY

The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for Wind Energy. 

The Committee supports research using high-performance computing, modeling and simulation, including the Atmosphere to 

Electrons initiative, and reliability and grid integration efforts. 

Further, the Department is directed to give priority to stewarding 

the assets and optimizing the operations of the Department-owned 

wind research and development facilities. Within available funds, 

the Committee recommends not less than $30,000,000 for the National Wind Technology Center, which shall include the development of a large-scale research platform to support next-generation 

wind energy science and manufacturing and systems integration of 

multiple energy generation, consumption, and storage technologies 

with the grid. 
71 

The Committee encourages the Department to prioritize distributed wind technologies that reduce costs and improve performance, 

and to collaborate with industry to invest in the development and 

demonstration of technologies and practices that advance distributed wind. Within available funds, the Committee recommends 

$10,000,000 for distributed wind. 

The Committee directs the Department to support the advancement of innovative technologies for offshore wind development, including freshwater, deepwater, shallow water, and transitional 

depth installations. In addition, the Department is directed to support the innovative offshore wind demonstration projects for which 

funding has been allocated in previous fiscal years, and further 

supports efforts to optimize their development, design, construction 

methods, testing plans, and economic value proposition. The Committee recommends not less than $6,000,000 in new project development for the offshore wind demonstration projects to be allocated 

equitably between the approved projects, and to provide not less 

than 18 months of additional development to ensure success. The 

Committee further directs the Department to support the deployment and testing of scale floating wind turbines designed to reduce 

energy costs. Within available funds, the Committee recommends 

not less than $30,000,000 for the Department to prioritize earlystage research on materials and manufacturing methods and advanced components that will enable accessing high-quality wind resources, on development that will enable these technologies to compete in the marketplace without the need for subsidies, and on activities that will accelerate fundamental offshore-specific research 

and development such as those that target technology and deployment challenges unique to U.S. waters. Further, the Committee 

recommends not less than $10,000,000 for existing national-level 

offshore wind test facilities. 

The Committee supports the Department’s research on the effects of offshore wind, especially the impact of marine sound and 

other stressors on marine mammals, and encourages the Department to work with nonprofit research institutions, like aquariums, 

to continue this work. 

WATER POWER

The Committee recommends $105,000,000 for Water Power. 

Hydropower Technologies.—Within available funds, the Committee recommends $35,000,000 for conventional hydropower 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, the Department is directed to continue research, development, and deployment efforts on pumped hydropower storage 

technologies and use cases. 

Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology Research, Development, and 

Deployment.—The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for marine 

and hydrokinetic technology research, development, and deployment activities, including research into mitigation of marine ecosystem impacts of these technologies. 

Within the funding available for marine and hydrokinetic technology, $30,000,000 is recommended for a balanced portfolio of 

competitive solicitations to support industry-led and university re-
72 

search, development, and deployment of marine and hydrokinetic 

technologies; and support wave, ocean current, tidal and in-river 

energy conversion components and systems across the high- and 

low-technology readiness spectrum to increase energy capture, reliability, survivability, and integration into local or regional grids for 

lower costs and to assess and monitor environmental effects. Within this amount, not less than $8,000,000 is recommended to support collaborations between universities, Marine Renewable Energy 

Centers, and national laboratories. Further, not less than 

$5,000,000 is recommended to prioritize infrastructure needs at 

marine and hydrokinetic technology testing sites operated by Marine Renewable Energy Centers. The Department is directed to 

support ongoing design of the previously awarded open-water wave 

energy test facility within available funds. The Department is also 

directed to continue its coordination with the U.S. Navy on marine 

energy technology demonstration. 

The Committee encourages close coordination between the Department and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, other relevant agencies and industry to 

reduce the amount of time to permit marine energy test and validation projects. 

GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $85,000,000 for Geothermal Technologies. 

Within available funds, $53,000,000 is recommended for Enhanced Geothermal Systems. To facilitate necessary technology development and expand understanding of subsurface dynamics, 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, full-scale well drilling, and technology research 

and development to accelerate the commercial pathway to largescale enhanced geothermal systems power generation. 

Further, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 for Hydrothermal, $10,000,000 for Low-Temperature and Co-produced Resources, and $7,000,000 for Systems Analysis. 

The Committee recognizes that enhanced geothermal systems are 

versatile, inherently modular, and scalable from residential utilization to district heating opportunities and large power parks that 

can provide baseload 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 $311,000,000 for Advanced Manufacturing. 

The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for Advanced Manufacturing Research and Development Projects. 
73 

The Committee recommends $171,000,000 for Advanced Manufacturing Research and Development Facilities. The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Manufacturing Demonstration Facility and the Carbon Fiber Technology Facility for early-stage research in additive manufacturing, carbon fiber and composites development, and manufacturing of multi-material systems to reduce 

the energy intensity and life-cycle energy consumption of domestic 

manufactured products, thereby increasing the competitiveness of 

U.S. manufacturing industries. Within funding for the Manufacturing Demonstration Facility, $5,000,000 is recommended for the 

development of additive systems and automation technologies that 

have the potential to deposit multiple materials allowing for hybrid 

material solutions that enhance performance in extreme environments and enable precise property profiles. 

The Committee recognizes the important role large-area additive 

manufacturing can play in helping to advance the deployment of 

building, transportation, and clean energy technologies. The Committee directs the Department to further foster the partnership between the National Laboratories, universities, and industry to use 

bio-based thermoplastics composites, such as micro- and nano-cellulosic materials, and large-area 3–D printing to overcome challenges to the cost and deployment of building, transportation, and 

energy technologies. In addition, the Committee recommends $20,000,000 to support 

the development of additive manufacturing involving nanocellulosic 

feedstock materials made from forest products to overcome challenges to the cost and deployment of building, transportation, and 

energy technologies, and encourages the Department to leverage 

expertise and capabilities for large-scale additive manufacturing 

through partnerships between universities and the Manufacturing 

Demonstration Facility. 

To ensure grid reliability and resiliency, energy storage at scale 

must be achieved. Validation of materials for production of energy 

storage is both slow and expensive, currently taking an average of 

18 years from concept to commercialization. For technologies such 

as batteries, materials innovation is traditionally separate from 

scale-up and device integration, and this disconnect slows progress. 

Therefore, within the amounts recommended, the Committee recommends $20,000,000 for a manufacturing demonstration facility 

specifically focused on accelerating the processes needed for clean 

energy materials to go from discovery to scale-up, which will drive 

manufacturing innovation, lower the cost of battery energy storage, 

and spur job creation by bringing down the timeline for validation 

from an average of 18 years to an average of 5 years. 

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the third year of research and development efforts to lower the cost and energy intensity of technologies to provide clean, safe water through the Energy-Water Desalination Hub. The Committee is concerned that 

after 2 years of funding for this hub in fiscal years 2017 and 2018, 

the Department still has not completed the cooperative agreement 

solicitation and award process to begin work in this important research area. Therefore, upon enactment of this act, the Committee 

directs the Department to brief the Committees on Appropriations 

of both Houses of Congress on schedule and milestones for solic-
74 

iting and evaluating proposals from qualified consortia and awarding a 5-year cooperative agreement. The Committee recommends $56,000,000 to support four Clean Energy Manufacturing Institutes [CEMIs], including $14,000,000 

each for the Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute, the Reducing Embodied-energy and Decreasing Emissions [REMADE] Institute, and the Rapid Advancement in Process Intensification Deployment [RAPID] Institute, and a CEMI selection to be announced. The Committee notes the PowerAmerica Next Generation 

Power Electronics Manufacturing Innovation Institute and the Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation Institute have both 

received $70,000,000 over the past 5 years to stand up a sustainable effort, and encourages the Department to work with one or 

more national laboratories and universities to build a sustainable 

plan for these institutes. The Committee is pleased with the ongoing work of the innovative advanced manufacturing opportunities 

through the CEMIs, and directs the Department to issue a solicitation and make an award for the sixth CEMI not later than October 

1, 2018. 

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 to continue Critical Materials Hub. The Committee notes many municipal recycling facilities where collected recyclables are separated, now use technologies 

which are aging and inefficient. The Committee directs the Department to conduct a study to determine if the eddy current technology, which is now in use by most facilities, might be upgraded 

to increase the supply of recycled aluminum and to make recommendations as to how this might be accomplished and report to 

the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 

within 180 days after enactment of this act. The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for the Industrial Technical Assistance program. Within this amount, the Committee recommends $12,000,000 to provide ongoing support for the Combined 

Heat and Power [CHP] Technical Assistance Partnerships [TAPs] 

and related CHP Technical Partnership activities at the Department, including $5,000,000 for the TAPs and $7,000,000 for related 

CHP activities. The Committee also encourages the Department 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. 

The Committee encourages the Department to continue its efforts of extending the Industrial Assessment Centers to underserved areas and furthering the geographic reach of the program 

to regions that are less likely to be adequately serviced because of 

their distance from the current Centers. Therefore, the Committee 

recommends $10,000,000 to expand the technical assistance provided by the Industrial Assessment Centers and fund no fewer 

than two but no more than four additional centers. The Committee 

recognizes the great potential for energy savings in municipal, industrial, and agricultural wastewater treatment systems and encourages the Department to expand on the technical assistance provided by the Industrial Assessment Centers to address these needs. 

Within the funds recommended for the Industrial Assessment Cen-
75 

ters, the Committee recommends $3,000,000 for wastewater treatment technical assistance. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 

for district heating. The Committee further directs the Department 

to collaborate with industry on the potential energy efficiency 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. 

The Committee supports the issuance of a competitive solicitation for university/industry-led teams to improve the efficiency of 

drying processes, which consume approximately 10 percent of the 

energy used in the manufacturing sector. 

The Committee directs the Department to develop a national 

smart manufacturing plan that will identify areas where the Department can facilitate more rapid development, deployment and 

adoption of smart manufacturing technologies. The Department 

shall submit a plan to the Committees on Appropriations of both 

Houses of Congress not later than 180 days after the enactment of 

this act. 

BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $225,000,000 for Building Technologies. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $39,000,000 

for the Commercial Building Integration program for a program of 

core research and development of more cost-effective integration 

techniques and technologies that could help the transition toward 

deep retrofits. In addition, the Committee encourages the Department to increase engagement with private sector stakeholders to 

develop market-transforming policies and investments in commercial building retrofits. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $28,000,000 

for the Residential Building Integration program. The Committee 

encourages funding to be concentrated on industry teams to facilitate research, demonstrate and test new systems, and facilitate 

widespread deployment through direct engagement with builders, 

the construction trades, equipment manufacturers, smart grid technology and systems suppliers, integrators, and State and local governments. 

The Committee recommends $108,000,000 for the Emerging 

Technologies subprogram. Within available funds, the Committee 

recommends not less than $30,000,000 for building-grid integration 

research and development consistent with a transactive energy system, including development of advanced transactive control methodologies, field validation and testing in existing buildings, continuation of the Building-to-Grid Integration Demonstration, and coordination with the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and 

Emergency Response transactive energy systems activities. Within 

this amount, $5,000,000 is recommended to continue promoting regional demonstrations of new, utility-led, residential Connected 

Communities advancing smart grid systems. Further, within available funds for Emerging Technologies, the Committee recommends 

not less than $18,000,000 for HVAC & Refrigeration R&D, 
76 

$14,000,000 for Building Envelope and $5,300,000 for Building Energy Modeling. 

Within available funds for Emerging Technologies, the Com- mittee 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, natural gas appliance venting, green pilots, and micrometers. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 

for novel earlier stage research, development, and demonstration of 

technologies to advance energy efficient, high-rise Cross-Laminated 

Timber [CLT] building systems. The Committee directs the Department to support university research, in partnership with national 

labs, for developing, building, and evaluating CLT wall systems for 

embodied energy content, operating energy efficiency, wall moisture profiles, structural connector durability, and health monitoring sensors. The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for Equipment and 

Buildings Standards. The Department has missed two deadlines for 

reports to Congress mandated by section 305 of the Energy Independence and Security Act [EISA] of 2007. These reports are invaluable sources of information for the Committee and other stakeholders about the status of energy conservation standards and the 

Department’s plans to comply with its statutory obligations. The 

Department shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 

both Houses of Congress a status report within 30 days after enactment of this act. The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for the 

Building Energy Codes Program to provide assistance to States and 

to organizations that develop model codes and standards to improve building resilience as well as efficiency. 

Energy efficiency is a critical component of infrastructure development strategies. The Committee recognizes the importance of the 

Transformation in Cities initiative for local government planning 

and directs the Department to continue to support the goals of the 

initiative. 

The Committee is concerned with the Department’s recently announced plans to cancel the 2019 Solar Decathlon, pending a reevaluation of the program. The Committee recommends not less 

than $5,000,000 for the Solar Decathlon. The annual competition 

has engaged thousands of university students to apply energy research and development to the practical concerns of housing by balancing design excellence and smart energy production and innovation, energy efficiency, and market potential. While the Committee 

understands that commercialization of technology is important, this 

should not become the sole or even the primary focus of the com-
77 

petition. Therefore, not later than 30 days after the enactment of 

this act, the Department shall brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on its plans for preserving the 

Solar Decathlon in its current form, any adjustments to the competition, and plans by the Department to accelerate adoption of 

suitable energy and water efficient technologies in the marketplace. 

FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $31,000,000 for the Federal Energy 

Management Program. 

The Committee encourages the continued use of the Assisting 

Federal Facilities with Energy Conservation Technologies grant 

program to leverage more private sector investment in aging Federal facilities and infrastructure. 

WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $306,000,000 for the Weatherization 

and Intergovernmental Program. 

Within this amount, $251,000,000 is recommended for the 

Weatherization Assistance Program [WAP], including $248,000,000 

for Weatherization Assistance Grants and $3,000,000 for Training 

and Technical Assistance; and $55,000,000 is recommended for 

State Energy Program grants. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of providing Federal 

funds under the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program to 

States and tribes in a timely manner 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 recommended for WAP and the State Energy Program shall 

be obligated to States, tribes, and other direct grantees not later 

than 60 days after enactment of this act. 

Within available funds, $500,000 is recommended for current 

WAP grant recipients via the Weatherization Innovation Pilot Program to develop and implement strategies to treat harmful substances, including vermiculite. 

The Committee supports WAP’s continued participation in the 

interagency working group on Healthy Homes and Energy with the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Department 

is encouraged to further coordinate with the Office of Lead Hazard 

Control and Healthy Homes on energy-related housing projects. 

The Committee directs the Department to begin tracking the occurrence of window replacements, which supports the reduction of 

lead-based paint hazards in homes. 

STRATEGIC PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends $12,500,000 for Strategic Programs. 

Within available funds, $2,500,000 is recommended for the Energy Transition Initiative [ETI] to support ongoing initiatives to address high energy costs, reliability, and inadequate infrastructure 

challenges faced by island and remote communities. The Committee supports ETI’s efforts to develop a cross-sector initiative of 

organizations pursuing energy transition efforts that will address 
78 

energy challenges, build capacity, accelerate the sharing of best 

practices and innovations between similarly-situated regions, and 

leverage specialized expertise into commercial opportunity. The 

Committee further directs the Department to support initiatives for 

building of cost-effective, resilient energy infrastructure on island 

and remote communities, including in Alaska, the Caribbean, Hawaii, New England, and elsewhere. 

CYBERSECURITY, ENERGY SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... $95,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 260,000,000 

The Committee recommends $260,000,000 for Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, an increase of 

$164,200,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, the 

Committee recommends $28,500,000 for program direction. 

Early-Stage Research, Electricity Sector.—The Committee rejects 

the budget’s sole focus on early-stage research. Most utilities have 

limited research and development budgets, primarily due to regulatory constraints designed to keep electricity costs low for consumers. Additionally, utilities are unlikely to implement new concepts because most utilities would need to use their own systems 

for testing and evaluation, which could impact consumers. State 

public utility commissions also have limited budgets that do 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. 

CYBERSECURITY FOR ENERGY DELIVERY SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $80,829,000 for Cybersecurity for 

Energy Delivery Systems. 

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the DarkNet project 

to explore opportunities for getting the Nation’s critical infrastructure off the Internet and shielding the Nation’s electricity infrastructure from disruptive cyber penetration. 

The Committee supports extension of cyber risk information 

sharing tools to close remaining vulnerabilities in the distribution 

and transmission system. The Committee encourages the Department to continue existing work within ongoing programs and to invest in research addressing power system vulnerabilities in supply 

chain and life cycle management for critical power system components and advanced adaptive defensive methods for grid control 

systems. 

TRANSMISSION RELIABILITY

The Committee recommends $39,000,000 for Transmission Reliability. 

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. 
79 

RESILIENT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $38,671,000 for Resilient Distribution Systems. 

Within available funding, $5,000,000 is recommended to develop 

high fidelity sensors and use data analytics to improve operations 

in steady-state and under extreme conditions, and to continue 

early-stage research to develop low-cost, printable sensors that can 

predict the health of critical equipment in the electric delivery system. 

The Committee supports the promotion of regional demonstrations of new, utility-led, residential Connected Communities advancing smart grid systems. The Department shall focus on identifying and addressing technical and regulatory barriers impeding 

grid integration of distributed energy systems to reduce energy 

costs and improve the resiliency and reliability of the electric grid. 

The Committee supports advanced control concepts and open test 

beds for new distribution control tools for enhanced distribution 

system resilience. 

ENERGY STORAGE

The Committee recommends $41,000,000 for Energy Storage. 

Within available funds, the Committee continues to support development of an operational energy storage test facility capable of 

performance-driven data in a utility environment. 

The Committee supports the Beyond Batteries initiative and 

cost-shared demonstrations of energy storage technologies with the 

private sector needed to achieve the Department’s technology goal. 

Low-cost, grid-scale energy storage is crucial to a 21st century electricity grid, and the Department’s storage research, development 

and deployment efforts shall support nationwide efforts to improve 

grid resiliency, reliability, and security, empower consumers, and 

increase integration of a broad range of generation sources. 

The Committee encourages the Department to further the development and demonstration of non-battery advanced storage components, including compressed air energy storage development 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 
80 

chemistry. The Committee encourages the Department to support 

State energy offices and universities with energy storage planning 

and deployment, 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 remain committed to 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 encourages 

the Department to make additional investments in cutting-edge 

storage technologies and relevant software, including conventional 

and advanced batteries. The Committee further encourages the Department to prioritize pilot scale initiatives with relevant utilities 

and State energy organizations that have the potential to advance 

real-time deployment and testing of these technologies. 

The Committee is supportive of research for novel materials 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 electronics to control electromagnetic devices and enable improved controllability, flexibility, and resiliency. 

INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AND ENERGY RESTORATION

The Committee recommends $18,000,000 for Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration. 

The Committee supports further development of energy sector 

situational awareness capabilities through Eagle-I, the Federal 

Government’s situational awareness tool for national power outages. The Committee encourages the Department to further illustrate how to benefit from increased access to more varied sources 

of data. 

The Committee previously directed the Department to submit a 

report identifying strategic laboratory, university, and industry 

partnerships that would enhance national security and assist industry in addressing critical threats, including electromagnetic 

pulses [EMP], geomagnetic disturbances [GMD], cyber-attacks, and 

supply chain disruptions. The Committee looks forward to receiving 
81 

this report expeditiously. The Committee supports the establishment of an EMP/GMD testing facility that can, without posing risk 

to the existing grid, replicate EMP/GMD events and cyber-attacks 

on a real world configuration of critical grid components and systems. Such a facility is necessary to expose entire substations, including devices such as Extra High Voltage Transformers and subsystem components, to the combined effects of the complete composite EMP Waveform for early stage research and development, as 

well as testing and validation purposes at both the transmission 

and distribution levels. The Committee encourages the Department 

to ensure such a facility to be a collaborative public-private effort 

between national laboratories, utilities, and research universities. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $1,205,056,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 757,090,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,206,000,000 

The Committee recommends $1,206,000,000 for Nuclear Energy, 

an increase of $448,910,000 above the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation prioritizes funding for programs, projects 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 operating nuclear power 

plants is critical to our national security, economy, and way of life. 

Nuclear power is a reliable, resilient source of power, and the Department is encouraged to seek opportunities to take advantage of 

that fact to meet its long-term needs. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Integrated University Program. 

The Committee notes the administration repeatedly attempts to 

defund this program, despite continued success in developing highly qualified nuclear specialists to meet national needs. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY ENABLING TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommends $149,200,000 for Nuclear Energy 

Enabling Technology. 

Within this amount, the Committee recommends $50,000,000 for 

Crosscutting Technology Development, $28,200,000 for Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation, $41,000,000 for National 

Scientific User Facilities, and $30,000,000 for the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation. The Committee notes that 

the budget request made the short-sighted recommendation to cancel the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation for the 

second year in a row, despite the important contributions it continues to make to improving operations and safety of operating nuclear reactors, and its likely application in licensing accident tolerant fuels and other advanced technologies. 
82 

REACTOR CONCEPTS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION

The Committee recommends $302,000,000 for Reactor Concepts 

Research, Development, and Demonstration. 

Advanced nuclear technologies hold great promise for reliable, 

safe, emission-free energy and should be a priority for the Department. The Department was previously directed to provide a report 

that sets aggressive, but achievable goals to demonstrate a variety 

of private-sector advanced reactor designs and fuel types by the 

late 2020s. The Department is directed to expedite that report and 

provide it to the Committee as soon as possible. 

Advanced Reactor Technology.—Within available funds, the Committee recommends $150,000,000, for Advanced Reactor Technology, including $22,000,000 for the fourth year of the advanced 

reactor concepts program. 

The Committee supports the Department’s goal to accelerate reactor manufacturing, development, and deployment of advanced reactors. The Department is encouraged to leverage its technological 

capabilities in materials research and development, advanced manufacturing, high-fidelity modeling and simulation, sensors and control systems to transform the methods of reactor design, manufacturing, licensing and operation. The Committee recommends 

$30,000,000 above the budget request for the demonstration of a 

Transformational Challenge Reactor concept. 

Versatile Fast Reactor.—The Committee supports the budget request and recommends $15,000,000 for the Versatile Fast Reactor. 

The Department was previously directed to provide a report that 

details all current programs and projects within the Office of Nuclear Energy, whether the Department plans to continue to support 

each program or project, and the expected out-year funding 

through completion of the program or project. The Department is 

directed to expedite that report and provide it to the Committee as 

soon as possible. 

Light Water Reactor Sustainability.—Within available funds, the 

Committee recommends $47,000,000. The most cost-effective way 

for the United States to maintain low-cost, carbon-free electricity 

is to safely extend the lives of our Nation’s existing nuclear reactors from 60 to 80 years. Therefore, the Committee recommends additional funding above the budget request for this activity as a priority. The Committee directs the Secretary to use funding in 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 $267,300,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and Development. 

Within available funds, $30,000,000 is recommended for Material 

Recovery and Waste Form Development, $6,000,000 is recommended for Materials Protection, Accountancy, and Controls for 
83 

Transmutation, and $8,500,000 is recommended for Systems Analysis and Integration. 

The Committee continues to strongly support the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future 

and believes that near-term action is needed to address the accumulating inventory of spent nuclear fuel. The Committee recommends $35,300,000 for Integrated Waste Management System 

activities. Funding is recommended to implement plans to consolidate spent nuclear fuel from around the United States to one 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 recommended, the Committee recommends up to 

$10,000,000 for the Secretary, within existing authorities, to contract for the management of spent nuclear fuel to which the Secretary holds the title or has a contract to accept title, which includes contracting with a private company for consolidated interim 

storage of spent nuclear fuel. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to work across the administration and to report to the Committees on Appropriations of both 

Houses of Congress, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this act, with information regarding existing resources and 

funding opportunities for which communities hosting decommissioned/decommissioning reactors may be eligible. The report shall 

also include what opportunities exist for these affected communities to consider alternative uses for these sites upon completion 

of the decommissioning process. 

The Committee does not adopt the budget proposal to eliminate 

research and development activities previously funded in this account. The Committee recommends $62,500,000 to continue research and development activities on behavior of spent fuel in longterm storage, under transportation conditions, and in various geologic media, which will continue to be important to developing a solution to the waste problem. Priority shall be placed on the 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 to significantly mitigate the potential consequences of a nuclear accident. The Committee urges the Secretary to maintain 

focus and priority on achieving results in these efforts. The Committee recommends $125,000,000 for the Advanced Fuels program. 

The Department is directed to continue implementation of the accident tolerant fuels development program, the goal of which remains development of accident tolerant nuclear fuels leading 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 
84 

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 the previously awarded small business projects to develop ceramic cladding for accident tolerant fuels. 

Finally, the United States currently lacks either a supply of high 

assay low enriched uranium [HALEU], or a process to make 

HALEU, for advanced reactor designs that would require enrichment up to 20 percent, below levels considered usable for nuclear 

weapons. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Department to begin work to design and build a demonstration facility to 

produce HALEU from naval spent nuclear fuel or other available 

HEU within the Department’s inventory. The Committee notes 

that using naval spent fuel for this purpose has the added benefit 

of potentially reducing the volume of waste that would eventually 

require disposal in a permanent repository. 

INFRASTRUCTURE

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $29,000,000 for Radiological Facilities Management, including $20,000,000 for continued safe operations and maintenance of Oak Ridge National Laboratory hot 

cells. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $238,000,000 for Idaho Facilities 

Management. The Advanced Test Reactor [ATR] is a vital asset 

that provides research capability across the Department. The Department was previously directed to provide a report that lists all 

current and planned users for the ATR for the next 3 years, the 

operating cost attributed to each user, and the source of funds that 

will be applied to cover the costs for each user. The Department is 

directed to expedite that report and provide it to the Committee as 

soon as possible. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $726,817,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 502,070,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 727,000,000 

The Committee recommends $727,000,000 for Fossil Energy Research and Development, an increase of $224,930,000 above the 

budget request. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $61,070,000 for program direction. 

Early-Stage Research and Development.—The Fossil Energy Research and Development program advances transformative scientific research, development, and deployment of technologies 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 inno-
85 

vation and development, and would reduce the number of energy 

technologies adopted in the marketplace. 

Fossil Energy Roadmap.—The Committee previously directed the 

Department to develop a cohesive policy and technology strategy 

and supporting roadmap or long term plan for its Fossil Energy Research and Development portfolio and supporting infrastructure. 

This roadmap will guide the discovery or advancement of technological solutions and incorporate lessons learned for the future 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 Committee looks forward to receiving the roadmap expeditiously. 

NETL.—No funds shall be used for the closure of NETL sites. 

The Committee supports NETL’s mission to discover, develop, and 

deploy new technologies to support a strong domestic fossil energy 

path. The Committee previously directed the Department to conduct a comprehensive assessment of Fossil Energy writ large to include the Fossil Energy Headquarters programs, NETL, and relevant competencies of other national laboratories which support 

the mission of the Office of Fossil Energy. The Committee looks forward to receiving the assessment expeditiously. 

National Carbon Capture Center.—The Committee recommends 

funding for the National Carbon Capture Center consistent with 

the cooperative agreement and fiscal year 2018. 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. 

COAL CCS AND POWER SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $463,030,000 for Coal CCS and 

Power Systems. 

The Committee does not support the Department’s proposal to 

reorganize or consolidate the Carbon Capture, Carbon Storage, Advanced Energy Systems, crosscutting research and development 

programs, and the Supercritical CO2 Technology Program [STEP]. 

The Committee supports the Department’s Cooperative Agreements to develop cost sharing partnerships to conduct basic, fundamental, and applied research that assist industry in developing, deploying, and commercializing efficient, low-carbon, nonpolluting energy technologies that could compete effectively in meeting requirements for clean fuels, chemical feedstocks, electricity, and water resources. The Committee encourages the Department to fund activi-
86 

ties that promote the reuse of captured carbon dioxide from coal, 

natural gas, industrial facilities, and other sources for the production of fuels and other valuable products. Within the ongoing CCS 

Program, the Department is encouraged to pursue an aggressive 

timeline to develop advanced carbon storage and utilization technologies and enhanced oil recovery that will improve the economics 

associated with domestic energy production. The Committee supports small-scale and modular coal-fired technologies with reduced 

carbon outputs or carbon capture that can support incremental 

power generation capacity additions that will enable a step-change 

in performance, efficiency, or cost of electricity as compared to the 

technology in existence on the date of enactment. 

The Committee supports small-scale and modular coal-fired technologies with reduced carbon outputs or carbon capture that can 

support incremental power generation capacity additions that will 

enable a step-change in performance, efficiency, or cost of electricity as compared to the technology in existence on the date of enactment. 

The Committee recommends research and development as well 

as pilot-scale activities that will improve the performance, reliability and efficiency of both new- and existing-fossil fuel fired 

power plants, including solvent-based, heat-integrated carbon capture and storage research and testing at pilot-scale facilities installed at a commercial power plant with focus on solvent physical 

property impact on column performance, transformative approaches to mitigate emissions, and solvent quality maintenance to 

ultimately reduce capital and operating costs; development and 

testing of materials for highly efficient energy platforms; advancement of gasification systems; development of carbon products from 

coal; development of transformational energy conversion systems 

including pressurized oxycombustion, supercritical CO2 cycles, and 

chemical looping technologies; advancement of turbine technologies 

for higher efficiency and pressure cycles; development of fuel cells; 

coal and methane to liquid fuels; development and testing of advanced water management technologies; and continued investigation of rare earths recovery from coal and coal refuse. 

Within funds available for CCS and Power Systems, the Committee recommends not less than $30,000,000 to support a new solicitation for Front-End Engineering and Design [FEED] studies of 

two commercial-scale carbon capture power projects for retrofit at 

an existing coal plant and for a coal or natural gas plant that generates carbon dioxide suitable for utilization or storage. A FEED 

study shall incorporate work from feasibility studies and testing to 

provide specific project definition, detailed design, scopes of work, 

material purchasing and construction schedules, cost for project 

execution, and subsurface, structural, and environmental permitting requirements. 

Carbon Capture.—Achieving low-cost carbon capture technology 

is important to facilitating economic environmental mitigation solutions for the power and industrial sectors while opening up a 

broader carbon utilization economy. The Committee encourages the 

Department to focus its Carbon Capture research, development and 

deployment efforts on improving the efficiency and decreasing the 

costs of carbon capture technologies, demonstrating carbon capture 
87 

technologies for private sector-driven adoption at fossil energy 

power systems and industrial sources, and to identify how these 

technologies can be integrated within business models and operations. This includes small- and large-scale pilot testing of technologies moving through the program pipeline on both coal and 

natural gas applications, as well as on industrial sources. 

Carbon Storage.—Within available funds for Carbon Storage, the Committee recommends $12,000,000 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 Office of Fossil Energy. The Committee urges the Office of Fossil Energy to prioritize 

research on carbon dioxide utilization technologies, direct air capture technologies, and industrial source capture. The Committee 

also encourages the Office of Fossil Energy to collaborate with the 

Bioenergy Technologies program within the EERE, the private sector, and academia to support projects that utilize carbon dioxide in 

the production of algae and other potentially marketable products. 

The Committee supports early-stage research and development in 

conversion of coal pitch/coal to carbon fiber and in other valueadded products for alternative uses of coal. Within Carbon Storage, 

the Committee recommends $55,000,000 for Storage Infrastructure. 

The Committee recognizes the successful work of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships and the important role they play 

in supporting the research and development of carbon utilization 

and storage. The Committee supports the focus on infrastructure 

development strategies through continued efforts to expand regional geological characterization to reduce uncertainties, collect 

and analyze data, facilitate and inform regional permitting and policy challenges. The Department is directed to fulfill prior commitments to the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships. Further, 

the Committee recommends funding beyond the current phase, 

through a multiyear continuation of competitively selected partnerships to expand the work of the existing partnerships. The Committee recommends not less than $20,000,000 for a competitive 

continuation of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership 

Program and not less than $30,000,000 to continue the four-phase 

CarbonSAFE initiative. The Committee directs the Department to 

work collaboratively with the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships to develop a Storage Infrastructure roadmap through 2025 

to identify the knowledge gaps and technology and policy developments that are needed to close those gaps. 

Advanced Energy Systems.—The Committee recommends up to 

$30,000,000 for solid oxide fuel cell systems, which supports research and development to enable efficient, cost-effective electricity 

generation with minimal use of water. The Committee encourages 

the Department to promote and assist in the research and development of new higher efficiency gas turbines used in power generation systems to allow the United States to upgrade and increase 

the reliability and resiliency of the Nation’s electrical grid system, 

to better compete against the threat of foreign competitors who are 

being subsidized by their governments, while reducing the cost of 
88 

electricity and significantly lowering emissions. This includes 

awarding grants and funding contract proposals from industry, 

small businesses, universities and other appropriate parties. 

The Committee supports coal and coal biomass to liquids activities and encourages the Department to focus on research and development to improve cost and efficiency of coal-to-fuels technology 

implementation and polygeneration. The Committee recognizes the 

importance of emerging technologies such as, coal-to-liquids [CTL] 

fuel conversion. Within available funds, the Committee supports research and development that will ensure CTL technologies have an 

opportunity to grow. The Committee supports the activities proposed in Power Generation Efficiency which would focus on improving the reliability and efficiency of existing plants through early 

stage research and development. 

Crosscutting Research.—The Committee supports Advanced 

Ultrasupercritical Materials research and development to identify, 

test, qualify, and develop a domestic supply chain capable of producing components from high temperature steam materials. 

STEP.—The Committee rejects the proposed changes in the re- quest to the STEP Program, and recommends $25,000,000 to complete the necessary design and construction of the 10MW pilot facility, and conduct the necessary testing, including long-duration 

testing for the facility. 

NETL Coal Research and Development.—Within available funds 

for NETL Coal Research and Development, the Committee recommends $18,000,000 for the Department to continue its external 

agency activities to develop and test advanced separation technologies and accelerate the advancement of commercially viable 

technologies for the recovery of rare earth elements and minerals 

from U.S. coal and coal byproduct sources. The Committee expects 

research to support pilot-scale and experimental activities for nearterm applications. 

NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $53,200,000 for Natural Gas Technologies. 

Risk-Based Data Management System.—Within available funds, 

the Committee recommends $5,200,000 to continue the Risk Based 

Data Management System [RBDMS] to support a cloud-based application and necessary cybersecurity initiatives. In addition, funding shall support the continued integration of FracFocus and 

RBDMS for improved public access to State-oil and gas-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 

$20,000,000 for methane hydrates. The Committee notes that the 

budget request includes no money for actual research into the 

methods for producing methane hydrates. The Committee encourages the Department to perform a long-term methane hydrate pro-
89 

duction test in the Arctic, as proposed in the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee’s earlier recommendations (May 21, 2014) to the 

Department. 

Environmentally Prudent Development.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Environmentally Prudent Development subprogram. 

Emissions Mitigation from Midstream Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for the Emissions Mitigation from 

Midstream Infrastructure subprogram. The Committee recommends funds for natural gas infrastructure research, including 

advanced materials and novel sensor technologies. The Department 

is directed to incorporate this research into its ongoing work in this 

field, so that it shall complement the Emissions Mitigation from 

Midstream Infrastructure subprogram. 

Emissions Quantification from Natural Gas Infrastructure.—The 

Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Emissions Quantification from Natural Gas Infrastructure research subprogram. 

UNCONVENTIONAL FOSSIL ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $54,000,000 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 Committee understands the Department is continuing to 

conduct a study on the feasibility of establishing an ethane storage 

and distribution hub in central Appalachia. The Department is directed to identify the Federal agencies with jurisdictional oversight 

of such a project and to coordinate with the liaisons of those agencies to streamline the permitting application and approval process 

for a central Appalachian ethane storage and distribution hub. Further, the Department is directed to brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on their findings and recommendations once complete. 

The Department is encouraged to explore research and development for safe drilling and completion technologies that use no fresh 

water and can be deployed in horizontal wells. 

Within available funds, $15,500,000 is recommended for research 

to better understand reservoirs and to improve low recovery factors 

from unconventional natural gas and oil wells and $15,500,000 is 

recommended to continue research toward enhanced recovery technologies in shale oil, low permeability reservoirs, residual oil zone 

reservoirs, fractured reservoirs, and conventional oil reservoirs. 

The Department shall solicit, award and manage these research 

projects on a nationwide basis directly with researchers from universities and not-for-profit research organizations. The projects 

may include research projects to improve environmental mitigation, 

water quality and treatment, infrastructure technology as well as 

the societal impacts of unconventional shale plays. These awards 

shall identify ways to improve existing technologies, encourage prudent development, provide cost-effective solutions, and develop a 

better understanding of these reservoirs’ resource potential. 

The Committee recommends $17,500,000 for the Unconventional 

Field Test Sites. 
90 

The Committee recognizes the Department’s ongoing efforts to 

support research into the exploration for and development of 

emerging unconventional oil and/or gas reservoirs, and directs the 

Department to direct future allocations to projects in locations geologically representative of the unconventional reservoir of interest. 

The Committee encourages continued efforts to characterize emerging unconventional reservoirs but with emphasis on geographic 

areas where geological conditions are optimal for the generation 

and accumulation of economically significant amounts of oil or gas 

in the geological formation(s) being studied, as indicated by published reports and existing early-stage commercial activity. The 

Committee further encourages a focus of available resources on potential unconventional reservoirs for which there is limited data 

rather than well-known existing reservoirs. University-led research 

is preferred to ensure a broad range of expertise is utilized to address the entire range of environmental, socio-economic, geological, 

and technical challenges associated with unconventional oil and 

gas development. The Committee also recognizes that private industry participation in very early development phase research 

projects, although desirable, is often difficult to achieve due to the 

highly proprietary nature of early-stage exploration data. 

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for further research on 

multipronged approaches for characterizing the constituents of and 

managing the cleaning of water produced during the extraction of 

oil and natural gas, of which $2,000,000 is recommended to partner 

with research universities engaged in the study of characterizing, 

cleaning, treating, and managing produced water and who are willing to engage though public private partnerships with the energy 

industry to develop and assess commercially viable technology to 

achieve the same. The Committee encourages the Department to 

work with the energy producing industry to identify and develop— 

to a commercial scale—technologies that can characterize, clean 

and effectively treat produced water to have beneficial reuse. 

The Committee directs the Department to continue its research 

partnership with the Department of Transportation on the crude 

oil characterization study to improve the safety of crude oil transported by rail. The Committee recommends up to $1,500,000 for 

completion of the study. 

The Committee recognizes that the United States possesses vast 

domestic coal reserves that cannot be mined economically at current prices. Although some natural gas is absorbed by coal and 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 $50,000,000 for NETL Research and 

Operations and $45,000,000 for NETL Infrastructure. 
91 

NETL Infrastructure.—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 final year of a 3-year 

lease. 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $4,900,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,000,000 

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Naval Petroleum 

and Oil Shale Reserves, the same as the budget request. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $252,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 175,105,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 175,105,000 

The Committee recommends $175,105,000 for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the same as the budget request. 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $6,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,000,000 

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Northeast Home 

Heating Oil Reserve, the same as the budget request. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $125,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 115,035,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 125,000,000 

The Committee recommends $125,000,000 for the Energy Information Administration, an increase of $9,965,000 above the budget 

request. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of building energy information and the opportunity for better data collection presented 

by new technologies. The Department is encouraged to upgrade 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, 2018 ............................................................................. $298,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 218,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 353,240,000 

The Committee recommends $353,240,000 for Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, an increase of $134,840,000 above the budget 

request. 

Small Sites.—The Committee recommends $174,000,000 for 

Small Sites. Within the available funds, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for work required pursuant to the agreement 

reached in 2012 between the Department, the Advisory Council on 
92 

Historic Preservation, and State and local governments to complete 

the demolition of K–25 in exchange for preserving the historic contributions made by the K–25 site to the Manhattan Project. The 

Committee also recommends $20,000,000 for operations, maintenance, and cleanup activities to support the Manhattan Project National Historical Park sites in Hanford, Washington, and Los Alamos, New Mexico. The Park tells an important story in our Nation’s history: the development and production of the technology 

and materials necessary to create the world’s first atomic bomb. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $55,000,000 

to continue work at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 

$45,000,000 for Moab, and $25,000,000 to continue the removal of 

the High Flux Beam Reactor stack at Brookhaven. 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $840,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 752,749,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 840,818,000 

The Committee recommends $840,818,000 for Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning [UED&D] activities, 

an increase of $88,069,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes $195,000,000 for East 

Tennessee Technology Park to continue cleanup and demolition of 

all remaining facilities including the K–1200 complex and the K– 

1600 complex, and to conduct remedial actions, and site closure activities. The Committee also recommends $206,000,000 for Paducah, and $408,099,000 for Portsmouth. Additional funding of 

$60,000,000 above the budget request is recommended for the 

Portsmouth Site, and the Department shall not barter, transfer, or 

sell uranium during fiscal year 2019 to generate additional funding 

for Portsmouth cleanup that is in excess of the amount of funding 

recommended. 

SCIENCE

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $6,259,903,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 5,390,972,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,650,000,000 

The Committee recommends $6,650,000,000 for Science, an increase of $1,259,028,000 above the budget request. 

Distinguished Scientist Program.—The Committee recommends 

$4,000,000 to support the Department’s Distinguished Scientist 

Program, as authorized in section 5011 of Public Law 110–69 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. 

Quantum Information Science.—The Committee supports the Office of Science’s coordinated and focused research program in quantum information science to support the Department’s science, energy, and national security missions. This emerging field of science 

promises to yield revolutionary new approaches to computing, sensing, communication, and metrology, as well as our understanding 

of the universe, and accordingly the Committee recommends 
93 

$105,000,000 as requested across the Office of Science programs to 

advance early stage fundamental research in this field of science. 

Small Business Innovation Research.—The Committee recognizes 

the importance of small businesses in meeting the research and development mission of the Department and is concerned that the 

Department’s previous delays in issuing Small Business Innovation 

Research [SBIR] and Small Business Technology Transfer [STTR] 

awards had a negative impact on small businesses. The Committee 

directs the Department to meet its congressionally mandated deadlines of reviewing small businesses’ applications for SBIR/STTR 

awards as required by P.L. 112–81. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $980,000,000 for Advanced Scientific Computing Research. The Committee recommends $232,706,000 for the Exascale Computing Project. In addition, the Committee recommends 

$205,000,000 for the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, 

$145,000,000 for the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, 

$110,000,000 for the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, and $85,000,000 for ESnet. The Committee supports 

the Department’s efforts to fully fund an upgrade to ESnet and 

urges the Department to submit budget requests that provide 

ESnet the ability to procure the technology and operational resources needed for mission success. Further, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Computational Sciences Graduate 

Program. The Committee recommends not less than $24,000,000 

for Research and Evaluation Prototypes. The Committee recommends not less than $159,000,000 for 

Mathematical, Computational, and Computer Sciences Research to 

support the development of critical tools for advanced computing. 

The Committee is supportive of recent research thrusts to develop 

scientific machine learning tools to enhance scientific discovery 

from user facility data and fundamental research in quantum information science that will lay the groundwork for deployable quantum computing systems. The Committee recommends $75,667,000 for Computational 

Partnerships [SciDAC]. Within available funding for SciDAC, the 

Committee recommends up to $13,000,000 to support work on artificial intelligence and big data focused on the development of algorithms and methods to identify new ways of extracting information 

from data generated at the Office of Science’s large user facilities 

or validating use of machine learning in the Office of Science’s program’s scientific simulations. This is the only funding recommended within the Office of Science that shall be available for 

this work. Further, none of the funding in the Office of Science is 

available for clinical trials or therapeutics. 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $2,193,400,000 for Basic Energy 

Sciences [BES]. 

The Committee recommends not less than $110,000,000 for the 

Energy Frontier Research Centers to continue multi-disciplinary, 

fundamental research needed to address scientific grand chal-
94 

lenges. The Committee continues to support the EPSCoR program 

and its goals of broadening participation in sustainable and competitive basic energy research in eligible jurisdictions. The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for EPSCoR and directs the Department to resume annual or at minimum, biennial, Implementation Grant solicitations. The Committee further directs the Department to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations of 

both Houses of Congress not later than 90 days after enactment of 

this act that provides a plan for future solicitations. The Committee recommends not less than $519,009,000 to fully 

fund optimal operations at the five BES light sources and to adequately invest in the recapitalization of key instruments and infrastructure, and in staff and other resources necessary to deliver critical scientific capabilities to users. Within the available funds, the 

Committee recommends $118,200,000 for the operation of NSLS–II. 

Recognizing that the Department has constructed only half of the 

60 beamlines that the NSLS–II can accommodate, and has not yet 

requested funding for the construction of additional beamlines in 

fiscal year 2019, the Committee directs the Department to submit 

as part of its fiscal year 2020 budget request a plan for the buildout of additional beamlines to fully leverage the capabilities of the 

NSLS–II. 

The Committee recommends $285,000,000 for high-flux neutron 

source operations which will allow for both Spallation Neutron 

Source [SNS] and High Flux Isotope Reactor [HFIR] to 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. 

The Committee recommends not less than $140,000,000 to fully 

fund optimal operations at the five BES Nanoscale Science Research Centers and to adequately invest in the recapitalization of 

key instruments and infrastructure, and in staff and other resources necessary to deliver critical scientific capabilities to users. 

The Committee recommends $24,088,000 for the Batteries and 

Energy Storage Hub, the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research 

[JCESR]. The Committee is highly supportive of the work of 

JCESR to develop energy storage research prototypes for transportation and grid applications beyond lithium-ion technologies. These 

prototypes will demonstrate the potential to scale up manufacturing prototype batteries to decrease costs and increase energy 

density of novel energy storage concepts. The Committee supports 

the continued research and development for JCESR, to ensure the 

outcome of basic research leads to practical solutions that are competitive in the marketplace. 

The Committee recommends not less than $15,000,000 for the 

Fuels from Sunlight Hub. The Committee directs the Department 

of Energy to submit a solar fuels research initiative strategic plan 

within 120 days after enactment of this act. The 10-year plan shall 

include research challenges and opportunities, program goals and 

milestones to overcome scientific and technological impediments, a 

description of coordination between the Office of Science, EERE, 

and ARPA–E to leverage basic research and early-stage 

translational research in solar fuels to accelerate the pace of inno-
95 

vation, an assessment of U.S. leadership in solar fuels research relative to international competition and the extent to which the Department’s investments are sufficient to maintain U.S. leadership. 

The Committee supports funding for energy research activities 

related to enhanced efficiency in energy conversion and utilization, 

including emergent polymer optoelectronic technologies, to ensure 

continued competitiveness in a global marketplace. The Department is directed to continue its partnership with qualified institutions of higher education in this effort. The Committee encourages 

the Department to continue funding to support research and development needs of graduate and post-graduate science programs at 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The Committee recommends $26,000,000 for exascale systems. 

Within the amounts recommended for Construction, the Committee recommends $70,000,000 for the Proton Power Upgrade 

project at the Spallation Neutron Source, $15,000,000 for the Second Target Station preliminary engineering design and to continue 

work towards a project baseline, $50,000,000 for the Advanced 

Light Source Upgrade, $140,000,000 for the Advanced Photon 

Source Upgrade, $28,000,000 for LCLS–II HE, and $139,300,000 

for LCLS–II. 

Not less than $14,100,000 is available for Other Project Costs, of 

which $6,000,000 is for the High Energy Upgrade at LCLS–II; 

$6,100,000 is for LCLS–II; and $2,000,000 is for the Advanced 

Light Source Upgrade. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $715,000,000 for Biological and Environmental Research. The Committee recognizes the unique 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 $371,000,000 for Biological Systems 

Science, including not less than $100,000,000 for the four recently 

selected Bioenergy Research Centers. The Committee directs the 

Department to maintain Genomic Science as a top priority and recommends $90,000,000 for Foundational Genomics Research and 

$34,908,000 for Biomolecular Characterization and Imaging 

Science. The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for the Joint Genome Institute, an essential component for genomic research. The 

Committee recognizes the importance of the emerging field of 

microbiome research to the mission objectives of the Office of 

Science and more broadly within the Department, especially in relation to energy security and environmental sustainability. To address programmatic opportunities in microbiome research and development and to maintain U.S. leadership in the field, the Committee recommends an additional $10,000,000 to begin the establishment of a national microbiome database. The Department 

should lead this effort in collaboration with other Federal agencies. 

The Committee recommends $344,000,000 for Earth and Environmental Systems Sciences. Within available funding for Earth 

and Environmental Systems Sciences, the Committee recommends 
96 

not less than $40,000,000 for Terrestrial Ecosystem Science, of 

which not less than $10,000,000 is for NGEE-Arctic, $8,300,000 is 

for the SPRUCE field site, $5,800,000 is for Next Generation Ecosystem Experiments Tropics, $6,800,000 is for Watershed Function 

SFA, and $5,700,000 is for AmeriFLUX Long-Term Earth System 

Observations. Within available funding for Earth and Environmental Systems Sciences, the Committee recommends not less than 

$22,143,000 for Subsurface Biogeochemical Research, including not 

less than $3,000,000 to support on-going research and discovery related to mercury biogeochemical transformations in the environment. 

The Committee recommends $97,000,000 for Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling and directs the Department to expend 

appropriated funds for earth system modeling, and regional and 

global model analysis. The Committee further directs the Department to make land-energy interactions, land biogeochemistry, uncertainty quantification, and model evaluation (e.g., ILAMB) a priority within the regional and global modeling activities, and continue to support performance optimization of coupled systems for 

execution on high performance and exascale systems. The Committee recommends $15,000,000 to support the exascale computing 

initiative. 

Within available funds, not less than $133,500,000 is recommended for Facilities and Infrastructure in the Earth and Environmental Systems Sciences program, including $45,000,000 for the 

Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, and $68,000,000 for 

the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement [ARM] User Facility. The 

Committee also recommends an additional $17,500,000 to replace 

the ARM mobile unit. The Committee supports the Department’s 

proposal to initiate a terrestrial-aquatic interfaces pilot project and 

encourages the Department to explore as part of this pilot the resilience of ecosystems in coastal regions in response to changing environments and extreme weather events. 

The Committee encourages the Department to increase its funding for academia to perform independent evaluations of climate 

models using existing data sets and peer-reviewed publications of 

climate-scale processes to determine various models’ ability to reproduce the actual climate. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $425,000,000 for Fusion Energy 

Sciences. 

U.S. Contribution to ITER.—The Committee recommends 

$122,000,000 for the in-kind contributions and related support activities of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 

[ITER] project. The Committee does not recommended funding for 

the cash contribution. 

The Committee recommends not less than $7,000,000 for the Material Plasma Exposure eXperiment and not less than $92,500,000 

for DIII–D. 

The Committee directs the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory 

Committee to review establishing a reactor concepts research, development, and deployment activity. Within 180 days after enactment of this act, the Department is directed to brief the Commit-
97 

tees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on a recommendation, which if supported, will include a technical plan, 

program and eligibility requirements, and funding profile for future 

fiscal years. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $1,010,000,000 for High Energy 

Physics. The Committee strongly supports the Department’s efforts 

to advance the recommendations of the Particle Physics Project 

Prioritization Panel Report [P5], which established clear priorities 

for the domestic particle physics program. The Committee recommends $7,500,000 for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument; $14,450,000 for the G2 Dark Matter Experiment LUX–ZEPLIN; and $10,000,000 for the Facility for Advanced Accelerator Experimental Tests II. The Committee notes 

that fabrication of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope Camera 

will be complete with fiscal year 2018 funding and recommends 

$6,250,000 for ongoing efforts for commissioning and initial operation of the camera. 

In accordance with the P5, the Committee strongly urges the Department to maintain a balanced portfolio of small-, medium- and 

large-scale experiments, and to ensure adequate funding for the 

basic research program at universities and the national laboratories. In particular, in addition to the support for the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility to study neutrino physics, the Committee 

urges the Department to support the P5 recommendation for a 

next-generation Stage 4 Cosmic Microwave Background experiment 

for precision studies of the early universe. 

Four years into executing the P5, the Committee commends the 

Office of Science and the high energy physics community for 

achieving significant accomplishments and meeting the milestones 

and goals set forth in the strategic plan, including advancing the 

high-luminosity accelerator and detector upgrades for the Large 

Hadron Collider, construction of the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility/Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, completing the construction of second generation dark matter and dark energy experiments, operating the world’s highest power beams for neutrino 

physics, building a successful prototype of the strongest accelerator 

magnet ever built, and discovering new configurations of matter. 

The Committee encourages the Department and the high energy 

physics community to continue to provide progress reports on meeting P5 goals. The Committee recommends $145,000,000 to continue 

construction of the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility/Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, consistent with the Department’s 

project cost profile, and $35,000,000 for the PIP–II accelerator upgrade. 

A recent National Academies study, Opportunities in Intense 

Ultrafast Lasers, Towards the Brightest Light, highlighted the importance of investing in high-intensity laser technology to maintain 

U.S. leadership and open up new frontiers of science. To help advance this important area of research, the Committee directs the 

Department to provide a plan within 90 days after enactment of 

this act that responds to the recommendations of this study concerning this important national capability. 
98 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $710,000,000 for Nuclear Physics, 

and strongly supports the Long Range Plan for Nuclear Science released in October 2015 to address important scientific questions 

with modest or constrained growth in the nuclear science budgets, 

while still maintaining a strong, vital and world-leading program. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $75,000,000 

for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams [FRIB], and encourages the 

Department to work with Michigan State University to commence 

early operations at FRIB. The Committee also recommends 

$11,500,000 for the Stable Isotope Production Facility to provide increased domestic capacity for production of critically needed enriched stable isotopes for research, defense, and industry, and reduce the Nation’s dependence on foreign supplies. The Committee 

also recommends $6,600,000 for the Gamma-Ray Energy Tracking 

Array, which will enable advanced, high resolution gamma ray detection capabilities for FRIB. 

The Committee further recommends optimal operations at the 

Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, 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 $24,500,000 for Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $11,300,000 for the Science Undergraduate 

Laboratory Internship; $1,000,000 for the Community College Institute of Science and Technology; $4,500,000 for the Graduate Student Research Program; $1,200,000 for the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship; $2,900,000 for the National Science 

Bowl; $750,000 for Technology Development and Online Application; $600,000 for Evaluation Studies; $500,000 for Outreach; and 

$50,000 for Laboratory Equipment Donation Program. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $302,100,000 for Science Laboratories Infrastructure. 

Within these funds, the Committee recommends $26,000,000 for 

nuclear operations at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. In 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, 2018 ............................................................................. $353,314,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... ........................... 

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

The Committee recommends $375,000,000 for the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy [ARPA–E], an increase of 

$375,000,000 above the budget request. Within available funds, the 

Committee recommends $33,250,000 for program direction. 
99 

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 Committee definitively rejects the short-sighted proposal to 

terminate ARPA–E, 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. 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $33,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 33,000,000 

OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. ¥$10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... ¥15,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥15,000,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $23,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... ¥5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 18,000,000 

The Committee recommends $33,000,000 in funding for the Loan 

Guarantee Program, an increase of $23,000,000 above the budget 

request. This funding is offset by $15,000,000 in collections from 

loan guarantee applicants, for a net appropriation of $18,000,000. 

An additional $44,000,000 is credited to the bill as an adjustment 

from negative subsidies associated with this program. No funds 

recommended under this heading may be used to plan, develop, implement or pursue the elimination of the Title XVII Innovative 

Technologies Loan Program. 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN

PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 1,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000 

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, an increase of 

$4,000,000 above the budget request. 
100 

TRIBAL ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... ¥8,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000 

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program, an increase of $9,500,000 above the 

budget request. 

OFFICE OF INDIAN ENERGY POLICY AND PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $18,000,000 

The Committee recommends $18,000,000 for the Office of Indian 

Energy Policy and Programs. The activities of this office have previously been funded in the Departmental Administration account. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $285,652,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 235,534,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 266,000,000 

(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. ¥$96,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... ¥96,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥96,000,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $189,652,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 139,534,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 170,000,000 

The Committee recommends $266,000,000 in funding for Depart- mental Administration. This funding is offset by $96,000,000 in 

revenue for a net appropriation of $170,000,000. 

The Committee has reduced the number of control points in this 

account to provide flexibility to the Department in its management 

and funding of its support functions. The Department is directed 

to continue to submit its budget request for this account in its current structure. The Other Departmental Administration activity includes Technology Transition Management, Chief Human Capital 

Officer, Chief Information Officer, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, General Counsel, Energy Policy and 

Systems Analysis, Technology Transitions, International Affairs, 

Public Affairs, Economic Impact and Diversity, and Office of Energy Jobs Development. The Office of Indian Energy Policy and 

Programs is funded in a separate account. 

Within International Affairs, the Committee recommends 

$2,000,000 for the Israel Binational Industrial Research and Development [BIRD] Foundation and $4,000,000 to continue the U.S.- 

Israel Center of Excellence in Energy Engineering and Water Technology as authorized by the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act. This joint research and development center between the 
101 

U.S. and Israel shall focus on collaborative research initiatives 

among universities, research institutions, and industry partners 

that could include hydrocarbon extraction and processing, energy 

infrastructure and policies, process water treatment, alternative 

energy sources, and impacts on coastal communities. Funding provided shall be matched with Israeli government and industry funding. The Department is directed to expeditiously obligate funding 

provided in fiscal year 2018 and provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a briefing on implementation and management. The Committee directs the Department to 

ensure the center is cost-shared with Israel and non-federal partners. 

Technology Transfer.—Within the amount recommended for 

Other Departmental Administration, the Committee recommends 

$8,505,000 for the Office of Technology Transition. In awarding 

funding from the Technology Commercialization Fund, the Department shall assure cost match with private partners is in accordance with cost sharing in section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352). 

Small Refinery Exemption.—The Department is directed to continue to follow the direction included in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, under 

this heading. 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $49,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 51,330,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 51,330,000 

The Committee recommends $51,330,000 for the Office of the Inspector General, the same as the request. 

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 

the need for underground 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 could be used for nuclear or radiological weapons. In 

addition, the Committee supports Naval Reactors and the important role they play in enabling the Navy’s nuclear fleet. 

The NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the Department. 

The NNSA Act clearly lays out the functions of the NNSA, and 

gives the Administrator authority over, and responsibility for, those 

functions. No funds shall be used to reorganize, reclassify, or study 

combining any of those functions with the Department. Funds may 

be used to evaluate any other function not specifically listed as an 

NNSA function in the NNSA Act, such as a chief scientist or office 

of policy. 
102 

INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM

The Committee directs the Secretary to carry out the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 16274a in support of university research 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 Department to 

request funding for this program in future budget years. Funding 

for this program shall not come from prior year funds. 

In addition to the Integrated University Program within Defense 

Nuclear Nonproliferation, the NNSA manages several universityrelated programs, ranging from fellowships and scholarships to university research. The NNSA has not been able to provide a clear 

accounting of these various programs, and is directed to provide 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 the 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. 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $10,642,138,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 11,017,078,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,850,000,000 

The Committee recommends $10,850,000,000 for Weapons Activi- ties, a decrease of $167,078,000 below the budget request, to ensure 

the safety, security, reliability, and effectiveness of the Nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile without the need for nuclear testing. 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

The Committee recommends $4,700,501,000 for Directed Stockpile Work. 

Life Extension Programs.—The Committee recommends 

$1,919,988,000 for Life Extension Programs [LEPs] and Major Alterations, which fully funds all LEPs and major alterations in the 

budget request, consistent with the plan of record approved by the 

Nuclear Weapons Council. The NNSA needs to ensure that LEPs 

are completed on time and on budget to prevent impact on other 

high priorities, such as modernizing aging infrastructure, critical 

nonproliferation activities to combat nuclear terrorism, and naval 

nuclear propulsion. 
103 

Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition.—The Committee recommends $56,000,000 for the dismantlement of retired nuclear 

weapons removed from the stockpile. 

Strategic Materials.—The Committee supports the budget request for strategic materials, including management of existing 

material stockpiles and methods to replenish the supply needed for 

our national security programs. As the Department progresses 

through the ongoing warhead life extension programs, it will require the necessary strategic materials to meet the stockpile demands. The NNSA is encouraged to explore all options, including 

leveraging qualified industrial partners, to ensure it can maintain 

a consistent supply of purified uranium metal and other strategic 

materials. 

The Committee continues to support the Nuclear Weapons Council’s program of record for plutonium pit production to meet the 

Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act requirement 

of 30 pits per year at Los Alamos National Laboratory by 2026. 

Within available funds, NNSA is directed to contract with a 

third-party federally-Funded Research and Development Corporation to conduct an independent assessment of the NNSA’s decision 

to conduct pit production operations at two sites. NNSA shall identify and execute a contract with an independent FFRDC, not directly involved in plutonium pit production, not later than 60 days 

after enactment of this a act. NNSA shall not proceed with conceptual design activities for the recently announced preferred alternative until an FFRDC is under contract. The assessment shall include an analysis of the four options evaluated in the recent Plutonium Pit Production Engineering Assessment, all identified risks, 

engineering requirements, workforce development requirements, 

and other factors considered. The FFRDC shall submit its report to 

the Committees on Appropriations of both the Houses of Congress 

not later than 210 days after enactment of this act. 

Domestic Uranium Enrichment.—The Department’s approved 

Mission Need Statement [MNS] for Domestic Uranium Enrichment 

states that in 2014–2015, the American Centrifuge Plant had successfully completed its mission of providing reliability and operational data. The Department’s research and development on small 

centrifuges has not yet reached that level of maturity. The MNS 

also stated that the cost range to enrich uranium using AC–100 

would cost approximately twice as much as using small centrifuges. 

The Committee is concerned that the Department lacks a credible 

plan to obtain adequate data on small centrifuge operations to complete the Analysis of Alternatives for uranium enrichment as 

scheduled. The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for Domestic 

Uranium Enrichment, including not more than $5,000,000 for research, development, and demonstration of AC–100 and not less 

than $45,000,000 for research, development and demonstration of 

small centrifuges. No funds are recommended for uranium 

downblending within this account. 

Tritium Sustainment.—The Committee recommends 

$290,275,000 for tritium sustainment, including $85,000,000 to 

downblend uranium for tritium production. 
104 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING

The Committee recommends $2,042,289,000 for Research, Development, Technology, and Engineering. 

Science.—The Committee directs the Administrator to enter into 

a contract with the group known as JASON for a study to assess 

the efforts of the NNSA to understand plutonium aging and the 

lifetime of plutonium pits in nuclear weapons. The Administrator 

shall make available all information that is necessary to successfully complete a meaningful study on a timely basis. Not later than 

18 months after the date of enactment of this act, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report on the findings of the 

study. The report shall include recommendations of the study for 

improving the knowledge, understanding, and application of the 

fundamental and applied sciences related to the study of plutonium 

aging and pit lifetimes, an estimate of minimum and likely lifetimes for pits in current warheads, and the feasibility of reusing 

pits in modified nuclear weapons. The report shall be submitted in 

unclassified form but may include a classified annex. 

Academic Alliances and Partnerships.—The Committee recognizes the importance of the Academic Alliances and Partnerships 

program in supporting fundamental science and technology research at universities that support stockpile stewardship, the development of the next generation of highly-trained workforce, and 

the maintenance of a strong network of independent technical 

peers. The Committee is also aware of the expertise provided to the 

NNSA by academic alliances and the centers of excellence program. 

The Committee encourages the NNSA to fund new centers of excellence, especially in the field of materials under extreme conditions 

research. The Committee recommends $53,364,000. Within this 

amount, not less than $20,000,000 is recommended for the Minority Serving Institution Partnership Program, within which not less 

than $2,000,000 is recommended for Tribal Colleges and Universities. 

Engineering.—The Committee recommends $22,500,000 to complete the recapitalization of the Microsystems and Engineering 

Sciences Applications silicon fabrication facility, consistent with the 

budget request. The Committee also supports increased investment 

in Enhanced Surety in recognition of new threats and the challenges maintaining readiness on aging systems. Within the available funding, $5,000,000 is recommended for next-generation technology development for warhead system certification and the protection against theft/loss and terrorism incident. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield.—The Committee finds that the Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield 

[ICF] program continues to be a critical and essential component 

of nuclear stockpile certification without underground nuclear 

weapons testing, maintaining U.S. leadership in high energy density physics and laser technologies, and developing the next-generation workforce. Therefore, the Committee recommends 

$544,934,000 for the ICF program. Within available funds, the 

Committee recommends $344,000,000 for inertial confinement fusion activities at the National Ignition Facility, $63,100,000 is recommended for Sandia National Laboratory’s Z facility, and 
105 

$80,000,000 is recommended for the University of Rochester’s 

Omega facility. Within available funds for facility operations and 

other amounts, the Committee recommends not less than 

$30,000,000 for target research, development, and production. To 

ensure a robust, diverse, and competitive vendor base for targets, 

the Committee directs the NNSA to compete as much scope as 

practicable and limit sole-source contracts to $15,000,000 or less. 

The Committee further encourages continued research by the 

NNSA in High Energy Density Plasmas and recognizes the partnerships between the laboratories and research universities to address the critical need for skilled graduates to replace an aging 

workforce at our NNSA laboratories. 

Advanced Simulation and Computing.—The Committee recommends $703,404,000 for advanced simulation and computing. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than 

$163,000,000 for activities associated with the exascale initiative, 

such as advanced system architecture design contracts with vendors and advanced weapons code development to effectively use 

new high performance computing platforms. Within funds provided, 

the Committee recommends up to $13,000,000 for work on integration of artificial intelligence approaches into mechanistic modeling 

and prediction. 

Advanced Manufacturing Development.—The Committee recommends $96,838,000 for Advanced Manufacturing Development. 

Within available funds, $35,914,000 is recommended for Process 

Technology Development, including $5,000,000 to modernize and 

upgrade legacy applications at weapons production facilities to improve manufacturing and safety. 

INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $2,749,048,000 for Infrastructure 

and Operations. 

Project 06–D–141, Uranium Processing Facility, Y–12, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee.—The Committee recommends $703,000,000 to continue 

construction activities of the five remaining subprojects of the Uranium Processing Facility, including the Main Process Building and 

the Salvage and Accountability Building. The Committee notes that 

the designs for these nuclear facilities have reached the 90 percent 

completion milestone and the NNSA Administrator has approved 

the cost and schedule baselines for both buildings. 

The Committee supports the ongoing effort to replace existing enriched uranium capabilities currently residing in Building 9212 by 

2025 for not more than $6,500,000,000 and the strategy of breaking 

the project into more manageable subprojects. This practice is specifically permitted by DOE Order 413.3B, and is a practical approach for any project of this magnitude. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $1,999,219,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 1,862,825,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,902,000,000 
106 

The Committee recommends $1,902,000,000 for Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation, an increase of $39,175,000 above the budget request. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation provides a vitally 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. Within available funds, the Committee recommends up to $18,000,000 to partner with interested State or local governments to improve capabilities to train first-responders, and other experts in nuclear operations, safeguards, cyber, and emergency operations. 

To preserve and advance uranium and engineering expertise 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. Further, as the pathways to proliferation increase, it is vital 

to maintain the skilled workforce and unique infrastructure to detect nuclear proliferation and support policymakers in the future. 

The Department is directed to provide a report to the Committees 

on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress within 90 days after 

enactment of this act that provides a plan to maintain the necessary technical competencies and infrastructure. The Department 

is directed to coordinate with other government agencies and nongovernment entities to ensure it addresses the broad spectrum of 

nonproliferation needs. 

Domestic Radiological Security.—The Committee recommends 

$115,433,000 for Domestic Radiological Security, including not less 

than $25,000,000 for the Cesium Irradiator Replacement Program. 

Nonproliferation and Arms Control.—The Committee recommends $129,703,000 for Nonproliferation and Arms Control activities. Within available funds, the Committee recommends 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 $487,270,000 for Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation Research and Development. The Committee supports a robust research and development capability to support nonproliferation initiatives. Proliferation of illicit nuclear materials 

and weapons continues to be a high-consequence threat, and our 

ability to detect the production and movement of these materials 

is vitally important. Research and development in this area is especially important. The Committee recommendation supports continued research and development of novel enrichment technologies to 

support nonproliferation goals, and recommends $7,500,000 for this 

purpose. The Committee also supports exploration and develop-
107 

ment of material disposal technologies, and recommends up to 

$10,000,000 for this purpose. 

Low Enriched Uranium for Naval Applications.—Within available funds for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Advanced 

Low Enriched Uranium Fuel Research and Development for the 

national laboratories to develop low-enriched fuels that could replace highly enriched uranium for naval applications. Consistent 

with section 7319 of title 10, United States Code, this funding is 

recommended within the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account. This work shall be managed within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. 

Seismic Research Instruments.—Several U.S. Government agencies reduce the costs of seismic research by utilizing shared-use instruments instead of owning, operating, and maintaining their own 

equipment. The Committee directs that within 180 days after enactment of this act, the NNSA shall submit a report to Committees 

on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on the cost-effectiveness of establishing an agreement between the Department and 

one or more instrument centers to maintain and provide shared use 

of any instruments the Department acquires, rather than the Department doing so internally. 

MOX Construction.—The Committee recommends $220,000,000 

for closeout costs associated with the termination of MOX Fuel 

Fabrication Facility construction, consistent with the budget request and the Secretary’s waiver to terminate the project. 

Use of Prior Year Funds.—The Committee recommendation assumes the use of $19,000,000 in prior year funds as recommended 

in the budget request, and the use of $55,000,000 in prior year 

funds from Nonproliferation Construction. 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $1,620,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 1,788,618,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,620,000,000 

The Committee recommends $1,620,000,000 for Naval Reactors, 

a decrease of $168,618,000 below the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation fully funds important national priorities, including the Columbia-class replacement submarine design and the 

prototype refueling. Naval Reactors currently 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 encourages Naval Reactors to work with the NNSA to 

ensure there is a long-term plan that meets the Navy’s needs for 

high-enriched uranium. 

COLUMBIA-CLASS REACTOR SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $138,000,000 for Columbia-Class 

Reactor Systems Development. Columbia-class submarines must be 

delivered on time to maintain our survivable deterrent. The Committee directs Naval Reactors to provide the report in the Energy 

and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
108 

2018, on technical risks to delivering the lead submarine on time, 

and mitigation strategies for those risks. 

NAVAL REACTORS DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $475,000,000 for Naval Reactors Development. Within the available funds, the Committee recommends 

$83,000,000 for the Advanced Test Reactor and $2,000,000 for 

planning, preparation, and shipments of unirradiated or irradiated 

material to support a pilot project on ZIRCEX. 

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee recommends $233,194,000 for Construction. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $209,000,000 

for the Spent Fuel Handling Facility in Idaho, $13,200,000 for the 

Fire System Upgrade at Bettis, and $10,994,000 to replace an overhead piping utility distribution system at the KS site. 

FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $407,595,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 422,529,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 408,000,000 

The Committee recommends $408,000,000 for Federal Salaries 

and Expenses, a decrease of $14,529,000 below the budget request. 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $5,988,048,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 5,630,217,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,988,000,000 

The Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental 

Cleanup is $5,988,000,000, an increase of $357,783,000 above the 

budget request. Within available funds, the Department is directed 

to fund the hazardous waste worker training program at 

$10,000,000. 

Future Budget Requests.—The Committee directs the Department to include out-year funding projections in the annual budget 

request for Environmental Management, and an estimate of the 

total cost and time to complete each site. 

Richland.—As a signatory to the Tri-Party Agreement, the Department is required to meet specific compliance milestones toward 

the cleanup of the Hanford site. Among other things, the Department committed to provide the funding necessary to enable full 

compliance with its cleanup milestones. Unfortunately, if the Department’s fiscal year 2019 budget request were enacted without 

change, future fiscal year Tri-Party Agreement milestones could be 

at risk, threatening high-risk cleanup projects near the City of 

Richland, Washington and the economically and environmentally 

important Columbia River. The Committee recognizes that significant progress has been made at the Hanford Site. However, because the Department’s budget request could slow or halt critical 

cleanup work and threaten the Department’s compliance with its 

legal obligations under the Tri-Party Agreement, the Committee 

recommends $838,171,000 for Richland Operations. Additional 

funding is recommended for cleanup of the 300–296 waste site 
109 

under the 324 Building, interim stabilization of PUREX Tunnel #2, 

risk reduction activities associated with legacy waste sites, K-West 

facility cleanup and deactivation, site-wide infrastructure, and community and regulatory support. The Committee recommends no 

funding for the Department to carry out activities relating to single-shell tank stabilization nor activities in the Office of River Protection’s tank farms within this control point. Within available funds, the Department recommends $8,5000,000 

for the Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response facilities. Further, within available funds, the Department 

is directed to support the recently established Hanford Workforce 

Engagement Center to provide education and advocacy to current 

and former Hanford employees on all available Federal and State 

compensation programs, and to identify if a capability to resolve 

disputes and concerns can be integrated into the Hanford Workforce Engagement Center. Funding for maintenance and public 

safety efforts at B Reactor in the Manhattan Project National Historical Park is recommended within the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup account. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommends 

$410,000,000 for the Oak Ridge Reservation, including $10,000,000 

to continue preliminary design of a new landfill. The existing onsite waste disposal facility is expected to reach capacity before all 

cleanup activities are completed. The new landfill needs to be completed to ensure that there is no interruption of cleanup activities. 

Additional funds above the budget request are recommended to address the growing backlog of deferred maintenance associated with 

excess contaminated facilities, several of which are on the Department’s list of high-risk facilities, and to focus efforts at reducing 

threats to worker safety and health. Efforts should also be focused 

on cleanup of facilities needed for other purposes, such as hot cells, 

reactors, and other excess facilities located in the central campus 

at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

U–233 Disposition Program.—The Committee recommends 

$52,300,000 for the disposition of material in Building 3019. Removal of legacy material from this building, an aging facility in 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 the disposition of material in Building 3019, including public-private partnerships that may reduce the overall 

cost of cleanup. At the same time, the Department shall consider 

direct disposal of remaining material that may not be suitable to 

processing. 

Mercury Treatment Facility.—The Committee recommends 

$76,000,000 for construction of the Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment 

Facility. Remediation of mercury contamination at the Oak Ridge 

Reservation is an important precursor to full site remediation. Reducing the mercury being released into the East Fork of Poplar 

Creek continues to be among the highest priorities for the Environmental Management program. 
110 

Office of River Protection.—The Committee recommends 

$1,573,000,000 for the Office of River Protection. Funds above the 

budget request are recommended to resume engineering, procurement, and design work on the High-Level Waste Treatment Facility, to ensure compliance with the 2016 Consent Decree and TriParty Agreement milestones, and to continue tank waste retrievals. 

Funds that support the Waste Treatment Plant project are recommended separately for: (1) Low-Activity Waste Treatment Facility, Analytical Laboratory, and Balance of Facilities; (2) High-Level 

Waste Treatment Facility; (3) Pre-Treatment Facility; and (4) Low 

Activity Waste Pretreatment System. The Committee recommends 

no funding for the Department to carry out activities relating to 

the test bed initiative for low activity waste disposition. The Committee is aware of efforts to remove high-curie constituents from 

high-level waste tanks to facilitate low-activity waste vitrification 

through the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste concept and meet consent decree requirements. Funding is provided to install and test 

one tank-side treatment device. The Department shall not proceed 

with expansion of this approach until it reports to the Committees 

on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on how this approach 

will be integrated with existing and planned capital facilities, how 

lifecycle cost compare to other approaches, strategy for obtaining 

State permits, and plans for ancilliary waste streams. The Department shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of both 

Houses of Congress before moving ahead with any plans to place 

the High Level Waste Treatment Facility or the Pretreatment Facility into preservation mode for an extended period of time. 

The Committee recognizes the Department’s efforts to improve 

working conditions in the tank farms and to address chemical 

vapor exposures by implementing recommendations from the 2014 

Hanford Tank Vapor Assessment Report. The Committee is 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 all reviews, 

and maintain a safe work environment for Hanford employees. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommends 

$1,400,000,000 for the Savannah River site. Within available funds, 

$3,000,000 is for disposition of spent fuel from the High Flux Isotope Reactor. The Committee remains concerned about the coordination among the Office of Environmental Management, the 

NNSA, and the Office of Management and Budget when planning 

for retiree pension payments at the Savannah River Site. The Department is directed to provide the report required in the Energy 

and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

2018 on retiree pension payments as soon as possible. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.—The Department proposes to dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus plutonium at the Waste Isolation 

Pilot Plant [WIPP] in New Mexico. The Department is directed to 

work cooperatively with the State of New Mexico, recognizing the 

limits in the Land Withdrawal Act and New Mexico’s status as an 

independent regulator of the WIPP facility. Further, no later than 
111 

February 1, 2019, the Department shall submit to the Committees 

on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, a plan for obtaining 

all necessary final state and Federal permits; acquiring independent scientific and technical review of dilute and dispose processes and waste forms to ensure compliance with waste acceptance 

criteria; defining any legislative changes necessary to accommodate 

this material and the existing WIPP waste inventory; and outlining 

any necessary design and construction modifications to the current 

facility, including cost and schedule impacts of any modifications 

needed to WIPP facilities or for developing additional repositories. 

Technology Development and Demonstration.—The Committee 

recommends $28,954,000 for Technology Development and Demonstration. The Committee supports the Department’s efforts to expand technology development and demonstration to address its 

long-term and technically complex cleanup challenges. Within the 

amount recommended, not less than $5,000,000 is recommended for 

work on qualification, testing and research to advance the state-ofthe-art on containment ventilation systems. Further, the Department is directed to take the necessary steps to implement and competitively award a cooperative university affiliated research center 

for that purpose. Within available funds provided, not less than $5,000,000 is recommended to fund the existing cooperative agreement with the 

Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation 

[CRESP] and up to $5,000,000 is recommended for research and 

development of robotics to enhance worker safety. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $840,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 853,300,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 840,000,000 

The Committee recommends $840,000,000 for Other Defense Activities, a decrease of $13,300,000 from the budget request. Within 

available funds, the Committee recommends $254,378,000 for Specialized Security Activities. Within the available funds for Environment, Health and Safety, the Committee recommends not less than 

$1,000,000 for the Epidemiologic Study of One Million U.S. Radiation Workers and Veterans, which was originally approved by the 

Office of Science in 2012. 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS 

No funds are recommended to divest transmission assets of the 

Power Marketing Administrations [PMA]. The Committee reminds 

the Department of the prohibition on studying transfer of PMA assets in Public Law 99–349. 

The Committee understands the Department has used existing 

authorities to reorganize the reporting structure for the Power 

Marketing Administrations [PMAs), shifting responsibilities from 

the Deputy Secretary of Energy to the Assistant Secretary of the 

Office of Electricity. While the Committee understands the expertise of the Office of Electricity and recognizes the already existing 

relationship between PMAs and the Office of Electricity, the Committee remains concerned with this unnecessary change and urges 
112 

the Department to continue the long-standing practice of the 

PMA’s organizational reporting to the Deputy Secretary of Energy. 

The bill includes reductions of $16,000,000 and $44,000,000 to 

the annual expense requests for Southwestern Power Administration and Western Area Power Administration, respectively, to account for the Congressional Budget Office’s [CBO] initial estimate 

of collections assumed in the budget request. CBO inadvertently 

misreported its estimate of annual expense collections associated 

with the level of funding for administrative expenses proposed in 

the fiscal year 2019 President’s request by approximately 

$60,000,000 (in the aggregate), but the oversight was not discovered until after the House Committee on Appropriations had reported its version of the fiscal year 2019 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill and, therefore, could not be corrected 

prior to the Senate Committee on Appropriations taking action on 

this bill. CBO has indicated that it will adjust its estimate of the 

annual expense collection estimate prior to the conference between 

the House and Senate. Assuming that the Committee provides the 

requested level for annual expenses in the conference, the updated 

collection estimates will be at or around the levels in the budget 

request. The Committee has included additional lines in the detail 

table accompanying Title III of this report to show these adjustments. 

Additionally, CBO has continued to raise questions about the 

current receipt authority provided in this and prior year appropriations acts to create carryover of unobligated balances for purchase 

power and wheeling expenditures [PPW]. Since the scoring for 

PPW receipts has historically equaled expenses as a result of a 

2001 scoring agreement, the Committee continues to be unable to 

recommend the full budget request for PPW expenses for the 

Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, or Western Area Power Administration due to CBO scoring. The Committee recommends the full amount for PPW expenses 

that CBO has estimated will be spent for those purposes in fiscal 

year 2019, which is approximately $200,000,000 lower (in the aggregate) than the budget request. The Committee will continue to 

work to resolve the differences in the CBO and administration estimates for PPW expenses. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $11,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 26,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,400,000 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $10,400,000 

for the Southwestern Power Administration. 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, 

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $93,372,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 132,372,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 89,372,000 
113 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $89,372,000 

for the Western Area Power Administration. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $228,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 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, 2018 ............................................................................. $367,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 369,900,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 369,900,000 

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. ¥$367,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... ¥369,900,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥369,900,000 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $0 for the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC]. California recently experienced one of its worst fire seasons in modern history, 

resulting in severe challenges to the well-being of utilities and the 

electric system in that State. The Committee is concerned that the 

safe, reliable, and affordable delivery of electricity to consumers 

could be compromised by the increasing frequency and severity of 

natural disasters due to climate change—including hurricanes, 

floods, and wildfires. As FERC reviews way to improve the resilience of the electric transmission system, the Committee directs 

FERC to include the evaluation of just and reasonable cost-recovery mechanisms for the development of resilient infrastructure and 

system repair and restoration, as well as practices to better prepare the Nation’s bulk power system for natural disasters. FERC 

shall study the impacts and effects of strict liability doctrines on 

utilities’ ability to invest in the reliability and resilience of transmission systems. FERC is directed to report its findings and recommendations to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 

of Congress, not later than 90 days after the enactment of this act. 

The Committee encourages FERC to prioritize meaningful opportunities for public engagement and coordination with State and 

local governments in the Federal permitting and review processes 

of energy infrastructure proposals. Specifically, review processes 

should remain transparent and consistent, and ensure the health, 

safety, and security of the environment and each affected community. 

Oroville Dam.—FERC is directed to brief the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on its response to the recommendations of the external independent panel reviewing FERC’s 

dam safety practices in light of the 2017 incident at Oroville Dam 

in California within 60 days of receiving the external independent 

panel’s report. 
114 

FERC shall require the licensee of Oroville Dam to request the 

United States Society on Dams to nominate independent consultants to prepare a level 2 risk analysis, consistent with the Commission’s guidelines, for use in conducting the next Part 12 safety review of Oroville Dam, currently scheduled for 2019. FERC shall ensure the independence of the nominated consultants from the licensee. 

The Committee encourages FERC to prioritize meaningful opportunities for public engagement and coordination with State and 

local governments in the Federal permitting and review processes 

of energy infrastructure proposals. Specifically, review processes 

should remain transparent and consistent, and ensure the health, 

safety, and security of the environment and each affected community. 
115 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

Sustainable Transportation: 

Vehicle technologies .................................................................................................................................................... 337,500 68,500 337,500 .......................... ∂269,000 Bioenergy technologies ................................................................................................................................................ 221,545 37,000 215,000 ¥6,545 ∂178,000 Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies ........................................................................................................................... 115,000 58,000 115,000 .......................... ∂57,000 

Subtotal, Sustainable Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 674,045 163,500 667,500 ¥6,545 ∂504,000 

Renewable Energy: 

Solar energy ................................................................................................................................................................. 241,600 67,000 239,500 ¥2,100 ∂172,500 Wind energy ................................................................................................................................................................. 92,000 33,000 80,000 ¥12,000 ∂47,000 Water power ................................................................................................................................................................. 105,000 45,000 105,000 .......................... ∂60,000 Geothermal technologies ............................................................................................................................................. 80,906 30,000 85,000 ∂4,094 ∂55,000 

Subtotal, Renewable Energy ................................................................................................................................... 519,506 175,000 509,500 ¥10,006 ∂334,500 

Energy Efficiency: 

Advanced manufacturing ............................................................................................................................................ 305,000 75,000 311,000 ∂6,000 ∂236,000 Building technologies .................................................................................................................................................. 220,727 57,000 225,000 ∂4,273 ∂168,000 Federal energy management program ........................................................................................................................ 27,000 10,000 31,000 ∂4,000 ∂21,000 Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs: 

Weatherization: 

Weatherization assistance program .......................................................................................................... 248,000 .......................... 248,000 .......................... ∂248,000 Training and technical assistance ........................................................................................................... 3,000 .......................... 3,000 .......................... ∂3,000 

Subtotal, Weatherization ....................................................................................................................... 251,000 .......................... 251,000 .......................... ∂251,000 

State Energy Program Grants ..................................................................................................................................... 55,000 .......................... 55,000 .......................... ∂55,000 

Subtotal, Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program .................................................................................... 306,000 .......................... 306,000 .......................... ∂306,000 
116 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate 

Subtotal, Energy Efficiency ..................................................................................................................................... 858,727 142,000 873,000 ∂14,273 ∂731,000 

Corporate Support: 

Facilities and infrastructure: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] ................................................................................................. 92,000 90,000 97,000 ∂5,000 ∂7,000 

Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 162,500 125,110 162,500 .......................... ∂37,390 Strategic programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 15,000 .......................... 12,500 ¥2,500 ∂12,500 

Subtotal, Corporate Support ................................................................................................................................... 269,500 215,110 272,000 ∂2,500 ∂56,890 Subtotal, Energy efficiency and renewable energy ................................................................................................ 2,321,778 695,610 2,322,000 ∂222 ∂1,626,390 TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ........................................................................................ 2,321,778 695,610 2,322,000 ∂222 ∂1,626,390 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY 

Research and development: 

Transmission Reliability .............................................................................................................................................. 39,000 .......................... .......................... ¥39,000 ..........................Resilient Distribution Systems .................................................................................................................................... 38,000 .......................... .......................... ¥38,000 ..........................Cyber security for energy delivery systems ................................................................................................................. 75,829 .......................... .......................... ¥75,829 ..........................Energy storage ............................................................................................................................................................. 41,000 .......................... .......................... ¥41,000 ..........................Transformer resilience and advanced components .................................................................................................... 7,000 .......................... .......................... ¥7,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Research and development ..................................................................................................................... 200,829 .......................... .......................... ¥200,829 ..........................

Transmission Permitting and Technical Assistance ............................................................................................................ 7,000 .......................... .......................... ¥7,000 ..........................Infrastructure security and energy restoration .................................................................................................................... 12,000 .......................... .......................... ¥12,000 ..........................Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 28,500 .......................... .......................... ¥28,500 ..........................

Reliability ..................................................................................................................................................................... 248,329 .......................... .......................... ¥248,329 ..........................

TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY ..................................................................................... 248,329 .......................... .......................... ¥248,329 ..........................
117 

CYBERSECURITY, ENERGY SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

Research and development: 

Cybersecurity for energy delivery systems .................................................................................................................. .......................... 70,000 80,829 ∂80,829 ∂10,829 Transmission reliability ............................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 39,000 ∂39,000 ∂39,000 Resilient distribution systems ..................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 38,671 ∂38,671 ∂38,671 Energy storage ............................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 41,000 ∂41,000 ∂41,000 Transformer resilience and advanced components .................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 7,000 ∂7,000 ∂7,000 

Subtotal, Research and development ..................................................................................................................... .......................... 70,000 206,500 ∂206,500 ∂136,500 

Transmission permitting and technical assistance ............................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 7,000 ∂7,000 ∂7,000 Infrastructure security and energy restoration .................................................................................................................... .......................... 18,000 18,000 ∂18,000 ..........................Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 7,800 28,500 ∂28,500 ∂20,700 

TOTAL, CYBERSECURITY, ENERGY SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE ......................................................... .......................... 95,800 260,000 ∂260,000 ∂164,200 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY 

Transmission reliability ........................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 13,000 .......................... .......................... ¥13,000 Resilient distribution systems .............................................................................................................................................. .......................... 10,000 .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 Energy storage ...................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 8,000 .......................... .......................... ¥8,000 Transformer resilience and advanced components ............................................................................................................. .......................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 Transmission permitting and technical assistance ............................................................................................................ .......................... 6,000 .......................... .......................... ¥6,000 Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 19,309 .......................... .......................... ¥19,309 

TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY ............................................................................................................................... .......................... 61,309 .......................... .......................... ¥61,309 

NUCLEAR ENERGY 

Research and development: 

Integrated university program ..................................................................................................................................... 5,000 .......................... 5,000 .......................... ∂5,000 STEP R&D .................................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 ..........................Nuclear energy enabling technologies ........................................................................................................................ 159,000 116,000 149,200 ¥9,800 ∂33,200 Reactor concepts RD&D .............................................................................................................................................. 237,000 163,000 302,000 ∂65,000 ∂139,000 Fuel cycle research and development ......................................................................................................................... 260,056 60,000 267,300 ∂7,244 ∂207,300 International nuclear energy cooperation ................................................................................................................... 3,000 2,500 2,500 ¥500 ..........................

Subtotal, Research and development ..................................................................................................................... 669,056 341,500 726,000 ∂56,944 ∂384,500 

Infrastructure: 

Radiological facilities management: 

Space and defense infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 20,000 .......................... 20,000 .......................... ∂20,000 
118 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate 

Research reactor infrastructure ......................................................................................................................... 9,000 9,000 9,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Radiological facilities management .............................................................................................. 29,000 9,000 29,000 .......................... ∂20,000 

INL facilities management: 

INL operations and infrastructure ...................................................................................................................... 288,000 204,000 238,000 ¥50,000 ∂34,000 Construction: 

16–E–200 Sample preparation laboratory ................................................................................................ 6,000 .......................... .......................... ¥6,000 ..........................

Subtotal, INL facilities management .................................................................................................... 294,000 204,000 238,000 ¥56,000 ∂34,000 Subtotal, Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................ 323,000 213,000 267,000 ¥56,000 ∂54,000 

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security .............................................................................................................................. 133,000 136,090 133,000 .......................... ¥3,090 Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 80,000 66,500 80,000 .......................... ∂13,500 

TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................... 1,205,056 757,090 1,206,000 ∂944 ∂448,910 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

Coal CCS and Power Systems: 

Carbon Capture ........................................................................................................................................................... 100,671 20,000 104,015 ∂3,344 ∂84,015 Carbon Storage ............................................................................................................................................................ 98,096 20,000 103,015 ∂4,919 ∂83,015 Advanced Energy Systems ........................................................................................................................................... 112,000 135,000 116,000 ∂4,000 ¥19,000 Cross Cutting Research .............................................................................................................................................. 58,350 78,300 61,000 ∂2,650 ¥17,300 NETL Coal Research and Development ....................................................................................................................... 53,000 65,000 54,000 ∂1,000 ¥11,000 STEP (Supercritical CO2) ............................................................................................................................................. 24,000 25,000 25,000 ∂1,000 ..........................Transformational Coal Pilots ....................................................................................................................................... 35,000 .......................... .......................... ¥35,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Coal CCS and Power Systems ................................................................................................................ 481,117 343,300 463,030 ¥18,087 ∂119,730 

Natural Gas Technologies: 

Research ...................................................................................................................................................................... 50,000 5,500 53,200 ∂3,200 ∂47,700 

Unconventional fossil energy technologies from petroleum—oil technologies ................................................................... 40,000 14,000 54,000 ∂14,000 ∂40,000 
119 

Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 60,000 61,070 61,070 ∂1,070 ..........................Special recruitment programs .............................................................................................................................................. 700 200 700 .......................... ∂500 NETL Research and Operations ............................................................................................................................................ 50,000 40,000 50,000 .......................... ∂10,000 NETL Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................................................. 45,000 38,000 45,000 .......................... ∂7,000 

TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 726,817 502,070 727,000 ∂183 ∂224,930 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................................................................................................ 20,200 20,550 20,550 ∂350 ..........................Use of prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... ¥15,300 ¥10,550 ¥10,550 ∂4,750 ..........................

TOTAL, NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES ......................................................................................... 4,900 10,000 10,000 ∂5,100 ..........................

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve ................................................................................................................................................ 252,000 175,105 175,105 ¥76,895 ..........................Sale of crude oil ................................................................................................................................................................... ¥350,000 ¥300,000 ¥350,000 .......................... ¥50,000 Use of sale proceeds ............................................................................................................................................................ 350,000 .......................... 350,000 .......................... ∂350,000 

TOTAL, STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE .............................................................................................................. 252,000 ¥124,895 175,105 ¥76,895 ∂300,000 

SPR PETROLEUM ACCOUNT 

SPR Petroleum Account ........................................................................................................................................................ 8,400 .......................... 8,400 .......................... ∂8,400 

TOTAL, SPR PETROLEUM ACCOUNT ......................................................................................................................... 8,400 .......................... 8,400 .......................... ∂8,400 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ................................................................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 .......................... ..........................Use of prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... ¥3,500 .......................... .......................... ∂3,500 ..........................

TOTAL, NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE ................................................................................................. 6,500 10,000 10,000 ∂3,500 ..........................

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION .............................................................................................................................. 125,000 115,035 125,000 .......................... ∂9,965 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA) .................................................................................................................................... 2,240 2,240 2,240 .......................... ..........................Gaseous Diffusion Plants ..................................................................................................................................................... 101,304 100,575 102,000 ∂696 ∂1,425 Small sites ........................................................................................................................................................................... 119,856 55,031 174,000 ∂54,144 ∂118,969 West Valley Demonstration Project ...................................................................................................................................... 75,000 60,554 75,000 .......................... ∂14,446 
120 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate 

TOTAL, NON–DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP ................................................................................................. 298,400 218,400 353,240 ∂54,840 ∂134,840 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND 

Oak Ridge ............................................................................................................................................................................. 194,673 151,039 195,000 ∂327 ∂43,961 Nuclear facility D&D, Paducah ............................................................................................................................................ 205,530 202,581 206,000 ∂470 ∂3,419 Portsmouth: 

Nuclear facility D&D, Portsmouth ............................................................................................................................... 342,389 306,931 366,931 ∂24,542 ∂60,000 Construction: 

15–U–408 On–site waste disposal facility, Portsmouth ................................................................................... 38,882 41,168 41,168 ∂2,286 ..........................

Subtotal, Portsmouth .............................................................................................................................................. 381,271 348,099 408,099 ∂26,828 ∂60,000 

Pension and community and regulatory support ................................................................................................................. 22,794 21,030 21,030 ¥1,764 ..........................Title X uranium/thorium reimbursement program ............................................................................................................... 35,732 30,000 10,689 ¥25,043 ¥19,311 

TOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND .............................................. 840,000 752,749 840,818 ∂818 ∂88,069 

SCIENCE 

Advanced scientific computing research ............................................................................................................................. 605,000 666,304 747,294 ∂142,294 ∂80,990 

Construction: 17–SC–20 SC Exascale Computing Project ................................................................................................................ 205,000 232,706 232,706 ∂27,706 ..........................

Subtotal, Advanced scientific computing research ................................................................................................ 810,000 899,010 980,000 ∂170,000 ∂80,990 

Basic energy sciences: 

Research ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,744,900 1,635,700 1,751,100 ∂6,200 ∂115,400 Construction: 

13–SC–10 LINAC coherent light source II, SLAC .............................................................................................. 192,100 139,300 139,300 ¥52,800 ..........................18–SC–10 APS Upgrade, ANL ............................................................................................................................ 93,000 60,000 140,000 ∂47,000 ∂80,000 18–SC–11 Spallation Neutron Source Proton Power Upgrade (PPU), ORNL ..................................................... 36,000 .......................... 70,000 ∂34,000 ∂70,000 18–SC–12 Advanced Light Source Upgrade (ALS–U), LBNL ............................................................................. 16,000 10,000 50,000 ∂34,000 ∂40,000 
121 

18–SC–13 LINAC coherent light source II HE, SLAC ......................................................................................... 8,000 5,000 28,000 ∂20,000 ∂23,000 19–SC–14 Second Target Station, ORNL ........................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 15,000 ∂15,000 ∂15,000 

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................... 345,100 214,300 442,300 ∂97,200 ∂228,000 Subtotal, Basic energy sciences .................................................................................................................... 2,090,000 1,850,000 2,193,400 ∂103,400 ∂343,400 

Biological and environmental research ............................................................................................................................... 673,000 500,000 715,000 ∂42,000 ∂215,000 Fusion energy sciences: 

Research ...................................................................................................................................................................... 410,111 265,000 303,000 ¥107,111 ∂38,000 Construction: 

14–SC–60 ITER .................................................................................................................................................. 122,000 75,000 122,000 .......................... ∂47,000 

Subtotal, Fusion energy sciences ........................................................................................................................... 532,111 340,000 425,000 ¥107,111 ∂85,000 

High energy physics: 

Research ...................................................................................................................................................................... 767,600 627,000 800,000 ∂32,400 ∂173,000 Construction: 

11–SC–40 Long baseline neutrino facility / deep underground neutrino experiment, FNAL ........................... 95,000 113,000 145,000 ∂50,000 ∂32,000 11–SC–41 Muon to electron conversion experiment, FNAL ............................................................................... 44,400 30,000 30,000 ¥14,400 ..........................18–SC–42 PIP–II, FNAL ...................................................................................................................................... 1,000 .......................... 35,000 ∂34,000 ∂35,000 

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................... 140,400 143,000 210,000 ∂69,600 ∂67,000 Subtotal, High energy physics ....................................................................................................................... 908,000 770,000 1,010,000 ∂102,000 ∂240,000 

Nuclear physics: 

Operations and maintenance ...................................................................................................................................... 586,800 525,000 635,000 ∂48,200 ∂110,000 Construction: 

14–SC–50 Facility for rare isotope beams, Michigan State University ............................................................ 97,200 75,000 75,000 ¥22,200 ..........................

Subtotal, Nuclear physics .............................................................................................................................. 684,000 600,000 710,000 ∂26,000 ∂110,000 

Workforce development for teachers and scientists ............................................................................................................ 19,500 19,000 24,500 ∂5,000 ∂5,500 Science laboratories infrastructure: 

Infrastructure support: 

Payment in lieu of taxes .................................................................................................................................... 1,713 1,513 1,713 .......................... ∂200 Oak Ridge landlord ............................................................................................................................................ 6,382 6,434 6,434 ∂52 ..........................Facilities and infrastructure .............................................................................................................................. 70,347 30,724 48,253 ¥22,094 ∂17,529 Oak Ridge nuclear operations ............................................................................................................................ 26,000 10,000 26,000 .......................... ∂16,000 
122 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate 

Subtotal, Infrastructure support .................................................................................................................... 104,442 48,671 82,400 ¥22,042 ∂33,729 

Construction: 

19–SC–71 Science User Support Center, BNL .................................................................................................. .......................... 2,000 10,000 ∂10,000 ∂8,000 19–SC–72 Electrical Capacity and Distribution Capability, ANL ...................................................................... .......................... 20,000 60,000 ∂60,000 ∂40,000 18–SC–71 Energy Sciences Capability, PNNL ................................................................................................... 20,000 4,000 35,000 ∂15,000 ∂31,000 17–SC–71 Integrated Engineering Research Center, FNAL ............................................................................... 20,000 5,000 32,500 ∂12,500 ∂27,500 17–SC–73 Core Facility Revitalization, BNL ...................................................................................................... 30,000 13,632 42,200 ∂12,200 ∂28,568 15–SC–78 Integrative genomics building, LBNL ............................................................................................... 38,350 13,549 .......................... ¥38,350 ¥13,549 15–SC–76 Materials design laboratory, ANL ..................................................................................................... 44,500 20,000 .......................... ¥44,500 ¥20,000 19–SC–73 Translational Research Capability, ORNL ........................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 35,000 ∂35,000 ∂35,000 19–SC–74 BioEPIC Building, LBNL .................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000 ∂2,000 ∂2,000 19–SC–75 CEBAF Renovation and Expansion, TJNAF ....................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 19–SC–76 Craft Resources Support Facility, ORNL .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 19–SC–77 Large Scale Collaboration Center, SLAC .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 

Subtotal, Construction: ........................................................................................................................................... 152,850 78,181 219,700 ∂66,850 ∂141,519 Subtotal, Science laboratories infrastructure ......................................................................................................... 257,292 126,852 302,100 ∂44,808 ∂175,248 

Safeguards and security ...................................................................................................................................................... 103,000 106,110 106,000 ∂3,000 ¥110 Science program direction ................................................................................................................................................... 183,000 180,000 184,000 ∂1,000 ∂4,000 

TOTAL, SCIENCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 6,259,903 5,390,972 6,650,000 ∂390,097 ∂1,259,028 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL .................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 90,000 .......................... .......................... ¥90,000 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY 

ARPA–E projects ................................................................................................................................................................... 324,064 .......................... 341,750 ∂17,686 ∂341,750 Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 29,250 .......................... 33,250 ∂4,000 ∂33,250 

TOTAL, ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY ................................................................................... 353,314 .......................... 375,000 ∂21,686 ∂375,000 
123 

TITLE 17—INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM 

Administrative expenses ....................................................................................................................................................... 33,000 10,000 33,000 .......................... ∂23,000 Offsetting collection ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥10,000 ¥15,000 ¥15,000 ¥5,000 ..........................Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥240,000 .......................... .......................... ∂240,000 Title 17 negative subsidy ..................................................................................................................................................... 15,000 ¥44,000 ¥44,000 ¥59,000 ..........................Rescission of emergency funding ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... ¥383,433 .......................... .......................... ∂383,433 

TOTAL, TITLE 17—INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ......................................................... 38,000 ¥672,433 ¥26,000 ¥64,000 ∂646,433 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM 

Administrative expenses ....................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 1,000 5,000 .......................... ∂4,000 Rescission of emergency funding ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... ¥4,300,000 .......................... .......................... ∂4,300,000 

TOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM .................................................... 5,000 ¥4,299,000 5,000 .......................... ∂4,304,000 

TRIBAL ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM 

Administrative expenses ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,000 .......................... 1,000 .......................... ∂1,000 Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥8,500 .......................... .......................... ∂8,500 

TOTAL, TRIBAL ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ........................................................................................... 1,000 ¥8,500 1,000 .......................... ∂9,500 

OFFICE OF INDIAN ENERGY POLICY AND PROGRAMS 

Administrative Expenses ...................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 13,200 ∂13,200 ∂13,200 Program Direction ................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 4,800 ∂4,800 ∂4,800 

TOTAL, OFFICE OF INDIAN ENERGY POLICY AND PROGRAMS ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 18,000 ∂18,000 ∂18,000 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION 

Administrative operations: 

Salaries and expenses: 

Office of the Secretary: Program direction ............................................................................................................................................... 5,300 5,395 5,395 ∂95 ..........................Chief Financial Officer ....................................................................................................................................... 48,484 48,912 48,912 ∂428 ..........................Chief Information Officer ................................................................................................................................... 126,274 96,793 131,593 ∂5,319 ∂34,800 Office of Indian energy policy and programs .................................................................................................... 18,000 10,005 .......................... ¥18,000 ¥10,005 Congressional and intergovernmental affairs ................................................................................................... 6,200 6,212 4,212 ¥1,988 ¥2,000 Economic impact and diversity .......................................................................................................................... 10,169 10,005 10,005 ¥164 ..........................
124 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate 

Other Departmental Administration ................................................................................................................... 174,225 173,901 168,883 ¥5,342 ¥5,018 

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................... 388,652 351,223 369,000 ¥19,652 ∂17,777 Subtotal, Administrative operations .............................................................................................................. 388,652 351,223 369,000 ¥19,652 ∂17,777 

Strategic partnership projects .................................................................................................................................... 40,000 40,000 40,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Departmental administration .................................................................................................................. 428,652 391,223 409,000 ¥19,652 ∂17,777 

Use of prior–year balances .................................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥2,000 .......................... .......................... ∂2,000 Funding from other defense activities ................................................................................................................................. ¥143,000 ¥153,689 ¥143,000 .......................... ∂10,689 

Total, Departmental administration (gross) ........................................................................................................... 285,652 235,534 266,000 ¥19,652 ∂30,466 

Miscellaneous revenues ........................................................................................................................................................ ¥96,000 ¥96,000 ¥96,000 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net) ...................................................................................................... 189,652 139,534 170,000 ¥19,652 ∂30,466 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .................................................................................................................................. 49,000 51,330 51,330 ∂2,330 ..........................

TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................... 12,933,049 3,785,071 13,281,893 ∂348,844 ∂9,496,822 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES 

Directed stockpile work: 

Life Extension Programs and Major Alterations: 

B61 Life extension program ............................................................................................................................... 788,572 794,049 794,049 ∂5,477 ..........................W76–1 Life extension program .......................................................................................................................... 224,134 48,888 48,888 ¥175,246 ..........................W88 Alteration program ..................................................................................................................................... 332,292 304,285 304,285 ¥28,007 ..........................
125 

W80–4 Life extension program .......................................................................................................................... 399,090 654,766 654,766 ∂255,676 ..........................IW–1 ................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 53,000 53,000 ∂53,000 ..........................W76–2 Modification program ............................................................................................................................. .......................... 65,000 65,000 ∂65,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Life Extension Programs and Major Alterations ............................................................................ 1,744,088 1,919,988 1,919,988 ∂175,900 ..........................

Stockpile systems: 

B61 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 59,729 64,547 64,547 ∂4,818 ..........................W76 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 51,400 94,300 94,300 ∂42,900 ..........................W78 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 60,100 81,329 81,329 ∂21,229 ..........................W80 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 80,087 80,204 80,204 ∂117 ..........................B83 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 35,762 35,082 35,082 ¥680 ..........................W87 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 83,200 83,107 83,107 ¥93 ..........................W88 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 131,576 180,913 180,913 ∂49,337 ..........................

Subtotal, Stockpile systems ........................................................................................................................... 501,854 619,482 619,482 ∂117,628 ..........................

Weapons dismantlement and disposition ................................................................................................................... 56,000 56,000 56,000 .......................... ..........................Stockpile services: 

Production support ............................................................................................................................................. 485,400 512,916 512,916 ∂27,516 ..........................Research and Development support .................................................................................................................. 31,150 38,129 38,129 ∂6,979 ..........................R and D certification and safety ....................................................................................................................... 196,840 216,582 216,582 ∂19,742 ..........................Management, technology, and production ......................................................................................................... 285,400 300,736 300,736 ∂15,336 ..........................

Subtotal, Stockpile systems ........................................................................................................................... 998,790 1,068,363 1,068,363 ∂69,573 ..........................

Strategic materials: 

Domestic uranium enrichment ........................................................................................................................... 60,000 100,704 50,000 ¥10,000 ¥50,704 Uranium sustainment ......................................................................................................................................... 24,000 87,182 87,182 ∂63,182 ..........................Plutonium sustainment ...................................................................................................................................... 210,367 361,282 361,282 ∂150,915 ..........................Tritium sustainment ........................................................................................................................................... 198,152 205,275 290,275 ∂92,123 ∂85,000 Lithium sustainment .......................................................................................................................................... .......................... 29,135 29,135 ∂29,135 ..........................Strategic materials sustainment ....................................................................................................................... 216,196 218,794 218,794 ∂2,598 ..........................

Subtotal, Strategic materials: ....................................................................................................................... 708,715 1,002,372 1,036,668 ∂327,953 ∂34,296 

Subtotal, Directed stockpile work ........................................................................................................................... 4,009,447 4,666,205 4,700,501 ∂691,054 ∂34,296 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E): 

Science: 

Advanced certification ........................................................................................................................................ 57,710 57,710 57,710 .......................... ..........................Primary assessment technologies ...................................................................................................................... 89,313 95,057 89,313 .......................... ¥5,744 
126 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate 

Dynamic materials properties ............................................................................................................................ 120,000 131,000 120,000 .......................... ¥11,000 Advanced radiography ........................................................................................................................................ 37,600 32,544 32,544 ¥5,056 ..........................Secondary assessment technologies .................................................................................................................. 76,833 77,553 77,553 ∂720 ..........................Academic alliances and partnerships ............................................................................................................... 52,963 53,364 53,364 ∂401 ..........................Enhanced capabilities for subcritical experiments ........................................................................................... 40,105 117,632 80,000 ∂39,895 ¥37,632 

Subtotal, Science ........................................................................................................................................... 474,524 564,860 510,484 ∂35,960 ¥54,376 

Engineering: 

Enhanced surety ................................................................................................................................................. 39,717 43,226 43,226 ∂3,509 ..........................Weapons system engineering assessment technology ...................................................................................... 23,029 27,536 23,029 .......................... ¥4,507 Nuclear survivability ........................................................................................................................................... 45,230 48,230 45,230 .......................... ¥3,000 Enhanced surveillance ....................................................................................................................................... 45,147 58,375 45,147 .......................... ¥13,228 Stockpile responsiveness .................................................................................................................................... 30,000 34,000 30,000 .......................... ¥4,000 

Subtotal, Engineering .................................................................................................................................... 183,123 211,367 186,632 ∂3,509 ¥24,735 

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield: 

Ignition ............................................................................................................................................................... 79,575 22,434 79,575 .......................... ∂57,141 Support of other stockpile programs ................................................................................................................. 23,565 17,397 23,565 .......................... ∂6,168 Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support ........................................................................................... 77,915 51,453 77,915 .......................... ∂26,462 Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion ......................................................................................................... 7,596 8,310 7,596 .......................... ¥714 Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas ................................................................................ 9,492 .......................... 9,492 .......................... ∂9,492 Facility operations and target production ......................................................................................................... 346,791 319,333 346,791 .......................... ∂27,458 

Subtotal, Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield ..................................................................... 544,934 418,927 544,934 .......................... ∂126,007 

Advanced simulation and computing: 

Advanced simulation and computing ................................................................................................................ 721,244 656,401 656,401 ¥64,843 ..........................Construction: 

18–D–670 Exascale class computer cooling equipment, LANL ............................................................... 22,000 24,000 24,000 ∂2,000 ..........................18–D–620 Exascale computing facility modernization project, LLNL ...................................................... 3,000 23,000 23,000 ∂20,000 ..........................
127 

Subtotal, Construction ...................................................................................................................... 25,000 47,000 47,000 ∂22,000 ..........................Subtotal, Advanced simulation, Computing and Construction ....................................................... 746,244 703,401 703,401 ¥42,843 ..........................

Advanced manufacturing development: 

Additive manfacturing ................................................................................................................................................. 12,000 17,447 17,447 ∂5,447 ..........................Component manufacturing development .................................................................................................................... 38,644 48,477 43,477 ∂4,833 ¥5,000 Process technology development ................................................................................................................................. 34,896 30,914 35,914 ∂1,018 ∂5,000 

Subtotal, Advanced manufacturing development .................................................................................................. 85,540 96,838 96,838 ∂11,298 ..........................

Subtotal, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) ................................................................ 2,034,365 1,995,393 2,042,289 ∂7,924 ∂46,896 

Infrastructure and Operations: 

Operations of facilities ................................................................................................................................................ 848,470 891,000 874,000 ∂25,530 ¥17,000 Safety and environmental operations ......................................................................................................................... 110,000 115,000 110,000 .......................... ¥5,000 Maintenance and repair of facilities .......................................................................................................................... 515,138 365,000 250,000 ¥265,138 ¥115,000 Recapitalization: 

Infrastructure and safety ................................................................................................................................... 482,661 431,631 320,000 ¥162,661 ¥111,631 Capability based investments ............................................................................................................................ 130,000 109,057 105,000 ¥25,000 ¥4,057 

Subtotal, Recapitalization .............................................................................................................................. 612,661 540,688 425,000 ¥187,661 ¥115,688 

Construction: 

19–D–125 Plutonium infrastructure recapitalization, LANL .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................19–D–670 138kV Power Transmission System Replacement, NNSS ................................................................ .......................... 6,000 .......................... .......................... ¥6,000 18–D–680 Material staging facility, PX ............................................................................................................ 5,200 .......................... 10,418 ∂5,218 ∂10,418 18–D–660 Fire station, Y–12 ............................................................................................................................ 28,000 .......................... .......................... ¥28,000 ..........................18–D–650 Tritium production capability, SRS .................................................................................................. .......................... 27,000 27,000 ∂27,000 ..........................18–D–690 Lithium production capability, Y–12 ............................................................................................... 5,000 19,000 19,000 ∂14,000 ..........................17–D–640 U1a complex enhancements project, NNSA ..................................................................................... 22,100 53,000 53,000 ∂30,900 ..........................17–D–630 Electrical distribution system, LLNL ................................................................................................ 6,000 .......................... .......................... ¥6,000 ..........................16–D–515 Albuquerque Complex project .......................................................................................................... 98,000 47,953 47,953 ¥50,047 ..........................15–D–613 Emergency Operations Center, Y–12 ............................................................................................... 7,000 .......................... .......................... ¥7,000 ..........................07–D–220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility, LANL .......................................................................... 2,100 .......................... .......................... ¥2,100 ..........................07–D–220–04 TRU liquid waste facility, LANL ................................................................................................. 17,895 .......................... .......................... ¥17,895 ..........................06–D–141 Uranium Processing Facility, Y–12 .................................................................................................. 663,000 703,000 703,000 ∂40,000 ..........................

Chemistry and metallurgy replacement: 

04–D–125 Chemistry and metallurgy replacement project, LANL .................................................................... .......................... 235,095 235,095 ∂235,095 ..........................04–D–125–04 RLUOB equipment installation, phase 2 ................................................................................... 127,025 .......................... .......................... ¥127,025 ..........................04–D–125–05 PF–4 equipment installation ..................................................................................................... 50,214 .......................... .......................... ¥50,214 ..........................
128 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate 

Subtotal, Chemistry and metallurgy replacement ......................................................................................... 177,239 235,095 235,095 ∂57,856 ..........................Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................... 1,031,534 1,091,048 1,095,466 ∂63,932 ∂4,418 

Subtotal, Infrastructure and Operations ................................................................................................................ 3,117,803 3,002,736 2,754,466 ¥363,337 ¥248,270 

Secure transportation asset: 

Operations and equipment .......................................................................................................................................... 185,568 176,617 176,617 ¥8,951 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 105,600 102,022 102,022 ¥3,578 ..........................

Subtotal, Secure transportation asset .................................................................................................................... 291,168 278,639 278,639 ¥12,529 ..........................

Defense nuclear security: 

Defense nuclear security ............................................................................................................................................. 686,977 690,638 690,638 ∂3,661 ..........................Security improvements program ................................................................................................................................. 30,000 .......................... .......................... ¥30,000 ..........................Construction: 

17–D–710 West end protected area reduction project, Y–12 .......................................................................... 53,600 .......................... .......................... ¥53,600 ..........................

Subtotal, Defense nuclear security ................................................................................................................ 770,577 690,638 690,638 ¥79,939 ..........................

Information technology and cyber security .......................................................................................................................... 186,728 221,175 221,175 ∂34,447 ..........................Legacy contractor pensions .................................................................................................................................................. 232,050 162,292 162,292 ¥69,758 ..........................

TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................. 10,642,138 11,017,078 10,850,000 ∂207,862 ¥167,078 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION 

Global material security: 

International nuclear security ..................................................................................................................................... 46,339 46,339 46,339 .......................... ..........................Domestic radiologic security ....................................................................................................................................... 110,433 90,764 115,433 ∂5,000 ∂24,669 International radiologic security ................................................................................................................................. 78,907 59,576 78,907 .......................... ∂19,331 Nuclear smuggling detection ...................................................................................................................................... 154,429 140,429 154,429 .......................... ∂14,000 
129 

Subtotal, Global material security .......................................................................................................................... 390,108 337,108 395,108 ∂5,000 ∂58,000 

Material management and minimization: 

Conversion ................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 98,300 88,300 ∂88,300 ¥10,000 Nuclear material removal ............................................................................................................................................ 32,925 32,925 32,925 .......................... ..........................Material disposition ..................................................................................................................................................... 183,669 200,869 200,869 ∂17,200 ..........................Laboratory and partnership support ........................................................................................................................... 92,000 .......................... 15,000 ¥77,000 ∂15,000 

Subtotal, Material management and minimization ............................................................................................... 308,594 332,094 337,094 ∂28,500 ∂5,000 

Nonproliferation and arms control ....................................................................................................................................... 134,703 129,703 129,703 ¥5,000 ..........................Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D: 

Proliferation detection ................................................................................................................................................. 278,255 273,200 281,521 ∂3,266 ∂8,321 Nuclear detonation detection ...................................................................................................................................... 195,749 182,895 195,749 .......................... ∂12,854 Nonproliferation fuels development ............................................................................................................................ 82,500 .......................... 10,000 ¥72,500 ∂10,000 

Subtotal, Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D ................................................................................................... 556,504 456,095 487,270 ¥69,234 ∂31,175 

Nonproliferation construction: 

99–D–143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility, SRS ................................................................................... 335,000 220,000 220,000 ¥115,000 ..........................18–D–150 Surplus plutonium disposition project, SRS ............................................................................................. .......................... 59,000 59,000 ∂59,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Nonproliferation construction .................................................................................................................. 335,000 279,000 279,000 ¥56,000 ..........................

Legacy contractor pensions .................................................................................................................................................. 40,950 28,640 28,640 ¥12,310 ..........................Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response ................................................................................................................. 282,360 319,185 319,185 ∂36,825 ..........................Use of prior–year balances .................................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥19,000 ¥74,000 ¥74,000 ¥55,000 

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........................................................................................................... 2,048,219 1,862,825 1,902,000 ¥146,219 ∂39,175 

Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥49,000 .......................... .......................... ∂49,000 ..........................

TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ..................................................................................................... 1,999,219 1,862,825 1,902,000 ¥97,219 ∂39,175 

NAVAL REACTORS 

Columbia–class reactor systems development .................................................................................................................... 156,700 138,000 138,000 ¥18,700 ..........................Naval reactors development ................................................................................................................................................. 473,065 514,951 475,000 ∂1,935 ¥39,951 S8G Prototype refueling ........................................................................................................................................................ 250,000 250,000 200,000 ¥50,000 ¥50,000 Naval reactors operations and infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 466,884 525,764 525,764 ∂58,880 ..........................Construction: 

19–D–930 KS Overhead Piping .................................................................................................................................. .......................... 10,994 10,994 ∂10,994 ..........................
130 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate 

17–D–911 BL Fire System Upgrade ........................................................................................................................... .......................... 13,200 13,200 ∂13,200 ..........................15–D–904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3 ......................................................................................................... 13,700 .......................... .......................... ¥13,700 ..........................15–D–903 KL Fire System Upgrade ............................................................................................................................ 15,000 .......................... .......................... ¥15,000 ..........................14–D–901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, NRF ................................................................................... 197,000 287,000 209,000 ∂12,000 ¥78,000 

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................................ 225,700 311,194 233,194 ∂7,494 ¥78,000 

Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 47,651 48,709 48,042 ∂391 ¥667 

TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS ........................................................................................................................................ 1,620,000 1,788,618 1,620,000 .......................... ¥168,618 

FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES ..................................................................................................................................... 407,595 422,529 408,000 ∂405 ¥14,529 

TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................................... 14,668,952 15,091,050 14,780,000 ∂111,048 ¥311,050 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

Closure sites administration ................................................................................................................................................ 4,889 4,889 4,889 .......................... ..........................Richland: 

River corridor and other cleanup operations .............................................................................................................. 183,692 89,577 209,577 ∂25,885 ∂120,000 Central plateau remediation ....................................................................................................................................... 662,879 562,473 618,473 ¥44,406 ∂56,000 RL Community and regulatory support ....................................................................................................................... 10,121 5,121 10,121 .......................... ∂5,000 RL Excess facilities D&D ............................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Construction: 

18–D–404 WESF Modifications and capsule storage ....................................................................................... 6,500 1,000 .......................... ¥6,500 ¥1,000 

Subtotal, Richland ......................................................................................................................................... 863,192 658,171 838,171 ¥25,021 ∂180,000 

Idaho National Laboratory: 

Idaho cleanup and waste disposition ......................................................................................................................... 420,000 346,026 346,026 ¥73,974 ..........................Idaho community and regulatory support ................................................................................................................... 4,071 3,200 3,200 ¥871 ..........................
131 

ID Excess facilities D&D ............................................................................................................................................. 10,000 .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Idaho National Laboratory ....................................................................................................................... 434,071 349,226 349,226 ¥84,845 ..........................

NNSA sites and Nevada offsites: 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory .................................................................................................................... 1,175 1,704 1,704 ∂529 ..........................Separations Process Research Unit ............................................................................................................................ 4,800 15,000 15,000 ∂10,200 ..........................Nevada ......................................................................................................................................................................... 60,136 60,136 60,136 .......................... ..........................Sandia National Laboratory ......................................................................................................................................... 2,600 2,600 2,600 .......................... ..........................Los Alamos National Laboratory ................................................................................................................................. 220,000 191,629 220,000 .......................... ∂28,371 LLNL Excess facilities D&D ......................................................................................................................................... 100,000 .......................... 50,000 ¥50,000 ∂50,000 

Subtotal, NNSA sites and Nevada offsites ............................................................................................................. 388,711 271,069 349,440 ¥39,271 ∂78,371 

Oak Ridge Reservation: 

OR Nuclear facility D&D .............................................................................................................................................. 118,203 90,221 189,000 ∂70,797 ∂98,779 U233 disposition program ........................................................................................................................................... 50,311 45,000 52,300 ∂1,989 ∂7,300 OR Cleanup and disposition ....................................................................................................................................... 71,000 67,000 74,000 ∂3,000 ∂7,000 Construction: 

17–D–401 On–site waste disposal facility ....................................................................................................... 10,000 5,000 10,000 .......................... ∂5,000 14–D–403 Outfall 200 mercury treatment facility ............................................................................................ 17,100 11,274 76,000 ∂58,900 ∂64,726 

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................... 27,100 16,274 86,000 ∂58,900 ∂69,726 

OR Community & regulatory support .......................................................................................................................... 5,605 4,711 5,700 ∂95 ∂989 OR Technology development and deployment ............................................................................................................. 3,000 3,000 3,000 .......................... ..........................OR Excess facilities D&D ............................................................................................................................................ 125,000 .......................... .......................... ¥125,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Oak Ridge Reservation ............................................................................................................................ 400,219 226,206 410,000 ∂9,781 ∂183,794 

Office of River Protection: 

Waste treatment and immobilization plant commissioning ....................................................................................... 8,000 15,000 15,000 ∂7,000 ..........................Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ................................................................................................. 719,000 677,460 771,947 ∂52,947 ∂94,487 Construction: 

15–D–409 Low activity waste pretreatment system ......................................................................................... 93,000 56,053 56,053 ¥36,947 ..........................01–D–16 A–D Waste treatment and immobilization plant ............................................................................... .......................... 675,000 655,000 ∂655,000 ¥20,000 18–D–16 Waste treatment and immobilization plant—LBL/Direct feed LAW .................................................. 630,000 .......................... .......................... ¥630,000 ..........................01–D–16 D High–level waste facility ................................................................................................................ 75,000 .......................... 60,000 ¥15,000 ∂60,000 01–D–16 E Pretreatment facility ....................................................................................................................... 35,000 15,000 15,000 ¥20,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................................ 833,000 746,053 786,053 ¥46,947 ∂40,000 
132 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate 

Subtotal, Office of River Protection ........................................................................................................................ 1,560,000 1,438,513 1,573,000 ∂13,000 ∂134,487 

Savannah River Site: 

SR Site risk management operations ......................................................................................................................... 482,960 517,436 517,436 ∂34,476 ..........................SR Community and regulatory support ....................................................................................................................... 11,249 4,749 4,749 ¥6,500 ..........................SR Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ............................................................................... 637,105 805,686 732,863 ∂95,758 ¥72,823 Construction: 

19–D–701 SR Security system replacement ..................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................18–D–402 Saltstone disposal unit #8/9 ........................................................................................................... 500 37,450 37,450 ∂36,950 ..........................18–D–402 Emergency Operations Center Replacement, SR ............................................................................. 500 1,259 1,259 ∂759 ..........................17–D–402 Saltstone disposal Unit #7, SRS ..................................................................................................... 30,000 41,243 41,243 ∂11,243 ..........................05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, SRS ................................................................................................. 150,000 65,000 65,000 ¥85,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................... 181,000 144,952 144,952 ¥36,048 ..........................Subtotal, Savannah River Site ...................................................................................................................... 1,312,314 1,472,823 1,400,000 ∂87,686 ¥72,823 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant .......................................................................................................................................... 270,971 311,695 311,695 ∂40,724 ..........................Construction: 

15–D–411 Safety significant confinement ventilation system, WIPP ............................................................... 86,000 84,212 84,212 ¥1,788 ..........................15–D–412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP ......................................................................................................................... 19,600 1,000 1,000 ¥18,600 ..........................

Subtotal, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ............................................................................................................ 376,571 396,907 396,907 ∂20,336 ..........................

Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 300,000 300,000 300,000 .......................... ..........................Program support ................................................................................................................................................................... 14,979 12,979 12,979 ¥2,000 ..........................Safeguards and Security ...................................................................................................................................................... 298,102 324,434 324,434 ∂26,332 ..........................Technology development ....................................................................................................................................................... 35,000 25,000 28,954 ¥6,046 ∂3,954 Excess facilities .................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 150,000 .......................... .......................... ¥150,000 Use of prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................
133 

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP .......................................................................................................... 5,988,048 5,630,217 5,988,000 ¥48 ∂357,783 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

Environment, health, safety and security: 

Environment, health, safety and security ................................................................................................................... 130,693 135,194 132,583 ∂1,890 ¥2,611 Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 68,253 70,653 70,653 ∂2,400 ..........................

Subtotal, Environment, Health, safety and security .............................................................................................. 198,946 205,847 203,236 ∂4,290 ¥2,611 

Independent enterprise assessments: 

Independent enterprise assessments .......................................................................................................................... 24,068 24,068 24,068 .......................... ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 50,863 52,702 52,702 ∂1,839 ..........................

Subtotal, Independent enterprise assessments ..................................................................................................... 74,931 76,770 76,770 ∂1,839 ..........................

Specialized security activities .............................................................................................................................................. 262,912 254,378 254,378 ¥8,534 ..........................Office of Legacy Management: 

Legacy management ................................................................................................................................................... 137,674 140,575 140,575 ∂2,901 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 16,932 18,302 18,302 ∂1,370 ..........................

Subtotal, Office of Legacy Management ................................................................................................................ 154,606 158,877 158,877 ∂4,271 ..........................

Defense related administrative support .............................................................................................................................. 143,000 153,689 143,000 .......................... ¥10,689 Office of hearings and appeals ........................................................................................................................................... 5,605 5,739 5,739 ∂134 ..........................Use of prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥2,000 ¥2,000 ¥2,000 ..........................

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................................... 840,000 853,300 840,000 .......................... ¥13,300 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL .................................................................................................................................. .......................... 30,000 .......................... .......................... ¥30,000 

TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 21,497,000 21,604,567 21,608,000 ∂111,000 ∂3,433 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS 1

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Purchase power and wheeling .................................................................................................................................... 66,070 73,184 73,184 ∂7,114 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 6,379 6,500 6,500 ∂121 ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................................... 72,449 79,684 79,684 ∂7,235 ..........................
134 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate 

Less alternative financing [PPW] ................................................................................................................................ ¥15,070 ¥13,824 ¥13,824 ∂1,246 ..........................Offsetting collections (for PPW) .................................................................................................................................. ¥51,000 ¥59,360 ¥59,360 ¥8,360 ..........................Offsetting collections (PD) .......................................................................................................................................... ¥6,379 ¥6,500 ¥6,500 ¥121 ..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Operating expenses ..................................................................................................................................................... 16,680 17,006 17,006 ∂326 ..........................Purchase power and wheeling .................................................................................................................................... 50,000 93,000 93,000 ∂43,000 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 31,335 32,995 32,995 ∂1,660 ..........................Construction ................................................................................................................................................................ 14,932 16,875 16,875 ∂1,943 ..........................Reduction due to CBO initial estimates of collections .............................................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥16,000 ¥16,000 ¥16,000 

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................................... 112,947 159,876 143,876 ∂30,929 ¥16,000 

Less alternative financing (for O&M) ......................................................................................................................... ¥9,042 ¥8,894 ¥8,894 ∂148 ..........................Less alternative financing (for PPW) .......................................................................................................................... ¥10,000 ¥10,000 ¥10,000 .......................... ..........................Less alternative financing (Const) ............................................................................................................................. ¥9,417 ¥12,180 ¥12,180 ¥2,763 ..........................Offsetting collections (PD) .......................................................................................................................................... ¥16,035 ¥29,695 ¥29,695 ¥13,660 ..........................Offsetting collections (for O&M) ................................................................................................................................. ¥2,853 ¥5,707 ¥5,707 ¥2,854 ..........................Offsetting collections (for PPW) .................................................................................................................................. ¥40,000 ¥83,000 ¥83,000 ¥43,000 ..........................Use of prior year balances .......................................................................................................................................... ¥14,200 .......................... .......................... ∂14,200 ..........................Southwestern Power Administration CBO initial estimates of collections ................................................................. .......................... 16,000 16,000 ∂16,000 ..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................. 11,400 26,400 10,400 ¥1,000 ¥16,000 

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Construction and rehabilitation .................................................................................................................................. 52,272 32,632 32,632 ¥19,640 ..........................Operation and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................ 72,407 77,056 77,056 ∂4,649 ..........................
135 

Purchase power and wheeling .................................................................................................................................... 498,072 567,362 567,362 ∂69,290 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 235,722 238,483 238,483 ∂2,761 ..........................Reduction due to CBO initial estimates of collections .............................................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥43,000 ¥43,000 ¥43,000 

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................................... 858,473 915,533 872,533 ∂14,060 ¥43,000 

Less alternative financing (for O&M) .................................................................................................................................. ¥5,068 ¥7,758 ¥7,758 ¥2,690 ..........................Less alternative financing (for Construction) ...................................................................................................................... ¥40,500 ¥27,077 ¥27,077 ∂13,423 ..........................Less alternative financing (for Program Dir.) ..................................................................................................................... ¥38,398 ¥39,136 ¥39,136 ¥738 ..........................Less alternative financing (for PPW) ................................................................................................................................... ¥289,072 ¥260,954 ¥260,954 ∂28,118 ..........................Offsetting collections (for program direction) ..................................................................................................................... ¥116,050 ¥150,761 ¥150,761 ¥34,711 ..........................Offsetting collections (for O&M) .......................................................................................................................................... ¥13,854 ¥25,009 ¥25,009 ¥11,155 ..........................Offsetting collections (Public Law 108–477, Public Law 109–103) .................................................................................. ¥209,000 ¥306,408 ¥306,408 ¥97,408 ..........................Offsetting collections (Public Law 98–381) ........................................................................................................................ ¥9,306 ¥9,058 ¥9,058 ∂248 ..........................Use of prior–year balances .................................................................................................................................................. ¥43,853 .......................... .......................... ∂43,853 ..........................Western Area Power Administration CBO initial estimates of collections .......................................................................... .......................... 43,000 43,000 ∂43,000 ..........................

TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................. 93,372 132,372 89,372 ¥4,000 ¥43,000 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND 

Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................................................................. 5,048 5,329 5,329 ∂281 ..........................Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................................... ¥3,948 ¥4,979 ¥4,979 ¥1,031 ..........................Less alternative financing ................................................................................................................................................... ¥872 ¥122 ¥122 ∂750 ..........................CBO estimate for third party financing ............................................................................................................................... 872 122 122 ¥750 ..........................

TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND ................................................................... 1,100 350 350 ¥750 ..........................TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS ....................................................................................................... 105,872 159,122 100,122 ¥5,750 ¥59,000 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ............................................................................................................................... 367,600 369,900 369,900 ∂2,300 ..........................FERC revenues ...................................................................................................................................................................... ¥367,600 ¥369,900 ¥369,900 ¥2,300 ..........................

TOTAL, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ........................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

General Provisions 

Title III Rescissions: 

Northeast gasoline supply reserve sale ...................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥71,000 .......................... .......................... ∂71,000 Strategic Petroleum Reserve crude oil sale ................................................................................................................ .......................... ¥15,000 .......................... .......................... ∂15,000 
136 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

2018 

Appropriations Budget estimate 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve use of sale proceeds .................................................................................................... .......................... 15,000 .......................... .......................... ¥15,000 

Total, General Provisions ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... ¥71,000 .......................... .......................... ∂71,000 GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ............................................................................................................... 34,535,921 25,477,760 34,990,015 ∂454,094 ∂9,512,255 

(Appropriations) .................................................................................................................................... (34,584,921 ) (30,409,693 ) (34,990,015 ) (∂405,094 ) (∂4,580,322 ) (Rescissions) ......................................................................................................................................... (¥49,000 ) (¥248,500 ) .......................... (∂49,000 ) (∂248,500 ) (Rescissions of emergency funding) .................................................................................................... .......................... (¥4,683,433 ) .......................... .......................... (∂4,683,433 ) 

SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTS 

Energy efficiency and renewable energy .............................................................................................................................. 2,321,778 695,610 2,322,000 ∂222 ∂1,626,390 Electricity delivery and energy reliability ............................................................................................................................. 248,329 .......................... .......................... ¥248,329 ..........................Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response .................................................................................................. .......................... 95,800 260,000 ∂260,000 ∂164,200 Electricity delivery ................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 61,309 .......................... .......................... ¥61,309 Nuclear energy ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,205,056 757,090 1,206,000 ∂944 ∂448,910 Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................................................................................................... 726,817 502,070 727,000 ∂183 ∂224,930 Naval Petroleum & Oil Shale Reserves ................................................................................................................................ 4,900 10,000 10,000 ∂5,100 ..........................Strategic petroleum reserve ................................................................................................................................................. 252,000 ¥124,895 175,105 ¥76,895 ∂300,000 SPR Petroleum Account ........................................................................................................................................................ 8,400 .......................... 8,400 .......................... ∂8,400 Northeast home heating oil reserve ..................................................................................................................................... 6,500 10,000 10,000 ∂3,500 ..........................Energy Information Administration ...................................................................................................................................... 125,000 115,035 125,000 .......................... ∂9,965 Non–Defense Environmental Cleanup .................................................................................................................................. 298,400 218,400 353,240 ∂54,840 ∂134,840 Uranium enrichment D&D fund ........................................................................................................................................... 840,000 752,749 840,818 ∂818 ∂88,069 Science ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6,259,903 5,390,972 6,650,000 ∂390,097 ∂1,259,028 Nuclear Waste Disposal ....................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 90,000 .......................... .......................... ¥90,000 Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy ....................................................................................................................... 353,314 .......................... 375,000 ∂21,686 ∂375,000 Title 17 Innovative technology loan guarantee program ..................................................................................................... 38,000 ¥672,433 ¥26,000 ¥64,000 ∂646,433 Advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loan pgm .................................................................................................... 5,000 ¥4,299,000 5,000 .......................... ∂4,304,000 Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee program ............................................................................................................................... 1,000 ¥8,500 1,000 .......................... ∂9,500 Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs ...................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 18,000 ∂18,000 ∂18,000 Departmental administration ............................................................................................................................................... 189,652 139,534 170,000 ¥19,652 ∂30,466 
137 

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................ 49,000 51,330 51,330 ∂2,330 ..........................Atomic energy defense activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons activities ............................................................................................................................................. 10,642,138 11,017,078 10,850,000 ∂207,862 ¥167,078 Defense nuclear nonproliferation ....................................................................................................................... 1,999,219 1,862,825 1,902,000 ¥97,219 ∂39,175 Naval reactors .................................................................................................................................................... 1,620,000 1,788,618 1,620,000 .......................... ¥168,618 Federal Salaries and Expenses .......................................................................................................................... 407,595 422,529 408,000 ∂405 ¥14,529 

Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Admin ................................................................................................... 14,668,952 15,091,050 14,780,000 ∂111,048 ¥311,050 

Defense environmental cleanup .................................................................................................................................. 5,988,048 5,630,217 5,988,000 ¥48 ∂357,783 Other defense activities .............................................................................................................................................. 840,000 853,300 840,000 .......................... ¥13,300 Defense nuclear waste disposal ................................................................................................................................. .......................... 30,000 .......................... .......................... ¥30,000 

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................................................................................. 21,497,000 21,604,567 21,608,000 ∂111,000 ∂3,433 

Power marketing administrations 1: 

Southeastern Power Administration ............................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Southwestern Power Administration ............................................................................................................................ 11,400 26,400 10,400 ¥1,000 ¥16,000 Western Area Power Administration ............................................................................................................................ 93,372 132,372 89,372 ¥4,000 ¥43,000 Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ............................................................................................. 1,100 350 350 ¥750 ..........................

Total, Power Marketing Administrations ................................................................................................................. 105,872 159,122 100,122 ¥5,750 ¥59,000 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 367,600 369,900 369,900 ∂2,300 ..........................Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥367,600 ¥369,900 ¥369,900 ¥2,300 ..........................

General Provisions ................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... ¥71,000 .......................... .......................... ∂71,000 Strategic Petroleum Reserve crude oil sale ......................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥15,000 .......................... .......................... ∂15,000 Strategic Petroleum Reserve use of sale proceeds ............................................................................................................. .......................... 15,000 .......................... .......................... ¥15,000 

Total Summary of Accounts, Department of Energy .............................................................................................. 34,535,921 25,477,760 34,990,015 ∂454,094 ∂9,512,255 

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. 
138 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Section 301. The bill includes a provision related to reprogramming. 

Section 302. The bill includes a provision to authorize intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 2019 Intelligence Authorization Act. 

Section 303. The bill includes a provision related to independent 

cost estimates. 

Section 304. The bill includes a provision concerning a pilot program for consolidated storage of spent nuclear fuel. 

TITLE IV 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

The budget request proposes to eliminate the Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, and Northern Border Regional Commission. The budget requests funding to conduct closeout of the 

agencies in fiscal year 2019. 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, 2018 ............................................................................. $155,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 152,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 155,000,000 

The Committee recommends $155,000,000 for the Appalachian 

Regional Commission [ARC], an increase of $3,000,000 above the 

budget request. Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional 

Commission is an economic development agency composed of 13 

Appalachian States and a Federal co-chair appointed by the President. Within available funding, $73,000,000 is recommended 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 to States that have distressed counties in 

Southern and South Central Appalachia using the ARC Area Development Formula. 

Within available funding, the Committee recommends 

$16,000,000 for a program of basic infrastructure improvements 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 pro-
139 

viding resources for economic diversification, job creation, job training, and other employment services. 

The Committee recognizes that the headquarters of the Delta Regional Authority, the Denali Commission, and the Northern Border 

Regional Commission are each headquartered in their respective 

regions. However, the Appalachian Regional Commission is 

headquartered in Washington, D.C. Headquartering regional commissions within the region affected is a sensible approach to ensure 

that the commissions are housed in more affordable locations than 

the District of Columbia, thereby reducing administrative overhead 

and making the commissions closer and more accountable to the 

people the commissions were designed to serve. Accordingly, the 

Committee directs the Appalachian Regional Commission, not later 

than 180 days after the enactment of this act, to provide the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress with a report 

that examines the feasibility of relocating the Appalachian Regional Commission to within the Appalachian region, including any 

potential long-term cost savings that could be accomplished. 

The Committee believes that if the Appalachian Regional Commission is going to move, it should move to the State of West Virginia. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $31,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 31,243,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 31,000,000 

The Committee recommends $31,000,000 for the Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board, a decrease of $243,000 below the budget request. Congress permanently authorized the Inspector General for 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to serve as the Inspector General for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The Committee recommendation includes $1,103,000 within the Office of Inspector General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to perform 

these services. 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $25,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 2,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,000,000 

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Delta Regional 

Authority [DRA], an increase of $22,500,000 above the budget request. DRA is a Federal-State partnership that is designed to assist the eight-State Mississippi Delta Region in developing basic infrastructure, transportation, skill training, and opportunities for 

economic development for distressed counties and parishes. Within 

available funds, not less than $10,000,000 is recommended for flood 

control, basic public infrastructure development and transportation 

improvements, which shall be allocated separate from the State 

formula funding method. The Committee does not include a statutory waiver with regard to DRA’s priority of funding, and directs 

DRA to focus on activities relating to basic public infrastructure 
140 

and transportation infrastructure before allocating funding toward 

other priority areas. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $30,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 7,300,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,000,000 

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Denali Commission, an increase of $7,700,000 above the budget request. The 

Denali Commission is a Federal-State partnership responsible for 

promoting infrastructure development, job training, and other economic support services in rural areas throughout Alaska. 

NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $15,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 850,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000 

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Northern Border Regional Commission, an increase of $19,150,000 above the 

budget request. Within available funds, no less than $4,000,000 is 

recommended for initiatives that seek to address the decline in forest-based economies throughout the region. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $909,137,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 958,050,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 898,350,000 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. ¥$779,768,032 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... ¥805,018,500 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥794,218,500 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $129,300,892 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 153,031,500 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 104,131,500 

The Committee recommends $898,350,000 for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [Commission], a decrease of $59,700,000 below 

the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation requires the 

use of $20,000,000 of unobligated balances from prior year appropriations. This amount is offset by estimated revenues of 

$794,218,500, resulting in a net appropriation of $104,131,500. In 

developing this recommendation, the Committee has consulted with 

the Commission to ensure it maintains its gold-standard health 

and safety mission while reducing low-priority work. 

Budget Execution Plan.—The Commission is directed to provide 

the Committee with a specific budget execution plan not later than 

30 days after the enactment of this act. This plan shall provide details at the product line level within each of the control points, as 
141 

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 2019 to ensure the Commission’s budget execution follows congressional intent. These budget control 

points are included in the table following the heading of Office of 

Inspector General. As it did for fiscal year 2018, the Committee includes statutory language incorporating the control points by reference into law, and notes that any breaches are subject to the reporting requirements and remedies of the Antideficiency Act contained in title 31 of the United States Code. 

Reprogramming Authority.—Section 402 continues reprogramming authority included in the Energy and Water Development 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, for the Commission 

between the budget control points, subject to prior congressional 

approval, with a provision made for emergency circumstances. This 

reprogramming authority supersedes the Commission’s 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 2019. The Committee’s recommendation requires the use of $20,000,000 of these balances, derived from fee-based activities. Because the Commission 

has already collected fees corresponding to these activities in 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. 

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. 

Reporting Requirement.—The Committee directs the Commission 

to continue the reporting required in the explanatory statement for 

the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, relating to progress against the Commission’s 

licensing goals and right-sizing commitments. 

Rulemaking.—The Committee directs the Commission to provide 

in its annual budget request and the semi-annual report to Congress on licensing and regulatory activities a list of all rulemaking 

activities planned, to include their priority and schedule. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $12,859,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 12,609,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,609,000 
142 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. ¥$10,555,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... ¥10,355,400 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥10,355,400 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $2,304,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 2,253,600 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,253,600 

The Committee recommends $12,609,000 for the Office of Inspector General, the same as the budget request, which is offset by revenues estimated at $10,355,400, for a net appropriation of 

$2,253,600. The Office of Inspector General serves both the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board, and the recommendation includes $1,103,000 for that purpose, which is not available from fee revenues. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget estimate Committee 

recommendation 

Committee 

recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES .............................................................. 958,050 ............................ ¥958,050 

NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY .................................................. ............................ 469,767 ∂469,767 

NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY ........................... ............................ 108,609 ∂108,609 

DECOMMISSIONING AND LOW–LEVEL WASTE ........................ ............................ 25,393 ∂25,393 

CORPORATE SUPPORT ........................................................... ............................ 299,581 ∂299,581 

INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM ..................................... ............................ 15,000 ∂15,000 

Subtotal ............................................................................ 958,050 918,350 ¥39,700 

USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES .............................. ............................ ¥20,000 ¥20,000 

TOTAL, SALARIES AND EXPENSES ....................... 958,050 898,350 ¥59,700 

REVENUES ...................................................................................... ¥805,019 ¥794,219 ¥10,800 

Subtotal ............................................................................ 153,032 104,132 ¥48,900 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL: 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL .......................................... 12,609 12,609 ............................

REVENUES ............................................................................. ¥10,355 ¥10,355 ............................

Subtotal ............................................................................ 2,254 2,254 ............................

TOTAL, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .................. 155,285 106,385 ¥48,900 

APPROPRIATIONS ..................................................... (155,285) (106,385) (¥48,900) 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriations, 2018 ............................................................................. $3,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2019 ........................................................................... 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. 
143 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Section 401. The bill includes a provision regarding Congressional requests for information. 

Section 402. The bill includes a provision regarding reprogramming. 
(144) 

TITLE V 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The following list of general provisions is recommended by the 

Committee: 

Section 501. The bill includes a provision regarding influencing 

congressional action. 

Section 502. The bill includes a provision regarding transfer authority. 

Section 503. The bill includes a provision regarding requirements 

for computer networks. 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

In fiscal year 2019, for purposes of the Balanced Budget 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, 2019 and the report accompanying the bill. 

If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any percentage 

reduction required for fiscal year 2019 pursuant to the 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 2019 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 2019: 
145 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW—FISCAL YEAR 2019 

[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 ...................... ...................... 120,000 

EERE Program Direction ..................................................... 2006 110,500 164,198 162,500 

EERE Weatherization Activities ........................................... 2012 1,400,000 68,000 251,000 

EERE State Energy Programs ............................................. 2012 125,000 50,000 55,000 

EERE Marine and Hydrokinetic R&D .................................. 2012 50,000 34,000 70,000 

Nuclear Energy .................................................................... 2009 495,000 792,000 1,206,000 

Nuclear Energy Infrastructure and Facilities ..................... 2009 145,000 245,000 267,000 

Fossil Energy ....................................................................... 2009 641,000 727,320 727,000 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves .......................... 2014 20,000 20,000 10,000 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve .............................................. 2003 not specified 172,856 175,105 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ................................. 2003 not specified 6,000 10,000 

Energy Information Administration ..................................... 1984 not specified 55,870 125,000 

Office of Science ................................................................ 2013 6,007,000 4,876,000 6,650,000 

Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program ..... 2012 not specified 6,000 5,000 

Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ...................... 2013 312,000 265,000 375,000 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup: 

West Valley Demonstration ........................................ 1981 5,000 5,000 75,000 

Departmental Administration ............................................. 1984 246,963 185,682 170,000 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons Activities ............................................ 2018 10,377,475 10,642,138 10,850,000 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ..................... 2018 1,883,310 1,999,219 1,902,000 

Naval Reactors ................................................. 2018 1,431,551 1,620,000 1,620,000 

Federal Salaries and Expenses ........................ 2018 407,551 407,595 408,000 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ........................................ 2018 5,440,106 5,988,048 5,988,000 

Other Defense Activities ..................................................... 2018 816,000 840,000 840,000 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Southwestern ............................................................. 1984 40,254 36,229 10,400 

Western Area .............................................................. 1984 259,700 194,630 89,372 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ............................. 1984 not specified 29,582 ........................

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ............................ 2018 30,600 31,000 31,000 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ......................................... 1985 460,000 448,200 104,132 

Delta Regional Authority ..................................................... 2018 30,000 25,000 25,000 

Northern Border Regional Commission .............................. 2018 30,000 15,000 20,000 

1 Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization. 
146 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on May 24, 2018, the 

Committee ordered favorably reported a bill (S. 2975) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other 

purposes, provided, that the bill be subject to amendment and that 

the bill be consistent with its budget allocation, 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 Shelby Mr. Graham 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Alexander 

Ms. Collins 

Ms. Murkowski 

Mr. Blunt 

Mr. Moran 

Mr. Hoeven 

Mr. Boozman 

Mrs. Capito 

Mr. Lankford 

Mr. Daines 

Mr. Kennedy 

Mr. Rubio 

Mrs. Hyde-Smith 

Mr. Leahy 

Mrs. Murray 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Reed 

Mr. Tester 

Mr. Udall 

Mrs. Shaheen 

Mr. Merkley 

Mr. Coons 

Mr. Schatz 

Ms. Baldwin 

Mr. Murphy 

Mr. Manchin 

Mr. Van Hollen 
147 

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.’’ 

In compliance with this rule, no changes to existing law are displayed because this bill proposes no changes. 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(A), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

in bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

in bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with the subcommittee allocation for 2019: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development: 

Mandatory ............................................................................ .................... .................... .................... ....................

Discretionary ........................................................................ 43,766 43,766 43,842 1 43,842 

Security ....................................................................... 21,892 21,892 NA NA 

Nonsecurity ................................................................. 21,874 21,874 NA NA 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2019 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 25,518 

2020 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 12,393 

2021 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 4,189 

2022 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 969 

2023 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 596 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2019 NA 180 NA .................. 2

1 Includes outlays from prior–year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior–year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
148 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2018 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2018 

appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Corps of Engineers—Civil 

Investigations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 123,000 82,000 123,000 .......................... ∂41,000 Construction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2,085,000 871,733 2,161,000 ∂76,000 ∂1,289,267 Mississippi River and Tributaries ........................................................................................................................................ 425,000 244,735 350,000 ¥75,000 ∂105,265 Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................................................................................. 3,630,000 2,076,733 3,740,000 ∂110,000 ∂1,663,267 Regulatory Program .............................................................................................................................................................. 200,000 200,000 200,000 .......................... ..........................Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) ............................................................................................... 139,000 120,000 120,000 ¥19,000 ..........................Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .............................................................................................................................. 35,000 27,000 35,000 .......................... ∂8,000 Expenses ............................................................................................................................................................................... 185,000 187,000 193,000 ∂8,000 ∂6,000 Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ..................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 5,000 .......................... ..........................Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund .......................................................................................................................................... .......................... 965,132 .......................... .......................... ¥965,132 Inland Waterways Trust Fund .............................................................................................................................................. .......................... 5,250 .......................... .......................... ¥5,250 

Total, title I, Department of Defense—Civil .......................................................................................................... 6,827,000 4,784,583 6,927,000 ∂100,000 ∂2,142,417 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Central Utah Project 

Central Utah Project Completion Account ........................................................................................................................... 10,500 7,983 15,000 ∂4,500 ∂7,017 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Water and Related Resources .............................................................................................................................................. 1,332,124 891,017 1,382,000 ∂49,876 ∂490,983 Central Valley Project Restoration Fund .............................................................................................................................. 41,376 62,008 62,008 ∂20,632 ..........................

Central Valley Project collections ................................................................................................................................ ¥41,376 ¥62,008 ¥62,008 ¥20,632 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

California Bay–Delta Restoration ......................................................................................................................................... 37,000 35,000 35,000 ¥2,000 ..........................
149 

Policy and Administration .................................................................................................................................................... 59,000 61,000 61,000 ∂2,000 ..........................

Total, Bureau of Reclamation ................................................................................................................................. 1,428,124 987,017 1,478,000 ∂49,876 ∂490,983 Total, title II, Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................... 1,438,624 995,000 1,493,000 ∂54,376 ∂498,000 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Energy Programs 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ............................................................................................................................ 2,321,778 695,610 2,322,000 ∂222 ∂1,626,390 Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ........................................................................................................................... 248,329 .......................... .......................... ¥248,329 ..........................Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response .................................................................................................. .......................... 95,800 260,000 ∂260,000 ∂164,200 Electricity Delivery ................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 61,309 .......................... .......................... ¥61,309 Nuclear Energy ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,072,056 621,000 1,073,000 ∂944 ∂452,000 

Defense function ......................................................................................................................................................... 133,000 136,090 133,000 .......................... ¥3,090 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,205,056 757,090 1,206,000 ∂944 ∂448,910 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................................................................................................... 726,817 502,070 727,000 ∂183 ∂224,930 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................................................................................................ 4,900 10,000 10,000 ∂5,100 ..........................Strategic Petroleum Reserve ................................................................................................................................................ 252,000 175,105 175,105 ¥76,895 ..........................

Sale of crude oil .......................................................................................................................................................... ¥350,000 ¥300,000 ¥350,000 .......................... ¥50,000 Use of sale proceeds ................................................................................................................................................... 350,000 .......................... 350,000 .......................... ∂350,000 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 252,000 ¥124,895 175,105 ¥76,895 ∂300,000 

SPR petroleum account ........................................................................................................................................................ 8,400 .......................... 8,400 .......................... ∂8,400 Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ................................................................................................................................... 6,500 10,000 10,000 ∂3,500 ..........................Energy Information Administration ...................................................................................................................................... 125,000 115,035 125,000 .......................... ∂9,965 Non–defense Environmental Cleanup .................................................................................................................................. 298,400 218,400 353,240 ∂54,840 ∂134,840 Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund .................................................................................. 840,000 752,749 840,818 ∂818 ∂88,069 Science ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6,259,903 5,390,972 6,650,000 ∂390,097 ∂1,259,028 Nuclear Waste Disposal ....................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 90,000 .......................... .......................... ¥90,000 Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ........................................................................................................................ 353,314 .......................... 375,000 ∂21,686 ∂375,000 Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program ................................................................................................... 33,000 10,000 33,000 .......................... ∂23,000 

Offsetting collection .................................................................................................................................................... ¥10,000 ¥15,000 ¥15,000 ¥5,000 ..........................Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥240,000 .......................... .......................... ∂240,000 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 23,000 ¥245,000 18,000 ¥5,000 ∂263,000 

Title 17 negative subsidy ............................................................................................................................................ ¥15,000 ¥44,000 ¥44,000 ¥29,000 ..........................
150 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2018 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2018 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Rescission of emergency funding ............................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥383,433 .......................... .......................... ∂383,433 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 8,000 ¥672,433 ¥26,000 ¥34,000 ∂646,433 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans program ........................................................................................... 5,000 1,000 5,000 .......................... ∂4,000 

Rescission of emergency funding ............................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥4,300,000 .......................... .......................... ∂4,300,000 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 ¥4,299,000 5,000 .......................... ∂4,304,000 

Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program ............................................................................................................................... 1,000 .......................... 1,000 .......................... ∂1,000 

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥8,500 .......................... .......................... ∂8,500 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,000 ¥8,500 1,000 .......................... ∂9,500 

Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs ...................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 18,000 ∂18,000 ∂18,000 Departmental Administration ............................................................................................................................................... 285,652 235,534 266,000 ¥19,652 ∂30,466 

Miscellaneous revenues ............................................................................................................................................... ¥96,000 ¥96,000 ¥96,000 .......................... ..........................

Net appropriation ............................................................................................................................................... 189,652 139,534 170,000 ¥19,652 ∂30,466 

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................ 49,000 51,330 51,330 ∂2,330 ..........................

Total, Energy programs ........................................................................................................................................... 12,903,049 3,785,071 13,281,893 ∂378,844 ∂9,496,822 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National Nuclear Security Administration 

Weapons Activities ............................................................................................................................................................... 10,642,138 11,017,078 10,850,000 ∂207,862 ¥167,078 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ......................................................................................................................................... 2,048,219 1,862,825 1,902,000 ¥146,219 ∂39,175 

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... ¥49,000 .......................... .......................... ∂49,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,999,219 1,862,825 1,902,000 ¥97,219 ∂39,175 
151 

Naval Reactors ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,620,000 1,788,618 1,620,000 .......................... ¥168,618 Federal Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................................................................................ 407,595 422,529 408,000 ∂405 ¥14,529 

Total, National Nuclear Security Administration .................................................................................................... 14,668,952 15,091,050 14,780,000 ∂111,048 ¥311,050 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities 

Defense Environmental Cleanup .......................................................................................................................................... 5,988,048 5,630,217 5,988,000 ¥48 ∂357,783 Other Defense Activities ....................................................................................................................................................... 840,000 853,300 840,000 .......................... ¥13,300 Defense nuclear waste disposal .......................................................................................................................................... .......................... 30,000 .......................... .......................... ¥30,000 

Total, Environmental and Other Defense Activities ............................................................................................... 6,828,048 6,513,517 6,828,000 ¥48 ∂314,483 Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................................................................................. 21,497,000 21,604,567 21,608,000 ∂111,000 ∂3,433 

Power Marketing Administrations 1

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ...................................................................................... 6,379 6,500 6,500 ∂121 ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥6,379 ¥6,500 ¥6,500 ¥121 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ..................................................................................... 30,288 45,802 45,802 ∂15,514 ..........................

Reduction due to CBO initial estimates of collections for annual expenses ............................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥16,000 ¥16,000 ¥16,000 Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥18,888 ¥35,402 ¥35,402 ¥16,514 ..........................Southwestern Power Administration CBO initial estimates of collections for annual expenses ............................... .......................... 16,000 16,000 ∂16,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 11,400 26,400 10,400 ¥1,000 ¥16,000 

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration ....................................... 223,276 265,142 265,142 ∂41,866 ..........................

Reduction due to CBO initial estimates of collections for annual expenses ............................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥43,000 ¥43,000 ¥43,000 Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥129,904 ¥175,770 ¥175,770 ¥45,866 ..........................Western Area Power Administration CBO initial estimates of collections for annual expenses ............................... .......................... 43,000 43,000 ∂43,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 93,372 132,372 89,372 ¥4,000 ¥43,000 

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund ...................................................................................................... 4,176 5,207 5,207 ∂1,031 ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥3,948 ¥4,979 ¥4,979 ¥1,031 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 228 228 228 .......................... ..........................

CBO estimate for 3rd party financing ........................................................................................................................ 872 122 122 ¥750 ..........................
152 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2018 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2018 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,100 350 350 ¥750 ..........................Total, Power Marketing Administrations ................................................................................................................. 105,872 159,122 100,122 ¥5,750 ¥59,000 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 367,600 369,900 369,900 ∂2,300 ..........................Revenues applied ................................................................................................................................................................. ¥367,600 ¥369,900 ¥369,900 ¥2,300 ..........................

General Provisions 

Title III Rescissions: 

Northeast gasoline supply reserve sale ...................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥71,000 .......................... .......................... ∂71,000 Strategic Petroleum Reserve crude oil sale ................................................................................................................ .......................... ¥15,000 .......................... .......................... ∂15,000 Strategic Petroleum Reserve use of sale proceeds .................................................................................................... .......................... 15,000 .......................... .......................... ¥15,000 

Total, General Provisions ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... ¥71,000 .......................... .......................... ∂71,000 Total, title III, Department of Energy ..................................................................................................................... 34,505,921 25,477,760 34,990,015 ∂484,094 ∂9,512,255 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (34,554,921 ) (30,409,693 ) (34,990,015 ) (∂435,094 ) (∂4,580,322 ) Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥49,000 ) (¥248,500 ) .......................... (∂49,000 ) (∂248,500 ) 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Appalachian Regional Commission ...................................................................................................................................... 155,000 152,000 155,000 .......................... ∂3,000 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board .............................................................................................................................. 31,000 31,243 31,000 .......................... ¥243 Delta Regional Authority ...................................................................................................................................................... 25,000 2,500 25,000 .......................... ∂22,500 Denali Commission ............................................................................................................................................................... 30,000 7,300 15,000 ¥15,000 ∂7,700 Northern Border Regional Commission ................................................................................................................................ 15,000 850 20,000 ∂5,000 ∂19,150 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .......................................................................................................................... 250 .......................... .......................... ¥250 ..........................Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 909,137 958,050 898,350 ¥10,787 ¥59,700 
153 

Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥779,768 ¥805,019 ¥794,219 ¥14,451 ∂10,800 Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... ¥68 .......................... .......................... ∂68 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 129,301 153,031 104,131 ¥25,170 ¥48,900 

Office of Inspector General ......................................................................................................................................... 12,859 12,609 12,609 ¥250 ..........................Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥10,555 ¥10,355 ¥10,355 ∂200 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 2,304 2,254 2,254 ¥50 ..........................Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................................................................................................................... 131,605 155,285 106,385 ¥25,220 ¥48,900 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (131,673 ) (155,285 ) (106,385 ) (¥25,288 ) (¥48,900 ) Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥68 ) .......................... .......................... (∂68 ) ..........................

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ............................................................................................................................... 3,600 3,600 3,600 .......................... ..........................

Total, title IV, Independent agencies ..................................................................................................................... 391,455 352,778 355,985 ¥35,470 ∂3,207 

OTHER APPROPRIATIONS 

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER RELIEF REQUIREMENTS 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Corps of Engineers—Civil 

Investigations (Public Law 115–123) (emergency) ............................................................................................................. 135,000 .......................... .......................... ¥135,000 ..........................Construction (Public Law 115–123) (emergency) ............................................................................................................... 15,055,000 .......................... .......................... ¥15,055,000 ..........................Mississippi River and Tributaries (Public Law 115–123) (emergency) .............................................................................. 770,000 .......................... .......................... ¥770,000 ..........................Operations and Maintenance (Public Law 115–123) (emergency) ..................................................................................... 608,000 .......................... .......................... ¥608,000 ..........................Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (Public Law 115–123) (emergency) .................................................................... 810,000 .......................... .......................... ¥810,000 ..........................Expenses (Public Law 115–123) (emergency) ..................................................................................................................... 20,000 .......................... .......................... ¥20,000 ..........................Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (Public Law 115–123) (emergency) ................................................................. 13,000 .......................... .......................... ¥13,000 ..........................Strategic Petroleum Reserve (Public Law 115–123) (emergency) ...................................................................................... 8,716 .......................... .......................... ¥8,716 ..........................

Total, Other Appropriations ..................................................................................................................................... 17,419,716 .......................... .......................... ¥17,419,716 ..........................Grand total .............................................................................................................................................................. 60,582,716 31,610,121 43,766,000 ¥16,816,716 ∂12,155,879 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (43,212,068 ) (36,542,054 ) (43,766,000 ) (∂553,932 ) (∂7,223,946 ) Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................................................. (17,419,716 ) .......................... .......................... (¥17,419,716 ) ..........................
154 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2018 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2018 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥49,068 ) (¥248,500 ) .......................... (∂49,068 ) (∂248,500 ) Rescissions of emergency appropriations ..................................................................................................... .......................... (¥4,683,433 ) .......................... .......................... (∂4,683,433 ) 

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